The Project Gutenberg EBook of Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the
International Military Tribunal, Volume V, by Various

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at  If you are not located in the United States, you'll have
to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook.

Title: Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Volume V
       Nuremburg 14 November 1945-1 October 1946

Author: Various

Release Date: June 16, 2017 [EBook #54917]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF-8


Produced by Larry Harrison, Cindy Beyer, and the online
Project Gutenberg team at with images provided by The
Internet Archives-US.











14 NOVEMBER 1945-1 OCTOBER 1946







This volume is published in accordance with the

direction of the International Military Tribunal by

the Secretariat of the Tribunal, under the jurisdiction

of the Allied Control Authority for Germany.















9 January 1946 — 21 January 1946


Thirtieth Day, Wednesday, 9 January 1946,
Morning Session1
Afternoon Session31
Thirty-first Day, Thursday, 10 January 1946,
Morning Session65
Afternoon Session100
Thirty-second Day, Friday, 11 January 1946,
Morning Session131
Afternoon Session159
Thirty-third Day, Monday, 14 January 1946,
Morning Session197
Thirty-fourth Day, Tuesday, 15 January 1946,
Morning Session230
Afternoon Session260
Thirty-fifth Day, Wednesday, 16 January 1946,
Morning Session296
Afternoon Session329
Thirty-sixth Day, Thursday, 17 January 1946,
Morning Session368
Afternoon Session399
Thirty-seventh Day, Friday, 18 January 1946,
Morning Session434
Afternoon Session459
Thirty-eighth Day, Saturday, 19 January 1946,
Morning Session489
Thirty-ninth Day, Monday, 21 January 1946,
Morning Session520
Afternoon Session547

Wednesday, 9 January 1946

Morning Session

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): If the Tribunal please, when the Tribunal adjourned I had just dealt with the last of the two Norway documents, which I how put in as Exhibits GB-140 and GB-141. Their numbers are 004-PS and D-629.

My Lord, for convenience the first document, to which I shall refer in a few minutes, will be Document Number 1871-PS.

THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): I have that here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, before I come to that, I just want to say one word about the aggression against the Low Countries—Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.

The facts as to the aggression against these countries, during the period when this defendant was Foreign Minister, were stated in full by my friend Mr. Roberts, and I think if I give the Tribunal the reference to the transcript at Pages 1100 to 1125 (Volume III, Pages 289 to 307), I do not need to detain the Tribunal on that part of the case. I only remind the Tribunal that the action of this defendant as Foreign Minister to which attention may be called is the making of a statement on the 10th of May 1940 to representatives of the foreign press with regard to the reasons for the German invasion of the Low Countries; and these reasons were, in my respectful submission, demonstrated to be false by the evidence called by Mr. Roberts, which appears in that part of the transcript.

My Lord, I then proceed to the aggression in southeastern Europe against Greece and Yugoslavia, and the first moment of time in that regard is the meeting at Salzburg in August 1939, at which the Defendant Von Ribbentrop participated, when Hitler announced that the Axis had decided to liquidate certain neutrals. That is Document 1871-PS, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-142, and the passage to which I should like to refer the Tribunal is on Page 2 of the English version, two-thirds down the page in the middle of the fifth paragraph, six lines from the top. Your Lordship will find the words “Generally speaking.”


SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I desire to quote from there:

“Generally speaking, it would be best to liquidate the pseudo-neutrals one after the other. This is fairly easily done if one Axis partner protects the rear of the other, as the latter finishes off one of the uncertain neutrals. Italy may consider Yugoslavia such an uncertain neutral. At the visit of Prince Regent Paul he (the Führer) suggested, particularly with regard to Italy, that Prince Paul clarify his political attitude towards the Axis by a gesture. He had thought of a closer connection with the Axis and the withdrawal of Yugoslavia from the League of Nations. Prince Paul agreed to the latter. Recently the Prince Regent was in London and sought reassurance from the Western Powers. The same thing was repeated that happened in the case of Gafencu, who was also very reasonable during his visit to Germany and who denied any interest in the aims of the Western Democracies. Afterwards it was learned that he had later assumed a contrary standpoint in England. Among the Balkan countries the Axis can completely rely only on Bulgaria, which is, in a sense, a natural ally of Italy and Germany.”

Then missing a sentence:

“At the moment of a turn for the worse for Germany and Italy, however, Yugoslavia would join the other side openly, hoping thereby to give matters a final turn to the disadvantage of the Axis.”

That demonstrates the policy with regard to uncertain neutrals.

Then, as early as September 1940 this defendant reviewed the war situation with Mussolini. This defendant emphasized the heavy revenge bombing raids in England and the fact that London would soon be in ruins. It was agreed between the parties that only Italian interests were involved in Greece and Yugoslavia and that Italy could count on German support.

Then Von Ribbentrop went on further to explain to Mussolini the Spanish plan for the attack on Gibraltar and Germany’s participation therein and that he was expecting to sign the protocol with Spain, bringing the latter country into the war, on his return to Berlin.

This is Document 1842-PS, which is the next document in the book to the one at which the Tribunal has just been looking, and the passage with regard to Greece and Yugoslavia occurs in the middle of the first page—if I might just read a very short extract:

“With regard to Greece and Yugoslavia the Foreign Minister stressed that it was exclusively a question of Italian interests, the settling of which was a matter for Italy alone and in which Italy would be certain of Germany’s sympathetic assistance.”

I don’t think I need trouble the Tribunal with the rest.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Francis Biddle, member for the United States): I think you had better read the next paragraph.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: “But it seemed to us to be better not to touch on these problems for the time being, but instead to concentrate on the destruction of England with all our forces. Where Germany was concerned, she was interested in the northern German districts (Norway, et cetera), and this was acknowledged by the Duce.”

I am very grateful to you, Your Honor. That I put in as Exhibit GB-143.

A month or two later, in January 1941, at the meeting between Hitler and Mussolini, in which this defendant participated, the Greek operation was discussed. Hitler had stated that the German troops in Romania were for use in the planned campaign against Greece. That document is C-134, which was put in as Exhibit GB-119, and therefore I do not propose to give it again but to give the Tribunal the reference to the points which are mentioned at the foot of Page 3 of the English text.

With regard to that meeting there is a cross-reference in Count Ciano’s diary, Count Ciano having attended as Italian Foreign Minister, and he recalls his impression of that meeting in the diary for the 20th and 21st of January by saying:

“The Duce is pleased with the conversation on the whole. I am less pleased. Above all, because Ribbentrop, who had always been so boastful in the past, told me, when I asked him outright how long the war would last, that he saw no possibility of its ending before 1942.”

Despite that somewhat pessimistic statement to Count Ciano, a short time later, 3 weeks later, when it was a question of encouraging the Japanese, this defendant took a more optimistic line.

On the 13th of February 1941 he saw Ambassador Oshima, the Japanese Ambassador, and that conversation appears in Document 1834-PS, which is Exhibit USA-129. That was read previously, and again I simply give the reference on Page 3 of the English version.

The second from the last paragraph dealt with the optimistic account of the military position and the position of Bulgaria and Turkey. I do not think I need read it further, but I will give the Tribunal the reference.

Then after that, in March, this defendant put forth his efforts to get Yugoslavia to join the Axis, and on the 25th of March the defendant, in a note to the Prime Minister Cvetković—and this is Document 2450-PS, which is Exhibit GB-123—gave the assurance:

“The Axis-Power Governments, during this war, will not direct a demand to Yugoslavia to permit the march or transportation of troops through the Yugoslav state or territory.”

After that, it is only fair to point out that there was the coup d’état in Yugoslavia. General Simovic took over the government; and two days after the assurance which I just read, at the meeting of the 27th of March 1941, at which this defendant was present, Hitler outlined the military campaign against Yugoslavia and promised the destruction of Yugoslavia and the demolition of Belgrade by the German Air Force. That is contained in Document 1746-PS, which is Exhibit GB-120; and that was read by my friend, Colonel Phillimore at an earlier stage so I do not need to read it again.

The final action of this defendant with regard to Yugoslavia was that after the invasion of Yugoslavia Von Ribbentrop was one of the persons directed by Hitler to draw up the boundaries for the partition and division of Yugoslavia. The preliminary directive for that is Document 1195-PS, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-144.

We now come to the aggression against the Soviet Union, and the first. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Has that been read, 1195?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, it has not. I am much obliged, Your Lordship. I will now read the relevant sentence with regard to this.

On Page 2, Section 2, Your Lordship will see the words “the drawing up of boundaries.” And in Paragraph 1 it says:

“Insofar as the drawing up of boundaries has not been laid down in the above Part I, it will be carried out by the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces in agreement with the Foreign Office,”—that is this defendant—“the Delegate for the Four Year Plan,”—the Defendant Göring—“and the Reich Minister of the Interior.”

THE PRESIDENT: Who is the Reich Minister of the Interior?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think the Defendant Frick.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think it is.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am grateful to Your Lordship. I had forgotten that had not been read before.

Now then, as I say, we come to the aggression against the Soviet Union; and the first document which has not been put in so far, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-145, is TC-25, the German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact.

On 23 August 1939 this defendant had signed the German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact. Now the first point at which this defendant seems to have considered special problems of aggression against the Soviet Union was just after the 20th of April 1941, when the Defendant Rosenberg and this defendant met or communicated to consider the problems which were expected to arise in Occupied Eastern Territory. This defendant appointed his Counselor, Grosskopf, to be his liaison man with Rosenberg and also assigned a consul general called Bräutigam, who had many years experience in the U.S.S.R., as collaborator with Rosenberg. That is shown in Document 1039-PS, which is already Exhibit USA-146. I did not propose to read it again, as it had been read. But the passage to which I have referred is the first paragraph on the top of Page 2, beginning, “After notification to the Reich Foreign Minister.” It is that paragraph which I have just mentioned.

That was in April 1941. The following month, on 18 May 1941, the German Foreign Office prepared a declaration setting forth operational zones in the Arctic Ocean, the Baltic and the Black Seas, to be used by the German Navy and the Air Force in the coming invasion of the Soviet Union. That is the next document, C-77, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-146, and it is very short. Therefore I think I should quote it; it has not been read before:

“The Foreign Office has prepared for the use in ‘Barbarossa’ the attached draft of a declaration of operational zones. The Foreign Office, however, has reserved the decision as to the date when the declaration will be issued as well as the discussion of particulars.”

These last two documents show quite clearly that this defendant was again implicated in the preparation for this act of aggression. Then, on the 22d of June 1941, this defendant announced to the world that the German armies were invading the U.S.S.R., as was seen by the Tribunal in the film shown on the 11th of December. And how untrue were the reasons given is shown by the report of his own Ambassador in Moscow who said that everything was being done to avoid a conflict. The Tribunal will find the reference to that in the speech of my learned friend, the Attorney General, the transcript at Page 888 (Volume III, Page 143).

We now come to the aggression which involved Japan and was directed against the United States of America. And there the initial document is 2508-PS, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-147. That shows that on the 25th of November 1936, as a result of negotiations of this defendant as Ambassador-at-large, Germany and Japan had signed the Anticomintern Pact. I do not think that has been read, but if I might just read the introduction, the recital that gives the purposes of the agreement:

“The Government of the German Reich and the Imperial Japanese Government, recognizing that the aim of the Communist International, known as the Comintern, is to disintegrate and subdue existing states by all the means at its command, convinced that the toleration of interference by the Communist International in the internal affairs of the nations not only endangers their internal peace and social well-being but is also a menace to the peace of the world, desirous of co-operating in the defense against Communist subversive activities, have agreed as follows. . . .”

And then there follow the effective terms of the agreement under which they will act together for 5 years. It is signed by this defendant.

On the 27th of September 1940 this defendant, as Foreign Minister, signed the Tripartite Pact with Japan and Italy, thereby bringing about a full-scale military and economic alliance for the creation of a “New Order” in Europe and East Asia. That is 2643-PS, Exhibit USA-149, and has been read.

Then, on the 13th of February of 1941—that is a month or two later—this defendant was urging the Japanese to attack British possessions in the Far East. And that is shown in Document 1834-PS, which is Exhibit USA-129 and which has already been read by my friend, Mr. Alderman. That was February.

Then, in April of 1941, at a meeting between Hitler and Matsuoka, representing Japan, at which this defendant was present, Hitler promised that Germany would declare war on the United States in the event of war occurring between Japan and the United States as a result of Japanese aggression in the Pacific. That is shown in Document 1881-PS, Exhibit USA-33, which has already been read and which I did not intend to read again.

Then the next document which reinforces that point is 1882-PS, which is Exhibit USA-153. If I might trouble the Tribunal with just two short paragraphs of that; it is interesting, showing the psychological development of this defendant and his views at that time. They are the first two paragraphs that are quoted, under the heading “Pages 2 and 3,” where it begins “Matsuoka”; it is on the first page of the document:

“Matsuoka then spoke of the general high morale in Germany, referring to the happy faces he had seen everywhere among the workers during his recent visit to the Borsig works. He expressed his regret that developments in Japan were not yet as far advanced as in Germany and that in his country the intellectuals still exercised considerable influence.

“The Reich Foreign Minister replied that at best a nation which had realized its every ambition could afford the luxury of intellectuals, some of whom are parasites, anyway.”

THE PRESIDENT: It is “most,” according to my document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, “most”; I beg Your Lordship’s pardon, it is completely my fault, it should be “most,” “most of whom are parasites, anyway.”

“A nation, however, which has to fight for a place in the sun must give them up. The intellectuals ruined France; in Germany they had already started their pernicious activities when National Socialism put a stop to these doings; they will surely be the cause of the downfall of Britain, which is to be expected with certainty.”

Then it continues on the usual lines. That last document was on the 5th of April.

Then, the next stage: Within a month after the German Armies invaded the Soviet Union, the 22d of June 1941, Ribbentrop was urging his Ambassador in Tokyo to do his utmost to cause the Japanese Government to attack the Soviet in Siberia; and that is proved by two documents which have already been put in—2896-PS, which is Exhibit USA-155, a telegram to the German Ambassador, in Tokyo, one Ott; and 2897-PS, USA-156, which is the reply from Ambassador Ott. Both of these were read by my friend, Mr. Alderman, and I won’t trouble the Tribunal again.

But the next document, which is D-656, is a new document which I put in as GB-148. That was captured from the Japanese, and it is a message—intercepted—which was sent by the Japanese Ambassador in Berlin just before the attack on the United States. If I might just read one short extract from this defendant’s speech; on the 29th of November 1941, that is roughly a week before Pearl Harbor, this defendant was saying—it is in Paragraph 1, and I will read it all because it is new:

“Ribbentrop opened our meeting by again inquiring whether I had received any reports regarding the Japanese-United States negotiations. I replied that I had received no official word.

“Ribbentrop: ‘It is essential that Japan effect the New Order in East Asia without losing this opportunity. There never has been and probably never will be a time when closer co-operation under the Tripartite Pact is so important. If Japan hesitates at this time and Germany goes ahead and establishes her European New Order, all the military might of Britain and the United States will be concentrated against Japan.

“ ‘As Führer Hitler said today, there are fundamental differences in the very right to exist between Germany and Japan, and the United States. We have received advice to the effect that there is practically no hope of the Japanese-United States negotiations being concluded successfully because of the fact that the United States is putting up a stiff front.

“ ‘If this is indeed the fact of the case and if Japan reaches a decision to fight Britain and the United States, I am confident that will not only be to the interest of Germany and Japan jointly but would bring about favorable results for Japan herself.’ ”

Then the Ambassador replied:

“ ‘I can make no definite statement as I am not aware of any concrete intentions of Japan. Is Your Excellency indicating that a state of actual war is to be established between Germany and the United States?’ ”

The Defendant Ribbentrop:

“ ‘Roosevelt’s a fanatic, so it is impossible to tell what he would do.’ ”


“Concerning this point, in view of the fact that Ribbentrop has said in the past that the United States would undoubtedly try to avoid meeting German troops, and from the tone of Hitler’s recent speech as well as that of Ribbentrop’s, I feel that the German attitude toward the United States is being considerably stiffened. There are indications at present that Germany would not refuse to fight the United States if necessary.”

Then the next part, Section 2, is an extremely optimistic prognosis of the war against the Soviet Union. I do not think, in view of the date in which we are reading it, that I need trouble the Tribunal with that.

There are then a few remarks about the intended landing operations against England, which is also vieux jeu at this time.

If the Tribunal would go to Part 3, there again we get the international attitude of mind of this defendant—at the foot of Page 2, Part 3; and I am quoting:

“ ‘In any event Germany has absolutely no intention of entering into any peace with England. We are determined to remove all British influence from Europe. Therefore, at the end of this war, England will have no influence whatsoever in international affairs. The island empire of Britain may remain, but all of her other possessions throughout the world will probably be divided three ways by Germany, the United States and Japan. In Africa, Germany will be satisfied with, roughly, those parts which were formerly German colonies. Italy will be given the greater share of the African colonies. Germany desires, above all else, to control European Russia.’ ”

And after hearing this defendant, the Ambassador said; and I quote:

“ ‘I am fully aware of the fact that Germany’s war campaign is progressing according to schedule smoothly. However, suppose that Germany is faced with the situation of having not only Great Britain as an actual enemy but also all of those areas in which Britain has influence, and those countries which have been aiding Britain as actual enemies, as well. Under such circumstances, the war area will undergo considerable expansion, of course. What is your opinion of the outcome of the war under such an eventuality?’ ”

The Defendant Ribbentrop:

“ ‘We would like to end this war during next year.’ ”—that is, 1942—“ ‘However, under certain circumstances it is possible that it will have to be continued into the following year.

“ ‘Should Japan become engaged in a war against the United States. . .’ ”

THE PRESIDENT: You are going a little bit too fast.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, I am sorry. I will go back to the paragraph I have just finished.

The Defendant Ribbentrop—and I am still quoting:

“ ‘We would like to end this war during next year. However, under certain circumstances it is possible that it will have to be continued into the following year.

“ ‘Should Japan become engaged in a war against the United States, Germany, of course, would join the war immediately. There is absolutely no possibility of Germany’s entering into a separate peace with the United States under such circumstances. The Führer is determined on that point.’ ”

That document associates this defendant with the aggression by Japan against the United States in the closest possible way.

Another new document, which is also an intercepted Japanese diplomatic message, is the next one, D-657, which I put in as Exhibit GB-149; and if I might read the first two sentences that show what it is—and I quote—the Japanese Ambassador says:

“At 1:00 p. m. today”—the 8th of December—“I called on Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and told him our wish was to have Germany and Italy issue formal declarations of war on America at once. Ribbentrop replied that Hitler was then in the midst of a conference at general headquarters, discussing how the formalities of declaring war could be carried out so as to make a good impression on the German people, and that he would transmit your wish to him at once and do whatever he could to have it carried out promptly. At that time Ribbentrop told me that on the morning of the 8th”—that is before the declaration of war—“Hitler issued orders to the entire German Navy to attack American ships whenever and wherever they might meet them.

“It goes without saying that this is only for your secret information.”

Then, as a matter of fact, as the Tribunal are aware, on the 11th of December 1941 this Defendant Ribbentrop, in the name of the German Government, announced a state of war between Germany and the United States.

The next stage concerns his attempt to get Japan to attack the Soviet Union.

In Ribbentrop’s conversations with Oshima, the Japanese Ambassador, in July 1942 and in March and April 1943, he continued to urge Japanese participation and aggression against the Soviet Union. This is shown in Document 2911-PS, which has been put in as Exhibit USA-157 and already read, and Document 2954-PS, which I now put in as GB-150. That is a new document; and if I might just indicate the effect of it by a very short quotation—it is a discussion between the Defendant Ribbentrop and Ambassador Oshima. It begins:

“Ambassador Oshima declared that he has received a telegram from Tokyo; and he is to report, by order of his Government, to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs the following:

“The suggestion of the German Government to attack Russia was the object of a common conference between the Japanese Government and the Imperial headquarters, during which the question was discussed in detail and investigated exactly. The outcome is the following: The Japanese Government thoroughly recognize the danger which threatens from Russia and completely understand the desire of their German ally that Japan on her part also enter the war against Russia. However, it is not possible for the Japanese Government, considering the present war situation, to enter the war. They are rather of the conviction that it would be in the common interest not to start the war against Russia now. On the other hand, the Japanese Government will never lose sight of the Russian question.”

And then, in the middle of the next paragraph, this defendant returns to the attack. The third sentence—it begins on the fourth line—says:

“However, it would be more correct that all powers allied in the Three Power Pact, would combine their forces to strike together at not only England and America, but also Russia. It is not good if one part must fight alone.”

Then the pressure on Japan to attack Russia is shown again in the next document, 2929-PS, which was put in as Exhibit USA-159. And, if I might just close this part of the case, if I might read that—it is very short:

“The Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs then stressed again that without any doubt this year presented the most favorable opportunity for Japan, if she felt strong enough and had sufficient antitank weapons at her disposal to attack Russia, which certainly would never again be as weak as at the moment”—the moment being 18 April 1943.

If the Tribunal please, that concludes my evidence on the second allegation dealing with aggressive war; and I submit that that allegation in the Indictment is more than amply proved.

The third allegation is that the Defendant Ribbentrop authorized, directed, and participated in War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

Of course, I am considering this from the point of view of planning these crimes only. The execution of the crimes will be dealt with by my friends and Soviet colleagues, but it is relevant to show how this defendant participated in the planning of such crimes. I deal, first, with the killing of Allied aviators; secondly, with the destruction of peoples in Europe; and thirdly, with the persecution of the Jews.

First, the killing of Allied aviators:

With the increasing air raids on German cities in 1944 by Allied Air Forces, the German Government proposed to undertake a plan to deter Anglo-American fliers from further raids on the Reich cities. In a report of a meeting at which a definite policy was to be established, there is stated what was the point of view that this Defendant Ribbentrop had been urging. That is in Document 735-PS, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-151. That is a discussion of a meeting at the Führer’s headquarters on the 6th of June 1944. If I might read the first paragraph:

“Obergruppenführer Kaltenbrunner informed the Deputy Chief of Operations Staff”—WFSt—“in Klessheim on the afternoon of the 6th of June that a conference on this question had been held shortly before by the Reich Marshal”—the Defendant Göring—“the Reich Foreign Minister”—the Defendant Von Ribbentrop—“and the Reichsführer SS.”—Himmler—“Contrary to the original suggestion made by the Reich Foreign Minister, who wished to include every type of terror attack on the German civilian population, including bombing attacks on cities, it was agreed in the above conference that merely those attacks carried out with aircraft armament aimed directly at the civilian population and their property should be taken as the standard for the evidence of a criminal action in this sense. Lynch law would have to be the rule, there was no mention of trial by court-martial or handing over to the police.”

That is, this defendant was pressing that even where there was an attack on a German city, the airmen should be handed over to be lynched by the crowd. The others were saying that that should be restricted to cases where there were attacks by machine guns, and the like, on the civilian population.

I do not think we need trouble with Paragraph (a) of the statement of the Deputy Chief of WFSt. The importance of (a) goes because Kaltenbrunner says that there were no such cases as were mentioned.

If you look at (b):

“The Deputy Chief of the WFSt pointed out that, besides the lynch law, a procedure must be worked out for segregating such enemy aviators who are suspected of criminal action of this kind by sending them to the reception camp for aviators at Oberursel and, if the suspicion was confirmed, handing them over to the SD for special treatment.”

As I understand that, it is that if they were not lynched under the first scheme, by the crowd, then they were to be kept from prisoners of war, where they would, of course, be subject to the protecting power’s intervention. And if the suspicion was confirmed, they would be handed over to the SD to be killed.

Then in Paragraph 3 we have what was decided to justify the lynch law. Paragraph 3 says:

“At a conference with Colonel Von Brauchitsch (Colonel of the Air Force) on the 6th of June, it was settled that the following actions are to be regarded as terror actions justifying lynch law:

“Low-level attacks with aircraft armament on the civilian population, single persons as well as crowds.

“Shooting in the air our own (German) men who had bailed out.

“Attacks with aircraft armament on passenger trains in the public service.

“Attacks with aircraft armament on military hospitals, hospitals, and hospital trains, which are clearly marked with the red cross.”

These were to be the subject of lynching and not, as this defendant had suggested, a case where there was the bombing of a city.

Then on the next page, the last page of this document, we have a somewhat curious comment from the Defendant Keitel:

“Remarks by the Chief of the OKW on the agenda dated 6 June 1944.”

The number is that of the document at which the Tribunal has just been looking.

“Most secret; Staff officers only.

“If one allows the people to carry out lynch law, it is difficult to enforce rules.

“Ministerial Director Berndt got out and shot the enemy aviator on the road. I am against legal procedure. It doesn’t work out.”—Signed—“Keitel.”

Then the Defendant Jodl’s comment appears:

“This conference is insufficient. The following points must be decided quite definitely in conjunction with the Foreign Office:

“1. What do we consider as murder? Is the Foreign Office in agreement with point 3b?

“2. How should the procedure be carried out? a. By the people? b. By the authorities?

“3. How can we guarantee that the procedure will not be also carried out against other enemy aviators?

“4. Should some legal procedure be arranged or not?”—Signed—“Jodl.”

It is important, I respectfully submit, to note that this defendant and the Foreign Office were fully in on these breaches of the laws and usages of war, and indeed the clarity with which the Foreign Office perceives that there were breaches of the laws and usages of war, is shown by the next document, which is 728-PS, which I now put in as GB-152. That is a document from the Foreign Office, approved of by the Defendant Ribbentrop and transmitted by one of his officials called Ritter; and the fact that it is approved by this defendant is specifically stated in the next Document 740-PS, which I put in as GB-153. I do not think this Document 728-PS has been read before, and therefore, again, I would like to read just one or two passages in it. It begins:

“In spite of the obvious objections, based on international law and foreign policy, the Foreign Office is basically in agreement with the proposed measures.

“In the examination of the individual cases a distinction must be made between the cases of lynching and the cases of special treatment by the SD.

“I. In the cases of lynching, the precise establishment of the facts involving punishment, according to points 1 through 4 of the communication of 15 June, is not very essential. First, the German authorities are not directly responsible, since the death will have occurred before a German official becomes concerned with the case. Furthermore, the accompanying circumstances will be such, that it will not be difficult to represent the case in an appropriate manner upon publication. Hence, in cases of lynching it will be of primary importance correctly to handle the individual case upon publication.

“II. The suggested procedure for special treatment by the SD, including subsequent publication, would be feasible only if Germany would at the same time openly repudiate the commitments of international law, at present in force and still recognized by Germany. When an enemy aviator is seized by the Army or by the Police and is delivered to the reception camp for aviators at Oberursel, he has acquired by this very fact the legal status of a prisoner of war.

“The Prisoner-of-War Agreement of 27 July 1929 established definite rules for the prosecution and sentencing of prisoners of war and the execution of the death penalty, as for example in Article 66: Death sentences may be carried out only 3 months after the Protecting Power has been notified of the sentence. In Article 63: A prisoner of war will be tried only by the same courts and under the same procedure as members of the German Armed Forces. These rules are so specific that it would be futile to try to cover up any violation of them by clever wording of the publication of an individual incident. On the other hand, the Foreign Office cannot recommend on this occasion a formal repudiation of the Prisoner-of-War Agreement.

“An emergency solution would be to prevent suspected enemy fliers from ever attaining a legal prisoner-of-war status, that is, that immediately upon capture they be told that they are not considered prisoners of war but criminals, that they would not be turned over to the agencies having jurisdiction over prisoners of war, hence not go to a prisoner-of-war camp, but that they be delivered to the authorities in charge of the prosecution of criminal acts, and that they be tried in summary proceedings. If the evidence at the trial should reveal that the special procedure is not applicable to a particular case, the fliers concerned may subsequently be given the status of prisoner of war by transfer to the reception camp for aviators at Oberursel.

“Naturally, not even this expedient will prevent the possibility of Germany’s being accused of violation of existing treaties or even the adoption of reprisals upon German prisoners of war. At any rate this solution would enable us to follow a clearly defined course, thus relieving us of the necessity of openly having to renounce the present agreements or of the need of having to use excuses which no one would believe, upon the publication of each individual case.”

I do not want to take this in detail, but I ask the Tribunal to look at the first sentence of Section III:

“It follows from the above that the main weight of the action will have to be placed on lynchings. Should the campaign be carried out to such an extent that the purpose, to wit: the deterrence of enemy aviators, is actually achieved, which goal is favored by the Foreign Office, then the strafing attacks by enemy fliers directing the fire of their weapons upon the civilian population must be stressed in a completely different propagandist manner than heretofore.”

I don’t think I need trouble the Tribunal, but that shows quite clearly the defendant’s point of view. If the Tribunal would look at the next document, it is stated at the beginning of the second paragraph:

“Ambassador Ritter has advised us by telephone on 29 June that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has approved this draft. . . .”

That is the position as to the treatment of aviators, where there is, in my suggestion, a completely cold-blooded and deliberate adoption of a procedure evading international law.

The second section is the destruction of the peoples in Europe. With regard to Poland, again I want scrupulously to avoid going into details; but I remind the Tribunal of the evidence of the Witness Lahousen, which appears in the transcript, Pages 618 and 619 (Volume II, Pages 448-449) on the 30th of November of last year, and on Pages 713 to 716 (Volume III, Pages 20-25), when he was cross-examined on the 1st of December.

Secondly, Bohemia and Moravia: On the 16th of March 1939 there was promulgated the decree of the Führer and Reich Chancellor, signed by Ribbentrop, concerning the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. That is already in as Exhibit GB-8, Document TC-51. The effect of that was to place the Reich Protector in a remarkable position of supremacy under the Führer. The only part which I would like the Tribunal to have in mind is Article 5 and Subarticle 2:

“2. The Reich Protector, as representative of the Führer and Chancellor of the Reich and as Commissioner of the Reich Government, is charged with the duty of seeing to the observance of the political principles laid down by the Führer and Chancellor of the Reich.

“3. The members of the Government of the Protectorate shall be confirmed by the Reich Protector. The confirmation may be withdrawn.

“4. The Reich Protector is entitled to inform himself of all measures taken by the Government of the Protectorate and to give advice. He can object to measures calculated to harm the Reich and, in cases of danger, issue ordinances required for the common interest.

“5. The promulgation of laws, decrees, and other legal provisions and the execution of administrative measures and legal judgments shall be suspended if the Reich Protector enters an objection.”

As a result of this law, the two Reich Protectors of Bohemia and Moravia and their various deputies were appointed; and then there were committed the various crimes which will be detailed by my Soviet colleague.

Similarly, with regard to the Netherlands on the 18th of May 1940, a decree of the Führer was signed by Ribbentrop concerning the exercise of governmental authority in the Netherlands, and that—Document 639-PS, which I put in as Exhibit GB-154, Section 1—says:

“The Occupied Netherlands Territories shall be administered by the Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Netherlands Territories . . . the Reich Commissioner is guardian of the interests of the Reich and vested with supreme civil authority.

“Dr. Arthur Seyss-Inquart is hereby appointed Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Netherlands Territories.”

On the basis of this decree, the Reich Commissioner—the Defendant Seyss-Inquart—promulgated such orders as that of the 4th of July 1940, dealing with the confiscation of property of those who had, or might have, furthered activities hostile to the German Reich; and tentative arrangements were made for the resettlement of the Dutch population. But all this will also be dealt with fully by my French colleagues.

I simply for the moment put in as a matter of reference the general order of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, which is GB-155, the document being 2921-PS. I do not intend to read it. I have summarized the effect of it and it will be dealt with more fully by my French colleagues.

I want the Tribunal to appreciate, with regard to these two matters, Bohemia and the Netherlands, that the charge against this defendant is laying the basis and procuring the governmental structure under which the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity were directed.

I should also put in formally Exhibit GB-156, the discussion on the question of the Dutch population, which is contained in Document 1520-PS. Again I have explained it generally and I do not want to occupy time by reading it in full now.

Then coming to the Jews: In December 1938 the Defendant Ribbentrop, in a conversation with M. Bonnet, who was then Foreign Minister of France, expressed his opinion of the Jews. That was reported by the United States Ambassador, Mr. Kennedy, to the State Department. The report of Mr. Kennedy is Document L-205, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-157. If I might read to the Tribunal the second paragraph, which concerns this point:

“During the day we had a telephone call from Berenger’s office in Paris. We were told that the matter of refugees had been raised by Bonnet in his conversation with Von Ribbentrop. The result was very bad. Ribbentrop, when pressed, had said to Bonnet that the Jews in Germany, without exception, were pickpockets, murderers, and thieves. The property they possessed had been acquired illegally. The German Government had therefore decided to assimilate them with the criminal elements of the population. The property which they had acquired illegally would be taken from them. They would be forced to live in districts frequented by the criminal classes. They would be under police observation like other criminals. They would be forced to report to the police as other criminals were obliged to do. The German Government could not help it if some of these criminals escaped to other countries which seemed so anxious to have them. It was not, however, willing for them to take the property which had resulted from illegal operations with them. There was in fact nothing that it could or would do.”

That succinct statement of this defendant’s views on Jews is elaborated in a long document which he had sent out by the Foreign Office, which is numbered 3358-PS, which I put in as Exhibit GB-158. I do not want to read the whole of that document because it is excessively dreary; it is also an excessively clear indication of the defendant’s views on the treatment of Jews. But if the Tribunal would look at, first of all, Page 3—it is headed, “The Jewish Question as a Factor in German Foreign Policy in the Year 1938”; after the four divisions the document goes on to say:

“It is certainly no coincidence that the fateful year 1938 has brought nearer the solution of the Jewish question simultaneously with the realization of the ‘idea of Greater Germany,’ since the Jewish policy was both the basis and consequence of the events of the year 1938.”

That is elaborated. If the Tribunal will turn over to Page 4 at the beginning of the second paragraph, they will see the first sentence:

“The final goal of German Jewish policy is the emigration of all the Jews living in Reich territory.”

Then that is developed at great length through a large number of pages. The conclusion which is—if the Tribunal would turn to the foot of Page 7 and examine it—it goes on this way:

“These examples from reports from authorities abroad can, if desired, be amplified. They confirm the correctness of the expectation that criticism of the measures for excluding Jews from German Lebensraum, which were misunderstood in many countries for lack of evidence, would be only temporary and would swing in the other direction the moment the population saw with its own eyes and thus learned what the Jewish danger was to them. The poorer and therefore the more burdensome the immigrant Jew is to the country absorbing him, the stronger this country will react and the more desirable is this effect in the interest of German propaganda. The object of this German action is to be a future international solution of the Jewish question, dictated not by false compassion for the ‘United Religious Jewish Minority’ but by the full consciousness of all peoples of the danger which it represents to the racial composition of the nations.”

The Tribunal will appreciate that this document was circulated by the defendant’s ministry, widely circulated to all senior Reich authorities and to numerous people before the war, on the 25th of January 1939, just after the statement to M. Bonnet. Apparently the anti-Semitism of the defendant went from—I was going to say from strength to strength, if that is the correct term, or at any rate from exaggeration to exaggeration, for in June 1944 the Defendant Rosenberg made arrangements for an international anti-Jewish congress to be held in Kraków on the 11th of July 1944. The honorary members were to be Von Ribbentrop, Himmler, Goebbels, and Frank—I think the Defendant Frank. The Foreign Office was to take over the mission of inviting prominent foreigners from Italy, France, Hungary, Holland, Arabia, Iraq, Norway, et cetera, in order to give an international aspect to the congress. However, the military events of June 1944 prompted Hitler to call off the congress which had lost its significance by virtue of the landings in Normandy.

That is contained in Document 1752-PS, GB-159. At the foot of Page 1 the Tribunal will see the following had been entered as honorary members: Reich Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. So that there is no doubt that this defendant was behind the program against the Jews which resulted in the placing of them in concentration camps with anyone else who opposed the Nazi way of life; and it is submitted that he must, as a minister in special touch with the head of the government, have known what was going on in the country and in the camps. One who preached this doctrine and was in a position of authority cannot, I submit to anyone who has had any ministerial experience, suggest that he was ignorant of how the policy was carried out.

That is the evidence on the third allegation and it is submitted that by the evidence which I have recapitulated to the Tribunal the three allegations are proved.

With regard to the second, Hitler’s own words were:

“In the historic year of 1938 the Foreign Minister, Von Ribbentrop, was of great help to me by virtue of his accurate and audacious judgment and admirably clever treatment of all problems of foreign policy.”

During the course of the war this defendant was in close liaison with the other Nazi conspirators. He advised them and made available to them, in his embassies and legations abroad, information which was required and at times participated, as I have shown, in the planning of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

It is submitted that all the allegations which I read from Appendix A of the Indictment are completely proved against this defendant. I want, if the Tribunal will allow me, to add only one fact on behalf of the British Delegation. In the preparation of these briefs we have received great assistance from certain of our American colleagues; and I should like to thank once, but nonetheless heartily, on behalf of us all, Dr. Kempner’s staff: Captains Auchincloss, Claggett, and Stoll, Lieutenants Felton and Heller, and Mr. Lachmann for the great help they have been to us.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for 10 minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for the Defendant Frank): May it please the Tribunal, I have a motion to make.

THE PRESIDENT: On behalf of whom?

DR. SEIDL: I want to make a motion which concerns the indictment of Frank.

The Charter of the Tribunal contains, in Part IV, regulations for a fair trial, and Article 16 prescribes that for the purpose of safeguarding the right of the defendants the following procedure shall be followed. “The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the defendant. A copy of the Indictment, and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the defendant at a reasonable time before the Trial.”

At the beginning of the Trial the Defendant Frank was handed a copy of the Indictment. This is the Indictment which was read on the first day. This is, if I may say so, a general indictment. All actions are listed therein which, according to the opinion of the Signatories of the London Agreement, are regarded as Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity. The Indictment does not contain in detail the criminal actions of each defendant. I am now thinking about positive actions or concrete actions or omissions.

This morning I received a document. It has the title, “The Individual Responsibility of the Defendant Hans Frank for Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity”—or in German “Die persönliche Verantwortlichkeit des Angeklagten Frank für Verbrechen gegen den Frieden, für Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit.” This document is without any table of contents. It consists of 30 typewritten pages. In addition to this document, or indictment, as I should like to call it, another document book has been given to me, namely, “Document Book Hans Frank.” The first document, as well as the second document is not in German but in English. This first document is in reality what I should call the indictment against Frank, because here in this document of 30 pages for the first time those individual activities of Frank are listed which are to be regarded as criminal actions. At least one ought to say that this document is an essential part of the Indictment. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Forgive me for interrupting you. The Tribunal has already expressed its desire that a motion such as this should be made in writing. The Tribunal considers that a motion of the sort which you are now making orally is a waste of the Tribunal’s time and it therefore desires you to put your motion in writing. It will then be considered.

DR. SEIDL: I regret myself that I must make this motion now, but I was not able to make this motion in writing before receiving this document only two and a half hours ago. My motion is that the Prosecution should submit these two documents to the Defendant Frank in the German language.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not got the documents to which you are referring. It is quite impossible for us to understand the motion you are making unless you make it in writing and attach the documents or in some other way describe or explain to us what the documents are. We have not got the documents that you are referring to.

DR. SEIDL: Then I shall make my motion in writing.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, can you explain to me what the counsel who has just spoken is complaining about?

MR. G. D. ROBERTS (Leading Counsel for the United Kingdom): I gather he was complaining that the trial brief and the document book which had been served on his client, Frank, were in English and not in German.

THE PRESIDENT: Who is dealing with the case against Frank?

MR. ROBERTS: It is being dealt with by the United States.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I had better ask Colonel Storey then.

COLONEL ROBERT G. STOREY (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): If the Tribunal please, I think what counsel is referring to is the practice we have made of delivering in advance a copy of the document book and a copy of the trial brief. In this particular instance I happen to know that what counsel refers to is the trial address, which is to be read over the microphone, and as a courtesy to counsel they have been delivered in advance of the presentation, just like all the other document books and briefs against the other individual defendants. That’s what it is, as I understand it.

THE PRESIDENT: The documents which will be presented against the Defendant Frank will be all translated?

COL. STOREY: I am sure they are; yes, Sir. I don’t know about the individual case, but the instructions are that the documents will have two photostats, each one in German, plus the English translation, for counsel, and that is what has been delivered, plus the trial address, if Your Honor pleases. We handed that to him in advance—what the attorney will read over the microphone.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Storey, I thought the Tribunal ordered, after consulting the prosecutors as to the feasibility of the scheme, that sufficient translators should be supplied to the defendants’ counsel so that such documents as trial briefs, if in the English language, might be translated to defendants’ counsel. You will remember it was suggested that at least four translators, I think, should be supplied to the defendants’ counsel.

COL. STOREY: If the Tribunal will recall, I think this is what was finally determined; that document books and briefs could be submitted in English and the photostatic copies submitted to defendants’ counsel and that if they wanted additional copies of the German, then they should request them and they would be furnished. I think that is what the final order was.

THE PRESIDENT: There was, at any rate, a suggestion that translators should be ordered to translate such documents as trial briefs.

COL. STOREY: That is correct; yes, Sir, and whenever counsel wanted more copies, then they would request them and they would be available for them. The translators or translations or photostats would be available if they requested them.

Were there any other questions, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that translators have not been supplied to defendants’ counsel?

COL. STOREY: If Your Honor pleases, as I understand, the defendants’ Information Center is now under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and my information is—I would like to check it—that when they want extra copies all they have to do is ask for them and they may obtain them and sufficient translators are available to provide the extra copies if they want them. That is my information. I have not checked it in the last few days, but sufficient copies in English are furnished for all the counsel; and these briefs and document books are furnished to them in advance. In this case I am told that the document book and the briefs were furnished.


DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendants Funk and Von Schirach): Your Honor, you may be assured that we Defense Counsel do not like to take up the time of the Tribunal for such discussions which we ourselves would rather avoid. But the question just raised by a colleague of mine is really very unpleasant for us Defense Counsel and makes our work extremely difficult for us.

You see, it does not help us if agreements are made or regulations are issued and in actual practice it is entirely different.

Last night, for example, we received a big volume of documents all of which were in English. Now, in the evening in the prison we are supposed to spend hours discussing with our clients the results of the proceedings, a task which has now been rendered still more difficult by the installation of wire screens in the consultation room. In addition we are also required to talk over whole volumes of documents written in English, and that is practically impossible. Time and again these documents are not received until the evening before the day of the proceedings; and it is not possible, even for one who knows English well, to make the necessary preparation.

The same thing is true of the individual trial briefs; and I do not know whether the actual trial briefs, such as we receive for each defendant, have also been submitted to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Nearly every document which has been referred to in this branch of the case, which has been presented by Mr. Albrecht and by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, are documents which have been referred to previously in the Trial and which must have been before the defendants’ counsel for many days—for weeks—and therefore there can be no lack of familiarity with those documents. The documents which have been referred to, which are fresh documents, are very few indeed and the passages in them which are now being put in evidence are all read over the microphone and, therefore, are heard by defendants’ counsel in German and can be studied by German counsel tomorrow morning in the transcript of the shorthand notes; and I do not see, therefore, what hardship is being imposed upon German counsel by the method which is being adopted.

You see, the Counsel for the Prosecution, out of courtesy to Counsel for the Defense, have been giving them their trial briefs in English beforehand. But there is no strict obligation to do that; and insofar as the actual evidence is concerned, all of which is contained in documents, as I have already pointed out to you, the vast majority of those documents have already been put in many days ago and have been in the hands of German counsel ever since, in the German language—and also the documents which are now put in.

DR. SAUTER: No, this is not true, Your Honor. This is the complaint which we of the Defense Counsel, because we dislike to approach the Tribunal with such complaints, have been discussing among ourselves—the complaint that we do not receive German documents. You may be assured, Mr. President, that if things were as you believe, none of us would complain but we would all be very grateful; but in reality it is different.

THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, surely when you have a reference to a German document, that German document is available to you in the Information Center; and as these documents have been put in evidence, some of them as long ago as the 20th of November or shortly thereafter, surely there must have been adequate time for defendants’ counsel to study them.

DR. SAUTER: Suppose, for instance, I receive this morning a volume on Funk. I know, for instance, when Funk’s case comes on—perhaps tomorrow. It is quite impossible for me to study this volume of English documents upon my return from the prison at 10 o’clock in the evening. That simply overtaxes the physical strength of a Defense Counsel. I could go through it if it were in German, but even so, it is impossible for me after finishing my visit to the prison at 9 or 10 o’clock in the evening to go through such a volume. We absolutely cannot do it.

THE PRESIDENT: You see, Dr. Sauter, it is not as though you had to cross-examine witnesses immediately after the evidence is given. The documents are put in and it is not for you then to get up and argue upon the interpretation of those documents. You have, I regret to say, a considerable time before you will have to get up and call your own evidence and ultimately to argue upon the documents which are now being put in. Therefore, it is not a question of hours, it is a question of days and weeks before you will have to deal with these documents which are now being put in. And I really do not see that there is any hardship upon defendants’ counsel in the system which is being adopted.

And you will not forget that the rule, which, in a sense, penalizes the Prosecution, is that every document which is put in evidence and every part of the document which is put in evidence, has to be read in open court, in order that it should be translated over the earphones and then shall get into the shorthand notes. I am told that the shorthand notes are not available in German the next morning but are available only some days afterwards. But they are ultimately available in German. And therefore every defendant’s counsel must have a complete copy of the shorthand notes, at any rate up to the recess; and that contains all the evidence given against the defendants, and it contains it in German.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President, what we are most anxious to have done and what we have been asking for many weeks is that the documents, or at least those parts of the document which come into question, should be given to us in German translation. It is very difficult for us, even if we know English, to translate the documents in the time which is at our disposal. It is practically impossible for any of us to do this. It is for this reason that we regret that our wish to get the documents in German is not being taken into consideration. We are conscious of the difficulties and we are very grateful for any assistance given. We assure you we are very sorry to have to make such requests, but the conditions are really very difficult for us. The last word I wish to say is that the conditions are really very difficult for us.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, I am most anxious and the other members of the Tribunal are most anxious that every reasonable facility should be afforded to the defendants and their counsel. But, as I have pointed out to you, it is not necessary for you, for any of you, at the present moment, to get up and argue upon these documents which are now being put in. By the time that you have to get up and argue upon the documents which are now being put in, you will have had ample time in which to consider them in German.

DR. SAUTER: Thank you, Sir.

HERR GEORG BOEHM (Counsel for the SA): I have repeatedly asked to receive copies of everything presented in English. The accusation against the SA was presented on the 19th or 18th of December, and at the same time a document book was presented. Today I received a few photostats, but I have not received the greater part of the photostats or other pertinent translations. This shows that we do not receive the German translations immediately after the presentation. Nor are we ever able to read the transcript of the proceedings on the next day or on the day after that. The minutes of the session. . .

THE PRESIDENT: We are not dealing with the SA or the organizations at the present moment. If you have any motion to make, you will kindly make it in writing, and we will now proceed with the part of the Trial with which we are dealing.

HERR BOEHM: Mr. President, will you permit me one more remark? The minutes of December 17 and 18, 1945 I have received today.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean the transcript of it?

HERR BOEHM: I received today the German transcript for the 18th and 19th of December 1945. You see, it is not a fact that we receive the transcript the day after or a few days after the session. I received it weeks later, after I asked for it repeatedly. I have asked the appropriate offices repeatedly to give me a copy of the document book in German, and I have still not received it.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will inquire into that. One moment.

[There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred.]

THE PRESIDENT: Will the last counsel who was speaking stand up?

I am told that the reason for the delay in the case you have mentioned was that there had been an error in the paging and therefore the transcripts of those shorthand notes had to be recopied. I understand that the delay ordinarily is not anything like so long as that delay.

HERR BOEHM: But I hardly believe that in the case of the translation of the document book the delay is due to those reasons. But even if the delay in this particular case should be justified, it means that week after week I am hampered in my defense. I do not know the day before what is going to be presented, and I do not know until weeks afterwards what has been presented. I am therefore not in a position to study the evidence from the standpoint of a Defense Counsel. I do not even know what is contained in the document book. I am thus obviously handicapped in my defense in every way. The Prosecution keeps saying that it will furnish the documents on time. This is apparently not the case.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you will kindly make your complaint in writing and give the particulars of it. Do you understand that?



MR. ROBERTS: May it please the Tribunal, it is my duty to present the evidence against Keitel and also against the Defendant Jodl and I would ask the Tribunal for permission, if it is thought right, that those two cases should be presented together in the interest of saving time, a matter which I know we all have at heart.

The story with regard to Keitel and Jodl runs on parallel lines. For the years in question they marched down the same road together. Most of the documents affect them both, and in those circumstances, I submit, it might result in a substantial saving of time if I were permitted to present the cases against both of them together.


MR. ROBERTS: Then I shall proceed, if I may, on that basis.

My Lords, may I say that I fully recognize that the activities of both these defendants have been referred to in detail many times and quite recently by Colonel Telford Taylor, and my earnest desire is to avoid repetition as far as I possibly can. And may I say I welcome any suggestions, as I travel the road, which the Tribunal have to make, to make my presentation still shorter.

There is a substantial document book, Document Book Number 7, which is a joint document book dealing with both the defendants. Practically all the documents in that book have already been referred to. They nearly all, of course, have a German origin. I propose to read passages from only nine new documents and those nine documents, I think, are shown in Your Lordship’s bundle and in the bundles of your colleagues.

May I commence by referring, as shortly as may be, to the part of the Indictment which deals with the two defendants. That will be found on Page 33 (Volume I, Page 77) of the English translation. It begins with “Keitel” in the middle of the page, and it says, “The Defendant Keitel between 1938 and 1945” was the holder of various offices. I only want to point out there that although the commencing date is 1938 the Prosecution rely on certain activities of the Defendant Keitel before 1938, and we submit that we are entitled so to do because of the general words appearing on Page 28 of the Indictment (Volume I, Page 68) at the head of the appendix:

“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. . . .”

And then the Tribunal will see:

“. . . Keitel used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his intimate connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the military preparations for war set forth in Count One. . . .”

If I may read it shortly—he participated in the planning and preparation for wars of aggression and in violation of treaties, he executed the plans for wars of aggression and wars in violation of treaties, and he authorized and participated in War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

Then, “The Defendant Jodl between 1932 and 1945 was” the holder of various positions. He “used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his close connection with the Führer in such a manner”—and this is not to be found in the text relating to Keitel—“that: He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of their control over Germany. . . .”

May I say, My Lords, here, that I know of no evidence at the moment to support that allegation that he promoted the Nazi rise to power before 1933. There is plenty of evidence that he was a devoted, almost a fanatical admirer of the Führer, but that, I apprehend, would not be enough.

And then it is alleged against Jodl that he promoted the preparations for war, that he participated in the planning and preparation of the war, and that he authorized and participated in War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

My Lords, with regard to the position of the Defendant Keitel, it is well-known that in February of 1938 he became Chief of the OKW, Supreme Commander of all the Armed Forces, and that Jodl became Chief of the Operations Staff; and that is copiously proved in the shorthand notes and in the documents. Perhaps I ought to refer to his position in 1935, at the time when the reoccupation of the Rhineland was first envisaged. Keitel was head of the Wehrmachtsamt in the Reich War Ministry, and that is proved by a Document 3019-PS, which is to be found in Das Archiv; and I ask the Court to take judicial notice of that. It is not in the bundle.

Jodl’s positions have been proved by his own statement, Document 2865-PS, which is also Exhibit USA-16; and in 1935 he held the rank of lieutenant colonel, Chief of the Operations Department of the Landesverteidigung.

May I just refer to the pre-1938 period—that is, the pre-OKW period—to two documents, one of which is new. The first document I desire to mention without reading is EC-177. I do not want to read it. It is Exhibit USA-390. My Lords, those are the minutes, shortly after the Nazi rise to power, of the working committee of the Delegates for Reich Defense. The date is the 22d of May 1933. Keitel presided at that meeting. The minutes have been read. There is a long discussion as to the preliminary steps for putting Germany on a war footing. Keitel regarded the task as most urgent, as so little had been done in previous years; and perhaps the Tribunal will remember the most striking passage where Keitel impressed the need for secrecy: Documents must not be lost; oral statements can be denied at Geneva.

And I submit, if I may be allowed to make this short comment, it is interesting to see in those very early days of 1933 that the heads of the Armed Forces of Germany contemplated using lying as a weapon.

My Lord, the next document I desire to refer to is a new one, and it is EC-405, Exhibit GB-160. I desire to refer to this shortly because, in my submission, it fixes Jodl with knowledge of, and complicity in, the plan to reoccupy the Rhineland country, contrary to the Versailles Treaty. The Tribunal will see that these are the minutes of the working committee of the Reich Defense Council, dated the 26th of June 1935.

The Court will see that, a quarter of the way down the page, Subparagraph F, Lieutenant Colonel Jodl gives a dissertation on mobilization preparation; and it is only the fourth and fifth paragraphs on that same page, the last paragraph but one from the bottom, that I desire to read:

“The demilitarized zone requires special treatment. In his speech of the 21st of May and other utterances, the Führer has stated that the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty and the Locarno Pact regarding the demilitarized zone are being observed. To the aide-mémoire of the French chargé d’affaires on recruiting offices in the demilitarized zone, the Reich Government has replied that neither civilian recruiting authorities nor other offices in the demilitarized zone have been entrusted with mobilization tasks, such as the raising, equipping, and arming of any kind of formations for the event of war or in preparation therefor.

“Since political complications abroad must be avoided at present”—I stress the “at present”—“under all circumstances, only those preparatory measures that are urgently necessary may be carried out. The existence of such preparations or the intention of making such preparations must be kept in strictest secrecy in the zone itself as well as in the rest of the Reich.”

My Lord, I need not read more. I submit that fixes Jodl clearly with knowledge of the forthcoming breach of Versailles.

My Lord, the day before the Rhineland was reoccupied on the 7th of March 1936, the Defendant Keitel issued the directive which has been read before, Document C-194, Exhibit USA-55, ordering an air reconnaissance and certain U-boat movements in case any other nation attempted to interfere with that reoccupation.

My Lords, I pass now to the 4th of February 1938, when the OKW was formed. My Lords, shortly after its formation there was issued a handbook, which is a new exhibit, from which I want to read short passages. The number of the exhibit is L-211. It is Document GB-161. Now, this is dated 19 April 1938; “top secret; Direction of War as a Problem of Organization.” I read only from the appendix which is entitled, “What is the War of the Future?”; and if the Court will kindly turn over to the second page, I am going to read, 12 lines from the bottom of the page, the line beginning “Surprise”:

“Surprise as the requisite for quick initial success will often require hostilities to begin before mobilization has been completed or the armies are fully in position.

“A declaration of war is no longer necessarily the first step at the start of a war.

“According to whether the application of the rules of warfare create greater advantages or disadvantages for the warring nations, will the latter consider themselves at war or not at war with the neutral states.”

It may, of course, be said that those were only theoretical words and they might apply to any other nation which might be minded to make war on Germany. The Court can use its judicial notice of the conditions of things in Europe in 1938 and ask itself whether Germany had any potential aggressor against her.

But, My Lord, I emphasize that passage because I submit it so clearly envisages exactly the way in which Germany did make war in 1939 and in the subsequent years.

My Lord, I now start to tread the road which has been trodden so many times and which will be trodden so many times again, the road from 1938 to 1941: the final act of aggression. My Lord, I believe that I can treat this, so far as Keitel and Jodl are concerned, in a very few sentences, because I submit that the documents which are already in, which have been read and reread into the record, demonstrate quite clearly that Keitel, as would only be expected, he being Chief of the Supreme Command of all the Armed Forces, and Jodl, as only would be expected also, he being Chief of the Operations Staff, were vitally and intimately concerned with every single act of aggression which took place successively against the various victims of Nazi aggression.

My Lord, Your Lordship has in front of you the document book and perhaps the trial brief in which those documents are set out under the heading. If I might take first the aggression against Austria, Your Lordship will remember, in Jodl’s diary on the 12th of February 1938, how Keitel, who was something more than a mere soldier, put heavy pressure upon Schuschnigg—that is Document 1780-PS, Jodl’s diary—how on the following day Keitel writes to Hitler—Document 1775-PS, Exhibit USA-75—suggesting the shamming of military action and the spreading of false but quite credible news.

Then the actual operation orders for “Operation Otto,” Exhibits USA-74, 75, and 77, all of the 11th of March 1938, are OKW orders for which Keitel is responsible.

THE PRESIDENT: What are the numbers of them?

MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, Documents C-102, C-103, and C-182. One of them is actually signed or initialed by Keitel, and two are initialed by Jodl. Those are the operation orders for the advance into Austria, the injunction, if the Tribunal remembers, to treat Czech soldiers as hostile and to treat the Italians as friends.

My Lord, that is the first milestone on the road, the occupation of Austria. My Lord, the second is, is it not. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps if you are going to pass on to another, we had better adjourn now until 2 o’clock.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

MR. ROBERTS: May it please the Tribunal, I had got to the commencement of the alleged aggression against Czechoslovakia; and the Tribunal will remember that the leading exhibit on that matter is the file 388-PS, Exhibit Number USA-26, the “Fall Grün” file. My Lords, that file, in my submission, contains copious evidence against both Keitel and Jodl, showing that they were taking the natural part of the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces and the head of the Operations Staff.

May I remind the Tribunal of Item 2. I do not want to read any of these. I might just refer to the notes of a meeting on the 21st of April 1938. The important thing to notice is that Keitel and the Führer met alone, showing the intimate connection between Keitel and the Führer. And it was at that meeting that preliminary plans were discussed, including the possibility of an incident, namely, the murder of the German Ambassador at Prague.

Item 5 in that file, dated the 20th of May 1938, shows the plans for the political and the military campaign against Czechoslovakia, issued by Keitel.

Item 11, dated the 30th of May 1938, is the directive signed by Keitel for the invasion of Czechoslovakia, with the date given as the 1st of October 1938.

There are many items which are initialed by Jodl—Item 14 and Item 17, to mention only two.

Perhaps, for the purpose of the note, I should mention the others: Items 24, 36, and 37.

There is the directive, Items 31 and 32, dated the 27th of September 1938, signed by Keitel, enclosing orders for secret mobilization.

Jodl’s diary, Document 1780-PS, contains many references to the forthcoming aggression, particularly the 13th of May and the 8th of September; and there is a very revealing entry on the 11th of September in Jodl’s diary, 1780-PS, in which he says. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us the date?

MR. ROBERTS: I beg Your Lordship’s pardon; 11th of September 1938.

“In the afternoon conference with Secretary of State Hahnke, from the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, on the imminent common tasks. The joint preparations for refutation of our own violations of international law and the exploitation of its violations by the enemy were considered particularly important.”

I emphasize those words, “our own violations of international law.”

My Lords, as a result of that conference the Document C-2, which was referred to by my learned leader, Sir David, was prepared, which the Tribunal will remember has in parallel columns the possible breach of international law and the excuse which is then going to be given for it. It was referred to so recently that I need not refer to it again.

My Lords, I respectfully submit on that branch of the case that there is an overwhelming case that Keitel and Jodl played an important, indeed a vital part, in the aggression against Czechoslovakia which led up to the Pact of Munich.

My Lords, after the Pact of Munich was signed, as has been pointed out many times, the Nazi conspirators at once set about preparations for annexing the remainder of Czechoslovakia.

My Lords, at this point Jodl disappears from the scene for a time, because he goes to do some regimental soldiering as artillery general in Austria—artillery general of the 44th Division—and so it cannot be said that there is any evidence against him from the Munich Pact until the 23rd of August 1939, when he is recalled on the eve of the Polish invasion to take up his duties once more as chief of the operational staff of OKW.

So far as Keitel is concerned, on the 21st of October 1938, less than a month after the Munich Pact, he countersigned Hitler’s order to liquidate the rest of Czechoslovakia and to occupy Memel—Document C-136, Exhibit Number USA-104.

On the 24th of November 1938, Document C-137, Exhibit Number GB-33, Keitel issues a memorandum about the surprise occupation of Danzig.

On the 17th of December 1938, Document C-138, Exhibit Number USA-105, he signs an order to the lower formations: “Prepare for the liquidation of the rest of Czechoslovakia.” Those preparations were made.

On the 15th of March 1939 Keitel, who—I again repeat—was more than a mere soldier, was present at the midnight conference between the Führer and Hacha, President of Czechoslovakia, when, under a threat of bombing Prague, Hacha surrendered the rest of his country to the Germans. I refrain from referring to the contents of the minutes, which have been read many times already.

My Lords, so that milestone is past. And again I submit, in all that aggression it is clear that Keitel was playing a vital part as Hitler’s right-hand man, commanding all the armed forces under him.

I now pass to the Polish aggression. Keitel was present at the meeting at the chancellery on the 23rd of May 1939, Document L-79, Exhibit Number USA-27, when it was said—just a few words so familiar: Danzig was not the subject of the dispute; Poland was to be attacked at the first suitable opportunity; Dutch and Belgian air bases must be occupied; declarations of neutrality were to be ignored.

The directive for “Fall Weiss”, the invasion of Poland, is Document C-120(a), Exhibit GB-41. The date is the 3rd of April 1939. The Tribunal will remember the plans were to be submitted to OKW by the 1st of May, and the forces were to be ready for invasion by the 1st of September. And that directive is signed by Keitel.

Document C-126, Exhibit GB-45, is a follow-up of that previous directive. It is dated the 22d of June 1939. The need for camouflage is emphasized; and it is stated, “Do not disquiet the population.” That is signed by Keitel.

On the 17th of August 1939, Document 795-PS, Exhibit GB-54, Keitel has a conference with Admiral Canaris about the supplying of Polish uniforms to Heydrich; and it will be noticed in the last paragraph of the note that Admiral Canaris is against the war, and Keitel argues in favor of it. And Keitel made the prophecy that Great Britain would not enter the war.

I submit that Keitel’s vital part, again, in the preparation for the aggression against Poland is clearly established beyond possibility of dispute.

Jodl, as I have said to the Tribunal, was recalled on the 23rd of August, as seen in his diary entry, Document 1780-PS, where he says that he is recalled to take charge of the Operations Staff. He says:

“Received order from armed forces high command to proceed to Berlin and take over position of Chief of Armed Forces Executive Office.”—And then—“1100 hours to 1330 hours—discussion with Chief of Armed Forces High Command. X-Day has been announced for the 26th of August. Y-Time has been announced for 0430 hours.”

And I submit that the Tribunal can infer the importance of Jodl to this conspiracy from the fact that on the eve of the war he is recalled to Berlin to take his place at the head of the operational staff of the Supreme Command.

So Poland was invaded, and before I pass to the next aggression may I just point out that, according to the evidence of General Lahousen, if the Tribunal accepts it on this point, Keitel and Jodl were in the field with Hitler on the 10th of September 1939. That is in the shorthand notes, Pages 617 and 618 (Volume II, Pages 447 and 448). I don’t suppose there will be any dispute that the head of the High Command and the Chief of his Operational Staff were in the field.

My Lord, I pass now to Norway and Denmark. So far as both are concerned we see from Document C-64, Exhibit GB-86, that on the 12th of December 1939 Keitel and Jodl were both present at Hitler’s conference with Raeder when the invasion of Norway was discussed; and Keitel’s direct responsibility to those operations is shown in my submission by Document C-63, Exhibit GB-87, in which Keitel says that the operations against Norway will be “under my direct and personal guidance.” And he sets up a planning staff of OKW for the carrying out of those operations.

Jodl’s knowledge and complicity, in my submission, are clearly shown also from the entries in his own diary—Document 1809-PS. That is the second part of his diary. And the Tribunal will remember the entry of the 13th of March 1940, in which he records that the Führer was still looking for an excuse for the “Weser” operations. That is the 13th of March, My Lord, 1809-PS:

“The Führer does not give the order yet for Weser. He is still looking for an excuse.”

And then, on the 14th of March, “Führer has not yet decided what reason to give for Weser Exercise,” which, in my submission, if I may be allowed to make a short comment, shows up in a lurid light the code of honor of the military leaders of Germany—still looking for an excuse.

My Lord, then, as we know, Norway was attacked unawares; and then subsequently lying excuses were given.

My Lord, the invasion of the Low Countries and Luxembourg equally, in my submission, is clearly shown by the documents to have been controlled and directed by Keitel with Jodl’s assistance. The Tribunal already have a note of the conference in May of the lands to be occupied—Document L-79. Document C-62, Exhibit GB-106, is a directive, signed “Hitler,” on the 9th of October 1939 and another directive, signed “Keitel,” on the 15th of October. C-62 comprises two documents, the 9th of October and 15th of October—two directives, one signed “Hitler” and one signed “Keitel”—both giving orders for the occupation of Holland and Belgium.

My Lord, Document C-10, Exhibit GB-108, dated the 8th of November, is Keitel’s operation orders for the 7th Parachute Division to make an airborne landing in the middle of Holland.

Document 440-PS, Exhibit GB-107, dated the 20th of November 1939, signed “Keitel,” is a further directive for the invasion of Holland and Belgium.

Document C-72, Exhibit GB-109, 7th of November 1939, the 10th of May 1940, 18 letters—11 signed by Keitel, 7 signed by Jodl: “The Führer is postponing A-Day because of the weather.”

My Lord, Jodl’s diary is also eloquent on that subject. That is Document 1809-PS. Several entries—perhaps I need not refer to them again—relating to these forthcoming operations, culminating with the one on the 8th of May, which perhaps the Tribunal will remember, when Jodl says, “Alarming information from Holland,” and he expresses righteous indignation that the wicked Dutchmen should erect roadblocks and make mobilization preparations.

My Lord, and so those three neutral countries were invaded, and I submit there is copious and overwhelming evidence that these men were in charge of the military organizations which made those invasions possible.

My Lord, I pass now to the planning for the aggression against Greece and Yugoslavia. Document PS-1541, Exhibit GB-117, dated 13th of December 1940, Hitler’s order for “Marita,” the operation against Greece, signed by Hitler, and a copy to Keitel, namely, OKW.

Document 448-PS, Exhibit GB-118, 11th of January 1941: Keitel initialed a Hitler order for the Greek operation.

Document C-134, Exhibit GB-119, 20th of January 1941: Both Keitel and Jodl are present at the conference with Hitler, Mussolini, and others when the operations against Greece and Yugoslavia are discussed.

Document C-59, Exhibit GB-121, 19th of February 1941: The dates of the operations against Marita are filled in by Keitel.

Document 1746-PS, Exhibit GB-120, 27th of March 1941: A conference with Hitler, Keitel, and Jodl present; the decision to attack and destroy Yugoslavia is announced, and the Führer said: “I am determined to destroy Yugoslavia. I shall use unmerciful harshness to frighten other neutrals”—and these two soldiers were present when that was said.

My Lord, I submit that on that the complicity of these two men for that aggression is amply proved.

My Lord, I pass to Barbarossa—Document 446-PS, Exhibit USA-131, dated 18th of December 1940—Hitler’s order for the Barbarossa operation, initialed by Keitel and Jodl. Hitler says, the Tribunal will remember, that he intends to overthrow Russia in a single rapid campaign.

Document 872-PS, Exhibit USA-134, 3rd of February 1941: A discussion with Hitler, Keitel, and Jodl re: Barbarossa and “Sonnenblume”—North African suggestions. Hitler said, “When Barbarossa commences, the world will hold its breath and make no comments.”

Then, Document 447-PS, Exhibit USA-135, dated 13th of March 1941: That is an operation order signed by Keitel re: the administration of the areas which were to be occupied; showing again that Keitel was more than a mere soldier; this is civil administration.

Document C-39, Exhibit USA-138, 6th of June 1941: Timetable for Barbarossa, signed by Keitel, and Jodl gets a sixth copy.

Document C-78, Exhibit USA-139, 9th of June 1941, is Hitler’s order to Keitel and Jodl to attend the pre-Barbarossa conference on the 14th of June 1941, 8 days before the operation.

My Lord, on those facts and documents on the position of these two defendants, again I respectfully submit their participation in this aggression is overwhelmingly proved.

My Lord, the last aggression is with regard to the provoked persuasion of Japan to commit an aggression against the United States of America. My Lord, there are two key documents; and both Keitel and Jodl are implicated by both of them. My Lord, the first is Document C-75, Exhibit USA-151, dated 5th of March 1941. It is an OKW order signed by Keitel, copy to Jodl. “Japan must be induced to take positive action as soon as possible” is a quotation from it.

Document C-152, Exhibit GB-122, 18th of March 1941: The meeting between Hitler, Raeder, Keitel, and Jodl—Japan to seize Singapore. That is the relevant extract on that.

My Lord, on those acts of aggression and those preparations for aggression, I submit that the case against these two men is overwhelming. It is clear, in my submission, that there could be no defense open to them except that they were obeying the orders of a superior. That defense is not open to them under this Charter. No doubt all these wicked schemes germinated in the wicked brain of Hitler, but he could not carry them out alone. He wanted men nearly as wicked and nearly as unscrupulous as himself.

My Lord, I now pass very rapidly to the question of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. My Lord, it has already been proved that Keitel signed the “Nacht und Nebel” decrees, committing persons to incarceration in Germany where all trace of them was lost. That is Document L-90, Exhibit USA-503.

There is one fresh document that I desire to put in. Colonel Telford Taylor put in Document C-50, Keitel’s order as to ruthless action in the Barbarossa campaign. There is one complementary document to that, Document C-51, which is Exhibit GB-162, Keitel’s order dated the 27th of July 1941:

“In accordance with the regulations concerning classified material the following offices will destroy all copies of the Führer’s decree of 13 May 1941”—that is C-50, the Barbarossa decree—“in the communication mentioned above:

“a) All offices up to the rank of ‘general commands’ inclusive;”—My Lord, that means that corps commanders and downwards should destroy copies—“b) group commands of the armored troops”—that again means offices of the armed corps below the rank of corps commanders should destroy the copies—“c) army commands and offices of equal rank, if there is an inevitable danger that they might fall into the hands of unauthorized persons.”

That is to say that even higher generals, if the war approaches closely to them, should destroy these documents rather than risking any chance of their being captured.

“The validity of the decree is not affected by the destruction of the copies. In accordance with Paragraph III, it remains the personal responsibility of the commanding officers to see to it that the offices and legal advisers are instructed in time and that only these sentences are confirmed which correspond to the political intentions of the Supreme Command.”

That was with regard to German soldiers not being tried by court-martial for offenses against Soviet troops: “This order will be destroyed together with the copies of the Führer’s decree.”

My Lord, I submit that the anxiety on the part of the OKW, presided over by Keitel, to destroy that—I suggest an illegal order; a barbarous order—is significant.

My Lord, I desire now to put in another document which is almost the last document in the bundle, UK-20. Your Lordship will find it flagged at the end of the bundle. It is from the Führer’s headquarters, 26th of May 1943. It says:

“Re: Treatment of supporters of De Gaulle who fight for the Russians.

“French airmen serving in the Soviet forces have been shot down on the Eastern Front for the first time. The Führer has ordered that employment of French troops in the Soviet forces is to be counteracted by the strongest means.

“It is therefore ordered:

“1) Supporters of De Gaulle who are taken prisoner on the Eastern Front will be handed over to the French Government for proceedings in accordance with OKW order. . . .”

And then I read Paragraph 3:

“Detailed investigations are to be made in appropriate cases against relatives of Frenchmen who fight for the Russians, if these relatives are resident in the occupied area of France. If the investigation reveals that relatives have given assistance to facilitate escape from France, then severe measures are to be taken.”

My Lord, I offer that as Exhibit GB-163.

My Lord, there is a document which I feel I should put in, which is the next document in the bundle. It is Document UK-57, Exhibit GB-164. This is the last document, I think, in the bundle. My Lord, it is from the Ausland Abwehr—I believe it is from the intelligence foreign department. It is to the OKW and it is signed the 4th of January 1944. My Lord, the heading is “Re: Counteraction to Kharkov ‘trial.’ ” Paragraph 2 is all that I read:

“The documents concerning ‘commandos’ have been asked for and thoroughly investigated by the Reich Security Main Office. In five cases members of the British Armed Forces were arrested as participants. Thereupon they were shot in compliance with the order from the Führer. It would be possible to attribute to them breaches of international law and to have them posthumously sentenced to death by a Tribunal. Up to the present no breaches of international law could be proved against commando participants.”

My Lord, I read no more, and I submit that that is clearly an admission of murder, not warfare at all.

My Lord, Keitel’s comments are to be found in the top left-hand corner of that document:

“We want documents on the basis of which we can institute similar proceedings. They are reprisals which have no connection with battle actions. Legal justifications are superfluous.”

THE PRESIDENT: Is that not at the top signed by Keitel?

MR. ROBERTS: It is typewritten in the office copy which is the original.

THE PRESIDENT: There is no actual signature?


THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How does it connect with Keitel then?

MR. ROBERTS: “Vermerk Chef OKW”—that is “note of the Chief of OKW.”

Now, that is the first minute. My Lord, the second minute is on the same subject, and it is dated the 6th of January 1944; and there is a large red Keitel “K” initialed on the top of this letter, showing that he got it. My Lord, the first paragraph deals with two officers who were then at Eichstätt Camp in Bavaria. My Lord, there is no importance in that paragraph, because those two officers are still alive.

The second paragraph:

“Attempted attacks on the battleship Tirpitz.

“At the end of October ’42 a British commando that had come to Norway in a cutter had orders to carry out an attack on the battleship Tirpitz in Drontheim Fjord by means of a two-man torpedo. The action failed since both torpedoes which were attached to the cutter were lost in the stormy sea. From the crew consisting of six Englishmen and four Norwegians, a party of three Englishmen and two Norwegians were challenged on the Swedish border. However, only the British seaman Robert Paul Evans, born 14 January ’22 at London, could be arrested . . . the others escaped into Sweden.

“Evans had a pistol pouch in his possession such as are used to carry weapons under the armpit and also a knuckle-duster. Violence, representing a breach of international law, could not be proved. He has made extensive statements about the operation. In accordance with the Führer’s order he was shot on 19 January ’43.”

Again I submit, that is murder. Violence representing a breach of international law could not be proved.

My Lord, then the third paragraph:

“Blowing up of the Glomfjord power station.

“On 16 September ’42, 10 Englishmen and two Norwegians landed on the Norwegian coast dressed in the uniform of the British Mountain Rifle Regiment, heavily armed and equipped with explosives of every description. After negotiating difficult mountain country they blew up important installations in the power station Glomfjord on 21 September ’42. The German sentry was shot dead on that occasion. Norwegian workmen were threatened that they would be chloroformed should they resist. For this purpose the Englishmen were equipped with morphia syringes. Several of the participants have been arrested while the others escaped into Sweden.

“Those arrested are: Captain Graeme Black, born 9 May ’11 in Dresden; Captain Joseph Houghton, born 13 June ’11 at Bromborough; Sergeant-major Miller Smith, born 2 November ’15 at Middlesborough; Corporal William Chudley, born 10 May ’22 at Exeter; Rifleman Reginald Makeham, born 28 January ’14 at Ipswich; Rifleman Cyril Abram, born 20 August ’22 in London; Rifleman Eric Curtis, born 24 October ’21 in London. They were shot on 30 October ’42.”

Again there is no suggestion that there was any breach of international law. They were British seamen and they were in uniform.

Then Paragraph 4:

“The sabotage attack against German ships off Bordeaux.

“On 12 December ’42, a number of German ships off Bordeaux were seriously damaged by explosives below water-level. The adhesive mines had been fixed by five English sabotage gangs working from canoes. Of the 10 participants the following were arrested after a few days. . . .”

Then there followed six names, six British names—one an Irishman; a lieutenant, a petty officer, a sergeant, and three marines.

“A seventh soldier named Moffett was found drowned; the remainder apparently escaped into Spain.

“The participants proceeded in pairs from a submarine in canoes upstream into the mouth of the River Gironde. They were wearing olive grey special uniforms. After effecting the explosions they sank the boats, and attempted to escape into Spain in civilian clothes, with the assistance of the French civilian population. No special criminal actions during the flight have been discovered. All the arrested, in accordance with orders, were shot on 23 March 1943.”

Keitel initialed that document. That document, read by my learned leader Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe not so long ago, is Document Number 735-PS, quoting Keitel as saying, “I am against legal procedure. It does not work out.”

THE PRESIDENT: Would you read the Page 5 which follows that?

MR. ROBERTS: If it will please the Tribunal, that is what I shall do. Page 5:

“The Führer’s headquarters, 9 January 1944. The Chief of OKW has handed the Deputy Chief”—that ought to be WFSt, that is Jodl—“the enclosed letter with the following account:

“It is of no importance to establish documentary proof of breaches of international law. What is important, however, is the collection of material suitable for a propaganda presentation of a display trial. A display trial as such is therefore not meant actually to take place but merely to be a propaganda presentation of cases of breaches of international law by enemy soldiers, who will be mentioned by name and who have already either been punished with death or are awaiting the death penalty. The Chief of the OKW asks the Chief of the Foreign Department to bring with him pertinent documents for his next visit to the Führer’s headquarters.”

As the Tribunal heard from my learned friend, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, when he read Document 735-PS earlier today, Keitel said, “I am against legal procedure. It does not work out.”

One can agree with Keitel after having read that record of what, in my submission, is cold-blooded murder of brave men, brave soldiers and sailors who were fighting for their country; and although this Trial has a record of the death of brave men, of the murder of brave men, there are few cases which are more poignant than those shown in the documents to which I have just referred.

I have finished my presentation of the case against Keitel and against Jodl. So far as Jodl’s part in the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity is concerned, he figures much less than Keitel. Of course, he had no power of giving orders or directives, but we see that he at any rate signed and circulated an infamous order of the Führer saying that commandos ought to be shot and are not to be treated as prisoners of war at all.

In my submission the evidence against these two men is overwhelming and their conviction is demanded by the civilized world.

Your Lordships, Mr. Walter W. Brudno of the American Delegation will present the case against Alfred Rosenberg.

MR. WALTER W. BRUDNO (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, in connection with the case against the Defendant Rosenberg, I wish to offer the document book designated as United States Exhibit EE. This book contains the English translation of all the documents which I will offer into evidence, as well as the English translation of those documents previously offered to which I will refer. The documents are arranged by series in the order of C, L, R, PS, and EC, and they are arranged numerically within each series.

Your Honors will note that on the first four pages of the document book there appears a descriptive list of documents. This list is a tabulation of all the documents directly implicating Rosenberg, including those previously offered, and those which I will offer into evidence. Those previously offered are keyed to the transcript page of the Record, and to their exhibit numbers. The list is included in the document books. The list is included in the document books made available to the Defense. This list will gather together in one place all references to the Defendant Rosenberg which are in the Record up to this point. In order to avoid repetition, I will not refer to a great many of the documents previously introduced.

The Indictment at Page 29 (Volume I, Page 70) charges the Defendant Rosenberg under all four Counts of the Indictment. In the presentation which follows, I will show that as charged in Count One, Section IV, Subparagraph D, Rosenberg played a particularly prominent role in developing and promoting the doctrinal techniques of the conspiracy, in developing and promoting beliefs and practices incompatible with Christian teaching, in subverting the influence of the churches over the German people, in pursuing the program of relentless persecution of the Jews, and in reshaping the educational system in order to make the German people amenable to the will of the conspirators and to prepare the people psychologically for waging an aggressive war.

I will also show that Rosenberg played an important role in preparing Germany for the waging of aggressive war through the direction of foreign trade, as charged in Count One, Subparagraph E, of the Indictment, and that his activities in the field of foreign policy contributed materially toward the preparation for the aggression charged in Subparagraph F in the Indictment and the Crimes against Peace, as charged in Count Two.

Finally I will show that Rosenberg participated in the planning and direction of the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, as specified in Paragraph G of Count One of the Indictment. Particularly, he participated in the planning and direction of the spoliation of art treasures in the western countries and in the numerous crimes committed in that part of the eastern countries formerly occupied by the U.S.S.R.

The political career of the Defendant Rosenberg embraced the entire history of National Socialism and permeated nearly every phase of the conspiracy with which we are concerned. In order to obtain a full conception of his influence upon and participation in the conspiracy, it is necessary to review briefly his political history, and to consider each of his political activities in their relation to the thread of the conspiracy which stretches from the inception of the Party in 1919 to the defeat of Germany in 1945.

It is both interesting and revealing to note that for Rosenberg the 30th of November 1918 marked the “beginning of political activities with a lecture about the ‘Jewish Problem.’ ” That statement is found at Line 2 of the translation of Document 2886-PS, which is an excerpt from a book entitled, The Work of Alfred Rosenberg, a biography, and I offer this book as Exhibit Number USA-591.

From the Document 3557-PS, which has excerpts from an official pamphlet entitled Dates in the History of the NSDAP, and which I offer as Exhibit Number USA-592, we learn that Rosenberg was a member of the German Labor Party, afterwards the National Socialist German Workers Party, in January 1919 and that Hitler joined forces with Rosenberg and his colleagues in October of the same year. Thus, Rosenberg was a member of the National Socialist movement even before Hitler himself.

Now I wish to offer Document 3530-PS, which is an extract from Das Deutsche Führer Lexikon, the year of 1934-35, and I offer it as Exhibit Number USA-593. In this document we obtain additional biographical data on Rosenberg as follows:

“From 1921 until the present he was editor of the Völkische Beobachter; editor of the N. S. Monatshefte; in 1930, he became member of the Reichstag and representative of the foreign policies for the Party . . . since April 1933 he was leader of the foreign political office of the NSDAP, then designated Reichsleiter; in January 1934, deputized by the Führer for the supervision of the ideological education of the NSDAP, the German labor front, and all related organizations.”

The Document 2886-PS, which I have just referred to, offered as Exhibit Number USA-591, adds that in July 1941 Rosenberg was appointed Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories.

With this general background information in mind the first phase of proof will deal with Rosenberg as official National Socialist ideologist. The proof which I will present will show the nature and scope of the ideological tenets he expounded, and the influence he exerted upon the unification of German thought, a unification which was an essential part of the conspirators’ program for the seizure of power and preparation for aggressive war.

Rosenberg wrote extensively on, and actively participated in, virtually every aspect of the National Socialist program. His first publication was the Nature, Basic Principles, and Aims of the NSDAP. This publication appeared in 1922. Rosenberg spoke of this book in a speech which we have seen and heard delivered in the motion picture previously introduced as Exhibit Number USA-167. On Page 2, Part 1, of the transcription of the speech, which is our Document Number 3054-PS, Rosenberg stated as follows:

“During this time”—that is, during the early phase of the Party—“I wrote a short thesis which nevertheless is significant in the history of the NSDAP.”—This is Rosenberg speaking.—“It was always being asked what points of program the NSDAP had and how they were to be interpreted. Therefore I wrote the Nature, Basic Principles, and Aims of the NSDAP, and this writing made the first permanent connection for Munich and local organizations being created and friends within the Reich.”

We thus see that the original draftsman of, and spokesman on, the Party program was the Defendant Rosenberg. Without attempting to survey the entire ideological program advanced by the Defendant Rosenberg in his various writings and speeches, which are very numerous, I wish to offer into evidence certain of his statements as an indication of the nature and broad scope of the ideological program which he championed. It will be seen that there was not a single basic tenet of the Nazi philosophy which was not given authoritative expression by Rosenberg. Rosenberg wrote the book entitled Myth of the Twentieth Century, published in 1930. This book has already been offered as Exhibit USA-352. At Page 479, which Your Honor will find on the second page of Document 3553-PS, Rosenberg wrote on the race question as follows:

“The essence of the contemporary world revolution lies in the awakening of the racial type; not in Europe alone but on the whole planet. This awakening is the organic counter movement against the last chaotic remnants of the liberal economic imperialism, whose objects of exploitation out of desperation have fallen into the snare of Bolshevik Marxism, in order to complete what democracy had begun, the extirpation of the racial and national consciousness.”

Rosenberg expounded the Lebensraum idea, which idea was the chief motivation, the dynamic impulse behind Germany’s waging of aggressive war. In his journal, the National Socialist Monatshefte, for May 1932, which I wish to offer as Exhibit Number USA-594, our Document Number 2777-PS, he wrote at Page 199:

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

Rosenberg expressed his theory as to the place of religion in the National Socialist State in his Myth of the Twentieth Century, additional excerpts from which are cited in Document 2891-PS. At Page 215 of the “Myth” he wrote as follows:

“We now realize that the central supreme values of the Roman and the Protestant Churches being a negative Christianity do not respond to our soul, that they hinder the organic powers of the people designated as a Nordic race, that they must give way to them, that they have to be remodelled to conform to a Germanic Christianity. Therein lies the meaning of the present religious search.”

In the place of traditional Christianity, Rosenberg sought to implant the neo-pagan myth of the blood.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to break off here for a recess?

MR. BRUDNO: Yes, Your Honor.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make to the defendants’ counsel. In view of the applications which were made to the Tribunal this morning, I immediately ordered on behalf of the Tribunal that an investigation should be made of the complaints made by defendants’ counsel about the delay in the delivery of the transcript of the shorthand notes and such delay will be remedied at once. The investigation shows that transcripts of the sessions up to and including the 20th of December can be completed by this afternoon. The transcripts for the sessions held since the resumption of the Trial will be distributed, up to and including the 8th of January, by tomorrow evening. Hereafter, the German transcripts will be regularly distributed to the Defense Counsel within a period of 48 hours after the session.

MR. BRUDNO: If Your Honors please, when the Court rose I had just read a quotation of Rosenberg, in which he expressed his views on Christianity.

In the place of traditional Christianity, Rosenberg sought to implant the neo-pagan myth of the blood. At Page 114 in the Myth of the Twentieth Century he stated as follows:

“Today, a new faith is awakening; the myth of the blood, the belief that the divine being of mankind generally is to be defended with the blood. The faith embodied by the fullest realization that the Nordic blood constitutes that mystery which has supplanted and overwhelmed the old sacraments.”

Rosenberg’s attitudes on religion were accepted as the only philosophy compatible with National Socialism. In 1940 the Defendant Bormann wrote to Rosenberg in Document 098-PS, which has been previously introduced as Exhibit Number USA-350; and I quote:

“The churches cannot be conquered by a compromise between National Socialism and Christian teachings but only through a new ideology, whose coming you, yourself, have announced in your writings.”

Rosenberg actively participated in the program for elimination of church influence. The Defendant Bormann frequently wrote Rosenberg in this regard, furnishing him information as to proposed action to be instituted against the churches; and, when necessary, requesting that action be taken by Rosenberg’s department. I refer to documents introduced in connection with the case against the Leadership Corps, such documents as 070-PS, Exhibit Number USA-349, which deals with abolition of religious services in the schools; Document 072-PS, Exhibit Number USA-357, dealing with confiscation of religious property; Document 064-PS, Exhibit Number USA-359, which deals with the inadequacy of anti-religious material being circulated to the soldiers; Document 089-PS, Exhibit Number USA-360, dealing with curtailment of the publication of Protestant periodicals; and Document 122-PS, which is Exhibit Number USA-362, dealing with the closing of theological faculties.

Rosenberg was particularly avid in his pursuit of what he called the “Jewish question.” On the 28th of March 1941, on the occasion of the opening of the Institute for the Exploration of the Jewish Question, he set the keynote for its activities and indicated the direction which the exploration was to take. I would like to quote from Document 2889-PS, which I offer as Exhibit Number USA-595. This is an excerpt from the Völkischer Beobachter, 29th of March 1941. This is a statement made by Rosenberg on the occasion of the opening of the institute.

“For Germany the Jewish question is only then solved when the last Jew has left the Greater German space.

“Since Germany with its blood and its folkdom has now broken for always this Jewish dictatorship for all Europe and has seen to it that Europe as a whole will become free from the Jewish parasitism once more, we may, I believe, also say for all Europeans: For Europe the Jewish question is only then solved when the last Jew has left the European continent.”

It has already been seen that Rosenberg did not overlook any opportunity to put these anti-Semitic beliefs into practice. Your Honors will recall that in Document 001-PS, which was introduced as Exhibit Number USA-282 in connection with the case on persecution of the Jews, Rosenberg recommended that instead of executing 100 Frenchmen as retaliation for attempts on lives of members of the Wehrmacht, there be executed 100 Jewish bankers, lawyers, et cetera. The recommendation was made with the avowed purpose of awakening the anti-Jewish sentiment.

Document 752-PS, which was introduced this morning by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe as Exhibit GB-159, discloses that Rosenberg had called an anti-Semitic congress in June 1944, although this congress was cancelled due to military events.

In the realm of foreign policy, in addition to demanding Lebensraum, Rosenberg called for elimination of the Versailles Treaty and cast aside any thought of revision of that treaty. In his book The Nature, Basic Principles, and Aims of the NSDAP, written by Rosenberg in 1922, he expressed his opinions regarding the Treaty of Versailles. Excerpts from this book are translated in Document 2433-PS, and I offer the book as Exhibit Number USA-596. He stated as follows:

“The National Socialists reject the popular phrase of the ‘Revision of the Peace of Versailles’ as such a revision might perhaps bring a few numerical reductions in the so-called ‘obligations’; but the entire German people would still be, just as before, the slave of other nations.”

Then he goes on to expound the second point of the Party:

“We demand equality for the German people with other nations, the cancellation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.”

Rosenberg conceived of the spread of National Socialism throughout the world and, as will be subsequently shown, took an active part in promoting the infection of other nations with his creed. In the Nature, Basic Principles, and Aims of the NSDAP he states:

“But National Socialism still believes that its principles and ideology—though in individual methods of fight according to various racial conditions—will be directives far beyond the borders of Germany for the inevitable fights for power in other countries of Europe and America. There too a clear line of thought must be drawn, and the racial-nationalistic fight against the everywhere-similar loan-capitalistic and Marxist-internationalism must be taken up. National Socialism believes that once the great world battle is concluded, after the defeat of the present epoch, there will be a time when the swastika will be woven into the different banners of the Germanic peoples as the Aryan symbol of rejuvenation.”

This statement was made in 1922. It is thus seen that the Defendant Rosenberg gave authoritative expression to the basic tenets upon which National Socialism was founded and through the exploitation of which the conspiracy was crystallized in action.

Rosenberg’s value to the conspiratorial program found official recognition with his appointment in 1934 as the Führer’s delegate for the entire spiritual and philosophical education and supervision of the NSDAP. His activities in this capacity were vast and varied.

I now offer in evidence the National Socialist Year Book for the year 1938 as Exhibit Number USA-597. At Page 180 of this book, which is our Document Number 3531-PS, the functions of Rosenberg’s office as the Führer’s delegate are described as follows:

“The sphere of activity of the Führer’s delegate for the entire spiritual and ideological instruction and education of the movement, its organizations, including the ‘Strength through Joy,’ extends to the uniform execution of all the educational work of the Party and of the affiliated organizations. The office set up by Reichsleiter Rosenberg has the task of preparing the ideological education material, of carrying out the teaching program, and is responsible for the education of those teachers suited to this educational and instructional work.”

As the Führer’s delegate, Rosenberg thus supervised all ideological education and training within the Party.

It was Rosenberg’s personal belief that upon the performance of his new functions as ideological delegate depended the future of National Socialism. I offer Document 3532-PS as Exhibit Number USA-598. This is an excerpt from an article by Rosenberg appearing in the March 1934 issue of The Educational Letter. At Page 9 of this publication Rosenberg states:

“The focus of all our educational work from now on is the service for this ideology; and it depends on the result of these efforts, whether National Socialism will die with our fighting generation or whether, as we believe, it really represents the beginning of a new era.”

In his capacity as the Führer’s delegate for the spiritual and ideological training, Rosenberg assisted in the preparation of the curriculum for the Adolf Hitler schools. These schools, it will be recalled, selected the most suitable candidates from the Hitler Jugend and trained them for leadership within the Party. They were the elite schools of National Socialism. The next document, entitled “Documents of German Politics” is already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-365. Translations of excerpts from this document are found in 3529-PS, Page 389, and read as follows:

“As stated by Dr. Ley, Reich Organization Leader, on 23 November 1937 at Ordensburg Sonthofen, these Adolf Hitler Schools, as the first step of the principle of selecting a special elite, form an important branch in the educational system of the National Socialist training of future leaders. . . .

“ ‘The curriculum has been laid down by Reichsleiter Rosenberg, together with the Reich Organization Leader and the Reich Youth Leader.’ ”

Rosenberg exercised further influence in the education of Party members in the establishment of community schools for all organizations of the Party. Document 3528-PS is a translation of Page 297 of the 1934 edition of Das Dritte Reich, which I offer as Exhibit Number USA-599. It reads as follows:

“We support the request of the Führer’s delegate for the supervision of the entire spiritual and ideological education and instruction of the NSDAP, Party member Alfred Rosenberg, to organize community schools of all organizations of the NSDAP twice a year, in order to show by this common effort the ideological and political unity of the NSDAP and the steadfastness of the National Socialist will.”

This program was endorsed by the Defendant Schirach as well as by Himmler, Ley, and others.

THE PRESIDENT: Aren’t you dealing with this rather in a cumulative way? Isn’t it possible to summarize this evidence against Rosenberg more than you are doing?

MR. BRUDNO: I will try to, Your Honor. However, although the Indictment charges, and there is already substantial proof to show that the defendant conspirators used ideological training as an implement in achieving their rise to power and in consolidating their control, there seems to be little evidence as to Rosenberg’s position; and I am introducing this evidence in order to show that he played a dominant role in this connection. However, I will try to summarize these documents if I can.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ve taken down about 20 documents that you have alluded to, all of which deal with Rosenberg’s ideological theories.

MR. BRUDNO: Yes, Your Honor. I was merely trying to show the scope of his activities.


MR. BRUDNO: Your Honors will recall that it was in his capacity as Führer’s delegate that Rosenberg established the Institute for the Exploration of the Jewish Question in Frankfurt. This institute, commonly known as the “Hohe Schule,” has been referred to in connection with the exposition of art plunders. Into its library there flowed books, documents, and manuscripts which were looted from virtually every country of occupied Europe. Further evidence on this score will be introduced by the prosecutor of the Republic of France.

Your Honors will also recall, and the Record shows at Pages 1671 to 1687 (Volume IV, Pages 81 to 92), that it was as ideological delegate that Rosenberg conducted the fabulous art looting activities of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg, activities which extended to virtually every country occupied by the Germans. I will not attempt to summarize the extent of the plunder and merely refer the Tribunal to Document 1015(b)-PS, which has already been introduced as Exhibit Number USA-385, and Document L-188, which has been introduced as Exhibit Number USA-386. Document 1015(b)-PS details the looting of 21,000 objects of art; Document L-188, the looting of the contents of over 71,000 Jewish homes in the West. This subject, too, will be further developed by the French Prosecutor.

The importance of Rosenberg’s activities as official ideologist of the Nazi Party was not overlooked. In Document 3559-PS, which I wish to introduce as Exhibit Number USA-600—this document, incidentally, is the Hart biography of Rosenberg, entitled Alfred Rosenberg, The Man and His Work—it is stated that Rosenberg won the German National Prize in 1937. The creation of this prize, Your Honors will recall, was the Nazis’ petulant reply to the award of the Nobel Prize to Karl von Ossietzki, an inmate of a German concentration camp. The citation which accompanied the award to Rosenberg reads as follows:

“Alfred Rosenberg has helped with his publications to lay the scientific and intuitive foundation and to strengthen the ideology of National Socialism in the most excellent way. . . . The National Socialist movement, and beyond that, the entire German people will be deeply gratified that the Führer has distinguished Alfred Rosenberg as one of his oldest and most faithful fighting comrades by awarding him the German National Prize.”

The contribution which Rosenberg’s book, the Myth of the Twentieth Century, the foundation of all his ideological propaganda, made in the development of National Socialism, was appraised in a publication Bücher Kunde in 1942. This publication is our Document Number 3554-PS, dated November 1942. I offer it as Exhibit Number USA-601. The first page sets forth an appraisal of the Myth of the Twentieth Century.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Brudno, you referred us to the Myth of the Twentieth Century on several occasions.

MR. BRUDNO: Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: We really don’t want to hear any more about it.

MR. BRUDNO: I wish to show that this book is regarded as being one of the pillars of the movement and I wish to show also, Sir, that it had a circulation of over a million copies.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it is absolutely clear from the evidence which has already been given that Rosenberg was enunciating doctrines of the ideology of the Nazi Party; and I don’t think that it is necessary to go any further into details about it.

MR. BRUDNO: Very well. If the Tribunal is satisfied that Rosenberg’s ideas formed the foundation for the National Socialist ideological movement, I will pass on.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have already brought out the fact that he was appointed the Führer’s deputy for that purpose; wasn’t he?

MR. BRUDNO: Yes, Your Honor. I shall pass on from that point. I would merely like to make reference, however, to Document 789-PS, which has already been introduced as Exhibit Number USA-23. This document records a meeting between Hitler and his supreme commanders, on which occasion Hitler said, “The building up of our Armed Forces was possible only in connection with the ideological education of the German people by the Party.”

We submit that the contribution which Rosenberg made through formulation and dissemination of National Socialist ideology was fundamental to the conspiracy. As the apostle of neo-paganism, the exponent of the drive for Lebensraum, and the glorifier of the myth of Nordic superiority and as one of the oldest and most energetic Nazi proponents of anti-Semitism, he contributed materially to the unification of the German people behind the swastika. He provided the impetus and the inspiration for the National Socialist movement. His doctrines were responsible for the sublimation of morality and the crystallization of the Nordic dream in the minds of the German people, thereby making them useful tools in the hands of the conspirators and willing collaborators in the prosecution of their criminal plan.

I now pass to the second phase of Rosenberg’s criminal activities—his active contribution toward the preparation for aggressive war through the international activities of the APA, the Foreign Policy Office of the Party.

As previously indicated in my quotation from Das Führer Lexikon, which is Exhibit Number USA-593, Rosenberg became a Reichsleiter, the highest level of rank in the Leadership Corps, and was made chief of the foreign policy office of the Party in April 1933. The organization manual of the Party, Document 2319-PS, which I offer as Exhibit Number USA-602, describes the functions of the APA as including the influencing of public opinion abroad so as to convince foreign nations that Germany desired peace. The far-flung activities of the APA are indicated at Page 14 of the translation of this document and are stated as follows:

“1. The APA is divided into three main offices:

“A. Office for Foreign Areas with its main sections: a) England and Far East; b) Near East; c) southeast; d) north; e) old Orient; f) controls, personnel questions, et cetera.

“B. Office of the German Academic Exchange Service. . . .

“C. Office of Foreign Commerce.

“2. Moreover, there is in the APA a main office for the press service and an educational office.”

The press activities of the APA were designed to influence world opinion in such a manner as to conceal the conspirators’ true purposes and thus facilitate the preparation for waging aggressive war. The activities were carried on, on an ambitious scale. I offer into evidence Document 003-PS, which is entitled A Short Report on the Activities of the APA of the NSDAP. It is Exhibit Number USA-603. The last paragraph on Page 5 of the translation describes the press activities as follows:

“The Press Division of the APA is staffed by persons conversant with all languages to be considered. They examine approximately 300 newspapers daily and deliver to the Führer, the Führer’s deputy, and all other interested offices the condensations of the important trends of the entire world press. . . . The Press Division furthermore maintains an exact record on the prestige of the most important papers and journalists of the world. Many embarrassments during conferences in Germany could have been avoided had one consulted these archives. . . . Further, the Press Division was able to arrange a host of interviews with me as well as conducting a great number of unobjectionable foreign journalists to the various official representatives of Germany.”

And then:

“Hearst then personally asked me to write often about the position of German foreign policy in his papers. This year five detailed articles have appeared under my name in Hearst papers all over the world. Since these articles, as Hearst personally let me know, presented well-founded arguments, he asked me to write further articles for his paper.”

Thus, Rosenberg used his foreign policy office to influence world opinion on behalf of National Socialism.

It is interesting to note in passing that Rosenberg states, at Page 4 of this document, that the Romanian anti-Semitic leader, Cuza, followed his suggestions as—in Rosenberg’s words—“he had recognized in me an unyielding anti-Semite.” We will hear more of this affair shortly.

The nature and extent of the activities of the APA are amply disclosed in a single document. This is the principal document to which I will refer in this phase of the case against Rosenberg. This document bears our Number 007-PS and is entitled, “Report on the Activities of the Foreign Affairs Bureau of the Party from 1933 to 1943.” It is signed by Rosenberg. Portions of Annex 1, attached to the report, have already been read into evidence as Exhibit GB-84. The body of the report and Annex 2 have not been referred to heretofore. As will be seen the document contains a recital of widespread activities in foreign countries. These activities range from the promotion of economic penetration to fomentation of anti-Semitism; from cultural and political infiltration to the instigation of treason. Activities were carried on throughout the world and extended to such widely separated points as the Middle East and Brazil.

Many of the APA’s achievements were brought about through the subtle exploitation of personal relationships. Reading from the middle of the first paragraph on Page 2 of the translation, which refers to activities in Hungary, we learn that:

“The first foreign state visit after the seizure of power took place through the mediation of the foreign policy office. Julius Gömbös, who in former years had himself pursued anti-Semitic and racial tendencies and with whom the office maintained a personal connection, had reached the Hungarian Premier’s chair. . . .”

The APA endeavored to strengthen the war economy by shifting the source of food imports to the Balkans, as stated in Paragraph 3 on Page 2 of the translation:

“Motivated by reasons of war economy, the office advocated the transfer of raw material purchases from overseas to the areas accessible by overland traffic routes.”

Then he goes on to point out that they had successfully shifted the source of food imports, particularly fruit and vegetable imports, to the Balkans as a result of the activities of the offices.

Activities in Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg were confined, according to the report, to “observation of existing conditions”—a phrase which may have broad connotations—and “to the establishment of relations, especially of a commercial nature.”

In Iran the APA achieved a high degree of economic penetration, in addition to promoting cultural relations. I quote from the middle of the third paragraph on Page 3:

“The office’s initiative in developing, with the help of commercial circles, entirely new methods for the economic penetration of Iran found expression, in an extraordinarily favorable way, in reciprocal trade relations. Naturally, in Germany, too, this initiative encountered a completely negative attitude and resistance on the part of the competent State authorities, an attitude that at first had to be overcome. In the course of a few years, the volume of trade with Iran was multiplied five-fold and in 1939 Iran’s trade turnover with Germany had attained first place.”

In the last sentence on Page 3. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, Mr. Brudno, will you kindly explain to the Tribunal how the paragraph that you just read bears upon the guilt of Rosenberg in this Trial?

MR. BRUDNO: If Your Honor pleases, we submit that the conspirators used, as one of the tools of conspiracy, the economic penetration of those countries which they deemed strategically necessary to have within the Axis orbit. The activities of Rosenberg in the field of foreign trade contributed materially, we submit, to the advancement of the conspiracy, as charged in the Indictment.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you suggesting that it is a crime to try and stimulate trade in foreign countries?

MR. BRUDNO: If Your Honor pleases, the expression of ideological opinions or the advancement of foreign trade do not, in themselves, constitute a crime, we agree.

THE PRESIDENT: There is nothing here about ideological considerations. It is simply a question of trade.

MR. BRUDNO: Further on, Your Honor, he mentions the cultural activities.

THE PRESIDENT: I was confining myself, in order to try to get on, to the particular paragraph that you had just cited.

MR. BRUDNO: I see, Your Honor; we are merely trying to show, Sir, that the Germans used the foreign trade weapon as a material part of the conspiratorial program.

THE PRESIDENT: As I have said before, it is not possible for me or for any member of this Tribunal to conduct the case of the Prosecution for them. We can only tell them when we think they are being irrelevant and cumulative and ask them to try to cut down their presentation. It is for you to cut it down.

MR. BRUDNO: Rosenberg goes on to state, if Your Honor please, at Page 3 of the translation, that “Afghanistan’s neutral position today is largely due to the office’s activity.”

In connection with Arabia, he says:

“The Arab question, too, became part of the work of the office. In spite of England’s tutelage of Iraq, the office established a series of connections to a number of leading personalities of the Arab world, smoothing the way for strong bonds to Germany. In this connection, the growing influence of the Reich in Iran and Afghanistan did not fail to have repercussions in Arabia.”

Rosenberg concluded his report with the statement that, with the outbreak of war, he was entitled to consider his task as terminated, and then he says, “The exploitation of the many personal connections in many lands can be resumed under a different guise.”

I now turn to Annex 2 of the report, which is found at Page 9 of the translation. This annex deals with activities in Romania. Here the APA’s intrigue was more insidious, its interference in the internal affairs of a foreign nation more pronounced. After describing the failure of what Rosenberg terms a “basically sound anti-Semitic tendency,” due to dynastic squabbles and Party fights, Rosenberg describes the APA’s influence in the unification of conflicting elements. I quote, beginning with the ninth line of the translation:

“What was lacking was the guiding leadership of a political personality. After manifold groping trials the office believed such a personality to have been found in the former Minister and poet, Octavian Goga. It was not difficult to convince this poet, pervaded by instinctive inspiration, that a greater Romania, though it had to be created in opposition to Vienna, could be maintained only together with Berlin. Nor was it difficult to create in him the desire to link the fate of Romania with the future of the National Socialist German Reich in good time. By bringing continuing influence to bear, the office succeeded in inducing Octavian Goga as well as Professor Cuza to amalgamate the parties under their leadership on an anti-Semitic basis. Thus they could carry on with united strength the struggle for Romania’s renascence internally and her Anschluss with Germany externally. Through the office’s initiative both parties, which had heretofore been known by distinct names, were merged as the National Christian Party, under Goga’s leadership and with Cuza as Honorary President.”

Rosenberg’s man, Goga, was supported by two splinter parties, which had not joined the anti-Semitic trend, and Rosenberg states: “Through intermediaries, the office maintained constant contact with both tendencies.”

Goga, the man supported by Rosenberg, was appointed Prime Minister by the King in December 1937. The pernicious influence of Rosenberg’s ideology had achieved a major triumph, for he states:

“Thus a second government on racial and anti-Semitic foundations had appeared in Europe, in a country in which such an event had been considered completely impossible.”

I will not deal at any length with the details of the political turmoil that plagued Romania during the ensuing period.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Brudno, I think the Tribunal are satisfied that Rosenberg—I mean satisfied, subject to what Rosenberg himself or his counsel may say—that Rosenberg tried to spread his ideology abroad, and we don’t require any further detailed proof of that, and we are also satisfied that we have heard enough of the activities of the APA.

MR. BRUDNO: Certainly, Your Honor. We feel that if the Tribunal is satisfied, we can pass on.

THE PRESIDENT: Subject, as I said, to anything that Rosenberg may prove.

MR. BRUDNO: Surely. I would merely like to conclude with the statement that the activities of the APA were, as indicated in this Document 007-PS, primarily responsible for Romania’s joining the Axis. It was a vital link in Germany’s chain of military strategy.

I would further like to call to Your Honor’s attention the evidence which has already been submitted on the activities of the APA in Norway, activities which led to the treason of Quisling and Hagelin, for which they have been condemned.

I come now to the final phase of the case against the Defendant Rosenberg. We have seen how he aided the Nazi rise to power and directed the psychological preparation of the German people for waging of aggressive war. I will now offer proof of his responsibility for the planning and execution of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity committed in the vast areas of the occupied East, which he administered for over 3 years. These areas included the Baltic States, White Ruthenia, the Ukraine, and the eastern portion of Poland.

I will not endeavor here to chronicle again the tale of mass murder, spoliation, and brutality. We feel that that has already been sufficiently evidenced, and further evidence on this point will be presented by the Prosecution for the U.S.S.R. and for the Republic of France.

We anticipate, however, that Rosenberg will contend that some of these crimes were committed against his wishes, and, indeed, there is some evidence that he protested on occasion—not out of humanitarian reasons but on grounds of political expediency.

We also anticipate that Rosenberg will attempt to place the blame for these crimes on other agencies and on other defendants. The evidence will prove, however, that he himself formulated the harsh policies, in the execution of which the crimes were committed; that the crimes were committed for the most part by persons and agencies within his jurisdiction and control; that any other agencies which participated in the commission of these crimes were invited by Rosenberg to co-operate in the administration of the East, although the brutal methods customarily employed by them were common knowledge; and, finally, his Ministry lent full co-operation to their activities, despite the criminal methods that were employed.

Rosenberg was actively participating in the affairs of the East as early as 20 April 1941, 2 months prior to the German attack upon the Soviet Union. On that date he was designated by Hitler as commissioner for the central control of questions connected with the East European region.

The Hitler order by virtue of which he received this appointment has been read into the record in its entirety as Exhibit Number USA-143, our Document Number 865-PS.

The initial preparations undertaken by Rosenberg for fulfillment of his task indicated the extent to which he co-operated in promoting the military plans for aggression. They also show that he understood his task at the inception as requiring the assistance of a multitude of Reich agencies and that he invited their co-operation.

Shortly after his appointment by Hitler, Rosenberg conducted a series of conferences with representatives of various Reich agencies, conferences which are summarized in Document 1039-PS, previously offered as Exhibit Number USA-146. This document indicated the co-operation of the following agencies. It indicated that the co-operation of these agencies was both contemplated and solicited by Rosenberg. The agencies are as follows: OKW, OKH, OKM, Ministry of Economics, Commissioner for the Four Year Plan, the Ministry of the Interior, Reich Youth Leadership, the German Labor Front, Ministry of Labor, the SS, the SA, and several others.

These arrangements, it should be noted, were made by Rosenberg in his capacity as commissioner on Eastern questions, before the attack on the Soviet Union, before he was appointed as Reich Minister for the occupied East, in fact, before there was any occupied East for Germany to administer.

I would like to refer briefly to some of Rosenberg’s basic attitudes regarding his new task and the directives which he knew he would be expected to follow.

Your Honor will recall that on 29 April 1941, in Document 1024-PS, previously introduced as Exhibit Number USA-278, Rosenberg stated that:

“A general treatment is required for the Jewish problem for which a temporary solution will have to be determined (forced labor for the Jews, creation of ghettos, et cetera).”

On May 8, 1941 he prepared instructions for all Reich commissioners in the Occupied Eastern Territories. These instructions are found in Document 1030-PS, previously introduced as Exhibit Number USA-144. The last paragraph, which has not been called to Your Honors’ attention, reads as follows:

“From the point of view of cultural policy, the German Reich is in a position to promote and direct national culture and science in many fields. It will be necessary that in some territories an uprooting and resettlement of various racial stocks will have to be effected.”

In Document 1029-PS, which has been introduced as Exhibit Number USA-145, Rosenberg directs that the Ostland be transformed into a part of the Greater German Reich by germanizing racially possible elements, colonizing Germanic races, and banishing undesirable elements.

In a speech which Rosenberg made on 20 June 1941, Your Honors will recall, he stated the job of feeding Germans was the top of Germany’s claim on the East; that there was no obligation to feed the Russian peoples; that this was a harsh necessity bare of any feelings; that a very extensive evacuation will be necessary; and that the future will hold many hard years in store for the Russians. This speech, Your Honors, is in the record as Document 1058-PS, Exhibit Number USA-147.

On July 4, 1941, still prior to Rosenberg’s appointment as Reich Minister for the occupied East, a representative of Rosenberg’s office attended a conference on the subject of utilization of labor, and especially of the labor of Soviet prisoners of war. Document 1199-PS is a memorandum of this conference, and I offer it into evidence as Exhibit Number USA-604. It states that the participants were, among others, representatives of the Commissioner for the Four Year Plan, of the Reich Labor Ministry, of the Reich Food Ministry, and of the Rosenberg office. The first sentence states, and I quote:

“After an introduction by Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Krull, Lieutenant Colonel Breyer of the PW Department explained that actually there was a prohibition in effect by the Führer against bringing Russian PW’s into the Reich for employment, but that one might count on this prohibition being relaxed a little.”

The last paragraph records that, and I quote:

“The chairman summarized the results of the discussion as indicating that all the bureaus concerned unqualifiedly advocated and supported the demand for utilization of PW’s because of manpower needs in the Reich.”

On 16 July 1941, the day before Rosenberg’s appointment as Minister of the occupied East, he attended a conference at the Führer’s headquarters, the minutes of which have been introduced as Document L-221, Exhibit Number USA-317. At that time Hitler stated, “The Crimea has to be evacuated by all foreigners and to be settled by Germans alone.”

He further stated that Germany’s objectives in the East were three-fold: first, to dominate it; second, to administer it; third, to exploit it.

Thus, the character of the administration which was contemplated for the occupied East was well established before Rosenberg took office as Minister. He knew of these plans and was in accord with them. Persecution of the Jews, forced labor of prisoners of war, Germanization and exploitation, were all basic points of policy which Rosenberg knew of at the time he assumed office.

On July 17, 1941, Rosenberg was appointed Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories. The decree by which he was appointed is in evidence as Document 1997-PS, Exhibit Number USA-319.

I would like now to examine the organizational structure and the chain of responsibility which existed within the Ministry for the occupied East.

The organizational structure of the East was such as we will show that Rosenberg was not merely a straw man. He was the supreme authority with full control.

Document 1056-PS is a mimeographed treatise entitled, “The Organization of the Administration of the Occupied Eastern Territories.” It is undated and unsigned, but we can obtain further information regarding it by reference to EC-347, which is Göring’s Green Folder, already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-320.

It is noted that Part II, Subsection A, of Document EC-347 is entitled, and I quote: “Excerpts from the Directives of the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories and for the Civil Administration,” and then in parenthesis, “Brown Folder, Part I, Pages 25 to 30.”

The two paragraphs which follow are identical to two paragraphs found at the top of Page 9 of the translation of Document 1056-PS. Thus Document 1056-PS is identified as being a mimeograph of Part I of the Brown Folder which was mentioned in the Green Folder, and was issued by the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories.

I now offer Document 1056-PS as Exhibit Number USA-605. I offer this document for the purpose of proving, from the directives issued by the Rosenberg Ministry itself, the extent of Rosenberg’s authority; that he was the supreme civilian authority in the Eastern territories. The document will show that there was a continuous chain of command from Rosenberg down to the regional administrative officials, a chain of command which extended even to the local prison warden.

The document also will show the relationship which existed between the Rosenberg Ministry and other German agencies, a relationship which varied from full control by Rosenberg to full co-operation with them, made mandatory by his directives and by Hitler’s orders.

Finally, the document will show that the various subdivisions of the Ministry were required to submit periodic reports of the situation within their jurisdiction, so that the numerous reports of unspeakable brutality which Rosenberg received, and which are already in the record, were submitted to him pursuant to his orders.

The first paragraph of this significant document states as follows:

“The newly occupied Eastern territories are subordinated to the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories. By direction of the Führer he establishes a civil administration there, upon withdrawal of the military administration. He heads and supervises the entire administration of this area and represents the sovereignty of the Reich in the Occupied Eastern Territories.”

At the top of Page 2 of the translation is stated, and I quote:

“To the Reich Ministry is assigned a deputy of the Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police in the Reich Ministry of the Interior.”

Roman numeral III on Page 2 of the translation defines the responsibility of the Reich commissioners as, and I quote:

“In the Reich commissariats, Reich commissioners are responsible for the entire civil administration under the supreme authority of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories. According to the instructions of the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, the Reich Commissioner, as a functionary of the Reich, heads and supervises, within his precincts, the entire civil administration. Within the scope of these instructions he acts on his own responsibility.”

And then the chain of command is outlined: Subordinate offices, general commissariats, main commissariats, district commissariats, et cetera.

In the second last paragraph on Page 3 of the translation it is stated again:

“The Higher SS and Police Leader is directly subordinated to the Reich Commissioner. However, the Chief of Staff has the general right to secure information from him also. . . .

“Great stress is to be placed on close co-operation between him, the Chief of Staff, and the other main department heads of the office of the Reich Commissioner, particularly with the one for policies.”

To digress from this document a moment, I ask that the Court take judicial notice of the decree signed by Rosenberg, dated July 17, 1941, and found in the Verordnungsblatt of the Reich Minister for the occupied East, 1942, Number 2, Pages 7 and 8.

This decree provides for the creation of summary courts for decisions on crimes committed by non-Germans in the East. The courts are to be presided over by a police officer or an SS leader, who have authority to order the death sentence or confiscation of property, and those decisions are not subject to appeal. The general commissar is given the right to reject a decision. Thus, the determination of the SS, of these summary courts, is made subordinate to the authority of a representative of the Rosenberg Ministry.

At Page 4 of the translation of Document 1056-PS, the position of the Commissioner General is defined. It is stated here that: “The Commissioner General forms the administrative office of intermediate appeal.”

Three paragraphs down it is stated, and I quote:

“The SS and Police Leader assigned to the Commissioner General is directly subordinated to him. However, the Chief of Staff has the general right of requiring information from him.”

The document goes on to describe the function of the various subdivisions of the Ministry, concluding with regional commissioners who preside over the local administrative districts. They, too, have police units assigned to them and directly subordinated to them.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Brudno, surely that could have been stated in a sentence without referring us to all these passages in this document. I mean, Rosenberg was the Minister for the Eastern Territories. He had under him Reich commissioners and SS units, who had the full administration—civil administration—of the Eastern Territories. If you had stated that, surely that would have been sufficient.

MR. BRUDNO: Very well, Your Honor.

I will proceed from that point, then, merely to point out that the economic exploitation of the territory was undertaken in the fullest co-operation with the Commissioner of the Four Year Plan, as shown by Paragraph 2 of Page 7 of the translation. It is stated there that the economic inspectorates of the Commissioner of the Four Year Plan will be substantially absorbed in the agencies of the civil administration after the establishment of the civil administration.

I also wish to call Your Honors’ attention to the first paragraph on Page 6, which reads as follows:

The various commissioners, it says, “are, aside from the military agencies, the only Reich authorities in the Occupied Eastern Territories. Other Reich authorities may not be established alongside them. They handle all questions of administration of the area which is subordinate to their sovereignty and all affairs which concern the organization and activity of the administration, including those of the police, in the supervision of the autonomous agencies and organizations and of the population.”

I now turn briefly to the second section of the document which is entitled, “Working Directives for the Civil Administration.” The first two paragraphs on Page 9 have been read into the record as part of Document EC-347, Exhibit Number USA-320. I call particular attention to the statement that the “Hague Rules of Land Warfare, which deal with the administration of a country occupied by a foreign armed power, are not valid.”

I continue quoting at the last paragraph on Page 9:

“The handling of cases of sabotage is a concern of the Higher SS and Police Leader, of the SS and Police Leader, or of the Police leaders of the lower echelon. Insofar as collective measures against the population appear appropriate, the decision about them rests with the competent commissar.

“To inflict penalties in cash or kind, as well as to order the seizure of hostages and the shooting of inhabitants of the territory in which the acts of sabotage have taken place, rests only with the Commissioner General, unless the Reich Commissioner himself intervenes.”

I conclude with this document by quoting the first sentence at the top of Page 13:

“The district commissioners are responsible for the supervision of all prisons, unless the Reich commissioners intervene.”

I will not take the time of the Tribunal, nor burden the Record, with a detailed account of the manner in which Rosenberg’s plenary authority and power were wielded. There is evidence in the Record, and there will be additional evidence presented by the Soviet prosecutor, as to the magnitude of the War Crimes and the Crimes against Humanity perpetrated against the peoples of the occupied East.

However, merely to illustrate the manner in which Rosenberg participated in the criminal activities conducted within his jurisdiction, I would like to refer briefly to a few examples.

I call your attention to the document numbered R-135, which was previously introduced as Exhibit Number USA-289. In this document the prison warden of Minsk reports that 516 German and Russian Jews had been killed, and called attention to the fact that valuable gold had been lost due to the failure to knock out the fillings of the victims’ teeth before they were done away with.

These activities took place in the prison at Minsk, a prison which, Your Honors will recall from Document 1056-PS, was directly under the supervision of the Ministry for the occupied East.

For my next illustration I wish to offer Document 018-PS. This document has already been introduced as Exhibit Number USA-186. I would like to read to the Tribunal the first paragraph of Document 018-PS, which has not yet been read into the Record. The document reveals that Rosenberg wrote Sauckel on 21 November 1942, in the following terms:

“I thank you very much for your report on the execution of the great task given to you; and I am glad to hear that in carrying out your mission you have always found the necessary support, even on the part of the civilian authorities in the Occupied Eastern Territories. For myself and the officials under my command, this collaboration was and is self-evident, especially since both you and I have, with regard to the solution of the labor problem in the East, represented the same points of view from the beginning.”

As late as 11 July 1944 the Rosenberg Ministry was actively concerned with the continuation of the forced labor program, in spite of the retreat from the East.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): After making this generality, Rosenberg goes on to object, at the last here, to the methods used. You haven’t mentioned that.

MR. BRUDNO: Quite right, Your Honor. Those objections are already in the record, Sir, and I was merely referring to this document to show that Rosenberg favored recruitment from the East, that his civilian administrators co-operated with the recruitment in spite of the methods used, the methods which were known to Rosenberg as he reports in the letter himself.

DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): High Tribunal, in this connection I must protest that the Prosecutor did not finish reading this Paragraph 1 he has just quoted. For then comes the sentence in which he states that an agreement existed between Sauckel and Rosenberg regarding. . .

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think you can have heard that the United States Member of the Tribunal has just made this very point, which you are now making to Counsel for the United States, and has pointed out to him that he ought to have read there, or drawn attention at any rate, to the other paragraphs in this document which showed that Rosenberg was objecting to the methods used.

DR. THOMA: High Tribunal, I would like to point out that the prosecutor quoted just the first two sentences of a specific paragraph. The same paragraph ends, however, where it is stated that “there was an agreement between Sauckel and me according to which workers were to be treated well in Germany, and for this purpose welfare organizations were to be created”. The presentation of the prosecutor creates the impression that the Defendants Sauckel and Rosenberg had agreed only on the use of forced labor without restraint and on the deportation of the workers from the East.

THE PRESIDENT: As Counsel for the United States pointed out, the other passages in the document have already been read. And, naturally, the whole document will be treated as being in evidence.

The Tribunal fully realizes the point you are making, that it is not fair to read one passage of a document when there are other passages in the document which show that the passage read is not a full or proper statement of the document.

MR. BRUDNO: If Your Honor pleases, I was not attempting to delude the Tribunal; it was merely in the interest of time that I did not read the balance. The rest is in the Record.

THE PRESIDENT: I realize that.

We will adjourn now.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 10 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]

Thursday, 10 January 1946

Morning Session

MR. BRUDNO: May it please the Tribunal, when the Tribunal rose yesterday I had finished the submission of proof as to Rosenberg’s responsibility and authority in the Occupied Eastern Territories and was about to conclude my presentation with four brief examples as to the manner in which his authority was exercised. I was in the middle of the third example, which, Your Honors will recall, dealt with Rosenberg’s participation in the forced labor program. I wish to conclude that illustration with reference to Document 199-PS, which we offer as Exhibit Number USA-606. This document is a letter from Alfred Meyer, Rosenberg’s deputy, and is addressed to Sauckel, dated July 11, 1944. This time, Your Honors will note, it is Rosenberg’s Ministry that is urging action. I wish to quote Item Number 1 of this letter, which reads as follows:

“The War Effort Task Force Command formerly stationed in Minsk must continue, under all circumstances, the calling up of young White Ruthenian and Russian men for military employment in the Reich. In addition the Command has the mission of bringing young boys of 10-14 years of age into the Reich.”

My third illustration deals with Rosenberg’s exercise of his legislative powers, and I ask the Court to take judicial notice of the decree signed by Lohse, who was Reich Commissar for Ostland. This decree is published in the Verordnungsblatt of the Reich Commissar for Ostland, 1942, Number 38, Pages 158 and 159. It provides for the seizure of the entire property of the Jewish population in the Ostland, including the claims of Jews against third parties. The seizure is made retroactive to the day of occupation of the territory by German troops. This sweeping decree was issued and published by Rosenberg’s immediate subordinate, and it must be assumed that Rosenberg knew of it and acquiesced in it.

I now come to my final illustration. This illustration is derived from Document 327-PS, which is already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-338.

It is a copy of a secret letter from Rosenberg to Bormann dated 17 October 1944. It furnishes a graphic account of Rosenberg’s activities in the economic exploitation of the occupied East. I wish to quote from the first paragraph on Page 1, which has not been read into the Record. I quote:

“In order not to delay the liquidation of companies under my supervision, I beg to point out that the companies concerned are not private firms but business enterprises of the Reich, so that directives with regard to them, just as with regard to Government offices, are reserved to the highest authorities of the Reich. I supervise the following companies. . . .”

There follows a list of nine companies: A trading company, an agricultural development company, a supply company, a pharmaceutical company, and five banking concerns. On Page 3 of the translation at Item 1 (a) the mission of the trading company is stated to be, and I quote:

“Seizure of all agricultural products as well as commercial marketing and transportation thereof. (Delivery to Armed Forces and the Reich).”

I now call your attention to Item 5 of the same page. It describes the activities of the companies as follows:

“During this period, the Z.O.”—that is, the Central Trading Corporation East—“together with its subsidiaries has seized:

“Grain 9,200,000 tons, meat and meat products 622,000 tons, linseed 950,000 tons, butter 208,000 tons, sugar 400,000 tons, fodder 2,500,000 tons, potatoes 3,200,000 tons, seeds 141,000 tons, other agricultural products 1,200,000 tons, and 1,075,000,000 eggs.

“The following was required for transportation: 1,418,000 freight cars and 472,000 tons shipping space.”

In conclusion we submit that the evidence has shown that the Defendant Rosenberg played a leading role in the Nazi Party’s rise to power by moulding German thought so as to promote the conspirators’ ambitions; that he played a leading role in spreading propaganda and intrigue, and in instigating treason in foreign countries, so as to pave the way for the waging of wars of aggression; and that he bears full responsibility for the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity which were perpetrated in the Occupied Eastern Territories and which will be further developed by the prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.

This completes the presentation of the case against the Defendant Rosenberg. The next presentation will be that of the case against the Defendant Frank, which will be presented by Lieutenant Colonel Baldwin.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL WILLIAM H. BALDWIN (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, we wish now to deal with the individual responsibility of the Defendant Frank. In accordance with the expressed desire of the Tribunal, this presentation has been strictly limited; and, of course, I should welcome any direction from the Tribunal as to length or method as I proceed.

First, I must acknowledge my indebtedness to Miss Harriet Zetterberg, of our legal staff, and to Dr. Pietrowski, of the Polish Delegation, for their invaluable work—Dr. Pietrowski and the Polish Delegation, naturally, having a special interest in the Defendant Frank.

Aspects of the criminal complicity of the Defendant Hans Frank under Count One of the Indictment have been placed before this Tribunal on several occasions. There remain, however, certain matters for discussion—either novel in presentation or in development—concerning this defendant as an individual, before the United States’ portion of the Prosecution’s case against him is completed. Our Soviet colleagues will carry further the heavy complaint against the Defendant Frank in their treatment of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity in the East. We wish here merely to touch upon that evidence which, we believe, irrefutably discloses Frank to have been a tremendously important cog in the machine which conceived, promoted, and executed the Nazi Common Plan or Conspiracy. Documents relating to this point have been assembled in a document book bearing the letters “FF.” I am informed that these books, as well as explanatory briefs, have been distributed for the use of the members of the Tribunal.

Reference will be made in the course of this argument to the so-called Frank diary, portions of which have already been brought to the attention of the Tribunal. It seems appropriate that brief mention should here be made of the content and source of this diary. It is a set of some 38 volumes, most of which are on the table at the front of the courtroom, detailing the activities of the Defendant Frank from 1939 to the end of the war in his capacity as Governor General of Occupied Poland. It is a record, in short, of each day’s business, hour by hour, appointment by appointment, conference by conference, speech by speech, and—in truth we believe—crime by crime. Each volume, excepting the last few, is now handsomely bound; and in those volumes, which deal with the conferences of Frank and his underlings in the Government General, the name of each person attending the meeting is inscribed in his own handwriting on a page preceding the minutes of the conference itself. It is incredibly shocking to the normal conscience that such a neat history of murder, starvation, and extermination should have been maintained by the individual responsible for such deeds, but by now the Tribunal is well aware that the Nazi leaders were sentimentally fond of elaborately documenting their exploits, as witness the Rosenberg volumes displaying the looted art treasures and the album reporting on the extermination of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. The complete set of the Frank diary was found in Bavaria, at Neuhaus, near Schliersee, on 18 May 1945, by the 7th American Army. It was taken to the 7th Army document center at Heidelberg and on or about 20 September 1945 the collection was sent to the Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel here at Nuremberg. It is here in court in its entirety; and now its tones, we submit, are those of accusation rather than boastful narration.

That the Defendant Frank held a position of leadership in the Nazi Party and in the German Government is undeniable. Even, presumably, it would be unfair to the Defendant Frank to underestimate his importance in the Nazi hierarchy and the Third Reich. Like the other defendants in this case, he was a man of far-reaching influence and position; and his office-holding record is already before this Court. It is an affidavit signed by the Defendant Frank and identified as Exhibit Number USA-7. This document contains a listing of 11 important positions held by Frank in the Party and in the Government and supports the assertion of influence and position which I have just made, especially since this Tribunal has been fully apprised of the criminal activities of the Nazi organizations and formations.

The machinations of Frank divide themselves logically into two periods. In the one, from 1920 to 1939, he was by his own admission the leading Nazi jurist, although parenthetically the word “jurist” loses its reputable content when modified by the word “Nazi”. In the other period, extending from 10 October 1939 until the end of the war, he was Governor General of occupied Poland. While he is most notorious for his persecutions and carrying out of the conspiracy in the latter capacity, it is the opinion of the United States Prosecution that the Defendant Frank’s contributions to the Nazi rise to power as the leading Nazi jurist should not pass without mention. It is with this aspect that I shall first deal—the Defendant Frank’s furtherance of the realization of the conspirators’ program in the field of law, his knowledge of the criminal purpose of the program, and his active participation therein.

The Defendant Frank, himself, described his role in the Nazi struggle for power in the following words, which were remarks he ordered his secretary to place in the Frank diary on 28 August 1942. The remarks appear in the diary and are translated in our Document 2233(x)-PS, which, if the Court please, is at Page 54 in the document book before it.

The numbers of the pages of the document book will be found in the upper right-hand corner in colored pencil, either red or blue. The original of this document I now offer in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-607. In the German text these extracts appear in Part 3 of the 1942 diary volume on Pages 968, 969, and 983. Frank says:

“I have since 1920 continually dedicated my work to the NSDAP. As a National Socialist I was a participant in the events of November 1923, for which I received the Order of the Blood. After the resurrection of the movement in the year 1925, my really greater activity in the movement began, which made me, first gradually, later almost exclusively, the legal adviser of the Führer and of the Reich Party Directorate of the NSDAP. I was thus the representative of the legal interests of the growing Third Reich in a legal-ideological as well as in a practical way.”

He goes on to say:

“The culmination of this work I see in the Leipzig army trial, in which I succeeded in having the Führer admitted to the famous oath of legality, a circumstance which gave the Movement legal grounds to expand on a large scale. The Führer, indeed, recognized this achievement and in 1926 made me leader of the National Socialist Lawyers’ League; in 1929, Reichsleiter of the Reich Legal Office of the NSDAP; in March 1933, Bavarian Minister of Justice; in the same year, Reich Commissioner for Justice; in 1934, President of the Academy of German Law, founded by me; and in December 1934, Reich Minister without Portfolio. And in 1939, I was finally appointed Governor General for the occupied Polish territories.

“So I was, am, and will remain the representative jurist of the struggle period of National Socialism. . . .

“I profess myself now and always, as a National Socialist and a faithful follower of the Führer, Adolf Hitler, whom I have now served since 1919. . . .”

It is indeed significant and worth mentioning to the Court. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Is this an extract from his diary?

LT. COL. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir; it is.

THE PRESIDENT: And are the words “Present: Dr. Hans Frank and others” written by him in his diary?

LT. COL. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir; they are. Before each of these excerpts, if Your Honor pleases, if it was in conference it was indicated which members of the Government General were present or who made the address.


LT. COL. BALDWIN: It is indeed significant and worth mentioning to the Court that the Defendant Frank assumes responsibility for the so-called oath of legality at the Leipzig army trial. At that trial, in 1930, three army officers were accused of—curiously enough—conspiracy to high treason. The charge was that the defendants in that trial, in their capacity as members of the German Army, tried to form National Socialist cells in the German Army and to influence the German Army to such an extent that, in the case of a Putsch by the National Socialists, the army would not fire at the National Socialists, but would stand at ease instead. All three of the officers were found guilty and sentenced to 18 months’ confinement. At that trial, however, Hitler was a witness; and during the course of the trial, testified under oath that the term “revolution,” used by him, meant only spiritual revolution in Germany and that the expression “heads would roll in the sand” meant only that they would do so as a result of legal procedure through state tribunals, if the National Socialists came to power. This, if the Court please, was the so-called oath of legality, the lie that the Defendant Frank provided his Führer as a facade for the conspiracy and which he, at least in 1942, considered the culmination of his efforts.

As the “representative jurist of the struggle period of National Socialism” and in various juridical capacities listed in his affidavit of positions held, Defendant Frank was, between 1933 and 1939, the most prominent policy-maker in the field of German legal theory. For example, Defendant Frank founded the Academy of German Law in 1934 and he was president of this once potent body until 1942. The statute defining the functions of this Academy conferred upon it wide power to initiate and co-ordinate juridical policies.

This statute appears in the translation at Page 5 in the document book as our Document 1391-PS and appears in the 1934 Reichsgesetzblatt at Page 605. We ask the Court to take judicial notice of it. I now quote briefly from the decree:

“It is the task of the Academy for German Law to further the reorganization of legal procedure in Germany. Closely connected with the agencies competent for legislation, it shall further the realization of the National Socialist program in the realm of the law. This task shall be carried out by approved scientific methods.

“The Academy’s task shall cover primarily:

“1. The formulation, initiation, judging, and preparing of drafts of law; 2. collaboration in rejuvenating and unifying the training in jurisprudence and political science; 3. the editing and supporting of scientific publications; 4. financial assistance for work and research in specific fields of law and political economy.”

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you have to read all this? We will take judicial notice of it.

LT. COL. BALDWIN: Among the early tasks which Defendant Frank set for himself, as policy-maker in the field of law, were the unification of the German State, the promotion of racial legislation, and the elimination of political organizations other than the Nazi Party. In a radio address given on 20 March 1934 he announced success in these matters. Our partial English translation of this speech appears as Document 2536-PS, at Page 64 in the document book. The official text of this speech appears in Dokumente der Deutschen Politik, Volume II (first edition), Pages 294-298. In the German text the extracts which I shall quote appear at Pages 296 and 298, and I will ask the Court to take judicial notice of these passages:

“The first task was that of uniting all Germans into one State. It was an outstanding historical and legislative accomplishment on the part of our Führer that by boldly grasping historical development he eliminated the sovereignty of the various German states. At last we have now, after 1,000 years, again a unified German State in every respect. It is no longer possible for the world, based on the spirit of resistance inherent in small states, which are set up on an egoistical scale and solely with a view to their individual interest, to make calculations to the detriment of the German people. That is a thing of the past for all times to come.”

I pass on now to the second excerpt:

“The second fundamental law of the Hitler Reich is racial legislation. The National Socialists were the first in the entire history of human law to elevate the concept of race to the status of a legal term. The German Nation, unified racially and nationally, will in the future be legally protected against any further disintegration of the German race stock.”

I pass now to the mention of the sixth law:

“The sixth fundamental law was the legal elimination of those political organizations which within the State, during the period of the regeneration of the people and the reconstruction of the Reich, were once able to place their selfish aims ahead of the common good of the nation. This elimination has taken place entirely legally. It is not the coming to the fore of despotic tendencies, but it was the necessary legal consequence of a clear political result of the 14 years’ struggle of the NSDAP.

“In accordance with these unified legal aims”—Frank continues—“in all spheres, particular efforts have for months now been made regarding the work of the great reform of the entire field of German law.

“As the leader of the German jurists, I am convinced that, together with all strata of the German people, we shall be able to construct the legal state of Adolf Hitler in every respect and to such an extent that no one in the world will at any time be able to dare to attack this constitutional state as regards its laws.”

In his speech on the occasion of the day of the Reich University Professors of the National Socialist Lawyers’ League on 3 October 1936, the Defendant Frank explained to the gathering of professors the elimination of Jews from the legal field, in accordance with the Nazi plan. Our partial translation of this speech appears as Document 2536-PS, at Page 62 of the document book. The official text appears likewise in Dokumente der Deutschen Politik, in Volume IV, Pages 225 to 230. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this. It deals, to summarize. . .

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you need it because we have already had documents of the same sort.

LT. COL. BALDWIN: As the leading Nazi jurist, the Defendant Frank accepted, condoned, and promoted the system of concentration camps and of arrest without warrant. He apparently had no hesitancy in subverting his professional ethics, if any he had, while subverting the legal framework of the German State to Nazi ends. He explains the outrageous departure from civilization that were concentration camps in an article on “Legislation and Judiciary in the Third Reich,” published in 1936 in the official journal of the Academy of German Law, of which, of course, he was the editor. The partial translation of this article appears as our Document 2533-PS, at Page 61 of the document book. The official German text of the extract appears in Zeitschrift der Akademie für Deutsches Recht, 1936, at Page 141, and I will ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this. Since the extract is short, I will ask permission to read it. Frank says:

“Before the world we are blamed again and again because of the concentration camps. We are asked: Why do you arrest without a warrant of arrest? I say: Put yourselves into the position of our nation. Don’t forget that the very great and still untouched world of Bolshevism cannot forget that here on our German soil we have made final victory for them impossible in Europe.”

It can be seen, therefore, that just as other defendants mobilized the military, economic, and diplomatic resources for aggressive war, the Defendant Frank, in the field of legal policy, geared the German juridical machine for a war of aggression, which war of aggression, as he explained in 1942 to the NSDAP political leaders of Galicia at a mass meeting in Lvov—and I now quote from the Frank diary, our Document 2233(s)-PS, at Page 50 in the document book, the original of which I offer in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-607—had for its purpose, and I quote: “. . . to expand the living space for our people in a natural manner.”

The distortions and warpings of German law, which Defendant Frank engineered for the Party, gave him, if not the world, vast satisfaction. He reported this to the powerful Academy for German Law in November 1939, 1 month after becoming Governor General of occupied Poland. This speech is partially translated in our Document 3445-PS, at Page 73 in the document book. The official text of the speech appears in Deutsches Recht, 1939, Volume 2, the week of 23-30 December 1939, beginning at Page 2121; and we ask the Court to take judicial notice of this, but would ask permission to read the excerpt, as it is very short. Frank stated:

“Today we are proud of having formulated our legal principles from the very beginning in such a way that they need not be changed in the case of war. For the maxim—that which serves the Nation is right, and that which harms it is wrong, which stood at the beginning of our legal work and which established this idea of the community of the people as the only standard of the law—this maxim shines out also in the social order of these times.”

If this sentiment has a familiar ring to it, it is because it is a restatement of a Party commandment tailored and furnished by the Party lawyer to fit the Party’s concept of law. I allude, of course, to the Party commandment, commented upon at Page 1608 (Volume IV, Page 38) of the official English transcript of these proceedings in the treatment of the Leadership Corps, which commandment stated and I quote, “Right is that which serves the Movement and thus Germany.”

It follows, I think, that the Prosecution conceives the Defendant Frank to be jointly responsible for all those cruel and discriminatory enabling acts and decrees through which the Nazis crushed minorities in Germany and consolidated their control over the German State and prepared it for its early entry upon aggression. It matters not, in our view, that the signature of this lawyer does not appear at the foot of every decree. Enough has been shown, in our submission, to indicate culpability in this regard. There is sufficient, we believe, now in this Record—and I refer to decrees cited by Major Walsh in his treatment of the persecution of the Jews and by Colonel Storey in his treatment of the Reich Cabinet—to demonstrate that type of enactment and the consequences thereof, for which we hold the Defendant Frank liable. In following this theory, may it please the Tribunal, we are only arriving at conclusions already arrived at for us by the Defendant Frank himself.

I now pass to that second and well-known phase of the Defendant Frank’s official life, wherein he for 5 years, as chief Party and Government agent, was bent upon the elimination of a whole people. He was appointed Governor General of the occupied Polish territory by a decree signed by his then Führer on 12 October 1939. The decree defined the scope of Frank’s executive power and is contained in our Document 2537-PS, at Page 66 in the document book. I shall ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this, since it appears in Reichsgesetzblatt, 1939, Part I, Page 2077.

It merely states that Dr. Frank is appointed as Governor General of the occupied Polish territory; that Dr. Seyss-Inquart is appointed as Deputy Governor General, and that “the Governor General shall be directly responsible to me”—meaning Hitler, he having signed the decree.

While some of the outside world was prone in earlier days to wonder at the apparent efficiency of Nazi administration, we now know that it was often riddled with the petty jealousies of small men in positions of some authority and with jurisdictional fractiousness. No such difficulty existed with the Defendant Frank, however, for though he was not without the threat of divided authority, he insisted upon, and was granted, the favor of supreme command within the territorial confines of the Government General. Only two references from his diary, one in 1940 and one in 1942, are necessary to show the all-inclusiveness of his direction and authority.

At a meeting of department heads of the Government General on 8 March 1940 in the Bergakademie, the Defendant Frank clarified his status as Governor General; and these remarks appear in the diary and in our Document 2233(m)-PS, at Page 42 in the document book, the original of which I offer into evidence as Exhibit Number USA-173.

In the German text, the extracts appear in the meetings of department heads, Volume 2 for 1939-1940, at Pages 5, 6, 7, and 8. Frank says:

“One thing is certain. The authority of the Governor General as the representative of the will of the Führer and the will of the Reich in this territory is certainly strong, and I have always emphasized that I would not tolerate misuse of this authority. I have made this known anew at every office in Berlin, especially after Herr Field Marshal Göring on 12. 2. 1940, from Karin Hall, had forbidden all administrative offices of the Reich, including the Police and even the Wehrmacht, to interfere in administrative matters of the Government General. . . .”

He goes on to say:

“There is no authority here in the Government General which is higher as to rank, stronger in influence, and of greater authority than that of the Governor General. Even the Wehrmacht has no governmental or official functions here of any kind; it has only security functions and general military duties—it has no political power whatsoever. The same applies to the Police and the SS. There is here no state within a state, but we are representatives of the Führer and of the Reich.”

Later, in 1942, at a conference of the district political leaders of the NSDAP in Kraków on 18 March, Defendant Frank further explained the relationship between the administration and the Reichsführer SS Himmler. These remarks appear in the diary and in our Document 2233(r)-PS and at Page 48 of the document book, the original of which I offer into evidence as Exhibit Number USA-608. In the German text, the extract to be quoted appears at Pages 185 and 186 of diary Volume 18, 1942, Part I. I quote:

“As you know”—says Frank—“I am a fanatic as to unity in administration. . . . It is therefore clear that the Higher SS and Police Leader is subordinated to me, that the Police is a component of the Government, that the SS and Police Leader in the district is subordinated to the Governor, and that the district chief has the authority of command over the gendarmerie in his district. This the Reichsführer SS has recognized; in the written agreement all these points are mentioned word for word and signed. It is also self-evident that we cannot establish a closed shop here which can be treated in the traditional manner of small states.”

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you think all this has to be read?

LT. COL. BALDWIN: It is considered important, Sir, by the United States Prosecution, in view of the fact that this is the later extract from the diary and indicates that 2 years later even Frank considered himself to be the supreme authority in the Government General. This is a point which we conceive to be of importance, Sir. May I proceed?


LT. COL. BALDWIN: “It would, for instance, be ridiculous if we would build up here a security policy of our own against our Poles in the country, while knowing that the Poles in West Prussia, in Posen, in Warthegau, and in Silesia have one and the same movement of resistance. So the Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police must be able to carry out, with his agencies, his police measures concerning the interests of the Reich as a whole. This, however, will be done in such a way that the measures to be adopted will first be submitted to me and carried out only when I give my consent. In the Government General the Police are the armed forces. Consequently the leader of the Police will be called by me into the Government of the Government General; he is subordinate to me, or to my deputy, as a state secretary for security.”

At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention that the man who filled the position of State Secretary for Security in the Government General was Frank’s Higher SS and Police Leader, Krüger.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you read the next page?

LT. COL. BALDWIN: May it please the Tribunal; I shall come to that excerpt later.

THE PRESIDENT: In the same document?

LT. COL. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir. It seems more appropriate at another point.

The Tribunal may recall that the reports of the extermination of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were made in the spring of 1943 by SS Leader Stroop, who immediately supervised the operation, to this same Krüger, who was still at that time one of the two most influential members of Frank’s Cabinet, as State Secretary for Security.

It was inevitable that the grand conspiracy or common plan should have as its component parts a host of small plans each dealing with a particular sphere of activity. These plans, differing from the master plan only in size, are the blueprints for a specific action drawn from the broad policies. Occupied Poland was no exception to this rule. The plan for the administration of Poland was contained in a top secret memorandum of a conference between Hitler and the Chief of the OKW, Defendant Keitel, entitled “Regarding Future Relations of Poland to Germany” and dated 20 October 1939. This report was initialed by General Warlimont. It is our Document 864-PS and may be found at Page 3 of the document book, and I shall offer it into evidence as Exhibit Number USA-609.

I shall quote, if the Court please, only from Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 6:

“1) The Armed Forces will welcome it if they can dispose of administrative questions in Poland. On principle, there cannot be two administrations. . . .

“3) It is not the task of the administration to make Poland into a model province or a model state of the German order or to put her economically or financially on a sound basis.

“The Polish intelligentsia must be prevented from forming a ruling class. The standard of living in the country is to remain low; we want only to draw labor forces from there. Poles are also to be used for the administration of the country. However, the forming of national political groups may not be allowed.

“4) The administration has to work on its own responsibility and must not be dependent on Berlin. We do not want to do there what we do in the Reich. The responsibility does not rest with the Berlin Ministries since there is no German administration unit concerned.

“The accomplishment of this task will involve a hard racial struggle which will not allow any legal restrictions. The methods will be incompatible with the principles otherwise adhered to by us.

“The Governor General is to give the Polish nation only bare living conditions and is to maintain the basis for military security. . . .

“6). . . . Any tendencies towards the consolidation of conditions in Poland are to be suppressed. The ‘Polish muddle’ must be allowed to develop. The Government of the territory must make it possible for us to purify the Reich territory from Jews and Poles too. Collaboration with new Reich provinces (Posen and West Prussia) only for resettlements (compare Himmler mission).

“Purpose: Shrewdness and severity must be the maxims in this racial struggle in order to spare us from going to battle on account of this country again.”

The Defendant Frank was the chosen executor of this program. He knew its aims, approved of them, and actively carried out the scheme. The Tribunal’s attention has already been invited to Exhibit Number USA-297 wherein—this may be found at Page 1512 of the English text of the official transcript—(Volume III, Pages 576, 577) the Defendant Frank expounded the mission which his Führer assigned to him and according to which he intended to administer in Poland. It contemplated, in brief, ruthless exploitation, deportation of all supplies and workers, reduction of the entire Polish economy to an absolute minimum necessary for bare existence of the population, and the closing of all schools. No more callous statement exists than the one Frank made in this report, wherein he said, “Poland shall be treated as a colony; the Poles shall be the slaves of the Greater German world empire.”

In December 1940 Frank submitted to his department heads that the task of administering Poland did truly involve a hard racial struggle which would not allow any legal restrictions. I refer to our Document 2233(o)-PS, which may be found at Page 45 in the document book. It is taken from the Frank diary, and I offer it in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-173. In the German text the extract to be quoted appears in the volume of the diary entitled, “Department Heads Meetings 1939-1940,” on Pages 12 and 13. I now quote:

“In this country the force of a determined leadership must rule. The Pole must feel here that we are not building him a legal state, but that for him there is only one duty, namely, to work and to behave himself. It is clear that this leads sometimes to difficulties; but you must, in your own interest, see that all measures are ruthlessly carried out in order to become master of the situation. You can rely on me absolutely in this.”

As for the Poles and Ukrainians, Defendant Frank’s attitude was clear. They were to be permitted to slave for the German economy as long as the war emergency continued. Once the war was won, even this cynical interest would cease. I refer to a speech before German political leaders at Kraków on 12 January 1944. It appears in the Frank diary and as our Document 2233(bb)-PS at Page 60 in the document book. It is the first passage on that page. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-295. In the diary, the German text will be found in the loose-leaf volume covering the period from 1 January to 28 February 1944, at the entry for 14 January 1944, at Page 24. “Once the war is won” Frank tells these leaders—and here we have, may it please the Court, the classic example of the completely brutal statement:

“Once the war is won, then, for all I care, mincemeat can be made of the Poles and the Ukrainians and all the others who run around here; it doesn’t matter what happens.”

In accordance with the racial program of the Nazi conspirators, the Defendant Frank makes it quite clear in his diary that the complete annihilation of Jews was one of his cherished objectives. In Exhibit Number USA-271, Frank stated in late 1940 in his diary that he could not eliminate all lice and Jews in a year’s time. In Exhibit Number USA-281, he notes in his diary in the year 1942 that a program of starvation rations sentencing, in effect, 1,200,000 Jews to die of hunger, should be noted only marginally. In Exhibit Number USA-295, he confided to a secret press conference that in the year 1944—and this, too, is from the diary—there were still in the Government General perhaps 100,000 Jews.

These facts, if the Tribunal please, are from the diary of the man himself. We do no more here than to tabulate the results. The supreme authority within a certain geographic area admits that in a period of 4 years’ time up to 3,400,000 persons from that area have been annihilated pursuant to an official policy and for no crime, but only because of having been born a Jew. No words could possibly reveal the inferences of death and suffering which must needs be drawn from these stark facts.

It was a Nazi policy that the population of occupied countries should endure terror, oppression, impoverishment, and starvation. The Defendant Frank succeeded so well in this regard that he was forced to report to his Führer in 1943 that, in effect, Poles did not regard the Government General with affection. This report to Hitler was a summarization of the first 3½ years of the Defendant Frank’s administration. It, better than anything else, can show the conditions as they then existed as a result of the conspiratorial efforts of the defendants.

The report is contained in our Document 437-PS, at Page 2 of the document book, and I now offer the original in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-610. In the German text, the extract to be quoted appears at Pages 10 and 11 of this report by Frank to Hitler dated 19 June 1943, regarding the situation in Poland. I now quote. Frank says:

“In the course of time, a series of measures, or of consequences of the German rule, have led to a substantial deterioration of the attitude of the entire Polish people to the Government General. These measures have affected either individual professions or the entire population and frequently also—often with crushing severity—the fate of individuals.”

He goes on:

“Among these are in particular:

“1. The entirely insufficient nourishment of the population, mainly of the working classes in the cities, the majority of which are working for German interests.

“Until the war of 1939 their food supplies, though not varied, were sufficient and were generally assured owing to the agrarian surplus of the former Polish State and in spite of the negligence on the part of their former political leadership.

“2. The confiscation of a great part of the Polish estates, expropriation without compensation, and evacuation of Polish peasants from maneuver areas and from German settlements.

“3. Encroachments and confiscations in the industries, in commerce and trade, and in the field of other private property.

“4. Mass arrests and shootings by the German Police who applied the system of collective responsibility.

“5. The rigorous methods of recruiting workers.

“6. The extensive paralyzing of cultural life.

“7. The closing of high schools, colleges, and universities.

“8. The limitation, indeed the complete elimination, of Polish influence from all spheres of State administration.

“9. Curtailment of the influence of the Catholic Church, limiting its extensive influence—an undoubtedly necessary move—and, in addition, until quite recently, often at the shortest notice, the closing and confiscation of monasteries, schools, and charitable institutions.”

Indeed, the Nazi plan for Poland succeeded all too well.

THE PRESIDENT: This is only an extract here. Was he saying that these measures were inevitable or that he justified them, or what was he saying in the report?

LT. COL. BALDWIN: He was saying, Sir, that the Polish people’s attitude to the Government General had substantially deteriorated. The reasons for that deterioration are the listings I gave to the Court. In other words. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Is that all he said?

LT. COL. BALDWIN: No, Sir; that is just taken from Pages 10 and 11 of the report. The report is an extremely long one.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I suppose you know what the general tenor of the report was.

LT. COL. BALDWIN: The general tenor of the report, Sir, was in the nature of a complaint to Hitler, that he, Frank, was having an extremely difficult time in the Government General because of these measures and because of these happenings in the Government General.


LT. COL. BALDWIN: In order to illustrate how completely the Defendant Frank is identified with the policies. . .

DR. SEIDL: [Interposing.] As the Tribunal has already asked the Prosecution what the purpose of this document is, I would like to point out here that it concerns a document of 40 typewritten pages addressed to Hitler and that Frank condemns the conditions which the Prosecution has brought forward and that in this document he makes far-reaching proposals to remedy the situation which he severely criticizes.

I shall, when my turn comes, read the whole document.

THE PRESIDENT: Exactly. You will have full opportunity, when it is your turn, to explain this document; but it is not your turn at the moment.

DR. SEIDL: I only mention it now because the Tribunal itself drew my attention to this point.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Lieutenant Colonel Baldwin, I asked you what was the whole content of the document from which you were reading this paragraph. According to counsel for Frank, the document, which is a very long document, shows that Frank was suggesting remedies for the difficulties which he here sets out. Is that so?

LT. COL. BALDWIN: That is so, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the. . .

LT. COL. BALDWIN: May it please the Tribunal, I did not cite this portion of that document, as I will later demonstrate, to show that Frank did or did not suggest remedies for these conditions; but only to explain that these conditions existed as of a certain period.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, when you cite a small part of the document, you should make sure that what you cite is not misleading as compared to the rest of the document.

LT. COL. BALDWIN: I see, Your Honor. I had not considered it to be such, in view of the purpose for which I introduced it, which, as I suggested, was only to indicate a set of conditions which existed at a certain time. I naturally assumed that the Defense, as Dr. Seidl has indicated, will carry on with the rest of the document as a matter of defense.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, of course, that is all very well, but the Defendant Frank’s counsel will speak at some remote date; and it is not a complete answer to say that he will have an opportunity of explaining the document at some future date. It is for Counsel for the Prosecution to make sure that no extracts which they read can reasonably make a misleading impression upon the mind of the Tribunal.

LT. COL. BALDWIN: I shall now state, then, that the extract which was just read was read solely for the purpose of indicating that at a certain period, namely, June 1943, those conditions existed in Poland, as the result of statements by the Governor General of Poland.

Would that be satisfactory to the Tribunal?

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, what is not satisfactory to the Tribunal is that you did not give us the real purport of the document.

LT. COL. BALDWIN: Well, Sir, I don’t have the complete document before me now. Therefore, I can’t read all of it.

THE PRESIDENT: What we would like, would be, if possible, that when an extract is made from a document, counsel who are presenting that extract should instruct themselves as to the general purport of the document so as to make certain that the part that is read is not misleading.


In order to illustrate how completely the Defendant Frank is identified with the policies, the execution of which is reported in this document, and how thoroughly they were his own policies; and this, if the Tribunal please, regardless of what remedies he may have had in 1943, it is proposed in this last section to take passages from Frank’s own diary in proof of his early espousal and execution of these self-same policies.

As to the insufficient nourishment of the Polish population, there was no need for the Defendant Frank to have waited until June 1943 to have reported this fact to Hitler. In September 1941 Defendant Frank’s own chief medical officer reported to him the appalling Polish health conditions. This appears in Frank’s diary and in our Document 2233(p)-PS, at Page 46 in the document book, which I now offer in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-611. The German text is to be found in the 1941 diary volume at Page 830. I quote:

“Chief Medical Adviser Dr. Walbaum expresses his opinion of the health condition of the Polish population. Investigations which were carried out by his department proved that the majority of Poles had only about 600 calories allotted to them, whereas the normal requirement for a human being was 2,200 calories. The Polish population was weakened to such an extent that it would fall an easy prey to spotted fever.”—Parenthetically, I think we know that as typhus.

“The number of diseased Poles has amounted to date to 40 percent. During the last week alone, 1,000 new spotted fever cases were officially recorded. That is so far the highest figure. This health situation represents a serious danger for the Reich and for the soldiers coming into the Government General. A spreading of that pestilence into the Reich is very possible. The increase in tuberculosis, too, is causing anxiety. If the food rations were to be diminished again, an enormous increase of the number of illnesses could be predicted.”

While it was crystal-clear from this report that in September 1941 disease affected 40 percent of the Polish population, nevertheless the Defendant Frank approved, in August 1942, a new plan which called for a much larger contribution of foodstuffs to Germany at the expense of the non-German population of the Government General. Methods of meeting the new quotas out of the grossly inadequate rations of the Government General and the impact of the new quotas on the economy of the country were discussed at a cabinet meeting of the Government General on 24 August 1942 in terms which leave no possible doubt that not only was the proposed requisition beyond the resources of the country, but its force was to be distributed on a grossly discriminatory basis. This appears from Frank’s diary and in our Document 2233(e)-PS, which is at Page 30 in the document book, which I now offer in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-283. The German text appears in the 1942 conference volume at the conference entry for 24 August 1942. I quote the following extract:

“Before the German people”—said Frank—“suffer starvation, the occupied territories and their people shall be exposed to starvation. In this moment, therefore, we here in the Government General must have the iron determination to help the great German people, that is our fatherland.

“The Government General, therefore, must do the following: The Government General has undertaken to send 500,000 tons of bread grain to the fatherland in addition to the foodstuffs already being delivered for the relief of Germany or consumed here by troops of the Armed Forces, Police, or SS. If you compare this with our contributions of last year you can see that this means a six-fold increase over that of last year’s contribution by the Government General.

“The new demand will be fulfilled exclusively at the expense of the foreign population. It must be done cold-bloodedly and without pity.”

Defendant Frank was not only responsible for reducing the Government General to starvation level, but was proud of the contribution he thereby made to the Reich. I refer to a statement made to the political leaders of the NSDAP on 14 December 1942 at Kraków. It is contained in the Frank diary and is our Document 2233(z)-PS, at Page 57 in the document book; and I now offer it in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-612. In the German text the extract appears in the 1942 diary volume, Part IV, at Page 1331. Defendant Frank is speaking:

“I will endeavor to get out of the reservoir of this territory everything that is yet to be had out of it.”

He continues:

“When you consider that it was possible for me to deliver to the Reich 600,000 tons of bread grain and in addition 180,000 tons to the Armed Forces stationed here; further, an abundance amounting to many thousands of tons of other commodities, such as seed, fats, vegetables, besides the delivery to the Reich of 300 million eggs, et cetera, you can estimate how important the work in this territory is for the Reich. In order to make clear to you the significance of the consignment from the Government General of 600,000 tons of bread grain, you are referred to the fact that the Government General, by this achievement alone, covers the raising of the bread ration in the Greater German Reich by two-thirds for the present rationing period. This enormous achievement can rightfully be claimed by us.”

Now, as to the resettlement of Polish peasants which Defendant Frank mentions secondly in the report to Hitler—although Himmler was given general authority in connection with the conspirators’ project to resettle various districts in the conquered Eastern territories with racial Germans, the projects relating to resettling districts in the Government General were submitted to and approved by the Defendant Frank. The plan to resettle Zamosc and Lublin, for example, was reported to him at a meeting to discuss special problems of the district Lublin by his infamous State Secretary for Security, Higher SS and Police Leader, Krüger, on 4 August 1942. It is contained in Frank’s diary and in our Document 2233(t)-PS, at Page 51 in the document book, which I now offer in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-607. The German text appears in the 1942 volume of the diary, Part III, Pages 830, 831, and 832.

I now quote from the report of the conference:

“State Secretary Krüger then continues, saying that the Reichsführer’s next immediate plan until the end of the following year would be to settle the following German racial groups in the two districts”—Zamosc and Lublin—“1,000 peasant homes (1 homestead per family of about 6) for Bosnian Germans; 1,200 other kinds of homes; 1,000 homesteads for Bessarabian Germans; 200 for Serbian Germans; 2,000 for Leningrad Germans; 4,000 for Baltic Germans; 500 for Wolhynia Germans; and 200 homes for Flemish, Danish, and Dutch Germans; in all 10,000 homes for 50,000 to 60,000 persons.”

Upon hearing this, the Defendant Frank directed that—and I quote:

“. . . the resettlement plan is to be discussed co-operatively by the competent authorities and he declares his willingness to approve the final plan by the end of September after satisfactory arrangements had been made concerning all the questions appertaining thereto—in particular the guaranteeing of peace and order—so that by the middle of November, as the most favorable time, the resettlement can begin.”

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now for 10 minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

LT. COL. BALDWIN: May it please the Tribunal, the way in which the resettlement at Zamosc was carried out was described to Defendant Frank by Krüger at a meeting at Warsaw on January 25, 1943. The report is contained in the Frank diary and is our Document 2233(aa)-PS, and appears at Page 58 in the document book. I offer the original of it in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-613. The German text appears in the labor conference volume for 1943, at Pages 16, 17, and 19. Krüger in this excerpt reports that they had settled the first 4,000 in the Kreis Zamosc shortly before Christmas; that, understandably, friends were not made of the Poles in the resettlement program; and that the Poles had to be chased out. He then stated to Frank, and I quote:

“We are removing those who constitute a burden in this new colonization territory. Actually, they are the asocial and inferior elements. They are being deported; first brought to a concentration camp and then sent as labor to the Reich. From a Polish propaganda standpoint, this entire first action has an unfavorable effect. For the Poles say: ‘After the Jews have been destroyed, then they will employ the same methods to get the Poles out of this territory and liquidate them just like the Jews.’ ”

Krüger went on to mention that there was a great deal of unrest in the territory as a result; and Frank informed him, that is, Krüger, that each individual case of resettlement would be discussed in the future exactly as that one of Zamosc had been.

Although the illegality of this dispossession of Poles to make room for Germans was evident and although the fact that the Poles who were not only being dispossessed but sent off to concentration camps became increasingly difficult to handle, the resettlement projects continued in the Government General.

The third item mentioned by Frank—the encroachments and confiscations of industry and private property—was again an early Frank policy. He explained this to his department heads in December 1939. The report is from his diary and is our Document 2233(k)-PS, and it appears at Page 40 in the document book. I now offer it in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-173. The German text appears in the department heads conference volume for 1939-40 at the entry for 2 December 1939 at Pages 2 and 3. Dr. Frank states:

“Principally it can be said regarding the administration of the Government General: This territory in its entirety is booty for the German Reich, and thus it will not do for this territory to be exploited in separate individual parts; but the territory in its entirety shall be economically used and its entire economic worth redound to the benefit of the German people.”

Reference is made to Exhibit Number USA-297, if any further support of an early policy of ruthless exploitation is deemed necessary by the Tribunal. In addition, the decree permitting sequestration in the Government General heretofore pointed out to the Tribunal (Verordnungsblatt für das Generalgouvernement, Number 6, 27 January 1940, Page 23), which decree was signed by the Defendant Frank, permitted and empowered the Nazi officials to engage in wholesale seizure of property. This was made the easier by the undefined criteria of the decree. The looting of the Government General under this and other decrees has already been presented to the Tribunal on 14 December 1945, under the subject heading, “Germanization and spoliation of occupied territories,” and the Tribunal is respectfully referred to that portion of the record and in particular to that segment dealing with the Government General.

The Defendant Frank mentioned mass arrests and mass shooting and the application of collective responsibility as the fourth reason for the apparent deterioration of the attitude of the entire Polish people. In this, too, he is to blame, for it was no part of Defendant Frank’s policy that reprisal should be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. He was, on the contrary, an advocate of the most drastic measures. At a conference of district political leaders at Kraków, on 18 March 1942, Frank stated his policy. This extract is from the diary and is our Document 2233(r)-PS and will be found at Page 49 in the document book. I offer it in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-608. The German text may be found in the diary volume for 1942, Part I, Pages 195 and 196. I quote Frank’s statement:

“Incidentally, the struggle for the achievement of our aims will be pursued cold-bloodedly. You see how the state agencies work. You see that we do not hesitate at anything, and stand dozens of people up against the wall. This is necessary because a simple reflection tells me that it cannot be our task at this period, when the best German blood is being sacrificed, to show regard for the blood of another race; for out of this, one of the greatest dangers may arise. One already hears today in Germany that prisoners of war, for instance, in Bavaria or Thuringia, are administering large estates entirely independently, while all the men in a village fit for service are at the front. If this state of affairs continues, then a gradual retrogression of Germanism will result. One should not underestimate this danger. Therefore, everything revealing itself as a Polish power of leadership must be destroyed again and again with ruthless energy. This does not have to be shouted abroad; it will happen silently.”

And on 15 January 1944 Defendant Frank assured the political leaders of the NSDAP that reprisals would be made for German deaths. These remarks are to be found in the Frank diary, in our Document 2233(bb)-PS at Page 60 in the document book, the second quote on that page, the original of which I offer in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-295. The German text appears in the loose-leaf volume of the diary covering the period from 1 January 1944 to 28 February 1944, and appears at Page 13. Frank says quite simply—“I have not hesitated to declare that when a German is shot, up to 100 Poles shall be shot too.”

The whole tragic history of slave-labor and recruitment of workers has been placed before this Tribunal in great detail. When the Defendant Frank refers to these methods as his fifth reason for disaffection in Poland in his report to Hitler, he once more cites policies which he executed. Force, violence, and economic duress were all supported by him as means for recruiting laborers for deportation to slavery in Germany. This was an announced policy, and I have already alluded to Exhibit Number USA-297, which contains verification of this fact.

While in the very beginning recruitment of laborers in the Government General may have been voluntary, these methods soon proved inadequate. In the spring of 1940 the question of utilizing force came up and the matter was discussed at an official meeting at which the Defendant Seyss-Inquart was also present. I refer to the Frank diary and our Document 2233(n)-PS, which the Tribunal will find at Page 43 in the document book. I offer the original in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-614. The German text appears in the diary volume for 1940, Part II, at Page 333. I quote the conference report:

“The Governor General stated that all means in the form of proclamations, et cetera, not having succeeded, one is led to the conclusion that the Poles, out of malevolence and with the intention of harming Germany by not putting themselves at its disposal, refuse to enlist for labor service. Therefore, he asks Dr. Frauendorfer if there are any other measures not as yet employed to win the Poles on a voluntary basis.

“Reichshauptamtsleiter Dr. Frauendorfer answered the question in the negative.

“The Governor General emphasized the fact that he will now be asked to take a definite attitude towards this question. Therefore, the question will arise whether any form of coercive measures should now be employed.

“The question put by the Governor General to SS Lieutenant General Krüger as to whether he sees possibilities of calling Polish workers by coercive means, is answered in the affirmative by SS Lieutenant General Krüger.”

In May 1940, at an official conference—and this record is already before the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-173—Defendant Frank stated that compulsion in recruitment of labor could be exercised, that Poles could be snatched from the streets and that the best method would be organized raids.

As in the case of persecution of the Jews, the forced labor program in the Government General is almost beyond belief. I refer to the Frank diary and to our Document 2233(w)-PS, which will be found at Page 53 in the document book, the original of which I offer into evidence as Exhibit Number USA-607. This excerpt is a record, if the Court please, of a discussion between the Defendant Sauckel and the Defendant Frank at Kraków on 18 August 1942; and it appears in the diary volume for 1942, Part III, at Pages 918 and 920. Dr. Frank speaks:

“I am pleased to report to you officially, Party Comrade Sauckel, that we have up to now supplied 800,000 workers for the Reich. . . .”

He continues:

“Recently you have requested us to supply a further 140,000. I have pleasure in informing you officially that in accordance with our agreement of yesterday, 60 percent of the newly requested workers will be supplied to the Reich by the end of October and the balance of 40 percent by the end of the year.”

Dr. Frank continues:

“Beyond the present figure of 140,000 you can, however, next year reckon upon a higher number of workers from the Government General, for we shall employ the Police to conscript them.”

How this recruitment was carried out—by wild and ruthless manhunts—is clearly shown in Exhibit Number USA-178, which is in evidence before the Tribunal. Starvation, violence, and death, which characterized the entire slave-labor program of the conspirators, was thus faithfully reflected in the administration of the Defendant Frank.

There were, of course, other grounds for uneasiness in occupied Poland which the Defendant Frank did not mention in his report to Hitler. He does not mention the concentration camps, perhaps because as a representative jurist of National Socialism, the Defendant Frank had himself defended the system in Germany. As Governor General the Defendant Frank, we feel, must be held responsible for all concentration camps within the boundaries of the Government General. These include, among others, the notorious camp at Maidanek and the one at Lublin and at Treblinka outside of Warsaw. As indicated previously, the Defendant Frank knew and approved that Poles were taken to concentration camps in connection with resettlement projects. He had certain jurisdiction as well in relation to the extermination camp Auschwitz, to which Poles from the Government General were committed by his administration. In February 1944 Embassy Counsellor Dr. Schumberg suggested a possible amnesty of Poles who had been taken to Auschwitz for trivial offenses and kept there for several months. This conference, if the Court please, is reported in the Frank diary and is contained in our Document 2233(bb)-PS, at Page 60 in the document book. It is the third quote on that page. I offer the original in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-295.

THE PRESIDENT: You go too fast. Did you say Page 70?

LT. COL. BALDWIN: Page 60, Sir. The German text appears in the loose-leaf volume covering the period 1 January 1944 to 28 February 1944, at the conference on 8 February 1944, on Page 7. I quote:

“The Governor General will take under consideration an amnesty probably for 1 May of this year. Nevertheless, one must not lose sight of the fact that the German leadership of the Government General must not now show any sign of weakness.”

This, then, was and is the conspirator Hans Frank. The evidence is by no means exhausted, but it is our belief that sufficient proof has been given to this Tribunal to establish his liability under Count One of the Indictment.

As legal adviser of Hitler and the Leadership Corps of the NSDAP, Defendant Frank promoted the conspirators’ rise to power. In his various juridical capacities, both in the NSDAP and in the German Government, Defendant Frank certainly advocated and promoted the political monopoly of the NSDAP, the racial program of the conspirators, and the terror system of the concentration camps and of arrest without warrant. His role, early in the Common Plan, was to realize “the National Socialist program in the realm of the law” and to give the outward form of legality to this program of terror, persecution, and oppression which had as its ultimate purpose mobilization for aggressive war.

As a loyal adherent of Hitler and the NSDAP, Defendant Frank was appointed Governor General in 1939 of that area of Poland known as the Government General. Defendant Frank had defined justice as that which benefited the German nation. His 5 years’ administration of the Government General illustrates the most extreme extension of that principle.

It has been shown that Defendant Frank took the office of Governor General under a program which constituted in itself a criminal plan or conspiracy, as Defendant Frank well knew and approved, to exploit the territory ruthlessly for the benefit of Nazi Germany, to conscript its nationals for labor in Germany, to close its schools and colleges, to prevent the rise of a Polish intelligentsia, and to administer the territory as a colonial possession of the Third Reich in total disregard of the duties of an occupying power towards the inhabitants of occupied territory.

Under Defendant Frank’s administration this criminal plan was consummated, but the execution went even beyond the plan. Food contributions to Germany increased to the point where the bare subsistence reserved for the Government General under the plan was reduced to a level of mass starvation. The savage program of exterminating Jews was relentlessly executed. Resettlement projects were carried out with reckless disregard of the rights of the local population and the terror of the concentration camp followed in the wake of the Nazi invaders.

This statement of evidence has been compiled in large part from statements by the Defendant Frank himself, from the admission found in his diary, official reports, reports of conferences with his colleagues and subordinates, and his speeches. It is therefore appropriate that a passage from his diary should be quoted in conclusion. It is our Document 2233(aa)-PS. It appears at Page 59 in the document book. I offer the original in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-613. The German text appears in the 1943 volume of labor conference meetings at the 25 January 1943 entry on Page 53. In his address Defendant Frank, prophetically enough, told his colleagues in the Government General that their task would grow more difficult. “Hitler”, he said, “could help them only as a kind of ‘administrative pill box.’ ” They must depend on themselves.

“We are now duty bound to hold together”—and I quote Frank—“We must remember that we who are gathered together here figure on Mr. Roosevelt’s list of war criminals. I have the honor of being Number One. We have, so to speak, become accomplices in the world historic sense.”

This concludes the presentation on the Defendant Frank.

May it please the Tribunal, Lieutenant Colonel Griffith-Jones of the British Delegation will now deal with the individual responsibility of the Defendant Streicher.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL M. C. GRIFFITH-JONES (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): If the Tribunal please, it is my duty to present the case against the Defendant Julius Streicher.

Appendix A of the Indictment, that paragraph of the Appendix relating to Streicher, sets out the positions which he held and which I shall prove. It then goes on to allege that he used those positions and his personal influence and his close connection with the Führer in such a manner that he promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of their control over Germany, as set forth in Count One of the Indictment; that 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.

My Lord, the case against this defendant can be, perhaps, described by the unofficial title that he assumed for himself as “Jew-baiter Number One.” It is the Prosecution’s case that for the course of some 25 years this man educated the whole of the German people in hatred and that he incited them to the persecution and to the extermination of the Jewish race. He was an accessory to murder, perhaps on a scale never attained before.

With the Tribunal’s permission I propose to prove quite shortly the position and influence that he held and then to refer the Tribunal to several short extracts from his newspapers and from his speeches and then to outline the part that he played in the particular persecutions that occurred against the Jews between the years 1933 and 1945.

My Lord, perhaps before I start, I might say that the document book before the members of the Tribunal is arranged in the order in which I intend to refer to the documents. They are paged and there is an index at the beginning of the book and if the Tribunal have got what is called the trial brief, it is in effect a note of the evidence to which I shall refer and again in the order in which I shall refer to it, which may be of some assistance.

My Lord, this defendant was born in 1885. He became a school teacher in Nuremberg and formed a party of his own, which he called the German Socialist Party. The chief policy of that party, again, was anti-Semitism. In 1922 he handed over his party to Hitler; and there is a glowing account of his generosity which appears in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which I do not think it worth occupying the time of the Tribunal in reading. It appears as Document M-3, and is the first document in the Tribunal’s document book. The copy of Mein Kampf is already before the Tribunal as Exhibit GB-128.

The appointments that he held in the Party and State were few. From 1921 until 1945 he was a member of the Nazi Party. In 1925 he was appointed Gauleiter of Franconia, and he remained as such until about February of 1940; and from the time that the Nazi Government came into power in 1933 until 1945, he was a member of the Reichstag. In addition to that he held the title of Obergruppenführer in the SA. All that information appears in Document 2975-PS, which is already exhibited as Exhibit Number USA-9, and is the affidavit that he made himself.

The propaganda that he carried out throughout those years was chiefly done through the medium of his newspapers. He was the editor and publisher of the paper called Der Stürmer, which was a weekly journal, from 1922 until 1933; and thereafter the publisher and owner of the paper.

In 1933 he also founded and thereafter, I think, published—certainly was responsible for—the daily newspaper called the Fränkische Tageszeitung.

There were, in addition to that and particularly later, several others, mostly local journals, that he published from Nuremberg.

Those are the positions that he held; and now if I may, I shall quite briefly trace the course of his incitement and propaganda more or less in chronological order by referring the Tribunal to the short extracts. I would say this: These extracts are really selected at random. They are selected with a view to showing the Tribunal the various methods that he employed to incite the people against the Jewish race; but his newspapers are crowded with them, week after week, day after day. It is impossible to pick up any copy without finding the same kind of stuff in the headlines and in the articles.

If I might quote from four speeches and articles showing his early activities from 1922 until 1933—at Page 3 of the Tribunal’s document book, Document M-11—that is an extract from a speech that he made in 1922 in Nuremberg, and—after abusing the Jews in the first paragraph—I refer only to the last two lines: “We know that Germany will be free when the Jew has been excluded from the life of the German people.”

I pass to the next document, which is M-12, on Page 4. The first document was Exhibit GB-165. That is the book, I understand, that is being given that number, so that the next document, which is taken from the same book, will be the same. Perhaps I might be allowed to read that short extract. It is an extract from a speech:

“I beg you and particularly those of you who carry the cross throughout the land, to become somewhat more serious when I speak of the enemy of the German people, namely, the Jew. Not out of irresponsibility or for fun do I fight against the Jewish enemy, but because I bear within me the knowledge that the whole misfortune was brought to Germany by the Jews alone.

“. . . I ask you once more, what is at stake today? The Jew seeks domination not only among the German people but among all peoples. The Communists pave the way for him. . . . Do you not know that the God of the Old Testament ordered the Jews to devour and enslave the peoples of the earth? . . .

“The Government allows the Jew to do as he pleases. The people expect action to be taken. . . . You may think about Adolf Hitler as you please, but one thing you must admit. He possessed the courage to attempt to free the German people from the Jew by a national revolution. That was a great deed.”

The next short extract appearing on the next page is taken from a speech in April of 1925:

“You must realize that the Jew wants our people to perish. . . . That is why you must join us and leave those who have brought you nothing but war and inflation and discord. For thousands of years the Jew has been destroying the nations.”

I ask the Tribunal to note now these last few words:

“Let us start today, so that we can annihilate the Jews.”

My Lord, so far as I have been able to find, that is the earliest expression of annihilation of the Jewish race. Perhaps it gave birth to what was 14 years later to become the official policy of the Nazi Government.

And one further passage from this period. This is in April 1932, Document M-14, taken from the same book. He starts by saying, “For 13 years I have fought against Jewry.” I quote the last paragraph only:

“We know that the Jew, whether he is baptized as a Protestant or as a Catholic, remains a Jew. Why can you not realize this, you Protestant clergymen, you Catholic priests! You are blinded and serve the God of the Jews who is not the God of love but the God of hate. Why do you not listen to Christ, who said to the Jews, ‘You are the children of the Devil.’ ”

That, then, was the kind of performance he was putting up during those early years. When the Nazi Party came to power, they officially started their campaign against the Jews by the boycott of 1 April 1933. Now, of that boycott the Tribunal have already had evidence; and I would do no more now than to remind the Tribunal in a word what happened.

The boycott was agreed on and approved of by the whole Government, as was shown in a document which is already before you, Document 2409-PS, Exhibit Number USA-262, which was Goebbels’ diary.

Streicher was appointed the chairman of the central committee for the organization of that boycott, which appears in Document 2156-PS, Exhibit Number USA-263. It was then said that he started his work on Wednesday, the 29th.

On that same day the central committee issued a proclamation in which they said that the boycott would start on Saturday at 10:00 a. m. sharp. “Jewry will realize whom it has challenged.” That short quotation appears in Document 3389-PS, which is USA-566, which is a volume—in actual fact, it is a copy of Der Stürmer which is already before the Court.

I would refer the Tribunal to one short passage from an article in the Nationalsozialistische Partei Korrespondenz which the defendant wrote on the 30th of March, before the boycott was due to start. It is Document 2153-PS and appears on Page 12 of the Tribunal’s book, which becomes Exhibit GB-166. There he writes, under the title, “Defeat the enemy of the world!—by Julius Streicher, official leader of the central committee to combat the Jewish atrocity and boycott campaign.”:

“Jewry wanted this battle. It shall have it until it realizes that the Germany of the brown battalions is not a country of cowardice and surrender. Jewry will have to fight until we have won victory.

“National Socialists! Defeat the enemy of the world. Even if the world is full of devils, we shall succeed in the end.”

As head of the central committee for that boycott, Streicher outlined in detail the organization of the boycott in orders which the committee published on the 31st of March 1933, which is the next document in the book, Document 2154-PS, Exhibit GB-167. I can summarize those.

The committee stressed that no violence is to be employed against the Jews on the occasion of that boycott, but not perhaps for humane reasons; it is because, if there is no violence employed, then Jewish employers will have no grounds for discharging their employees without notice; and they will have no ground for refusing to pay them any wages.

The Jews were also reported apparently to be transferring businesses to German figureheads in order to alleviate the results of this persecution, and the committee laid it down that any property to be transferred was to be considered as Jewish for the purpose of the boycott.

I do not think I need go into that any further. It does show that at that date he was taking a leading part, and a leading part as appointed by the Government, in the persecution of the Jews.

I would now refer the Court again to a few further extracts to show the form that this propaganda developed as the years went on. At Page 18 of the document book, Document M-20, we have an article in the New Year’s issue of a new paper that he had just founded. It was a semi-medical paper called German People’s Health Through Blood and Soil, edited by himself; and it is an example of the really remarkable lengths to which he went in putting over this propaganda against the Jews. I quote:

“For the initiated it is established for all time: ‘alien albumen’ is the sperm of a man of alien race. The male sperm in cohabitation is partially or completely absorbed by the female, and thus enters her bloodstream. One single cohabitation of a Jew with an Aryan woman is sufficient to poison her blood forever. Together with the ‘alien albumen’ she has absorbed the alien soul. Never again will she be able to bear purely Aryan children, even when married to an Aryan. They will all be bastards, with a dual soul and a body of a mixed breed. Their children, too, will be crossbreeds; that means, ugly people of unsteady character and with a tendency to illnesses. . . .

“Now we know why the Jew uses every artifice of seduction in order to ravish German girls at as early an age as possible; why the Jewish doctor rapes his female patients while they are under anaesthesia. . . . He wants the German girl and the German woman to absorb the alien sperm of the Jew. She is never again to bear German children!

“But the blood products of all animal organisms right down to bacteria, thus serum, lymph, extracts from internal organs, et cetera, are also ‘alien albumen.’ They have a poisonous effect if directly introduced into the bloodstream either by vaccination or by injection.

“The worst is that by these products of sick animals the blood is defiled, the Aryan is impregnated with an alien species.

“The author and abettor of such action is the Jew. He has been aware of the secrets of the race question for centuries, and therefore plans systematically the annihilation of the nations which are superior to him. Science and ‘authorities’ are his instruments for the enforcing of pseudoscience and the concealment of truth.”

That becomes, My Lord, Exhibit GB-168.

The next document, also at the beginning of 1935, an extract from his own paper Der Stürmer, is entitled “The Chosen People of the Criminals”:

“And all the same, or let us say, just because of this, the history book of the Jews, which is usually called the Holy Scriptures, impresses us as a horrible criminal romance, which makes the 150 shilling-shockers of the British Jew, Edgar Wallace, grow pale with envy. This ‘holy’ book abounds in murder, incest, fraud, theft, and indecency.”

On the 4th of October 1935—and the Tribunal will remember that that was the month after the Nuremberg Decrees had been made—he made a speech which is reported in the Völkischer Beobachter and is entitled in that newspaper, “Safeguard of German Blood and German Honor.” I read the report in that article: “Gauleiter Streicher speaks at a German Labor Front mass demonstration for the Nuremberg laws.” Then the first line of the actual article says that he spoke for the second time within a few weeks. I quote only the last two lines of that first large paragraph: “. . . we have therefore to unmask the Jew, and that is what I have been doing for the past 15 years.” That remark apparently was met with tempestuous applause. That document, M-34, becomes Exhibit GB-169.

And, My Lord, I think it unnecessary to quote from the next document in the Tribunal’s book. It is very much the same type of thing. On Page 22 of the document book, Document M-6, there is a leading article by Streicher in his Der Stürmer of which I would refer only to the last half of the last paragraph where again he emphasizes the part that he himself has taken in this campaign.

“The Stürmer’s 15 years of work of enlightenment has already led an army of initiated—millions strong—to National Socialism. The continued work of Der Stürmer will help to ensure that every German down to the last man will, with heart and hand, join the ranks of those whose aim it is to crush the head of the serpent Pan-Juda beneath their heels. He who helps to bring this about helps to eliminate the devil, and this devil is the Jew.”

That document becomes Exhibit GB-170.

The next document—I include it in the document book again only to show the extraordinary length to which he went in his propaganda; and it consists of a photograph of the burning hull of the airship Hindenburg when it went on fire in June 1937 in America. Underneath it the caption includes the comment:

“The first radio picture from the United States of America shows quite clearly that a Jew stands behind the explosion of our airship Hindenburg. Nature has depicted quite clearly and quite correctly that devil in human guise.”

And although it is not at all clear from that photograph, I think the meaning of that comment is that the cloud of smoke in the air is in the shape of a Jewish face.

On the next page Document M-4 is a speech he made in September 1937 at the opening of a bridge in Nuremberg. I will quote only the last paragraph on Page 24. The bridge in question is called the Wilhelm Gustloff bridge, and he says:

“The man who murdered Wilhelm Gustloff must have come from the Jewish people, because the Jewish textbooks teach that every Jew has the right to kill a non-Jew; and indeed, that it is pleasing to the Jewish God to kill as many non-Jews as possible.

“Look at the road the Jewish people have been following for thousands of years past; everywhere murder, everywhere mass murder! Neither must we forget that behind present-day wars there stands the Jewish financier who pursues his aims and interests. The Jew always lives on the blood of other nations; he needs such murder and such victims. For us who know, the murder of Wilhelm Gustloff is the same as ritual murder.”

And then on the next page:

“It is our duty to tell the children at school and the bigger ones what this memorial means. . . .”

I go to the next paragraph:

“The Jew no longer shows himself among us openly as he used to. But it would be wrong to say that victory is ours. Full and final victory will have been achieved only when the whole world is rid of Jews.”

That becomes Exhibit GB-171.

Now the next two documents in your document books are simply extracts from the correspondence columns of his Der Stürmer, showing again one of the methods he employed in this propaganda. I do not need to read them. The correspondence columns of all his issues are full of letters coming in from Germans saying that some German has been buying her shoes from a Jewish shop and so on, and in that way assisting in the general boycott of the Jews. In other words, they really are a weekly column of libels against the Jews all over Germany.

I pass then to another and particular form of propaganda that he employed and which he called “ritual murder.” The Tribunal may well remember that some years ago—I think it started in 1934—this Der Stürmer began publishing accounts of Jewish ritual murder which horrified the whole world to such an extent that even the Archbishop of Canterbury eventually wrote to the Times protesting, as indeed did people from every country in the world, protesting that any Government should allow matter like this to be published in their national newspapers.

He takes his ritual murder, I understand, from a medieval belief that during their Eastertide celebrations the Jews were in the habit of murdering Christian children; and he enlarges upon this and misrepresents this belief, this medieval belief, to show that not only did they do it in the Middle Ages, but that they are still doing it and still want to do it. And if I might just quote one or two passages from his newspapers and show one or two pictures which he published in connection with his campaign of ritual murder, it will illustrate to the Court the type of teaching and propaganda that he was putting up. On Page 29 of the Tribunal’s document book, I will quote from the third but last paragraph:

“This the French front-line soldier should take with him to France: The German people have taken a new lease on life. They want peace, but if anybody should attack them, if anyone should try to torture them again, to throw them back into the past, then the world would witness another heroic epic; then may Heaven decide where righteousness lies—here with us, or where the Jew has the whiphand and where he instigates massacres, one could almost say the biggest ritual murders of all times. If the German people are to be slaughtered according to the Jewish rites, the whole world will be thus slaughtered at the same time.”

And the last paragraph:

“Just as you have drummed morning and evening prayers into your children’s heads, so now drum this into their heads, so that the German people may gain the spiritual power to convince the rest of the world which the Jews desire to lead against us.”

That Document is M-2, Exhibit GB-172.

And on the following page of the document book there is a reproduction of a photograph taken from Der Stürmer of April 1937 which illustrates three Jews ritually murdering a girl by cutting her throat and shows the blood pouring out into a bucket on the ground. The caption underneath that photograph is as follows:

“Ritual Murder at Polna. Ritual murder of Agnes Hruza by the Jews Hilsner, Erdmann, and Wassermann (taken from a contemporary postcard.)”

That is Exhibit Number USA-258. It is already in a copy of Der Stürmer, which has been put in.

There appears on the next page of the document book an extract from that same Der Stürmer, April 1937. I will not read it now, because it has been put in and has all been read to the Court. It describes what happens when ritual murder takes place, and the blood is mixed with the bread and drunk by the Jews having their feast. The Tribunal will remember that during the feast the head of the family exclaims, “May all gentiles perish—as the child whose blood is contained in the bread and wine.”

That is already Exhibit Number USA-258, and it has been read in the transcript at Page 1437 (Volume III, Pages 522, 523).

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a good time to break off?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: If My Lordship pleases.

[A recess was taken until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: May it please the Tribunal, if I might just refer to two further copies of Der Stürmer on the subject of “ritual murder,” the first of which appears on Page 32 of the document book, 2700-PS. It is the copy in Exhibit USA-260. It is an article in Der Stürmer for July 1938:

“Whoever has had the occasion to be an eyewitness to the ritualistic slaughtering of animals or at least to see a truthful film on this method of slaughtering will never forget this gruesome experience. It is horrifying. And instinctively he is reminded of the crimes which the Jews have committed for centuries on human beings. He will be reminded of the ritual murder. History offers hundreds of cases in which non-Jewish children were tortured to death by Jews. They, too, received the same gash in the throat as is found on ritualistically slaughtered animals. They, too, were slowly bled to death while fully conscious.”

My Lord, on special occasions, or when he had some particular subject matter to put before the world, he was in the habit of issuing special editions of his newspaper Der Stürmer. Ritual murder was such a special subject that he issued one of these special editions dealing solely with it. The Tribunal will have a photostatic copy of the complete issue for May 1939.

Now I have not attempted to have translated all, or indeed any, of the articles which appear in that edition. It is perhaps sufficient to look at the pictures, the illustrations, and for me to read the captions which appear underneath the photographs; and I regret the translations of the captions have not been attached to the Tribunal’s copy but perhaps I may be permitted to refer to the pictures and read the captions for the Tribunal.

The pages are marked in red pencil on the right-hand corner. On Page 1 I see a picture of a child having knives stuck into its side, blood spurting from it, and below the pedestal on which it stands are five presumably dead children lying on the ground. The caption to that picture is as follows:

“In the year 1476 the Jews in Regensburg murdered six boys. They drew their blood and tortured them to death. In an underground vault which belonged to the Jew Josfol, the judges found the bodies of the murdered boys. A bloodstained earthen bowl stood on an altar.”

On the next page there are two pictures, and the captions explain them. The one at the top left-hand corner:

“For the Jewish New Year celebrations in 1913, World Jewry published this picture as a postcard. On the Jewish New Year and on the Day of Atonement the Jews slaughter a so-called ‘kapores cock,’ that is to say, dead cock, whose blood and death is intended to purify the Jews. In 1913 the ‘kapores cock’ had the head of the Russian Czar Nicholas II. By publishing this postcard the Jews intended to say that Nicholas II would be their next political purifying sacrifice. On the 16th of July 1918 the Czar was murdered by the Jews Jurovsky and Goloschtschekin.”

The picture at the bottom of the page, again, has a Jew holding a similar bird:

“The ‘kapores cock’ has the head of the Führer. The Hebrew script says that one day Jews will ‘kill all Hitlerites.’ Then they, the Jews, will be delivered from all misfortunes. But in due course the Jews will realize that they have reckoned without an Adolf Hitler.”

The next page of the newspaper contains reproductions of a lot of previous articles on ritual murder, with a picture of the Defendant Julius Streicher at the top.

On the fourth page, a picture at the bottom of the right-hand corner has the caption:

“Jew at the Passover Meal. The wine and matzoth,”—unleavened bread—“contain non-Jewish blood. The Jew ‘prays’ before the meal. He ‘prays’ for death to all non-Jews.”

On the fifth page are reproductions from some of the European and American newspaper articles and letters which had been received by those newspapers during the course of the last years in protest to this propaganda on the subject of ritual murder, and in the center of it you will see the letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury written to the editor of the Times in protest.

On the next page, Page 6, is another ghastly picture of a man having his throat cut—again the usual spurt of blood falling into a basin on the floor—and the caption to that is as follows:

“The Ritual Murder of the Boy Heinrich. In the year 1345 the Jews in Munich slaughtered a non-Jewish boy. The martyr was beatified by the Church.”

On Page 7 appears a picture representing three ritual murders. On Page 8 there is another photo-picture:

“St. Gabriel. This boy was crucified and tortured to death by the Jews in the year 1690. The blood was drawn from him.”

I think we can pass Page 9 and Page 10.

On Page 11 there is shown a piece of sculpture which appears on the wall of the Wallfahrts Chapel in Wesel and it represents the ritual murder of a boy, Werner. It is a somewhat disgusting picture of the boy strung up by his feet and being murdered by two Jews.

Page 12 reproduces another picture taken from the same place. The caption is:

“The Embalmed Body of ‘Simon of Trent’ Who Was Tortured to Death by the Jews.”

Page 13 has another picture—somebody else having a knife stuck into him, more blood coming out into a basin.

On Page 14 are two pictures. The one at the top is said to be the ritual murder of the boy Andreas, and the one at the bottom is the picture of a tombstone, the caption of which reads as follows:

“The Tombstone of Hilsner. This is the memorial to a Jewish ritual murderer, Leopold Hilsner. He was found guilty of two ritual murders and was condemned in two trials to death by hanging. The emperor was bribed and pardoned him. Masaryk, the friend of the Jews, liberated him from penal servitude in 1918. Even on his tombstone lying Jewry calls this two-fold murderer an innocent victim.”

The next page again reproduces the picture of a woman being murdered by having her throat cut in the same way; and perhaps I might refer to Page 17, which reproduces a picture of the Archbishop of Canterbury and a picture of an old Jewish man, and the caption says:

“Dr. Lang, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Highest Dignitary of the English Church. His ally, a typical example of the Jewish race.”

The last page, Page 18, reproduces a picture called, “St. Simon of Trent, Who Was Tortured to Death.”

My Lord, it is my submission that that document is nothing but an incitement to the people of Germany who read it, an incitement to murder. It is filled with pictures of murder, murder alleged to be against the German people, and is an encouragement to all who read it to revenge themselves, and to revenge themselves in the same way. That document, M-10, becomes Exhibit GB-173.

DR. HANNS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): The Defendant Julius Streicher has just called my attention to the fact that he has not been given the opportunity to prove from where these pictures, which the Prosecution referred to just now, were taken. It is, in the opinion of the Defense, necessary that the origin of these pictures should be made clear to the Tribunal; otherwise one might think that these pictures had been especially borrowed for Der Stürmer from some obscure source. The Defendant Streicher, however, points out that these pictures came from recognized historical sources. I should therefore like to suggest that the Prosecution make this material also available. I think that the articles of Der Stürmer which have been referred to must show what the sources are from which Streicher was supplied.

THE PRESIDENT: Do the articles show the sources? Do the articles themselves indicate the sources?

DR. MARX: Yes.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I should have said so. There wasn’t any intention to misrepresent the matter, that these pictures are taken from original pictures. These were not invented by the newspaper, and in some cases the sources are shown in the caption. This is a collection of medieval pictures and frescoes dealing with this matter. In actual fact the papers show in almost all cases where they come from.

DR. MARX: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: You have already given us the dates of them, which indicated they were medieval.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That is so. My Lord, in January 1938—and it will be remembered that in 1938 the persecution of the Jews became more and more severe—in January 1938, for some reason or other, another special issue of Der Stürmer was published. If the Tribunal would look at Page 34 of their document book I will quote a short passage from the leading article in that paper—an article written by the defendant:

“The supreme aim and highest task of the State is therefore to preserve People, Blood, and Race. But if this is the supreme task, any crime against this law must be punished with the supreme penalty. Der Stürmer takes therefore the view that there are only two punishments for the crime of polluting the race: 1. Long-term penal servitude for attempted race pollution. 2. Death for the completed crime.”

And again, indeed if it is now still necessary to show the type of paper this was, if the Tribunal will turn over to the next page they will see the headlines set out for some of the articles that are contained in that edition:

“Jewish Race Polluters at Work.”

“Fifteen-Year-Old Non-Jewess Violated.”

“A Dangerous Race Polluter. He regards German women as fair game for himself.”

“The Jewish Sanatorium. A Jewish institution for the cultivation of race pollution.”

“Rape of a Feeble-Minded Girl.”

“The Jewish Butler. He steals from his Jewish masters and commits race pollution.”

The copy of that paper is already in as Exhibit USA-260.

On the next page of the document book I will quote only the last two lines. It is an article appearing in Der Stürmer; and it is true that it is not an article actually written by the Defendant Streicher but by his then editor, Karl Holz:

“Revenge will break loose one day and will exterminate Jewry from the face of the earth.”

And again on Page 37, in September 1938, Der Stürmer has written an article in which the last two lines read as follows:

“. . . a parasite, a mischief maker, an evil-doer, a disseminator of disease, who must be destroyed in the interest of mankind.”

It is my submission to the Tribunal that this is no longer propaganda for the persecution of the Jews; this is propaganda for the extermination of Jews, for the murder not of one man but of millions.

The next document in the document book, on Page 38, has already been put in evidence and read to the Tribunal. It is Exhibit USA-260. It appears in the document book and was read into the transcript at Page 1438 (Volume III, Page 523). This is a short article appearing in December 1938, Number 50 of Der Stürmer.

I would draw the Tribunal’s attention to the next document which is a picture taken from that same copy. It shows the upper part of a girl’s body being strangled by the arms of a man with his hands around her neck and the shadow of the man’s face is shown against the background, quite obviously with Jewish features. The caption under that picture is as follows:

“Castration for Race Polluters. Only heavy penalties will preserve our womenfolk from a tighter grip from the loathsome Jewish claws. The Jews are our misfortune.”

I pause for the moment from Der Stürmer to a particular incident that occurred, in which the Defendant Streicher took a leading part. It will be remembered that the organized demonstrations against the Jews took place the 9th and 10th of November 1938. All this propaganda, as I say, was becoming fiercer and more ferocious. In the autumn of that year the Defendant Streicher organized the breaking up of the Nuremberg synagogues on the occasion of a meeting of press representatives in Nuremberg. That incident has in fact been referred to previously in this case and the documents in connection with it are 1724-PS, which were put in as Exhibit USA-266 and were referred to and read in the transcript at Page 1443 (Volume III, Page 526).

Gauleiter Julius Streicher was personally to set the crane in motion with which the Jewish symbols were to be torn down from the synagogue. From another document which also was put in, 2711-PS, which became USA-267, and also was read in the transcript at Page 1443 (Volume III, Page 526), I quote two lines:

“. . . the Synagogue is demolished! Julius Streicher himself inaugurates the work by a speech lasting an hour and a half. By his order then—so to speak as a prelude of the demolition—the tremendous Star of David came off the cupola.”

The defendant, of course, took active part in the November demonstrations of that year. I do not suggest that he was responsible for the idea of them. The evidence against him is confined only to the part that he took in his Gau in Franconia.

On Page 43 of the document book, Document M-42 is an account of the Nuremberg demonstrations as they were reported in the Fränkische Tageszeitung, which of course was his paper, on the 11th of November. I quote:

“In Nuremberg and Fürth there were demonstrations by the crowd against the Jewish murderers. These lasted until the early hours of the morning. Long enough had one watched the doings of the Jews in Germany.”

And then I go to the last three lines of that paragraph:

“After midnight the excitement of the populace reached its peak and a large crowd marched to the synagogues in Nuremberg and Fürth and burned these two Jewish buildings where the murder of Germans had been preached.

“The fire brigades, which had been notified immediately, saw to it that the fire was confined to the original outbreak. The windows of the Jewish shopkeepers, who still had not given up hope of selling their rubbish to the stupid Gojim, were smashed. Thanks to the disciplined behaviour of the SA-men and the police, who rushed to the scene, there was no plundering.”

That becomes Exhibit GB-174.

The following document in the document book is the report of Streicher’s speech on the 10th of November, the day of the demonstration. I will quote from two paragraphs on that page—or rather, starting in the middle of the first paragraph:

“From the cradle the Jew is not taught, as we are, such texts as ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’ or ‘Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.’ No, he is told ‘With the non-Jew you can do whatever you like.’ He is even taught that the slaughtering of a non-Jew is an act pleasing to God. For 20 years we have been writing about this in Der Stürmer; for 20 years we have been preaching it throughout the world, and we have made millions recognize the truth.”

I go to the last paragraph:

“The Jew slaughtered in one night 75,000 Persians; when he emigrated from Egypt he killed all the first-born, that is, a whole future generation of Egyptians. What would have happened if the Jew had succeeded in driving the nations into war against us, and if we had lost the war? The Jew, protected by foreign bayonets, would have fallen on us and would have slaughtered and murdered us. Never forget what history teaches.”

My Lord, after the November demonstrations irregularities occurred in the Gau of Franconia in connection with the organized Aryanization of Jewish property. Aryanization of Jewish property was, of course, regulated by the State; and under a decree it had been laid down that the proceeds, or any proceeds that there might be, from taking over Jewish properties and giving them to Aryans—all such proceeds were to go to the State. What apparently happened in Franconia was that a good deal of the proceeds never found their way as far as the State, and as a result Göring set up a commission to investigate what had taken place. We have the report of that commission, and I would refer the Tribunal to certain short passages in it. On Page 45, we see from that report exactly what had been taking place in this Defendant Streicher’s Gau. I quote from the paragraph, opposite where it says “Page 13”. . .

DR. MARX: As proof of the irregularities which occurred in connection with the Aryanization in Nuremberg after the 9th of November, the prosecutor intends to quote a report which the Deputy Gauleiter Holz made when he was interrogated before the examining commission. I wish to protest against making use of this report. Between Streicher and the Deputy Gauleiter Holz there existed real tension if not enmity. The Deputy Gauleiter Holz was the very person responsible for the measures of Aryanization. It is not at all proved that Streicher had agreed to these measures being undertaken. It is rather to be assumed that Holz, in order to cover himself, made statements here which he himself could not answer for if he were to appear here as witness today. Therefore, in this report of Holz it is a question of statements made by a man who was deeply involved in this matter, a man who participated in these deeds, and a man who was an enemy of the Defendant Streicher. Holz incriminated Streicher because Streicher did not protect him in front of the commission and from the then Minister President Göring. Therefore I do not think that this report should be used.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you said what you wished to say?

DR. MARX: Yes, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that this document, being an official document, is admissible under Article 21 and that the objections which you have made to it are not objections which go to its admissibility as evidence but go to its weight; and as to that, you will have an opportunity to develop your objections at a later stage when you come to speak. The Tribunal rules that the document is admissible.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I read from the center of that Page 45 of the document book:

“After the November demonstrations the Deputy Gauleiter Holz took up the Jewish question. His reasons can be given here in detail on the basis of his statement of 25th March 1939:

“The 9th and 10th of November 1938. During the night of the 9th to the 10th of November and on the 10th of November 1938, events took place throughout Germany which I”—and I emphasize that that is Holz speaking—“considered to be the signal for a completely different treatment of the Jewish question in Germany. Synagogues and Jewish schools were burnt down and Jewish property was smashed both in shops and in private houses. Besides this, a large number of prominent Jews were taken to concentration camps by the police. Towards midday we discussed these events in the Gauleiter’s house. All of us were of the opinion that we now faced a completely new state of affairs on the Jewish question. By the great action against the Jews carried out in the night and morning of the 10th of November all precedents and all laws on this subject had been made meaningless. We were of the opinion (particularly I myself) that we should now act on our own initiative in this respect. I proposed to the Gauleiter that in view of the great existing lack of housing the best thing would be to put the Jews into a kind of internment camp. Then the houses would become free at once; and the housing shortage would be relieved, at least in part. Besides that, we should have the Jews under control and supervision! I added ‘The same thing happened to our prisoners of war and war internees.’

“The Gauleiter said that this suggestion was for the time being unfeasible. Thereupon I made a new proposal to him. I said to him that I considered it unthinkable that, after the Jews had had their property smashed, they should still be able to own houses and land. I proposed that these houses and this land ought to be taken away from them, and declared myself ready to carry through such an action. I declared that by the Aryanization of Jewish land and houses a large sum could accrue to the Gau out of the proceeds. I named some millions of marks. I stated that, in my opinion, this Aryanization could be carried out as legally as the Aryanization of shops. The Gauleiter’s answer was something to this effect: ‘If you think you can carry this out, do so. The sum gained will then be used to build a Gau school.’ ”

I go down now to where it says “Page 18”:

“The Aryanization was accomplished by the alienation of properties, the surrender of claims, especially mortgage claims, and reductions in buying price.

“The payment allowed the Jews was basically 10 percent of the nominal value or nominal sum of the claim. As a justification for these low prices, Holz claimed, at the Berlin meeting of the 6th of February 1939, that the Jews had mostly bought their property during the inflation period for less than a tenth of its value. As has been shown by investigating a large number of individual cases selected at random, this claim is not true.”

My Lord, I would turn to Page 48 of the document book, which appears in the second part of this report, and that part of the report is really the part containing the findings of the commission. I quote from the top of the page, Page 48 of the document book . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Is this still part of the report?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: This is still part of the report. It is, in fact, as I say, the findings of the commission.

“Gauleiter Streicher likes to beat people with a riding whip but only if he is in the company of several persons assisting him. In most cases the beatings are carried out with sadistic brutality.

“The best known case is that of Steinruck, whom he beat in the prison cell until the blood came, together with Deputy Gauleiter Holz and SA Oberführer König. After returning from this scene to the Deutscher Hof he said, ‘Now I am relieved. I needed that again!’ Later he also stated several times that he needed another Steinruck case in order to ‘relieve’ himself.

“In August 1938 he beat the editor Burker at the Gauhaus together with District Office Leader Schöller and his adjutant, König.”

To show the authority and power that he held in his Gau, I refer to the last paragraph on that page:

“According to reports of reliable witnesses, Gauleiter Streicher is in the habit of pointing out on the most varied occasions that he alone gives orders in the district of Franconia. For instance, at a meeting in the Colosseum in Nuremberg in 1935 he said that nobody could remove him from office. In a meeting at Herkules Hall, where he described how he had beaten Professor Steinruck, he emphasized that he would not let himself be beaten by anybody, not even by an Adolf Hitler. . . .

“For, this also must be stated here, in Franconia the Gau acts first and then orders the absolutely powerless authorities to approve.”

My Lord, both of those volumes of that report, Document 1757-PS, will become Exhibit GB-175.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal isn’t altogether satisfied that that has any bearing on the case against Streicher.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, it is the object of that document to show the kind of treatment and persecution which the Jews were receiving in the district or Gau over which this defendant ruled and, secondly, to show the absolute authority with which this defendant acted in his district. That is the purpose of that document.

As a result either of that investigation or of some other matter the defendant was relieved of his position as Gauleiter in February 1940, but he did not cease from his propaganda or from the control of his newspaper. I would only quote one further short extract from Der Stürmer. An article written by him on the 4th of November 1943, which appears in the document book on Page 53, is Document 1965-PS and becomes Exhibit GB-176; and it is an extract of importance:

“It is actually true that the Jews have so to speak disappeared from Europe and that the Jewish ‘Reservoir of the East,’ from which the Jewish pestilence has for centuries beset the peoples of Europe, has ceased to exist. But the Führer of the German people at the beginning of the war prophesied what has now come to pass.”

My Lord, that article was signed by Streicher, and it is my submission that it shows that he had knowledge of what was going on in the East, of which this Court has had such evidence. That was written November 1943. In April ’43, the Tribunal will remember, the Warsaw ghetto was destroyed. Between April 1942 and April 1944, 1,700,000-odd Jews were killed in Auschwitz and Dachau—I quote now from the transcript—and throughout the whole of that period millions of Jews were to die. It is my submission that that article appearing on the 4th of November and signed by him shows that he knew what was happening, perhaps not the details, but that he knew that the Jews were being exterminated.

I leave Der Stürmer and I would draw the attention of the Tribunal quite shortly to a matter which is perhaps as evil as any other aspect of this man’s activity, and that is the particular attention that he paid to the instruction—if you can call it that—or the perversion of the children and the youth of Germany. He was not content with inciting the German population. He seized the children as early as he could at their schools, and he started to poison their minds at the earliest possible date. Already in some of the extracts to which I have referred, the Tribunal will remember that there are mentions of children and the need for teaching them anti-Semitism. I refer now to Page 54 of the document book, and I would quote four or five lines from the last paragraph, starting in the middle of the last paragraph. It is a report of a speech by Streicher as early as June 1925, when he says:

“I repeat, we demand the transformation of the school into an ethno-German institution of education. If German children are taught by German teachers, then we shall have laid the foundations for the ethno-German school. This ethno-German school must teach racial doctrine.”

I now go to the last line of the first paragraph on the following page:

“We demand, therefore, the introduction of racial doctrine into the school.”

That is in a copy of Der Stürmer which has already been put in. It is Exhibit GB-165 (Document M-30).

The following Document, M-43, is an extract from the Fränkische Tageszeitung of the 19th of March 1934, when he addressed the pupils at a girls’ school at Preisslerstrasse after their finishing their vocational course. He was continually holding children’s meetings and attending children’s schools. I quote the third paragraph:

“Then Julius Streicher spoke about his life and told them about a girl who had at one time been a pupil of his and who had fallen a victim to a Jew and was finished for the rest of her life.”

I need not read the rest. It is all in the same tone. That becomes Exhibit GB-177.

Every summer they celebrated in Nuremberg what they called their solstice celebration, some pagan rite where the youth of Nuremberg rallied—organized or at least encouraged by the Defendant Streicher.

On Page 58 of the document book is a report taken from his paper, Fränkische Tageszeitung, of his speech to the Hitler Youth on what they called the “Holy Mountain” near Nuremberg, on the 22d of June 1935.

“Boys and girls, look back a little more than 10 years ago. A great war—the World War—had raged over the peoples of the earth and had left in the end a heap of ruins. Only one people remained victorious in that dreadful war, a people of whom Christ said that its father is the Devil. That people had ruined the German Nation in body and soul. At that time Adolf Hitler, an unknown man, arose from among the people and became a voice which proclaimed a holy war and struggle. He cried to the people to take courage again and to rise and join in liberating the German people from the Devil, so that mankind might again be free from that race which has roamed the globe for centuries and millennia, marked with the brand of Cain.

“Boys and girls, even if it is said that the Jews were once the chosen people do not believe it, but believe us when we say that the Jews are not a chosen people. Because it cannot be that a chosen people should act among the peoples as the Jews do today.”

And so on, with similar kind of propaganda. That Document, M-1, will be Exhibit GB-178.

The next Document, M-44, from which I will not read now, becomes Exhibit GB-179. The Tribunal will see that it was a report of Streicher’s address to 2,000 children at Nuremberg at Christmastime 1936. Underlined it says:

“ ‘Do you know who the Devil is?’ he asked his breathlessly listening audience. ‘The Jew, the Jew,’ resounded from a thousand children’s voices.”

But he wasn’t content only with writing and talking. He actually issued a book for teachers, a book which he published from his Der Stürmer offices, called The Jewish Question and School Instruction.

I have not had the whole of that book translated. It is addressed to school teachers. It is intended for their benefit, and it emphasizes the necessity of anti-Semitic teaching in schools, and it suggests ways in which the subject can be introduced and handled.

On Page 60 of the document book, M-46, the Tribunal will see a few extracts which have been taken from that book. The preface part of it is as follows:

“The National Socialist State has brought fundamental changes into all spheres of life of the German people.

“It has also presented the German teacher with new duties. The National Socialist State demands that its teachers instruct German children on racial questions. As far as the German people is concerned the racial question is a Jewish question. Those who want to teach the child about the Jew must themselves have a thorough knowledge of the subject.”

I will quote from the paragraph opposite “Page 5” in the margin. The whole of the rest of the extracts are really suggestions for teachers as to how to introduce the Jewish subject into their teaching, and at Page 5 of the introduction:

“Racial and Jewish questions are the fundamental problems of the National Socialist ideology. The solution of these problems will secure the existence of National Socialism and with this the existence of our nation for all time. The enormous significance of the racial question is recognized almost without exception today by all the German people. In order to come to this realization, our people had to travel through a long road of suffering.”

DR. MARX: I should like to point out the following: The prosecutor omitted in his presentation to state that the book he referred to was not written by the Defendant Streicher but by the school inspector Fink. If the prosecutor had read the next sentence, the Tribunal would have known about this fact. My client has called my attention to this point. I noticed it myself also because the next sentence reads as follows:

“Schulrat Fritz Fink desires to help German teachers on the road to information and knowledge with his book: The Jewish Question in the Schools.”

There can thus be no doubt that this School Inspector Fink is the author of the book. It is, after all, an essential thing to know that Fink and not Streicher was the author of this book.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished what you wish to say?

DR. MARX: Yes; that is what I wanted to say.

THE PRESIDENT: I would point out to you that although the book does appear to have been written by Fritz Fink, which is stated in the paragraph at the top, it has a preface by Streicher, so we may presume that Streicher authorized it; and it was published and printed by Der Stürmer.

DR. MARX: That is correct. I just wanted to point out to the Tribunal that it did not appear to be understood, that just that particular sentence was not read. One might have thought that an original work of Streicher’s was concerned, in which case the question of whether Streicher agreed with that work would appear of minor importance.

THE PRESIDENT: But you see, Dr. Marx, counsel was reading actually from the preface by Streicher. The last passage that he read, or almost the last, was the preface by Streicher. The last passage I have got marked is the passage on Page 60, which is headed “Preface” and is signed by Julius Streicher, which says in terms that the book was written by School Inspector Fritz Fink.

Let us not take any further time about it.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I think I have reached. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Will you read the last words of that preface on Page 60 there: “Those who take to heart . . .”?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: If Your Lordship pleases, I read towards the end of the paragraph—the first paragraph of the preface:

“Those who take to heart all that has been written with such feeling by Fritz Fink, who for many years has been greatly concerned about the German people, will be grateful to the creator of this outwardly insignificant publication.”—Then it is signed—“Julius Streicher, City of the Reich Party rallies, Nuremberg, in the year 1937.”

I omitted that last part only in the interest of time.


LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That book is Exhibit GB-180. I would just read the last two lines, which I was not able to read before Dr. Marx interposed. The last three lines of the paragraph under “Introduction”:

“No one should be allowed to grow up in the midst of our people without this knowledge of the frightfulness and dangerousness of the Jew.”

I will not occupy the time of the Tribunal by reading further from that book. The nature of the book I hope is clear. I would only refer to the last three lines on the next page in the document book, taking another extract from it:

“One who has reached this stage of understanding will inevitably remain an enemy of the Jews all his life and will instill this hatred into his own children.”

Der Stürmer also published some children’s books, although I make it quite clear that I am not alleging that the defendant himself wrote the books. But they were published from his publishing business; and they are, of course, on the same line as everything else that was published and issued from that business.

The first of them to which I would call attention was entitled in English—or the English translation is—as follows: Don’t Trust the Fox in the Green Meadow Nor the Jew on His Oath. It is a picture book for children. There are pictures, all of them offensive pictures depicting Jews, of which a variety of selections appears in the Tribunal’s book. And opposite each picture there is a little story.

On Page 62 of the document book the Tribunal will see the kind of thing which appears opposite each picture. Opposite the picture in the Tribunal’s document book appears the following:

“Jesus Christ says, ‘The Jew is a murderer through and through.’ And when Christ had to die the Lord didn’t know of any other people that would torture him to death, so he chose the Jews. That is why the Jews pride themselves on being the chosen people.”

The writing opposite the first picture, which depicts a very unpleasant looking Jewish butcher cutting up meat, is as follows:

“The Jewish butcher: He sells half-refuse instead of meat. A piece of meat lies on the floor, the cat claws another. This doesn’t worry the Jewish butcher since the meat increases in weight. Besides, one mustn’t forget, he won’t have to eat it himself.”

Again in the interest of time, it is not worth quoting the contents of that book any further. The Tribunal can see the type of book it is, the type of teaching it was instilling into the minds of the children. The pictures speak for themselves.

The second picture is a rather beastly picture of a girl being led away by a Jew. On the next page we see the defendant smiling benignly at a children’s party, greeting the little children. The next picture depicts copies of Der Stürmer posted on a wall with children looking at them.

The next picture perhaps requires a little explanation. It is a picture of Jewish children being taken away from an Aryan school, led away by an unpleasant looking father; and all the Aryan children shouting and dancing and enjoying the fun very much.

That book, Document M-32, becomes Exhibit GB-181.

THE PRESIDENT: You won’t be able, will you, to finish in a short time? Perhaps we’d better adjourn now.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I have about another 20 minutes.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes; we will adjourn now.

[A recess was taken.]

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I had finished describing that one children’s book. There is a similar book called The Poisonous Fungus, which has, in fact, been put in evidence already as Exhibit USA-257, but it was not read to the Tribunal; and I would like to read one of the short stories from that book because it shows, perhaps more strikingly, I think, than any other extract to which we have referred, the revolting way in which this man poisoned the minds of his listeners and readers.

It is a book of pictures again with short stories, and Page 69 of the document book shows one of the pictures, a girl sitting in a Jewish doctor’s waiting room.

My Lord, it is not a very pleasant story, but he is not a very pleasant man; and it is only by reading these things that it becomes possible to believe the kind of education that the German children have been receiving during these years, led by this man.

I quote from the story:

“Inge”—that is the girl—“Inge sits in the reception room of the Jew doctor. She has to wait a long time. She looks through the journals which are on the table. But she is much too nervous to read even a few sentences. Again and again she remembers the talk with her mother. And again and again her mind reflects on the warnings of her leader of the League of German Girls. A German must not consult a Jew doctor. And particularly not a German girl. Many a girl that went to a Jew doctor to be cured met with disease and disgrace.

“When Inge had entered the waiting room, she experienced an extraordinary incident. From the doctor’s consulting room she could hear the sound of crying. She heard the voice of a young girl, ‘Doctor, doctor, leave me alone.’

“Then she heard the scornful laughter of a man. And then, all of a sudden it became absolutely silent. Inge had listened breathlessly.

“ ‘What can be the meaning of all this?’ she asked herself, and her heart was pounding. And again she thought of the warning of her leader in the League of German Girls.

“Inge had already been waiting for an hour. Again she takes the journals in an endeavor to read. Then the door opens. Inge looks up. The Jew appears. She screams. In terror she drops the paper. Horrified she jumps up. Her eyes stare into the face of the Jewish doctor. And this face is the face of the Devil. In the middle of this devil’s face is a huge crooked nose. Behind the spectacles gleam two criminal eyes. Around the thick lips plays a grin, a grin that means, ‘Now I have you at last, you little German girl!’

“And then the Jew approaches her. His fat fingers snatch at her. But now Inge has got hold of herself. Before the Jew can grab hold of her, she smacks the fat face of the Jew doctor with her hand. One jump to the door. Breathlessly Inge runs down the stairs. Breathlessly she escapes from the Jew house.”

Comment is almost unnecessary on a story like that, read by children of the age of those who are going to read the books you have seen.

Another picture which I have included in the book is a picture, of course of the defendant, and the script opposite that picture, which appears on Page 70 of the document book, includes the words—and I quote from the last but one paragraph: “Without a solution of the Jewish question there will be no salvation for mankind.”

The page itself contains an account of how some boys attended one of his speeches:

“That is what he shouted to us. We all understood him. And when, at the end, he shouted, ‘Sieg-Heil for the Führer,’ we all acclaimed him with tremendous enthusiasm. Streicher spoke for two hours that time. To us it seemed to have been but a few minutes.”

One can begin to see the effect that all this was having from the columns of Der Stürmer itself. In April 1936 there appears only one letter—many others appear in other copies from children of all ages—I quote the third paragraph of this letter, the letter signed by the boys and girls of the National Socialist Youth Hostel at Gross-Möllem:

“Today we saw a play on how the Devil persuades the Jew to shoot a conscientious National Socialist. In the course of the play the Jew did it, too. We all heard the shot. We would have all liked to jump up and arrest the Jew. But then the policeman came and after a short struggle took the Jew along. You can imagine, dear Stürmer, that we heartily cheered the policeman. In the whole play not one name was mentioned, but we all knew that this play represented the murder by the Jew Frankfurter. We were very sad when we went to bed that night. None felt like talking to the others. This play made it clear to us how the Jew sets to work.”

My Lord, that book is already in evidence as I have stated. It is Exhibit GB-170 (Document M-25).

To conclude, I would draw the attention of the Tribunal again only to his authority as a Gauleiter. It appears in the Organization Book of the NSDAP for 1938—which is already in as Exhibit USA-430—in the description of the duties and authority of Gauleiter: The Gauleiter bears over-all responsibility to the Führer for the sector of sovereignty entrusted to him. The rights, duties, and jurisdiction of the Gauleiter result primarily from the mission assigned by the Führer and, apart from that, from detailed direction.

His association with the Führer and with the other defendants—or some of the other defendants—can be seen from the newspapers. On the occasion of his 50th birthday Hitler paid a visit to Nuremberg to congratulate him. That was on the 13th of February 1935. The account of that meeting is published in the Völkischer Beobachter of that date, and I quote as follows:

“Adolf Hitler spoke to his old comrade in arms and the latter’s followers in words which went straight to their hearts. By way of introduction he remarked that it was a special pleasure for him to spend, on this day of honor to Julius Streicher, a short while in Nuremberg, the town of battle-steeled National Socialist solidarity, within the circle of the veteran standard-bearers of the National Socialist idea.

“Just as they all, during the years of misery, had unshakeably believed in the victory of the Movement, so his friend and comrade in arms, Streicher, had stood faithfully at his side at all times. It had been this unshakeable belief that had moved mountains.

“For Streicher it would surely be an inspiring thought that this 50th anniversary meant to him not only the turn of a half century, but also of a thousand years of German history. He had in Streicher a comrade of whom he could say that here in Nuremberg was a man who would never waver for a single second and who would unflinchingly stand behind him in every situation.”

That is Document M-8 and becomes Exhibit GB-182.

The next document (M-22) is a letter from Himmler published in Der Stürmer of April 1937. That edition is already Exhibit USA-258.

“When in future years the history of the reawakening of the German people is written and the next generation is already unable to understand that the German people were once friendly to the Jews, it will be recognized that Julius Streicher and his weekly paper Der Stürmer contributed a great deal toward the enlightenment regarding the enemy of mankind.”—Signed—“The Reichsführer SS, H. Himmler.”

That is Exhibit USA-258. A number of these documents are already in evidence in the bound volumes.

Lastly, we have a letter from Baldur von Schirach, the Reich Youth Leader, published in Der Stürmer of March 1938 (Document M-45, Exhibit USA-260):

“It is the historical merit of Der Stürmer to have enlightened the broad masses of our people in a popular way as to the Jewish world danger. Der Stürmer is right in not carrying out its task in a purely aesthetic manner, for Jewry has shown no regard for the German people. We have, therefore, no reason for being considerate toward our worst enemy. What we fail to do today, the youth of tomorrow will have to suffer for bitterly.”

My Lord, it may be that this defendant is less directly involved in the physical commission of the crimes against Jews, of which this Tribunal have heard, than some of his co-conspirators. The submission of the Prosecution is that his crime is no less the worse for that reason. No government in the world, before the Nazis came to power, could have embarked upon and put into effect a policy of mass extermination in the way in which they did, without having a people who would back them and support them and without having a large number of people, men and women, who were prepared to put their hands to their bloody murder. And not even, perhaps, the German people of previous generations would have lent themselves to the crimes about which this Tribunal has heard, the killing of millions and millions of men and women.

It was to the task of educating the people, of producing murderers, educating and poisoning them with hate, that Streicher set himself; and for 25 years he has continued unrelentingly the education—if you can call it so—or the perversion of the people and of the youth of Germany. And he has gone on and on as he saw the results of his work bearing fruit.

In the early days he was preaching persecution. As persecutions took place he preached extermination and annihilation; and, as we have seen in the ghettos of the East, as millions of Jews were being exterminated and annihilated, he cried out for more and more.

That is the crime that he has committed. It is the submission of the Prosecution that he made these things possible—made these crimes possible—which could never have happened had it not been for him and for those like him. He led the propaganda and the education of the German people in those ways. Without him the Kaltenbrunners, the Himmlers, the General Stroops would have had nobody to carry out their orders. And, as we have seen, he has concentrated upon the youth and the childhood of Germany. In its extent his crime is probably greater and more far-reaching than that of any of the other defendants. The misery that they caused finished with their incarceration. The effects of this man’s crime, of the poison that he has injected into the minds of millions and millions of young boys and girls and young men and women lives on. He leaves behind him a legacy of almost a whole people poisoned with hate, sadism, and murder, and perverted by him. That German people remains a problem and perhaps a menace to the rest of civilization for generations to come.

My Lord, I submit that the Prosecution’s case against this man as set out in the Indictment is proved.

My Lord, Lieutenant Brady Bryson, of the United States Delegation, will present to the Court the case against Schacht.

LIEUTENANT BRADY O. BRYSON (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, a document book has been prepared and filed and the appropriate number of copies has been delivered to the defendants.

We ask the Tribunal’s permission to file within the next few days a trial brief which now is in the process of preparation.

Our proof against the Defendant Schacht is confined to planning and preparation of aggressive war.

THE PRESIDENT: What was it you said about the trial brief?

LT. BRYSON: We ask permission to file a trial brief within the next few days, as our brief is not yet ready.


LT. BRYSON: Our proof against the Defendant Schacht is limited to planning and preparation for aggressive war and to membership in a conspiracy for aggressive war.

The extent of Schacht’s criminal responsibility as a matter of law, under the Charter of the Tribunal, will be developed in our brief. Only a few of our 50-odd documents have been previously submitted in evidence. We have taken special pains to avoid repetition and cumulative proof; but for the sake of continuity we would like, in several instances, simply to draw the Tribunal’s attention to evidence previously received, with an appropriate reference to the transcript of the Record.

Before commencing our proof, we wish to state our understanding that the Defendant Schacht’s control over the German economy was on the wane after November 1937, and that by the time of the aggression on Poland his official status had been reduced to that of Minister without Portfolio and personal adviser to Hitler. We know too that he is sometimes credited with opposition to certain of the more radical elements of the Nazi Party; and I further understand that at the time of capture by United States forces he was under German detention in a prison camp, having been arrested by the Gestapo in July 1944.

Be this as it may, our proof will show that at least up until the end of 1937 Schacht was the dominant figure in the rearming of Germany and in the economic planning and preparation for war, that without his work the Nazis would not have been able to wring from their depressed economy the tremendous material requirements of armed aggression, and that Schacht contributed his efforts with full knowledge of the aggressive purposes which he was serving.

The details of this proof will be presented in four parts:

First, we will very briefly show that Schacht accepted the Nazi philosophy prior to 1933 and supported Hitler’s rise to power.

Second, proof of the contribution of Schacht to German rearmament and preparation for war will be submitted. This evidence will also be brief, since the facts in this respect are well-known and have already been touched upon by Mr. Dodd in his presentation of the case on economic preparation for war.

Third, we will show that Schacht assisted the Nazi conspiracy purposely and willingly with knowledge of, and sympathy for, its illegal ends.

And last, we will prove that Schacht’s loss of power in the German Government did not in any sense imply disagreement with the policy of aggressive war.

We turn now to our proof that Schacht helped Hitler to power.

Schacht met Göring for the first time in December 1930, and Hitler early in January 1931 at Göring’s house. His impression of Hitler was favorable. I offer in evidence Exhibit USA-615 (Document 3725-PS), consisting of an excerpt from a pre-trial interrogation of Schacht under date of 20 July 1945, and quote two questions and answers related to this meeting, near the middle of the first page of the interrogation.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to give us the Exhibit number? You haven’t given us the other number?

LT. BRYSON: This is an interrogation, Sir, and it will not have two.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got a number for it?

LT. BRYSON: You will find it in your document book in the back, labeled “Schacht Interrogation of 20 July 1945.” I quote from the middle of the first page:

“Q: ‘What did he’ ”—that is, Hitler—“ ‘say?’

“A: ‘Oh, ideas he expressed before, but it was full of will and spirit.’ ”

And near the bottom of the page:

“Q: ‘What was your impression at the end of that evening?’

“A: ‘I thought that Hitler was a man with whom one could co-operate.’ ”

After this meeting Schacht allied himself with Hitler; and at a crucial political moment in November 1932, he lent the prestige of his name, which was widely known in banking, financial, and business circles throughout the world, to Hitler’s cause. I offer in evidence Exhibit USA-616 (Document 3729-PS) consisting of excerpts from a pre-trial interrogation of Schacht on 17 October 1945. I wish to quote, beginning at the top of Page 36 of this interrogation. This is the interrogation of 17 October 1945, at Page 36. I may say that when I refer to the page numbers, I speak of the page of the document book:

“Q: ‘Yes, and at that time’ ”—referring to January 1931—“ ‘you became a supporter, I take it, of. . .’

“A: ‘In the course. . .’

“Q: ‘Of Hitler’s coming to power?’

“A: ‘Especially in the course of the years 1931 and 1932.’ ”

And I quote further from the lower half of Page 37 of the same interrogation:

“Q: ‘But what I mean—to make it very brief—did you lend the prestige of your name to help Hitler come to power?’

“A: ‘I have publicly stated that I expected Hitler to come to power; for the first time, if I remember, in November ’32.’

“Q: ‘And you know, or perhaps you don’t, that Goebbels in his diary records with great affection. . .’

“A: ‘Yes.’

“Q: ‘. . . the help that you gave him at the time?’

“A: ‘Yes, I know that.’

“Q: ‘November 1932?’

“A: ‘From the Kaiserhof to the Chancellery and back.’

“Q: ‘That’s right. You have read that?’

“A: ‘Yes.’

“Q: ‘And you don’t deny that Goebbels was right?’

“A: ‘I think his impression was that that was correct at that time.’ ”

I now refer the Tribunal to this statement of Goebbels, set forth in 2409(a)-PS. The entire diary of Goebbels is in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-262. The entry I wish to read, which appears in 2409(a)-PS, was made on 21 November 1932:

“In a conversation with Dr. Schacht I assured myself that he absolutely shares our point of view. He is one of the few who stand immovable behind the Führer.”

It is believed that Schacht joined the Party only in the sense that he allied himself with the cause. Dr. Franz Reuter, whose biography of Schacht was officially published in Germany in 1937, has stated that Schacht refrained from formal membership in order to be of greater assistance to the Party. I offer in evidence Document Number EC-460, Exhibit Number USA-617, consisting of an excerpt from Reuter’s biography, and I quote the last sentence of the excerpt:

“By not doing so, he was able eventually to help more toward the final victory than if he had become an enrolled Party member.”

It was Schacht who organized the financial means for the decisive March 1933 election, at a meeting of Hitler with a group of German industrialists in Berlin. Schacht acted as the sponsor or host of this meeting, and a campaign fund of several million marks was collected. Without reading therefrom, I offer in evidence Document Number EC-439, Exhibit Number USA-618, an affidavit of Von Schnitzler under date of 10 November 1945, and refer the Tribunal to the transcript for 23 November, Pages 282-283 (Volume II, Pages 223, 224), where the text of the affidavit already appears in the Record.

Further evidence on this point is also contained in the excerpt from the interrogation of Schacht on 20 July 1945, from which I read a part a moment ago. Schacht lent his support to Hitler not only because he was an opportunist, but also because he shared Hitler’s ideological principles. Apart from the entry in Goebbels’ diary, this may be seen from Schacht’s own letter to Hitler, under date of 29 August 1932, pledging continued support to Hitler after the latter’s poor showing in the July 1932 elections. I offer this letter in evidence as Document Number EC-457, Exhibit Number USA-619, and quote from the middle of the first paragraph and further from the next to the last paragraph:

“But what you could perhaps do with in these days is a kind word. Your movement is carried internally by so strong a truth and necessity that victory in one form or another cannot elude you for long.”

And further down—and keep in mind that neither Hitler nor Schacht was then in the German Government—Schacht says:

“Wherever my work may take me in the near future, even if you should see me one day behind stone walls, you can always count on me as your reliable assistant.”

THE PRESIDENT: What do those words mean at the top: “The President of the Reichsbank in Retirement”? Are they on the letter?

LT. BRYSON: Yes, they are, Sir. Dr. Schacht had previously been a president of the Reichsbank. At this time he was in retirement. You will remember, this is prior to Hitler’s accession to power.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, of course.

LT. BRYSON: And then Hitler reinstated Dr. Schacht as President of the Reichsbank after the Nazis had taken over.

THE PRESIDENT: And he put that at the top of his letter, did he?

LT. BRYSON: That I cannot say.

I will also point out that Schacht signed this letter, “With a vigorous Heil.”

We turn now to the second part of our proof, relating to Schacht’s contribution to preparation for war.

The detailed chronology of Schacht’s official career in the Nazi Government, as set forth in Document 3021-PS, has already been submitted in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-11. However, it may be helpful at the outset to remind the Tribunal that Schacht was recalled to the Presidency of the Reichsbank by Hitler on 17 March 1933, which office he continuously held until 20 January 1939; that he was Acting Minister and then Minister of Economics from August 1934 until November 1937; and that he was appointed Plenipotentiary General for War Economy in May 1935. He resigned as Minister of Economics and Plenipotentiary General for War Economy in November 1937, when he accepted appointment as Minister without Portfolio, which post he held until January 1943. His position as virtual economic dictator of Germany in the 4 crucial years from early 1933 to the end of 1936 is practically a matter of common knowledge.

Schacht was the guiding genius behind the Nazi expansion of the German credit system for rearmament purposes. From the outset he recognized that the plan for the German military supremacy required huge quantities of public credit. To that end a series of measures was adopted which subverted all credit institutions in Germany to the over-all aim of supplying funds for the military machine. I will briefly mention some of these measures.

By Cabinet decree of 27 October 1933 the statutory reserve of 40 percent in gold and foreign exchange required against circulating Reichsbank notes was permanently abandoned. By the Credit Act of 1934 the Government assumed jurisdiction of all credit institutions, and control over the entire banking system was centralized in Schacht as Chairman of the Supervisory Board for the Credit System and President of the Reichsbank. This act not only enabled Schacht to control the quantity of credit but also its use. On 29 March 1934 a system of forced corporate lending to the Reich was imposed on German business. And on 19 February 1935 the Treasury was authorized to borrow funds in any amounts approved by the Reich Chancellor, that is, by Hitler.

On these points I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the Reichsgesetzblatt 1933, Part II, Page 827; Reichsgesetzblatt 1934, Part I, Page 1203; Reichsgesetzblatt 1934, Part I, Page 295; and Reichsgesetzblatt 1935, Part I, Page 198.

THE PRESIDENT: Are they found here in the document book?

LT. BRYSON: They’re not in the document book, Sir.

I asked only that judicial notice be taken of them as published laws of Germany.

These measures enabled Schacht to embark upon what he himself has termed a “daring credit policy,” including the secret financing of a vast amount of armaments through the so-called ‘mefo’ bill, a description of which appears in the transcript for 23 November at Page 295 (Volume II, Page 232). I offer in evidence Document Number EC-436, Exhibit Number USA-620, consisting of a statement, dated 2 November 1945, by Emil Puhl, a director of the Reichsbank during Schacht’s presidency, and quote the second paragraph thereof as follows:

“In the early part of 1935 the need for financing an accelerated rearmament program arose. Dr. Schacht, President of the Reichsbank, after considering various techniques of financing, proposed the use of mefo bills to provide a substantial portion of the funds needed for the rearmament program. This method had as one of its primary advantages the fact that secrecy would be possible during the first years of the rearmament program; and figures indicating the extent of rearmament, that would have become public through the use of other methods, could be kept secret through the use of mefo bills.”

The extent of the credit expansion and the importance of mefo financing may be seen from Document Number EC-419, which I now offer as Exhibit Number USA-621 and which consists of a letter from Finance Minister Von Krosigk to Hitler, under date of 1 September 1938. I quote the following figures from the middle of the first page:

“The Reich debt accumulated as follows:

“As of 31 December 1932: Funded debt, 10,400 millions of Reichsmark; short-term debt, 2,100 millions of Reichsmark; debt not published in the budget (trade and mefo bills of exchange), 0.

“As of 30 June 1938: Funded debt, 19,000 million Reichsmark; short-term debt, 3,500 million Reichsmark; and debt not published in the budget (trade and mefo bills of exchange), 13,300 million Reichsmark.

“Total: as of 31 December 1932, 12,500 million Reichsmark; as of 30 June 1938, 35,800 million Reichsmark.”

The Reich debt thus tripled. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Would you read the next section, beginning with the words “Provisions were made to cover. . .”?

LT. BRYSON: “Provisions were made to cover the armament expenditures for the year 1938 (the same amount as in 1937) as follows:

“Five thousand millions from the budget, that is, taxes; 4,000 millions from loans; 2,000 millions from 6-month treasury notes, which means postponement of payment until 1939; total: 11,000 millions.”

The Reich debt thus tripled under Schacht’s management. More than one-third of the total was financed secretly and through the instrumentality of the Reichsbank by mefo and trade bills. It is clear that this amount of financing outside the normal public issues represented armament debt. I read further from Document EC-436, at the beginning of the last long paragraph:

“These mefo bills were used exclusively for financing rearmament; and when in March 1938 a new finance program discontinuing the use of mefo bills was announced by Dr. Schacht, there was a total volume outstanding of 12,000 million marks of mefo bills which had been issued to finance rearmament.”

The character of Schacht’s credit policy and the fact that it was ruthlessly dedicated to the creation of armaments plainly appear from his own speech delivered on 29 November 1938.

I offer it in evidence as Document Number EC-611, Exhibit Number USA-622; and I quote from Page 6 at the beginning of the last paragraph:

“It is possible that no bank of issue in peacetime carried on such a daring credit policy as the Reichsbank since the seizure of power by National Socialism. With the aid of this credit policy, however, Germany created an armament second to none; and this armament in turn made possible the results of our policy.”

Beyond the field of finance Schacht assumed totalitarian control over the German economy generally in order to marshal it behind the rearmament program.

He acquired great power over industry as a result of the Nazi reorganization of German industry along military lines and in accordance with the so-called Leadership Principle. On this point I refer the Tribunal to the transcript for 23 November at Pages 287-290 (Volume II, Pages 227-228); and to the Reichsgesetzblatt 1934, Part I, Page 1194, of which the Tribunal is asked to take judicial notice.

Schacht also exercised broad powers as a member of the Reich Defense Council, which was secretly established on 4 April 1933 and the function of which was preparation for war. The Tribunal is referred to the transcript for 23 November, Page 290 (Volume II, Pages 228-229). I also offer in evidence as Document Number EC-128, Exhibit Number USA-623, a report under date of 30 September 1934, showing the functions of the Ministry of Economics in this respect. The report reveals concentration upon all the familiar wartime economic problems, including stockpiling, production of scarce goods, removal of industry to secure areas, fuel and power supply for war production, machine tools, control of wartime priorities, rationing, price control, civilian supply, and so on. I wish to read into the Record merely an excerpt showing the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Economics, beginning near the top of Page 2 of Document Number EC-128:

“With the establishment of the Reich Defense Council and its permanent committee the Reich Ministry of Economics has been given the task of making economic preparation for war. There should really be no need to explain the tremendous importance of this task. Everyone remembers vividly how terribly the lack of any economic preparation for war hit us during the World War.”

Finally, in 1934, Schacht acquired sweeping powers under legislation which authorized him, as Minister of Economics, to take any measure deemed necessary for the development of the German economy. In this connection reference is made to the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1934, Part I, Page 565, of which the Tribunal is asked to take judicial notice.

The so-called “New Plan” devised by Schacht was announced in the fall of 1934 shortly after he became Minister of Economics. In this connection the Tribunal is referred to the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1934, Part I, Page 816 and the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1935, Part I, Page 105, with the request that judicial notice be taken thereof. The New Plan was Schacht’s basic program for obtaining the necessary foreign-produced raw materials and foreign exchange required to sustain the rearmament program.

With respect to the details of the New Plan, I offer in evidence Document Number EC-437, Exhibit Number USA-624, consisting of an affidavit of Emil Puhl, dated 7 November 1945. The entire text is pertinent. Therefore, permission is requested to submit the affidavit without reading therefrom, on condition that French and Russian translations be prepared and filed.

THE PRESIDENT: And German ones supplied, too.

LT. BRYSON: We will supply copies. I wish to say that the original is in English, but the affidavit has already been translated into German.


LT. BRYSON: This affidavit by a co-worker of Schacht describes in detail the many ingenious and often ruthless devices he used, including negotiating “stand-still” agreements, forcing payment in Reichsmark of interest and amortization on debts incurred in foreign currency, using scrip and funding bonds for the same purpose, suspending service on foreign-held debts, blocking foreign-held marks, freezing foreign claims in Germany, eliminating unessential foreign expenditures, requisitioning German-held foreign exchange, subsidizing exports, issuing restricted marks, bartering under clearing agreements, licensing imports, and controlling all foreign exchange transactions to the end of favoring raw materials for armaments.

The Tribunal is also asked to take judicial notice of Reichsgesetzblatt, 1934, Page 997; Reichsgesetzblatt, 1933, Part I, Page 349; and Reichsgesetzblatt, 1937, Part I, Page 600, relating to the clearing bank, the conversion bank, and the maturity of foreign loans, all of which decrees are mentioned in the affidavit.

Schacht even went so far as to invest foreign-held Reichsmark on deposit in German banks in rearmament notes, thus, as he put it, financing rearmament with the assets of his political opponents. Without reading therefrom, I refer your Honors to Document Number 1168-PS, Exhibit USA-37, being a memorandum from Schacht to Hitler, dated 3 May 1935, which already appears in the transcript on Pages 412 and 413 (Volume II, Pages 312, 313). Moreover, Schacht even resorted to capital punishment to prevent the loss of foreign exchange when frightened capital began to flee from the country. In this connection reference is made to the Law against Economic Sabotage, found in 1936 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 999, of which the Tribunal is asked to take judicial notice.

Schacht took particular pride in the results which were accomplished under the stringent controls which he instituted under his New Plan. I refer the Tribunal to Document Number EC-611, in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-622, consisting of Schacht’s speech in Berlin on 29 November 1938. I wish to read into the Record an excerpt from the top of Page 10:

“If there is anything remarkable about the New Plan, it is again only the fact that German organization under National Socialist leadership succeeded in conjuring up in a very short time the whole apparatus of supervision of imports, direction of exports, and promotion of exports. The success of the New Plan can be proved by means of a few figures. Calculated according to quantity, the import of finished products was cut down by 63 percent between 1934 and 1937. On the other hand, the import of ores was increased by 132 percent, of petroleum by 116, of grain by 102, and of rubber by 71 percent.”

While President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics, Schacht acquired still another key position, that of Plenipotentiary General for War Economy.

He received this appointment from Hitler pursuant to the unpublished Reich Defense Law secretly enacted on 21 May 1935. This law is in evidence as Document Number 2261-PS, Exhibit Number USA-24, consisting of a letter from Von Blomberg dated 24 June 1935 to the chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Forces, together with copies of the Reich Defense Law and the Cabinet’s memorandum relating thereto. Pertinent comments on and excerpts from this document appear in the transcript for 23 November, at Pages 278 and 292 (Volume II, Pages 220-229). I will simply state therefore that by virtue of this appointment Schacht was put in complete charge of economic planning and preparation for war in peacetime, except for certain direct armament production under control of the War Ministry. Upon the outbreak of war he was to be the economic czar of Germany with complete control over the activities of a number of key Reich ministries.

Schacht appointed Wohlthat as his deputy and organized a staff to carry out his directives. In this connection I offer in evidence excerpts from a pre-trial interrogation of Schacht under date 17 October 1945. This document is Exhibit Number USA-616 (Document 3729-PS). I wish to read into the Record a question and answer found at the bottom of Page 40 of the document book:

“Q: ‘Let me ask you a general question then: Do you take the responsibility as Plenipotentiary General for War Economy for the writings that were made and the actions that were done by Wohlthat and his assistants?’

“A: ‘I have to.’ ”

I also offer in evidence Document Number EC-258, Exhibit Number USA-625, consisting of a status report issued in December 1937 under the signature of Schacht’s deputy, Wohlthat. The report is entitled, “The Preparation of the Economic Mobilization by the Plenipotentiary General for War Economy.” Schacht had withdrawn from office immediately prior to the preparation of this report, and it plainly is a recapitulation of his accomplishments while in office. Since the entire text is relevant, we ask permission to submit the document without reading therefrom on condition that translations into French and Russian be later filed with the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think this is consistent with the rule laid down by the Tribunal, which was that the translations in the French and Russian languages should be submitted at the same time. You are now suggesting that you can submit translations at a later stage.

LT. BRYSON: Well, if Your Honor pleases, in any event I did not plan to read from the document at this time and Defense Counsel do have the German original.

THE PRESIDENT: I was not speaking of the Defense Counsel so much as of the members of the Tribunal.

LT. BRYSON: We have the Russian translation in process now and it was delayed and we were unable to get it here at this time, but the delay will be very short and the document is of critical importance to our case.

THE PRESIDENT: How long will it be before it is ready?

LT. BRYSON: I wouldn’t like to say precisely, Sir, but perhaps within 4 or 5 days.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you propose to do now, because it is a very complicated and long document, is it not?

LT. BRYSON: It is and it shows. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Were you proposing to summarize it?

LT. BRYSON: I was proposing to summarize it, Sir, now.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that if you would summarize it now and only be permitted to put it in at the stage when you have the translation ready, you may summarize it now.

LT. BRYSON: I will summarize it now, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Will it take long to summarize?

LT. BRYSON: Not very long, Sir; no.

THE PRESIDENT: You see, it is 5 o’clock.

LT. BRYSON: I think there will be time to summarize it, and then we will stop.

This document discloses that before his resignation Schacht had worked out in amazing detail his plans and preparations for the management of the economy in the forthcoming war. For example, 180,000 industrial plants in 300 industries had been surveyed with respect to usefulness for war purposes; economic plans for the production of 200 basic materials had been worked out; a system for the letting of war contracts had been devised; allocations of coal, motor fuel, and power had been determined; 248 million Reichsmark had been spent on storage facilities alone; evacuation plans for war materials and skilled workers from military zones had been worked out; 80 million wartime ration cards had already been printed and distributed to local areas; and a card index on the skills of some 22 million workers had been prepared.

That concludes the summary, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 11 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]

Friday, 11 January 1946

Morning Session

LT. BRYSON: If the Tribunal please, before picking up our line of proof against the Defendant Schacht, I would like to supply a point of information.

Yesterday the President of the Tribunal inquired with respect to Document Number EC-457, Exhibit Number USA-619. The question raised by the Tribunal was with respect to the words “in retirement” in the letterhead used by Schacht in writing to Hitler in 1932. This is the letter in which Schacht expressed his belief in the truth of the Nazi movement and in which he said that Hitler could always count upon him as a reliable assistant.

The letterhead has printed upon it “The President of the Reichsbank” and after that phrase there is typed the letters “a. D.”, and I understand that those letters are an abbreviation for a German phrase meaning “in retirement” and that it is customary, or it was customary, in Germany for retired officials to continue to use their titles with the letters “a. D.”


LT. BRYSON: Yesterday we had just about completed our proof with respect to the contribution of the Defendant Schacht to the preparation for war, and I wish to submit one more document on this point. This is Document Number EC-451, Exhibit Number USA-626. It consists of a statement by George S. Messersmith, United States Consul General in Berlin, 1930 to 1934. I will quote therefrom, beginning with the second sentence of the fourth paragraph:

“It was his”—Schacht’s—“financial ability that enabled the Nazi regime in the early days to find the financial basis for the tremendous armament program and which made it possible to carry it through. If it had not been for his efforts, and this is not a personal observation of mine only but I believe was shared and is shared by every observer at the time, the Nazi regime would have been unable to maintain itself in power and to establish its control over Germany, much less to create the enormous war machine which was necessary for its objectives in Europe and later throughout the world.

“The increased industrial activity in Germany incident to rearmament made great imports of raw materials necessary, while at the same time exports were decreasing. Yet by Schacht’s resourcefulness, his complete financial ruthlessness, and his absolute cynicism, Schacht was able to maintain and to establish the situation for the Nazis. Unquestionably, without this complete lending of his capacities to the Nazi Government and all of its ambitions, it would have been impossible for Hitler and the Nazis to develop an armed force sufficient to permit Germany to launch an aggressive war.”

We turn now. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Lieutenant Bryson, I am not sure that that gives a full or quite fair interpretation of the document. Don’t you think perhaps you ought to read the paragraph before?

LT. BRYSON: The preceding paragraph, Sir?


LT. BRYSON: “Dr. Schacht always attempted to play both sides of the fence. He told me, and I know he told both other American representatives in Berlin and various British representatives, that he disapproved of practically everything that the Nazis were doing. I recall on several occasions his saying, after the Nazi Party came into power, that if the Nazis were not stopped, they were going to ruin Germany and the rest of the world with it. I recall distinctly that he emphasized to me that the Nazis were inevitably going to plunge Europe into war.”

If the Court please, I would like to read also from the last paragraph:

“In my opinion Schacht was in no sense a captive of the Nazis. He was not compelled to devote his time and his capacities to their interest. His situation was such that he would most likely have been able either to work on much less restrained scale or to abstain from activity entirely. He continued to lend his services to the Nazi Government out of opportunism.”

We turn now to the third part of our case against Schacht. The evidence is clear that he willingly contributed his efforts to the Nazi conspiracy, knowing full well its aggressive designs. The Tribunal will recall our proof that Schacht was converted to the Nazi philosophy in 1931 and helped Hitler come to power in 1933. We will now prove, first, that Schacht personally favored aggression and, second, that in any event he knew Hitler’s aggressive intentions.

There is ample evidence to justify the conclusion that Schacht rearmed Germany in order to see fulfilled his strong belief in aggressive expansion as an instrument of German national policy. Schacht had long been a German nationalist and expansionist. He spoke against the Treaty of Versailles at Stuttgart as early as 1927. I offer in evidence Document EC-415, Exhibit Number USA-627, consisting of a collection of excerpts from speeches by Schacht. I quote from the top of Page 2: “The Versailles Dictate cannot be an eternal document, because not only its economic but also its spiritual and moral premises are wrong.”

It is common knowledge that he strongly favored acquisition of colonial territory by Germany. However, he also favored acquisition of contiguous territory in Europe. On 16 April 1929 at the Paris conference in connection with reparations, he said. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to read the passage that follows that at a later stage?

LT. BRYSON: At a later stage, if you please, Sir, in connection with another point.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well; go on.

LT. BRYSON: On 16 April 1929, at the Paris conference in connection with reparations, he said:

“Germany can as a whole pay only if the Corridor and Upper Silesia will be handed back to Germany from Polish possession and if, besides, somewhere on the earth, colonial territory will be made available to Germany.”

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What are you quoting from?

LT. BRYSON: I offer in evidence Exhibit Number USA-628 (Document 3726-PS), consisting of excerpts from a pre-trial interrogation of Schacht on 24 August 1945. You will find it in the document book at the back, labelled “Interrogation of 24 August”. At the top of the first page of the interrogation this statement was quoted to Schacht, and his reply contains an admission of having made the statement. In his reply he said:

“That Germany could not pay at the time after I made the statement has been proved, and that Germany will not be able to pay after this war will be proved in the future.”

I wish to point out that this is the very territory which was the subject of the armed aggression in September 1939.

In 1935 Schacht stated flatly that Germany would, if necessary, acquire colonies by force. I offer in evidence Document EC-450, designated as Exhibit Number USA-629. This document consists of an affidavit of S. R. Fuller, Jr., together with a transcript of his conversation with Schacht at the American Embassy in Berlin on 23 September 1935. I wish to read from Page 6 of the document where there appears a statement by Schacht in the lower half of the page.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of the conversation?

LT. BRYSON: The conversation occurred on 23 September 1935. The page number of this document is at the bottom, and I quote from Page 6:

“Schacht: ‘Colonies are necessary to Germany. We shall get them through negotiation, if possible; but if not, we shall take them.’ ”

In July 1936, when the rearmament program was well under way, Schacht again publicly spoke of the Versailles Treaty. This time his language contained an explicit threat of war. I refer the Tribunal again to Document EC-415, which I have previously introduced in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-627, consisting of a collection of speeches by Schacht. I wish to read from the paragraph beginning in the middle of the first page:

“But the memory of war weighs undiminished upon the peoples’ mind. That is because, deeper than material wounds, moral wounds are smarting, inflicted by the so-called peace treaties. Material loss can be made up through labor, but the moral wrong which has been inflicted upon the conquered peoples in the peace dictates, leaves a burning scar on the peoples’ conscience. The spirit of Versailles has perpetuated the fury of war; and there will not be a true peace, progress, or reconstruction until the world desists from this spirit. The German people will not tire of pronouncing this warning.”

Later in the same year Schacht publicly advocated the doctrine of Lebensraum for the German people. I quote again from Document EC-415, Exhibit Number USA-627, being an excerpt from Schacht’s speech at Frankfurt on 9 December 1936, on the second page, the last paragraph:

“Germany has too little living space for her population. She has made every effort, and certainly greater efforts than any other nation, to extract from her own existing small space whatever is necessary for the securing of her livelihood. However, in spite of all these efforts, the space does not suffice.”

In January 1937 Schacht, in a conversation with Ambassador Davies, at least by inference threatened a breach of the peace in demanding a colonial cession. I offer in evidence Document L-111, being Exhibit Number USA-630, and consisting of excerpts from a report under date of 20 January 1937, by Ambassador Davies to the Secretary of State. I wish to read therefrom, beginning with the second sentence of the second paragraph:

“He”—meaning Schacht—“stated the following:

“That the present condition of the German people was intolerable, desperate, and unendurable; that he had been authorized by his Government to submit proposals to France and England which would: (1) Guarantee European peace, (2) secure present European international boundaries, (3) reduce armaments, (4) establish a new form of a workable league of nations, and (5) abolish sanctions with new machinery for joint administration; all based upon a colonial cession that would provide for Germany an outlet for population, a source for foodstuffs, fats, and raw materials.”

In December 1937 Ambassador Dodd noted in his diary that Schacht would be willing to risk war for the sake of new territory in Europe. I refer the Tribunal to Document EC-461, consisting of excerpts from Ambassador Dodd’s diary.

THE PRESIDENT: The proposal contained in Document L-111 was for cession of colonies, was it not?

LT. BRYSON: It was, Sir.

I turn now to Document EC-461, consisting of excerpts from Ambassador Dodd’s diary. The entire diary has previously been received in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-58. I quote some notes on a conversation with Schacht on 21 December 1937, beginning near the bottom of the second page of Document EC-461, in the last paragraph:

“Schacht meant what the army chiefs of 1914 meant when they invaded Belgium, expecting to conquer France in 6 weeks; that is, domination and annexation of neighboring little countries, especially north and east. Much as he dislikes Hitler’s dictatorship, he, like most other eminent Germans, wishes annexation without war if possible; with war if the United States will keep hands off.”

THE PRESIDENT: There is another passage in that book, that diary. I am not sure; it probably is not the same date, but it is on the first page of the exhibit, I think—the third paragraph.

LT. BRYSON: The third paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it at a different time?

LT. BRYSON: It is a different time, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: September the 19th of what year?

LT. BRYSON: We will check that in the complete volume here, and I think in a minute I will be able to supply the date. In the meantime would you like me to read it, Sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think you had better read it.

LT. BRYSON: “He then acknowledged that the Hitler Party is absolutely committed to war; and the people, too, are ready and willing. Only a few government officials are aware of the dangers and are opposed. He concluded, ‘But we shall postpone it 10 years. Then it may be we can avoid war.’ ”

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think you should read the next paragraph, too.

LT. BRYSON: “I reminded him of his Bad Eilsen speech some 2 weeks ago and said, ‘I agree with you about commercial and financial matters in the main. But why do you not, when you speak before the public, tell the German people they must abandon a war attitude?’ He replied, ‘I dare not say that. I can speak only on my special subjects.’ ”

THE PRESIDENT: And the next one.

LT. BRYSON: And the next one:

“How, then, can German people ever learn the real dangers of war, if nobody ever presents that side of the question? He once more emphasized his opposition to war and added that he had used his influence with Hitler—‘a very great man’, he interjected—to prevent war. I said, ‘The German papers printed what I said at Bremen about commercial relations between our countries, but not a word about the terrible effects and barbarism of war.’ He acknowledged that and talked very disapprovingly of the Propaganda Ministry which suppresses everything it dislikes. He added, as I was leaving ‘You know a party comes into office by propaganda and then cannot disavow it or stop it.’ ”

The date of his conversation was in September 1934.

THE PRESIDENT: It is a pity that those years are not stated in the document. It is rather misleading as it is.

LT. BRYSON: If the Court please, the exhibit which is in evidence will show the dates.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am not blaming you; but it is misleading, because it looks like September the 19th and December the 21st, and as there were 3 years’ interval between, it makes a difference. That is right, isn’t it?

LT. BRYSON: Yes, that is right. I am sorry the excerpt simply shows the page numbers from the exhibit, and not the dates.

Schacht admittedly strained all the resources of Germany to build up a Wehrmacht which would provide Hitler with an instrument of realization of his desire for Lebensraum. In this connection I offer in evidence Document Number EC-369, Exhibit Number USA-631, consisting of a memorandum from the Reichsbank Directorate, signed by Schacht, to Hitler, dated 7 January 1939. I wish to read the last paragraph of the first page:

“From the beginning the Reichsbank has been aware of the fact that a successful foreign policy can be attained only by the reconstruction of the German Armed Forces. It—the Reichsbank—therefore assumed to a very great extent the responsibility of financing the rearmament in spite of the inherent dangers to the currency. The justification thereof was the necessity, which pushed all other considerations into the background, to carry through the armament at once, out of nothing and furthermore under camouflage, which made a respect-commanding foreign policy possible.”

It is clear that the “successful foreign policy” which Schacht thus attributed to rearmament included the Austrian and Czechoslovakian acquisitions. I offer in evidence Document EC-297(a), Exhibit Number USA-632, being a speech of Schacht’s in Vienna after the Anschluss in March 1938. I quote from the third page and the second full paragraph:

“Thank God, these things could not after all hinder the great German people on their way, for Adolf Hitler has created a communion of German will and German thought. He bolstered it with the newly strengthened Wehrmacht and finally gave the external form to the internal union between Germany and Austria.”

With respect to the Sudetenland I refer the Tribunal to Document EC-611, already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-622, being a speech by Schacht; EC-611—but I will not read it, Sir—being a speech by Schacht on 29 November 1938, shortly after the Munich settlement. I have earlier read the pertinent remark attributing Hitler’s success at that conference to the rearmament made possible by Schacht’s financial and economic measures.

This line of proof shows that Schacht entertained an aggressive philosophy with respect to territorial expansion and justifies the conclusion that he allied himself with Hitler because of their common viewpoint.

We turn now to prove that, whether or not Schacht wanted war, he at least knew Hitler planned military aggression for which he was creating the means. He had numerous discussions with Hitler from 1933 to 1937. He knew that Hitler was intent upon expansion to the east, which would mean war, and that Hitler felt he must present the German people with a military victory. I offer in evidence Exhibit Number USA-633 (Document 3727-PS), consisting of an excerpt from a pre-trial interrogation of Schacht on 13 October 1945, and I read from the second page at the end of the second question:

“Q: ‘What was there in what he’ ”—meaning Hitler—“ ‘said that led you to believe he was intending to move towards the east?’

“A: ‘That is in Mein Kampf. He never spoke to me about that, but it was in Mein Kampf.’

“Q: ‘In other words, as a man who read it, you understood that Hitler’s expansion policy was directed to the east?’

“A: ‘To the east.’

“Q: ‘And you thought that it would be better to try to divert Hitler from any such intention and to urge upon him a colonial policy instead?’

“A: ‘Quite.’ ”

I also offer in evidence Document EC-458, Exhibit Number USA-634, consisting of an affidavit of Major Edmund Tilley under date of 21 November 1945, with respect to an interview of Schacht on 9 July 1945. I read the second paragraph:

“During the course of the discussion Schacht stated to me that he had had numerous talks with Hitler from 1933 to 1937. Schacht stated that from these talks he had formed the impression that in order to make his hold and government secure, the Führer felt that he must present the German people with a military victory.”

As early as 1934, Schacht stated his belief that the Nazis would bring war to Europe. I refer the Tribunal to Document EC-451, which I have already submitted in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-626, consisting of an affidavit under date of 15 November 1945 by Messersmith, American Consul General in Berlin, 1930 to 1934. I wish to read from the first page, third paragraph, last sentence.

THE PRESIDENT: You have read it already.

LT. BRYSON: If the Court please, there is a little more there which we have not read, which I should like to read.

THE PRESIDENT: You read the whole paragraph. At our invitation you read from the third paragraph down to the bottom of the page.

LT. BRYSON: I should like to read the first sentence of the fourth paragraph on Page 1.


LT. BRYSON: “While making these protestations he nevertheless showed by his acts that he was thoroughly an instrument of the whole Nazi program and ambitions and that he was lending all his extraordinary knowledge and resourcefulness toward the accomplishment of that program.”

THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Bryson, speaking for myself and for some other members of the Tribunal, we think it is a far better way to deal with a document, to deal with it, if possible, once and for all, and not to be coming back to it. It not only wastes time by the fact that the Tribunal have got to turn back and forth, back and forth, to the document; but you get a much fairer idea of the document if it is dealt with once and for all, although it may cover more than one subject. I say that although it may be impossible for you to do that now in consonance with the preparations that you have made; but those who follow you may be able to alter their course. If it is possible, when you get a document with a variety or a number of paragraphs in it which you want to quote, you should quote them all at the same time. Do you follow what I mean?

LT. BRYSON: I follow you, Your Honor. We have so organized our materials that we have directed our evidence to specific points, and since the points are separated, we had to separate our quotations.

THE PRESIDENT: I realize that it may be difficult for you.

LT. BRYSON: In September of 1934 Ambassador Dodd made a record in his diary of a conversation with Sir Eric Phipps at the British Embassy in Berlin. If the Court please, I will pass over this document, because in response to a question from the Tribunal, I read an excerpt from the document which covers the same point that I was about to direct myself toward.

I had just pointed out that Schacht has acknowledged to Ambassador Dodd in September 1934 his knowledge of the war purposes of the Nazi Party; and we had already shown that in 1935 Schacht had stated that Germany would, if necessary, acquire colonies by force. He must then have known to what length Hitler was prepared to go.

After attending a meeting of the Reich ministers on 27 May 1936 in Berlin, Schacht must have known that Hitler was contemplating war. Your Honors may recall, as has been earlier shown, that at this meeting the Defendant Göring, who was very close to Hitler, stated that all measures are to be considered from the standpoint of an assured waging of war and that waiting for new methods is no longer appropriate. I refer the Tribunal to Document 1301-PS, from which I will not read, as the quotation is already in evidence in Exhibit Number USA-123.

On 31 August 1936 the War Minister, Von Blomberg, sent to Schacht a copy of Von Blomberg’s letter to the Defendant Göring. I refer the Tribunal again to 1301-PS, previously submitted in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-123, and read from the middle of Page 19 of the document. The page numbers, if the Court please, on this document are found in the upper lefthand corner:

“According to an order of the Führer the setting up of all Air Force units is to be completed on 1 April 1937. Therefore considerable expenditures have to be made in 1936, which at the time when the budget for 1936 was made were planned for later years only.”

This intensification of the air force program certainly revealed to Schacht the closeness to war which Hitler must have felt.

I also offer in evidence Document EC-416, Exhibit USA-635, consisting of minutes of the Cabinet meeting of 4 September 1936 which Schacht attended. I read the statement by Göring found at the top of Page 2 of this document:

“The Führer and Reichskanzler has given a memorandum to the Colonel General and the Reich War Minister which represents a general instruction for the execution of this task.

“It starts from the basic thought that the show-down with Russia is inevitable.”

Schacht thus knew that Hitler expected war with Russia. He also knew of Hitler’s ambitions towards the east. It must have been plain to him, therefore, that such a war would result from Russian opposition to German military expansion in that direction; that is, Schacht must have known that it would be a war of German aggression.

In January 1937, the Tribunal will recall, Schacht stated to Ambassador Davies in Berlin that he had “been authorized by his government” to submit certain proposals to France and England which, in fact, amounted to a bid for colonies under threat of war. If Schacht was acting under instructions from Hitler, he was necessarily familiar with Hitler’s aggressive intentions at that time.

In November of 1937 Schacht knew Hitler was determined to acquire Austria and at least autonomy for the Germans of Bohemia and that Hitler also had designs on the Polish Corridor. I refer the Tribunal to Document L-151, already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-70, this being a letter containing a memorandum of a conversation between Schacht and Ambassador Bullitt, dated 23 November 1937. I quote the last paragraph on Page 2:

“Hitler was determined to have Austria eventually attached to Germany and to obtain at least autonomy for the Germans of Bohemia. At the present moment he was not vitally concerned about the Polish Corridor, and in his”—Schacht’s—“opinion it might be possible to maintain the Corridor, provided Danzig were permitted to join East Prussia and provided some sort of a bridge could be built across the Corridor uniting Danzig and East Prussia with Germany.”

To digress for just a moment, Schacht here was really speaking for himself as well as for Hitler. We have seen from his speech of 29 March 1938 in Vienna his enthusiasm for the Anschluss after the event. He was even working hard for its achievement. In this connection I refer the Tribunal to Pages 506 and 507 of the transcript (Volume II, Page 373) for evidence of Schacht’s having subsidized the Nazis’ preliminary agitation in Austria.

In addition to the foregoing direct evidence, the Tribunal is asked to take into consideration the fact that to such a man as Schacht the events of the period certainly bespoke Hitler’s intention. Schacht was a close collaborator of Hitler and a member of the Cabinet during the period of the Nazi agitation in Austria, the introduction of conscription, the march into the Rhineland, the overthrow of the Republican Government in Spain, the ultimate conquest of Austria, and the acquisition of the Sudetenland by a show of force. During this period the Reich’s debt tripled under the stress of mounting armaments, the expenditures from 750,000,000 Reichsmarks in 1932 to 11,000,000,000 Reichsmarks in 1937, and 14,000,000,000 Reichsmarks in 1938. During the entire period 35,000,000,000 Reichsmarks were spent on armaments. It was a period in which the burning European foreign policy issue was the satisfaction of Germany’s repeated demands for additional territory. Hitler, committed to a policy of expansion, was taking great risks in foreign policy and laying the greatest stress upon utmost speed in preparation for war.

Certainly, in this setting Schacht did not proceed in ignorance of the fact that he was assisting Hitler and Germany along the road toward armed aggression.

We turn now to our last line of proof with respect to Schacht’s loss of power in the Hitler regime. In November 1937, Schacht resigned his offices as Minister of Economics and General Plenipotentiary for the War Economy. At that time he accepted appointment as Minister without Portfolio and he also continued as President of the Reichsbank.

Our evidence will show: (a) This change in position was no more than a clash between two power-seeking personalities, Göring and Schacht, in which Göring, being closer to Hitler, won out; (b) their policy differences were concerned only with the method of rearming; and (c) Schacht’s loss of power in no sense implies an unwillingness to assist armed aggression.

There was an issue of policy between Göring and Schacht, but it was concerned only with the method and not the desirability of war preparations. Schacht emphasized foreign trade as a necessary source of rearmament material during the transitory period until Germany should be ready to strike. Göring was a proponent of complete self-sufficiency. Hitler supported Göring; and Schacht, his pride wounded and bitterly resenting Göring’s intrusion in the economic field, finally stepped out.

I refer the Tribunal to Document 1301-PS, previously submitted in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-123, containing notes of a conversation between Schacht and Thomas on 2 September 1936. These are found on Page 21 of the document, from which I quote:

“President Schacht called me to him at 1300 hours today and requested me to forward the following to the Minister of War: Schacht returned from the Führer with the greatest anxiety, since he could not agree to the economic program planned by the Führer.

“The Führer wants to speak at the Party convention about economic policy and wants to emphasize there that we now want to get free from foreign countries with all our energy by production in Germany.

“Schacht requests urgently that the Reich Minister of War warn the Führer from this step.”

And three paragraphs farther down:

“If we now shout out abroad our decision to make ourselves economically independent, then we cut our own throats, because we can no longer survive the necessary transitory period.”

Nevertheless, Hitler announced the Four Year Plan of self-sufficiency a few days later in Nuremberg, and against Schacht’s wishes Göring was named Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan.

At this point I refer the Tribunal again to the interrogation of Schacht on 16 October 1945, being Exhibit Number USA-636; and I wish to read beginning near the bottom of Page 9 of the document:

“Q: ‘And the Four Year Plan came in when?’

“A: ‘It was announced in September ’36, on the Party Day.’

“Q: ‘Do you say that from the time that the Four Year Plan came in in September 1936, you were ready to rid yourself of your economic duty?’

“A: ‘No. At that time I thought that I might maintain my position even against Göring.’

“Q: ‘Yes, in what sense?’

“A: ‘That he would not interfere with affairs which I had to manage in my ministry.’

“Q: ‘As a matter of fact, his appointment was not met with favor by you?’

“A: ‘I would not have ever appointed a man like Göring who didn’t understand a bit about all these things.’ ”

Schacht and Göring immediately became embroiled in a conflict of jurisdiction. On 26 November 1936 Göring issued a directive regarding raw and synthetic material production. I offer in evidence Document EC-243, Exhibit Number USA-637, consisting of a copy of this directive. It shows that Göring’s Office for Raw and Synthetic Materials pre-empted control over large economic areas previously in the hands of Schacht. As an example, I will quote from Paragraph V of the directive on Page 4 of the document:

“The planning and determination of objectives, as well as the control over the execution of the tasks which must be accomplished within the framework of the Four Year Plan, are the responsibility of the Office for German Raw and Synthetic Materials, which supersedes the authorities which have heretofore been in charge of these tasks.”

On 11 December 1936 Schacht found it necessary to order all supervisory offices in the Ministry of Economics to accept instructions from him alone. I offer in evidence Document EC-376, Exhibit Number USA-638, consisting of a circular letter from Schacht to all supervisory offices under date of 11 December 1936, and I quote from the second paragraph:

“The supervisory offices are obliged to accept instructions from me alone. They must answer all official inquiries for any information of the Office for German Raw and Synthetic Materials in order to give any information at any time to the fullest extent.”

And a little further down:

“. . . I herewith authorize the supervisory offices to take the necessary measures for themselves. In case doubts should result from requests of the above offices and these doubts cannot be cleared by oral negotiations with the experts of these offices, I should be informed immediately. I will then order in each case the necessary steps to be taken.”

The military sided with Schacht, who had rearmed them so well. I offer in evidence Document EC-420, Exhibit Number USA-639, consisting of a draft of a memorandum by the Military Economic Staff, dated 19 December 1936. I wish to read from Paragraph 1:

“(1) The direction of war economy in the civilian sector in case of war can be handled only by the person who in peacetime has borne the sole responsibility for the preparations for war.

“Upon recognizing this fact a year and a half ago Reichsbank President Dr. Schacht was appointed Plenipotentiary General for War Economy and an operations staff was attached to his office.”

And then Paragraph Number 2:

“(2) The Military Economy Staff does not deem it compatible with the principle laid down in Number 1, Paragraph 1, if the Plenipotentiary General for War Economy is now placed under the Minister President General Göring’s command.”

In January 1937 the Military Weekly Gazette published an article warmly praising Schacht’s achievements in rearmament. Without reading it I offer in evidence Document EC-383, Exhibit Number USA-640, containing this article, a pertinent quotation from which already appears in the transcript for 23 November at Page 296 (Volume II, Page 233).

Shortly thereafter Schacht attempted to force a show-down with Göring by temporarily refusing to act in his capacity as Plenipotentiary. I offer in evidence Document EC-244, Exhibit Number 641, consisting of a letter from Von Blomberg, the Minister of War, to Hitler under date of February 22, 1937. I read the second paragraph of this letter as follows:

“The President of the Reichsbank, Dr. Schacht, has notified me that he is not acting in his capacity as Plenipotentiary for the time being, since in his opinion there exist discrepancies regarding the powers conferred upon him and those of Colonel General Göring. Because of this the preparatory mobilization steps in the economic field are delayed.”

Schacht obviously was using his importance to the war preparations as a lever.

THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Bryson, does the Defendant Schacht admit in his interrogation that the reason for his giving up his office was the difference of opinion between him and the Defendant Göring?

LT. BRYSON: He does, Sir, and the Defendant Göring so states in his interrogation.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to go into the details of their quarrel?

LT. BRYSON: If the Court will be satisfied that this was the cause of Schacht’s resignation. . .

THE PRESIDENT: If they both say so. . .

LT. BRYSON: . . . and that the cause was not his unwillingness to go along with the aggressive intentions of the Nazis at that time, I shall be perfectly satisfied to confine our evidence to the interrogations of Schacht and Göring.

THE PRESIDENT: Does he suggest that in his interrogation?—that that might have been the reason?

LT. BRYSON: I will find out, Sir, but our case against Schacht is premised upon conspiracy.

THE PRESIDENT: If the Defendant Schacht wants to set up such a case as that, you could apply to be heard in rebuttal.

LT. BRYSON: Well, we shall be satisfied then to eliminate a number of our items of evidence, including the controversy between Göring and Schacht, and satisfy ourselves with the interrogations.


LT. BRYSON: If the Court please, we are almost at the time of the break. Perhaps during the break we can arrange our evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will adjourn now for 10 minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KRAUS (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): We agree that the question of the disagreement between the Defendants Göring and Schacht need not be discussed further at this time. But we shall come back to and deal in detail with the question as to how far these disagreements had any bearing on the plan for an aggressive war.

LT. BRYSON: If the Tribunal please, we have eliminated part of our proof. I would simply like to put in a letter from Göring and an interrogation of Schacht which will finish up the question of the disagreement.

Under date of 5 August 1937 Schacht wrote a critical letter to Göring, who replied with a 24-page letter on 22 August 1937. Göring’s letter reviews their many differences in detail. I offer it as Document EC-493, Exhibit Number USA-642, and I wish to read simply one statement found in the middle of Page 13:

“In conclusion I should like to refer to remarks which you made in a paragraph of your letter entitled ‘The Four Year Plan’ about your general attitude toward my work in regard to the economic policy. I know and I am pleased that at the beginning of the Four Year Plan you promised me your most loyal support and co-operation and that you repeatedly renewed this promise even after the first differences of opinion had occurred and had been removed in exhaustive discussions. I deplore all the more having the impression recently, which is confirmed by your letter, that you are increasingly antagonistic toward my work in the Four Year Plan. This explains the fact that our collaboration has gradually become less close. . . .”

Schacht and Göring were reconciled by written agreement on 7 July 1937 but subsequently again fell into disagreement, and Hitler finally accepted Schacht’s resignation as Minister of Economics on 26 November 1937, simultaneously appointing him Minister without Portfolio, and later Schacht’s resignation was extended to his position as Plenipotentiary for War Economy. Without reading it, I offer in evidence Document EC-494, Exhibit Number USA-643, as proof of this fact.

Now, finally, I wish to refer the Tribunal to the interrogation of Schacht, under date of 16 October 1945, Document 3728-PS, Exhibit Number USA-636, and I wish to read from Page 12 of the document near the bottom:

“A: ‘It may amuse you if I tell you that the last conversation’ ”—this is Schacht speaking—“ ‘that I had with Göring on these topics was in November 1937, when Luther for 2 months had endeavored to unite Göring and myself and to induce me to co-operate further with Göring and maintain my position as Minister of Economics. Then I had a last talk with Göring; and at the end of this talk Göring said, “But I must have the right to give orders to you.” Then I said, “Not to me, but to my successor.” I have never taken orders from Göring; and I would never have done it because he was a fool in economics, and I knew something about it, at least.’

“Q: ‘Well, I gather that was a culminating, progressive personal business between you and Göring. That seems perfectly obvious.’

“A: ‘Certainly.’ ”

In all this abundant and consistent evidence there is not the slightest suggestion that Schacht’s withdrawal from these two posts represented a break with Hitler on the ground of contemplated military aggression. Indeed, Hitler was gratified that Schacht would still be active in the Government as President of the Reichsbank and as Minister without Portfolio. I offer in evidence Document L-104, Exhibit Number USA-644, consisting of a letter to the United States Secretary of State from Ambassador Dodd, under date of 29 November 1937, enclosing a translation of Hitler’s letter of 26 November 1937 to Schacht. I quote the last two sentences of Hitler’s letter, found on Page 2 of the document:

“If I accede to your wish it is with the expression of deepest gratitude for your so excellent achievements and in the happy consciousness that, as President of the Reichsbank Directorate you will make available for the German people and me for many years more your outstanding knowledge and ability and your untiring energy. Delighted at the fact that in the future, also, you are willing to be my personal adviser, I appoint you as of today a Reich Minister.”

Schacht did continue, obviously still in full agreement with Hitler’s aggressive purpose. He was still President of the Reichsbank at the time of the taking of Austria in March 1938. In fact, the Reichsbank took over the Austrian National Bank. On this point I refer the Tribunal to Reichsgesetzblatt 1938, Part I, Page 254, and ask that judicial notice be taken thereof. Further, Schacht even participated in the planning of the absorption of Austria. In this connection I introduce into evidence Document EC-421, Exhibit Number USA-645, consisting of excerpts from minutes of a meeting of the staff of General Thomas on 11 March 1938 at 1500 hours. I quote therefrom as follows:

“Lieutenant Colonel Hünerm reads directive of the Führer of 11 March concerning the ‘Action Otto’ and informs us that ‘The Economy War Service Law’ has been put in force. He then reads Directives 1 and 2 and gives special orders to troops for crossing the Austrian borders. According to that, at Schacht’s suggestion, no requisitions should be made but everything ought to be paid for at the rate of 2 schillings to 1 Reichsmark.”

On the conversion of the Austrian schilling the Tribunal is asked also to take judicial notice of Reichsgesetzblatt 1938, Part I, Page 405.

The Tribunal, of course, is already familiar with the public approval by Schacht of the Anschluss in his Vienna speech of 21 March 1938, and Your Honors will also recall Schacht’s pride in Hitler’s use of the rearmed Wehrmacht at Munich, as expressed in his speech of 29 November 1938. Both speeches were subsequent to his resignation in November 1937.

We come now to the removal of Schacht from the presidency of the Reichsbank in January 1939. The reason for this development is quite clear. Schacht lost confidence in the credit capacity of the Reich and was paralyzed, with the fear of a financial collapse. He felt that the maximum level of production had been reached, so that an increase in banknote circulation would only cheapen money and bring on inflation. In this attitude he ceased to be useful to Hitler, who was about to strike and wished to tap every ounce of available Government credit for military purposes.

I refer the Tribunal to Document EC-369, which I have previously submitted in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-631. This document is a memorandum from the Reichsbank directorate to Hitler, under date of 7 January 1939, in which Schacht reviews in detail his fears of inflation. The seriousness of the situation may be seen generally from the entire text. I wish to quote several of the more crucial statements, one from the last paragraph on Page 3, the second sentence:

“We are, however, faced with the fact that approximately 3 billion Reichsmark of such drafts cannot now be paid, though they will be due in 1939.”

I quote from the upper half of Page 4:

“Exclusive of the Reichsbank there are approximately 6 billion Reichsmark mefo drafts which can be discounted against cash payment at any time at the Reichsbank, which fact represents a continuous danger to the currency.”

And I quote finally from the concluding paragraph of the memorandum:

“We are convinced that the effects on the currency caused by the policy of the last 10 months can be mended and that the danger of inflation again can be eliminated by strict maintenance of a balanced budget. The Führer and Reich Chancellor himself has publicly rejected, again and again, an inflation as foolish and fruitless.

“We therefore ask for the following measures:

“(1) The Reich as well as all the other public offices must not incur expenditures or assume guaranties and obligations that cannot be covered by taxes or by those funds which can be raised through loans without disturbing the long-term investment market.

“(2) In order to carry out these measures effectively, full financial control over all public expenditures must be restored to the Reich Minister of Finance.

“(3) The price and wage control must be rendered effective. The existing mismanagement must be eliminated.

“(4) The use of the money and investment market must be at the sole discretion of the Reichsbank.”

It is clear that Schacht’s fear was genuine and is a complete explanation for his departure from the scene. He had good reason to be afraid. In fact, the Finance Minister had already recognized the situation in September 1938. I refer the Tribunal to Document EC-419, Exhibit Number USA-621, which I have already submitted in evidence and which consists of a letter under date of 1 September 1938 from Krosigk to Hitler, in which Krosigk warns of an impending financial crisis. I quote from the bottom of Page 2.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that not really cumulative of what you have already read?

LT. BRYSON: We will be glad to skip it, Sir. It is cumulative.

Schacht was not only afraid of a financial crisis, but he was afraid that he personally would be held responsible for it. I offer in evidence an affidavit of Emil Puhl, a director of the Reichsbank and co-worker of Schacht, dated 8 November 1945, designated as Document EC-438, Exhibit Number USA-646, and I read therefrom, beginning at the bottom of the second page:

“When Schacht saw that the risky situation which he had sponsored was becoming insoluble, he was more and more eager to get out. This desire to get out of a bad situation was for a long time the ‘Leitmotiv’ of Schacht’s conversation with the directors of the bank.”

In the end Schacht escaped by deliberately stimulating his dismissal from the Presidency of the Reichsbank. I offer in evidence Document 3731-PS, Exhibit Number USA-647, consisting of excerpts from an interrogation of Von Krosigk under date of 24 September 1945, and I wish to read several statements beginning at the very bottom of the second page:

“I asked Mr. Schacht to finance for the Reich for the ultimo of the month the sum of 100 or 200 millions. It was this quite customary procedure which we had used for years, and we used to give back this money after a couple of days. Schacht this time refused and said that he was not willing to finance a penny because he wanted, as he said, that it should be made clear to Hitler that the Reich was bankrupt. I tried to explain that this was not the proper ground to discuss the whole question of financing because the question of financing very small sums for a few days during ultimo never would bring Hitler to the conviction that the whole financing was impossible. As far as I remember now, it was Funk who told Hitler something about this conversation; then Hitler asked Schacht to call upon him. I do not know what they said but the result certainly was the dismissal of Schacht.”

THE PRESIDENT: Just give me the reference again to that document that you were reading from.

LT. BRYSON: This is the interrogation of Von Krosigk under date of 24 September 1945. I wish to read further, continuing on Page 3:

“Q: ‘Now did Schacht ever say anything to you to the effect that he wanted to resign because he was in opposition to the continuance of the rearmament program?’

“A: ‘No, he never said it in this specific form, but in some conversations he certainly spoke about it several times in his own way when he had encounters with Göring . . . therefore I did not take these things very seriously.’

“Q: ‘Well, let me put it this way, and please think carefully about this. Did Schacht ever say that he wanted to resign because he realized that the extent of the rearmament program was such as to lead him to the conclusion that it was in preparation for war rather than for defense?’

“A: ‘No, he never did.’

“Q: ‘Was Schacht ever quoted to you to this effect by any of your colleagues or by anybody else?’

“A: ‘No.’

“Q: ‘Now, after Keitel took over the position of Chief of the Wehrmacht were there still meetings between Schacht and yourself with Keitel in place of Blomberg?’

“A: ‘Yes.’

“Q: ‘Did Schacht ever say anything at these meetings to indicate that except for the technical question of the financing through the Reichsbank directly he was opposed to a further program of rearmament or opposed to the budget of the Wehrmacht?’

“A: ‘No, I do not think he ever did.’ ”

The Defendant Göring has also confirmed this testimony. I refer the Tribunal to the interrogation of Göring under date of 17 October 1945, this being Document 3730-PS, Exhibit Number USA-648. I read from the interrogation of Göring on 17 October 1945, from the lower half of the third page:

“Q: ‘I want to ask you this specifically. Was Schacht dismissed from the Reichsbank by Hitler for refusing to participate any further in the rearmament program?'

“A: ‘No, because of his utterly impossible attitude in this matter regarding this advance, which had no connection with the rearmament program.’ ”

Hitler dismissed Schacht from the Reichsbank on 20 January 1939. Without reading, I offer in evidence Document EC-398, Exhibit Number USA-649, consisting merely of a brief note from Hitler to Schacht announcing his dismissal.

From all of the foregoing it is clear that Schacht’s dismissal in no sense reflected a parting of the ways with Hitler on account of proposed aggression. This fact may also be seen from Document EC-397, Exhibit Number USA-650, consisting of Hitler’s letter to Schacht under date of 19 January 1939, the text of which I wish to read:

“At the occasion of your recall from office as President of the Reichsbank Directorate I take the opportunity of expressing to you my most sincere and warmest gratitude for the services which you have rendered repeatedly to Germany and to me personally in this capacity during long and difficult years. Your name, above all, will always be connected with the first epoch of the national rearmament. I am happy to be able to avail myself of your services for the solution of new tasks in your position as Reich Minister.”

In fact, Schacht continued as Minister without Portfolio until January 1943.

I wish to conclude by saying that the evidence shows: First, Schacht’s work was indispensable to Hitler’s rise to power and to the rearmament of Germany; second, Schacht personally was favorably disposed towards aggression and knew Hitler intended to and would break the peace; and, third, Schacht retired from the scene for reasons wholly unrelated to the imminence of illegal aggression.

As long as he remained in power, Schacht was working as eagerly for the preparation of aggressive war as any of his colleagues. He was beyond any doubt most effective and valuable in this connection. His assistance in the earlier phase of the conspiracy made their later crimes possible. His withdrawal from the scene reflected no moral feeling against the use of aggressive warfare as an instrument of national policy. He personally struggled to retain his position. By the time he lost it he had already completed his task in the conspiracy, namely, to provide Hitler and his colleagues with the physical means and economic planning necessary to launch and maintain the aggression. We do not believe that, having prepared the Wehrmacht for assault upon the world, he should now be permitted to find refuge in his loss of power before the blow was struck.

This concludes our case against the Defendant Schacht, and Lieutenant Meltzer follows me with the presentation of the American case against the Defendant Funk.

LIEUTENANT (j. g.) BERNHARD D. MELTZER (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, the documents bearing upon Defendant Funk’s responsibility have been assembled in a document book marked “HH,” which has been filed with the Tribunal and has also been made available to Defense Counsel. The same is true of the brief. The documents have been arranged in the book in the order of their presentation. Moreover, to facilitate reference, the pages of the document book have been numbered consecutively in red. I wish to acknowledge the invaluable collaboration of Mr. Sidney Jacoby, who sits to my right, in the selection and analysis of these documents.

We propose to submit evidence concerning five phases of Defendant Funk’s participation in the conspiracy:

First, his contribution to the Nazi seizure of power; second, his role in the Propaganda Ministry and in the related agencies and his responsibility for the activities of that ministry; third, his responsibility for the unrelenting elimination of Jews, first from the so-called cultural professions and then from the entire German economy; fourth, his collaboration in the paramount Nazi task to which all other tasks were subordinated—preparation for aggressive war; and finally, we propose to mention briefly the evidence concerning his active participation in the waging of aggressive war.

We turn now to the evidence showing that Defendant Funk actively promoted the conspirators’ accession to power and their consolidation of control over Germany. Soon after he joined the Nazi Party in 1931 Defendant Funk began to hold important positions, first within the Party itself and then within the Nazi Government. Funk’s positions have, in the main, been listed in Document Number 3533-PS, which is a statement signed by both Defendant Funk and his counsel. This document has been made available in the four working languages of these proceedings, and a copy in the appropriate language should be available in each of Your Honors’ document books. It is accordingly requested that this document, which is Exhibit Number USA-651, be received into evidence without the necessity of its being read in its entirety.

Your Honors will observe that there are some deletions and reservations after some of the items listed in Document Number 3533-PS. These were inserted by Defendant Funk. The words which he wished deleted are enclosed in parentheses. His comments are underscored and followed by asterisks.

We wished to avoid troubling the Tribunal with a detailed discussion of all these contested points. Accordingly, we collected in Document 3563-PS relevant excerpts from certain German publications. This document has also been made available in the four working languages. Moreover, we submit that the Tribunal can properly take judicial notice of the publications referred to in the document. However, in order to facilitate reference, we request that it be received in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-652.

In connection with Item “b” on the top of Page 1 of Document Number 3533-PS—Your Honors will find that on Page 1 of the document—Your Honors will observe that Defendant Funk has in effect denied that he was Hitler’s personal economic adviser in the 1930’s. However, the excerpts from the four German publications set forth on Pages 1 and 2 of Document Number 3563-PS directly contradict this denial.

We submit that it will be clear from the documents just referred to that Defendant Funk, soon after he joined the Party, began to operate as one of the Nazi inner circle. Moreover, as a Party economic theorist during its critical days in 1932, he made a significant contribution to its drive for mass support by drafting its economic slogans. In this connection I would refer to Document 3505-PS, which is a biography entitled, in the English translation, Walter Funk—A Life for Economy. This biography was written by one Oestreich in German and published by the Central Publishing House of the Nazi Party. I offer this document in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-653. I wish to quote now from Page 1 of the translation of this document, the center of the page. The corresponding page of the German document is Page 81:

“In 1931 he”—that is, Funk—“became a member of the Reichstag. A document of his activity at the time is the ‘Economic Construction Program of the NSDAP’ which was formulated by him in the second half of the year 1932. It received the approval of Adolf Hitler and was declared binding for all Gau leaders, speakers on the subject, and Gau advisers on the subject and others of the Party.”

Thus Defendant Funk’s slogans became the economic gospel for the Party organizers and spellbinders.

Defendant Funk, however, was much more than one of the Nazi Party’s economic theorists; he was also involved in the highly practical work of soliciting campaign contributions for the Party. As liaison man between the Party and the large German industrialists he helped place the industrialists’ financial and political support behind Hitler. Defendant Funk, in an interrogation conducted on 4 June 1945, admitted that he helped finance the highly critical campaign of 1932. I offer in evidence Document Number 2828-PS as Exhibit Number USA-654, and I quote from the bottom of Page 43. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Meltzer, isn’t this really all cumulative and detailed evidence to support what the Defendant Funk has already agreed with reference to his office? On Page 1 you have there the admission that he was a member of the Nazi Party, chief of the division of the Central Nazi Party, chairman of the committee of the Nazi Party on economic policy, and then it goes on from A to U with views of the various offices which he held and which he admits, he held. But surely to go into the details of those positions is unnecessary.

LT. MELTZER: If Your Honor pleases, the admission of the various positions listed do not, in our judgment, indicate in any way Defendant Funk’s participation in the fund-raising for the Nazi Party.

THE PRESIDENT: The fund-raising?

LT. MELTZER: The fund-raising. Now, it is a possible inference from those positions that he did engage in the solicitation of campaign contributions. However, it did seem to us relevant to mention most briefly direct evidence of that aspect of his activity.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, if you say there is nothing in these offices which covered the matter you are going to deal with; well and good.

LT. MELTZER: Defendant Funk, in an interrogation conducted on 4 June 1945, admitted, as I said a minute ago, that he helped to finance this highly critical campaign.

THE PRESIDENT: You see, Lieutenant Meltzer, the heading that you have so conveniently given to us is that he contributed to the seizure of power. Well now, nearly every one of the headings A to U on Page 1, which he admits, is evidence that he contributed to seizure of power. Is it your object to propose that he also helped to raise funds? The contribution to the seizure of power is not in itself a crime; it is only a step.

LT. MELTZER: Very well, Your Honor. There is one aspect, however, of his activity in that regard which I should like to mention; that is, in connection with his fund-raising activities, he was present at a meeting in Berlin early in 1933.

I am referring to the document which records what went on in that meeting in order to point out that in the course of the meeting Hitler and Göring submitted an exposition of certain basic elements of the Nazi program. The reference to this meeting is found in Document 2828-PS, which Your Honors will find on Page 28 of the document book. I wish to quote the following question and answer:

“Q: ‘About 1933, we have been informed, certain industrialists attended a meeting in the home of Göring before the election in March. Do you know anything about this?’

“A: ‘I was at the meeting. Money was not demanded by Göring but by Schacht. Hitler left the room, then Schacht made a speech asking for money for the election. I was there as an impartial observer, since I was friendly with the industrialists.’ ”

The character and importance of Funk’s work with the large industrialists is emphasized in the biography of Funk, which I referred to earlier, and I will simply invite Your Honors’ attention to the relevant pages of that book, which are 83 and 84.

THE PRESIDENT: I don’t understand why you read that passage. If you wanted to show that he was at the meeting, it would be merely sufficient to say that he was at the meeting. I don’t think those two sentences that you read help us in the very least.

LT. MELTZER: If the Tribunal please, those two sentences do not refer to the meeting. Those two sentences refer to the biography which sums up the Defendant Funk’s general contribution to the Nazi accession to power and I thought it might be of interest to the Tribunal to see the attitude of a German writer on this aspect of the defendant’s career.

THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me you referred to the meeting.

LT. MELTZER: I was referring Your Honors to Pages 32 and 33 of the document book, and to clarify this point may I read briefly from the biography:

“No less important than Funk’s accomplishments in the programmatic field in the years 1931 and 1932 was his activity at that time as the Führer’s liaison man to the leading men of the German industry, trade, commerce, and finance. On the basis of his past work his personal relations to the German economic leaders were broad and far-reaching. He was now able to enlist them in the service of Adolf Hitler and not only to answer their questions authoritatively but to convince them and win their backing for the Party. At that time that was terribly important work; every success achieved meant a moral, political, and economic strengthening of the vitality of the Party and contributed toward destroying the prejudice that National Socialism is merely a party of class hatred and class struggle.”

THE PRESIDENT: Again, I don’t see that that has helped the Tribunal in the least.

LT. MELTZER: After Funk had helped Hitler become Chancellor, as Press Chief of the German Government, he participated in the early Cabinet meetings, in the course of which the conspirators planned the strategy by which they would secure the passage of the Presidential Emergency Decree, which was passed on 24 March 1933. Funk’s presence at these meetings is revealed by Document 2962-PS which has already been received in evidence and by Document Number 2963-PS, offered as Exhibit Number USA-656. Your Honors will recall that this decree marked the real seizure of political power in Germany.

Soon after this the Defendant Funk assumed an important role in the Ministry of Propaganda. The record shows that the Ministry became one of the most important and vicious of Nazi institutions and that propaganda was fundamental to the achievement of the Nazi program within Germany and outside of Germany. We do not propose to review those matters to you but rather to present evidence showing, as we have said, that the Defendant Funk took a significant part in the propaganda operations.

The Ministry was established on 13 March 1933, with Goebbels as Chief and Defendant Funk as undersecretary, second in command.

As undersecretary Defendant Funk was not only Goebbels’ chief aide but was also the organizer of the large and complex propaganda machine. I wish to offer in evidence Document Number 3501-PS, which will be found on Page 47 of your document book as Exhibit Number USA-657. This document is an affidavit signed on 19 December 1945 by Max Amann, who held the position of Reich Leader of the Press and President of the Reich Press Chamber. I should like to read the second sentence of the first paragraph and the entire second paragraph:

“In carrying out my duties and responsibilities I became familiar with the operation and the organization of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Funk was the soul of the Ministry, and without him Goebbels could not have built it up. Goebbels once stated to me that Funk was his ‘most efficient man.’ Funk exercised comprehensive control over all of the media of expression in Germany; over the press, the theater, radio, and music. As Press Chief of the Government and later as undersecretary of the Ministry, Funk held daily meetings with the Führer and a daily press conference in the course of which he issued the directives governing the materials to be published by the German press.”

In addition to his position as undersecretary, Funk had many other important jobs in the Propaganda Ministry and in its subordinate agencies. These positions have already been listed in Document 3533-PS. I wish, however, to refer in particular to Funk’s position as vice-president of the Reich Chamber of Culture. This position was, of course, related to his functions in the Propaganda Ministry.

In his dual capacity he directly promoted two vital and related Nazi policies. The first was the regimentation of all creative activities in the interests of Nazi political and military objectives. The second was the complete elimination of Jews and dissidents from the so-called cultural professions. A full discussion of the methods by which these policies were effectuated has been included in the brief which was submitted as part of Document Book E. Accordingly, we will not go into that matter now unless the Tribunal wishes us.

In view of the Defendant Funk’s major role in the Propaganda Ministry, it is natural to find Nazi writers stressing his responsibility for the Nazi perversion of culture. In this connection, I will simply invite the Tribunal’s attention to Pages 94 and 95 of Oestreich’s biography, which has already been referred to.

After Defendant Funk left the Ministry of Propaganda and became Minister of Economics in 1938, he continued to advance the anti-Jewish program. For example, on 14 June 1938 he signed a decree providing for the registration of Jewish enterprises. This decree, which became the foundation for the ruthless economic persecution which followed, is found in the Reichsgesetzblatt, 1938, Part I, Page 627. It is requested that the Tribunal take judicial notice of this reference to the Reichsgesetzblatt and all subsequent references. May I add that the brief on Defendant Funk gives the document numbers of translations of decrees and other German publications of which the Tribunal will be requested to take judicial notice.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?

LT. MELTZER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Before we do so, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, I see that one of the counsel, Colonel Phillimore, I think, is proposing to call certain witnesses. The Tribunal would like to know who those witnesses are and what subject their evidence is going to deal with.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would the Tribunal like to know now? I would like to let them know, if it is convenient.

THE PRESIDENT: If you could, it would be convenient now.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. The first witness is Korvettenkapitän Moehle, who was a captain on Defendant Dönitz’ staff; and he will prove the passing on the Dönitz order of 17 September 1942. I think that is the main point that he deals with. I think he deals also with the destruction of some rescue ships, but that is the main point.

The second witness is Lieutenant Heisig. He will deal primarily with lectures of the Defendant Dönitz in which he advocated the destruction of the crews of merchant ships. That is the general effect of the evidence.


[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Meltzer, are you intending to call any witnesses this afternoon?

LT. MELTZER: No, Sir. There is another member of the Prosecution, Sir, who I believe is intending to call a witness—Mr. Dodd.

THE PRESIDENT: In connection with the case against Funk?

LT. MELTZER: No, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Or in connection with the case against somebody else?

LT. MELTZER: Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Who is it in connection with, Raeder?

LT. MELTZER: I believe Mr. Dodd might offer. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Raeder, is it?

LT. MELTZER: No, Sir. Mr. Dodd might offer a better explanation than I on the purpose of calling the witness.


MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): Yes, Sir. Your Honor, the witness is offered in connection with the Defendants Rosenberg, Funk, Frick, Sauckel, and Kaltenbrunner.

THE PRESIDENT: I see. The evidence relates to concentration camps, does it?

MR. DODD: It does, Your Honor.


MR. DODD: This witness would have been called at the time that we presented the other proof, except for the fact that he was before the military court at Dachau at that time and was not available.

THE PRESIDENT: I see; thank you.

LT. MELTZER: May it please the Tribunal, before we adjourned we were dealing with Defendant Funk’s role in the economic persecution of the Jews. As Your Honors will recall, in November of 1938 the death of Vom Rath in Paris was exploited by the Nazis as a pretext for intensifying the persecution of the Jews. The new policy was directed at the complete elimination of the Jews from the economic life of Germany. The evidence we will offer will show that Defendant Funk took a significant part in both the formulation and execution of that policy. In this connection I would refer the Tribunal to Document Number 1816-PS which is already in the Record. This document is a report of the meeting on the Jewish question. It will be found, Your Honor, on Page 52 of the document book. This meeting was held under Göring’s chairmanship on 12 November 1938. In opening the meeting, Defendant Göring stated—and I quote now from Page 1, Paragraph 1, of the translation; the corresponding page of the German document is also Page 1:

“. . . today’s meeting is of a decisive nature. I have received a letter written by the chief of staff of the Führer’s Deputy, Bormann, on the Führer’s orders directing that the Jewish question be now, once and for all, co-ordinated and solved one way or another.”

Defendant Funk came to this meeting well prepared. He had a law already drafted which he submitted with the following explanation—I quote again from Document 1816-PS, Page 15:

“I have prepared a law for this case which provides that as from 1 January 1939 Jews shall be prohibited from operating retail stores and mail-order establishments as well as independent workshops. They shall be further prohibited from hiring employees for that purpose or offering any goods on the market. Wherever a Jewish shop is operated, it is to be closed by the police. From 1 January 1939 a Jew can no longer operate a business in the sense of the law for the regulation of national labor of 20 January 1934.”

I believe we may omit the rest. It is all in the same tenor.


LT. MELTZER: The substance of Defendant Funk’s draft law promptly found its way into the Reichsgesetzblatt. On 12 November 1938 Defendant Göring signed a decree entitled, and I quote, “. . . for the Elimination of Jews from German Economic Life,” and in Section 4 he authorized Defendant Funk to implement the provisions of the decree by issuing the necessary rules and regulations. An examination of the provisions of this decree, which is set forth in the Reichsgesetzblatt 1938, Part I, Page 1580, will reveal how well it deserved its title “. . . for the Elimination of the Jews from German Economic Life.”

Soon after the passage of the decree of 12 November, Defendant Funk delivered a speech on the Jewish question. He made it clear that the program of economic persecution was part of the larger program of extermination and he boasted of the fact that the new program insured the complete elimination of Jews from the German economy. I offer into evidence Document Number 3545-PS as Exhibit USA-659. This document, which is found on Page 76 of the document book, is a certified photostatic copy of Page 2 of the Frankfurter Zeitung of 17 November 1938. I quote a very brief portion of that speech:

“State and economy constitute a single unit. They must be directed according to the same principles. The best proof of this is given by the most recent development of the Jewish problem in Germany. One cannot exclude the Jews from political life and yet let them live and work in the economic sphere.”

I shall omit the rest, with the request that the Tribunal take judicial notice of this reprint from the German newspaper, the Frankfurter Zeitung.

I wish, however, to refer to only one more decree, signed by Defendant Funk himself. On the 3rd of December 1938 he signed a decree which imposed additional and drastic economic disabilities upon the Jews and subjected their property to confiscation and forced liquidation. This decree is set forth in the Reichsgesetzblatt 1938, Part I, Page 1709. Defendant Funk himself has admitted and deplored his responsibility for the economic persecution of the Jews. I offer into evidence Document Number 3544-PS, as Exhibit USA-660. This document, which is the last document in connection with this phase of the case, is an interrogation of Defendant Funk dated 22 October 1945. Your Honors will find it on Pages 102 and 103 of the document book. I wish to quote from Pages 26 to 27 of the interrogation. The corresponding page of the German translation is Page 21. Although I propose to quote enough to place Defendant Funk’s statements in their proper context, I do not, of course, intend to give any credence to his attempts at self-justification:

“Q: ‘All the decrees excluding the Jews from industry were yours, were they not?’ ”

Now, omitting the first nine lines of the reply:

“A: ‘As far as my participation in this Jewish affair is concerned, that was my responsibility, and I regretted later on that I ever participated. The Party had always brought pressure to bear on me to make me agree to the confiscation of Jewish property, and I refused repeatedly. But later on, when the anti-Jewish measures and the brutality against Jews were being carried out with full force, something legal had to be done to prevent the looting and confiscation of the whole of Jewish property.’

“Q: ‘You knew that the looting and all that was done at the instigation of the Party, didn’t you?’

“Here Defendant Funk wept and answered:

“ ‘That is when I should have resigned, in 1938. I am guilty. I am guilty. I admit that I am a guilty party here.’ ”

In the Propaganda Ministry, Defendant Funk, as we have seen, helped solidify the German people in favor of war. When he moved on to his position as Minister of Economics, and to other positions which will appear, he used his talents even more directly for the conspirators’ main task: preparation for war. Immediately before Defendant Funk took over the Ministry of Economics from Defendant Schacht in 1938, there was a major reorganization of that ministry’s functions which integrated it with the Four Year Plan as the supreme command of the German military economy. This reorganization was effected by a decree, dated 4 February 1938, signed by Göring as Commissioner of the Four Year Plan. This decree is set forth in an official monthly bulletin issued by Göring and entitled, in the English translation, The Four Year Plan, Volume II, 1938, Page 105. It is requested that the Tribunal take judicial notice of this publication.

At this point I would simply note that that decree makes it clear that Defendant Funk assumed a critical role in the task of economic mobilization during a decisive period. Indeed, in 1938 he was directly charged with the task of preparing the German economy for war. By a secret decree he was made Plenipotentiary General for Economics and assumed the duties which once had been discharged by Defendant Schacht. In this connection I refer to Document 2194-PS, which has already been placed in evidence. This document, which is found on Page 111 of Your Honors’ document books, consists of a letter dated 6 September 1939, and that letter transmitted a copy of the Reich Defense Law of 4 September 1938. It is this enclosure that we wish to deal with now. I wish to quote from Page 4 of the translation, Paragraphs 2 to 4:

“It is the task of the GBW”—that is the Plenipotentiary General for Economics—“to put all economic forces into the service of the Reich defense and to safeguard economically the life of the German nation. To him are subordinated: the Reich Minister of Economics, the Reich Minister of Food and Agriculture, the Reich Minister of Labor. . .” and so on.—“He is furthermore responsible for directing the financing of the Reich defense within the realm of the Reich Finance Ministry and the Reichsbank.”

To quote one more paragraph:

“The GBW must fulfill the demands of the OKW which are of essential importance for the Armed Forces and must ensure the economic conditions necessary for the production of the armament industry directly managed by the OKW, according to the requirements of the latter.”

This law, in essence, re-enacted the provisions previously passed in the Reich Defense Law of 1935, and I will not trouble the Tribunal with further reading. I do wish to note, however, that the law was, at the specific direction of Hitler, kept secret and that it was signed by Defendant Funk, among others, as Plenipotentiary General for Economics. Your Honors will find Defendant Funk’s signature on the next to the last page of the document, and I invite your attention to the names of his co-signers.

Defendant Funk, in a speech which he delivered on 14 October 1939, explained how, as Plenipotentiary General for Economics, he had for a year and a half prior to the launching of the aggression against Poland, advanced Germany’s economic preparations for war. I offer into evidence Document Number 3324-PS as Exhibit USA-661. This document is a German book by Berndt and Von Wedel entitled, in the English translation, Germany in the Fight. That book reprints the defendant’s speech. I quote now from Page 2 of the translation of Document Number 3324-PS, which is found on Page 116 of the document book. The translation of this speech is somewhat awkward, and with the Tribunal’s permission I would rephrase it somewhat without changing its substance in the slightest.

“Although all economic and financial departments were harnessed to the task of the Four Year Plan under the leadership of General Field Marshal Göring, Germany’s economic preparation for war was also secretly advanced in another sector for well over a year, namely, through the formation of a national guiding apparatus for special war economy tasks which would have to be accomplished the moment that war became a fact. For this work all economic departments were combined into one administrative authority, the Plenipotentiary General for Economics, to which position the Führer appointed me one and a half years ago.”

THE PRESIDENT: What was the date of that?

LT. MELTZER: The date of that speech, Sir, is 14 October 1939.

In his dual capacity as Plenipotentiary General for Economics and Minister of Economics, Defendant Funk was naturally advised of the requirements which the conspirators’ program of aggression imposed on the German economy. In this connection I would invite the Tribunal’s attention to Document Number 1301-PS, which is already in evidence. As Your Honors will recall, this document is a top secret report of the conference held in Defendant Göring’s office on 14 October 1938. Your Honors will find it on Page 142 of the document book. I shall simply summarize the relevant portions of this document.

During the conference Göring referred to the world situation and to Hitler’s directive to organize a gigantic armament program. He thereupon directed the Ministry of Economics to increase exports in order to obtain the foreign exchange necessary for stepping up armament. He added, as Your Honors will recall, that the Luftwaffe must be increased five-fold, that the Navy should arm more quickly, and that the Army should accelerate the production of weapons for attack. Defendant Göring’s words directed at Funk, among others, were the words of a man already at war; and his emphasis on quintupling the Air Force and on weapons for attack was that of a man waging aggressive war.

After Schacht’s departure Funk was a key figure in the preparation of plans to finance the war. This was natural, since Defendant Funk after 1939 occupied three positions crucial to war finance. Two we have already named: Minister of Economics and Plenipotentiary General for Economics. In addition, he was President of the Reichsbank.

Funk’s role in war financing is illustrated by Document Number 3562-PS, which I now offer in evidence as Exhibit USA-662. This document was found in the captured files of the Reich Ministry of Economics. It consists, in part, of a letter from the Plenipotentiary General for Economics, signed on his behalf by Dr. Posse. The letter is dated 1 June 1939 and encloses the minutes of a conference concerning the financing of the war which was held under the chairmanship of Funk’s undersecretary in the Ministry of Economics, Dr. Landfried. A copy of the document which I have offered into evidence bears a marginal note on Page 1 in the bottom lefthand corner, dated 5 June, stating, and I quote: “To be shown to the Minister,”—that is, Funk—“for his information.”

During the course of the meeting, which was attended by 12 officials, five of whom were directly responsible to Defendant Funk in his various capacities, the conferees discussed a memorandum regarding war finance which had been prepared by the Plenipotentiary General for Economics on May 9, 1939. I wish to quote briefly from Page 2 of the English translation, which is found on Page 153 of Your Honors’ document book:

“Then a report was made of the contents of the ‘Notes on the question of Internal Financing of War’ of 9 May of this year, in which the figures given to me by the Reich Minister of Finance were also discussed. It was pointed out that the Plenipotentiary General for Economics is primarily interested in introducing into the legislation for war finance the idea of financing war expenditures by future revenues to be expected after the war.”

And, if I may quote another brief excerpt from this important memorandum, which is found on Page 2 of the English translation, Page 153 of your document books:

“State Secretary Neumann first submitted for discussion the question of whether, in case of war, production would be able to meet, to the extent supposed, the demands of the Armed Forces, especially if the demands of the Armed Forces, as stated in the above report, should increase to approximately 14,000 millions in the first 3 months of war. He stated that if the production potential of the present Reich territory is taken as a basis he doubts the possibility of such an increase.”

It is plain then that Defendant Funk exercised comprehensive authority over large areas of the German economy whose proper organization and direction were critical to effective war preparation. The once powerful military machine which rested on the foundation of thorough economic preparation was a tribute to the contribution which Defendant Funk had made to Nazi aggression.

And Funk made this contribution with full knowledge of the plans for military aggression. A compelling inference of such knowledge would arise from the combination of several factors: From Funk’s long and intimate association with the Nazi inner circle; from the very nature of his official functions; from the war-dominated setting of Nazi Germany; from the fact that force and the threat of force had become the primary and the open instruments of German foreign policy. And the final element in weighing the question of Defendant Funk’s knowledge is, of course, the fact that, at the same time that Defendant Funk was making economic preparation, specific plans for aggression were being formulated—plans which were carried out and plans which could be effectively carried out only if they were synchronized with the complementary economic measures.

The conclusion concerning Defendant Funk’s knowledge is reinforced beyond any question by considering, in the light of the factors described above, the more specific and direct evidence which has already been placed into the Record. We have seen from Document 1760-PS that Defendant Funk had told Mr. Messersmith that the absorption of Austria by Germany was a political and economic necessity, and that it would be achieved by whatever means were necessary. We have already referred to Document Number 1301-PS, in which Defendant Göring laid down directives which could be understood only as directives to prepare the economic basis for aggression. And Document Number 3562-PS has revealed that Defendant Funk was making detailed plans for financing the war, that is, of course, a particular war, the war against Poland. In this connection I wish to refer to another vital piece of evidence which has already been introduced in the Record. It is the letter dated 25 August 1939 which Defendant Funk wrote to Hitler. In that letter, as Your Honors will recall, Defendant Funk expressed his gratitude at being able to experience those world-shaking times and to contribute to those tremendous events. And he thanked Hitler for approving his proposals designed to prepare the German economy for the war.

Moreover, the Record contains evidence showing that Defendant Funk, both personally and through his representatives, participated in the economic planning which preceded the military aggression against the Soviet Union. I would refer the Tribunal to Document 1039-PS, which revealed that in April of 1941 Defendant Rosenberg, who had been appointed deputy for the centralized treatment of problems related to the occupation of the Eastern territories, that is, the Soviet Union, discussed with Defendant Funk the economic problems which would arise when the plans for aggression in the East matured. And Document 1039-PS also reveals that Defendant Funk appointed one Dr. Schlotterer as his deputy to collaborate with Rosenberg in connection with the exploitation of the Eastern territories and that Schlotterer met with Defendant Rosenberg almost daily.

It is clear, then, that Defendant Funk participated in every phase of the conspirators’ program, from their seizure of power to their final defeat. Throughout he worked effectively, if sometimes more quietly than others, on behalf of the Nazi program, a program which from the very beginning he knew contemplated the use of ruthless terror and force within Germany and, if necessary, outside of Germany. He bears, we submit, a special, a direct, and a heavy responsibility for the commission of Crimes against Humanity, Crimes against Peace, and War Crimes. The Record makes it clear, if we may summarize the evidence, that by virtue of his activities in the Ministry of Propaganda and in the Ministry of Economics he is responsible for stimulating and engaging in the unrelenting persecution of the Jews and other minorities, for psychologically mobilizing the German people for aggressive war, and for weakening the willingness and capacity of the conspirators’ intended victims to resist aggression. It is also clear, we submit, that Defendant Funk, with full knowledge of the conspirators’ purposes, in his capacity as Minister of Economics, President of the Reichsbank, and Plenipotentiary General for Economics, actively participated in the mobilization of the German economy for aggression. In these capacities and as a member of the Ministerial Council for Defense and the Central Planning Board he also participated in the waging of aggressive war. Moreover, by virtue of his membership in the Central Planning Board, which, as Your Honors will recall from Mr. Dodd’s presentation, formulated and directed the program for the enslavement, the exploitation, and degradation of millions of foreign workers, Defendant Funk also shares special responsibility for the Nazi slave-labor program.

The French Prosecution, I am informed, will deal with this matter in greater detail. Moreover, the French and Soviet Prosecution will submit evidence showing that Defendant Funk actively participated in the program for the criminal looting of the resources of occupied territories.

MR. DODD: May it please the Tribunal, we would like to call at this time the witness, Dr. Franz Blaha.

[The witness, Blaha, took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT [To the witness]: Is your name Franz Blaha?

DR. FRANZ BLAHA (Witness) [In Czech.]: Dr. Franz Blaha.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath: “I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the truth, the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.”

[The witness repeated the oath.]

THE PRESIDENT: You can sit down if you wish.

MR. DODD: You are Dr. Franz Blaha, a native and a citizen of Czechoslovakia, are you not?

BLAHA: [In Czech.] Yes.

MR. DODD: I understand that you are able to speak German, and for technical reasons I suggest that we conduct this examination in German, although I know your native tongue is Czech; is that right?

BLAHA: [In Czech.] In the interest of the case I am willing to testify in German for the following reasons: 1. For the past 7 years, which are the subject of my testimony, I have lived exclusively in German surroundings; 2. A large number of special and technical expressions relating to life in and about the concentration camps are purely German inventions, and no appropriate equivalent for them in any other language can be found.

MR. DODD: Dr. Blaha, by education and training and profession you are a doctor of medicine?

BLAHA: [In German.] Yes.

MR. DODD: And in 1939 you were the head of a hospital in Czechoslovakia?


MR. DODD: You were arrested, were you not, by the Germans in 1939 after they occupied Czechoslovakia?


MR. DODD: And were you confined in various prisons between 1939 and 1941?


MR. DODD: From 1941 to April of 1945 you were confined at Dachau Concentration Camp?

BLAHA: Yes, until the end.

MR. DODD: When that camp was liberated by the Allied Forces?


MR. DODD: You executed an affidavit in Nuremberg on the 9th day of January of this year, did you not?


MR. DODD: This affidavit, if it please the Tribunal, bears the Document Number 3249-PS, and I wish to offer it at this time. It is Exhibit USA-663. I feel that we can reduce the extent of this interrogation by approximately three-fourths through the submission of this affidavit and I should like to read it. It will take much less time to read this affidavit than it would to go through it in question and answer form and it covers a large part of what we expect to elicit from this witness.


MR. DODD: I wouldn’t have read it if we had had time to have a Russian and French translation, but unfortunately that wasn’t possible in the few days we had.

“I, Franz Blaha, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:

“1. I studied medicine in Prague, Vienna, Strasbourg, and Paris and received my diploma in 1920. From 1920 to 1926 I was a clinical assistant. In 1926 I became chief physician of the Iglau Hospital in Moravia, Czechoslovakia. I held this position until 1939 when the Germans entered Czechoslovakia and I was seized as a hostage and held a prisoner for co-operating with the Czech Government. I was sent as a prisoner to the Dachau Concentration Camp in April 1941 and remained there until the liberation of the camp in April 1945. Until July 1941 I worked in a punishment company. After that I was sent to the hospital and subjected to the experiments in typhoid being conducted by Dr. Muermelstadt. After that I was to be made the subject of an experimental operation and succeeded in avoiding this only by admitting that I was a physician. If this had been known before, I would have suffered, because intellectuals were treated very harshly in the punishment company. In October 1941 I was sent to work in the herb plantation and later in the laboratory for processing herbs. In June 1942 I was taken into the hospital as a surgeon. Shortly afterwards I was directed to perform a stomach operation on 20 healthy prisoners. Because I would not do this I was transferred to the autopsy room where I stayed until April 1945. While there I performed approximately 7,000 autopsies. In all, 12,000 autopsies were performed under my direction.

“2. From the middle of 1941 to the end of 1942 some 500 operations on healthy prisoners were performed. These were for the instructions of the SS medical students and doctors and included operations on the stomach, gall bladder, and throat. These were performed by students and doctors of only 2 years’ training, although they were very dangerous and difficult. Ordinarily they would not have been done except by surgeons with at least 4 years’ surgical practice. Many prisoners died on the operating table and many others from later complications. I performed autopsies on all of these bodies. The doctors who supervised these operations were Lang, Muermelstadt, Wolter, Ramsauer, and Kahr. Standartenführer Dr. Lolling frequently witnessed these operations.

“3. During my time at Dachau I was familiar with many kinds of medical experiments carried on there on human victims. These persons were never volunteers but were forced to submit to such acts. Malaria experiments on about 1,200 people were conducted by Dr. Klaus Schilling between 1941 and 1945. Schilling was personally ordered by Himmler to conduct these experiments. The victims were either bitten by mosquitoes or given injections of malaria sporozoites taken from mosquitoes. Different kinds of treatment were applied including quinine, pyrifer, neosalvarsan, antipyrin, pyramidon, and a drug called 2516 Behring. I performed autopsies on the bodies of people who died from these malaria experiments. Thirty to 40 died from the malaria itself. Three hundred to four hundred died later from diseases which were fatal because of the physical condition resulting from the malaria attacks. In addition there were deaths resulting from poisoning due to overdoses of neosalvarsan and pyramidon. Dr. Schilling was present at my autopsies on the bodies of his patients.

“4. In 1942 and 1943 experiments on human beings were conducted by Dr. Sigmund Rascher to determine the effects of changing air pressure. As many as 25 persons were put at one time into a specially constructed van in which pressure could be increased or decreased as required. The purpose was to find out the effects on human beings of high altitude and of rapid descents by parachute. Through a window in the van I have seen the people lying on the floor of the van. Most of the prisoners used died from these experiments, from internal hemorrhage of the lungs or brain. The survivors coughed blood when taken out. It was my job to take the bodies out and as soon as they were found to be dead to send the internal organs to Munich for study. About 400 to 500 prisoners were experimented on. The survivors were sent to invalid blocks and liquidated shortly afterwards. Only a few escaped.

“5. Rascher also conducted experiments on the effect of cold water on human beings. This was done to find a way for reviving airmen who had fallen into the ocean. The subject was placed in ice-cold water and kept there until he was unconscious. Blood was taken from his neck and tested each time his body temperature dropped one degree. This drop was determined by a rectal thermometer. Urine was also periodically tested. Some men stood it as long as 24 to 36 hours. The lowest body temperature reached was 19 degrees centigrade, but most men died at 25 or 26 degrees. When the men were removed from the ice water attempts were made to revive them by artificial sunshine, with hot water, by electro-therapy, or by animal warmth. For this last experiment prostitutes were used and the body of the unconscious man was placed between the bodies of two women. Himmler was present at one such experiment. I could see him from one of the windows in the street between the blocks. I have personally been present at some of these cold water experiments when Rascher was absent, and I have seen notes and diagrams on them in Rascher’s laboratory. About 300 persons were used in these experiments. The majority died. Of those who survived, many became mentally deranged. Those who did not die were sent to invalid blocks and were killed just as were the victims of the air pressure experiments. I know only two who survived, a Yugoslav and a Pole, both of whom are mental cases.

“6. Liver puncture experiments were performed by Dr. Brachtl on healthy people and on people who had diseases of the stomach and gall bladder. For this purpose a needle was jabbed into the liver of a person and a small piece of the liver was extracted. No anaesthetic was used. The experiment is very painful and often had serious results, as the stomach or large blood vessels were often punctured, resulting in hemorrhage. Many persons died of these tests for which Polish, Russian, Czech, and German prisoners were employed. Altogether about 175 people were subjected to these experiments.

“7. Phlegmone experiments were conducted by Dr. Schütz, Dr. Babor, Dr. Kieselwetter and Professor Lauer. Forty healthy men were used at a time, of which twenty were given intramuscular and twenty intravenous injections of pus from diseased persons. All treatment was forbidden for 3 days, by which time serious inflammation and in many cases general blood poisoning had occurred. Then each group was divided again into groups of 10. Half were given chemical treatment with liquid and special pills every 10 minutes for 24 hours. The remainder were treated with sulfanamide and surgery. In some cases all the limbs were amputated. My autopsy also showed that the chemical treatment had been harmful and had even caused perforations of the stomach wall. For these experiments Polish, Czech, and Dutch priests were ordinarily used. Pain was intense in such experiments. Most of the 600 to 800 persons who were used finally died. Most of the others became permanent invalids and were later killed.

“8. In the fall of 1944 there were 60 to 80 persons who were subjected to salt water experiments. They were locked in a room and for 5 days were given nothing for food but salt water. During this time their urine, blood, and excrement were tested. None of these prisoners died, possibly because they received smuggled food from other prisoners. Hungarians and Gypsies were used for these experiments.

“9. It was common practice to remove the skin from dead prisoners. I was commanded to do this on many occasions. Dr. Rascher and Dr. Wolter in particular asked for this human skin from human backs and chests. It was chemically treated and placed in the sun to dry. After that it was cut into various sizes for use as saddles, riding breeches, gloves, house slippers, and ladies’ handbags. Tattooed skin was especially valued by SS men. Russians, Poles, and other inmates were used in this way, but it was forbidden to cut out the skin of a German. This skin had to be from healthy prisoners and free from defects. Sometimes we did not have enough bodies with good skin and Rascher would say, ‘All right, you will get the bodies.’ The next day we would receive 20 or 30 bodies of young people. They would have been shot in the neck or struck on the head so that the skin would be uninjured. Also we frequently got requests for the skulls or skeletons of prisoners. In those cases we boiled the skull or the body. Then the soft parts were removed and the bones were bleached and dried and reassembled. In the case of skulls it was important to have a good set of teeth. When we got an order for skulls from Oranienburg the SS men would say, ‘We will try to get you some with good teeth.’ So it was dangerous to have good skin or good teeth.

“10. Transports arrived frequently in Dachau from Struthof, Belsen, Auschwitz, Mauthausen and other camps. Many of these were 10 to 14 days on the way without water or food. On one transport which arrived in November 1942 I found evidence of cannibalism. The living persons had eaten the flesh from the dead bodies. Another transport arrived from Compiègne in France. Professor Limousin of Clermont-Ferrand who was later my assistant told me that there had been 2,000 persons on this transport when it started. There was food available but no water. Eight hundred died on the way and were thrown out. When it arrived after 12 days, more than 500 persons were dead on the train. Of the remainder most died shortly after arrival. I investigated this transport because the International Red Cross complained, and the SS men wanted a report that the deaths had been caused by fighting and rioting on the way. I dissected a number of bodies and found that they had died from suffocation and lack of water. It was mid-summer and 120 people had been packed into each car.

“11. In 1941 and 1942 we had in the camp what we called invalid transports. These were made up of people who were sick or for some reason incapable of working. We called them ‘Himmelfahrt Commandos.’ About 100 or 120 were ordered each week to go to the shower baths. There four people gave injections of phenol, evipan, or benzine, which soon caused death. After 1943 these invalids were sent to other camps for liquidation. I know that they were killed, because I saw the records and they were marked with a cross and the date that they left, which was the way that deaths were ordinarily recorded. This was shown on both the card index of the Camp Dachau and the records in the registry office of Dachau. One thousand to two thousand went away every 3 months, so there were about five thousand sent to death in this way in 1943, and the same in 1944. In April 1945 a Jewish transport was loaded at Dachau and was left standing on the railroad siding. The station was destroyed by bombing, and they could not leave. So they were just left there to die of starvation. They were not allowed to get off. When the camp was liberated they were all dead.

“12. Many executions by gas or shooting or injections took place right in the camp. The gas chamber was completed in 1944, and I was called by Dr. Rascher to examine the first victims. Of the eight or nine persons in the chamber there were three still alive, and the remainder appeared to be dead. Their eyes were red, and their faces were swollen. Many prisoners were later killed in this way. Afterwards they were removed to the crematorium where I had to examine their teeth for gold. Teeth containing gold were extracted. Many prisoners who were sick were killed by injections while in the hospital. Some prisoners killed in the hospital came through to the autopsy room with no name or number on the tag which was usually tied to their big toe. Instead the tag said ‘Do not dissect’. I performed autopsies on some of these and found that they were perfectly healthy but had died from injections. Sometimes prisoners were killed only because they had dysentery or vomited and gave the nurses too much trouble. Mental patients were liquidated by being led to the gas chamber and injected there or shot. Shooting was a common method of execution. Prisoners could be shot just outside the crematorium and carried in. I have seen people pushed into the ovens while they were still breathing and making sounds, although if they were too much alive they were usually hit on the head first.

“13. The principal executions about which I know from having examined the victims or supervised such examinations are as follows:

“In 1942 there were 5,000 to 6,000 Russians held in a separate camp inside Dachau. They were taken on foot to the military rifle range near the camp in groups of 500 or 600 and shot. Such groups left the camp about three times a week. At night we used to go out to bring the bodies back in carts and then examine them. In February 1944 about 40 Russian students arrived from Moosburg. I knew a few of the boys in the hospital. I examined their bodies after they were shot outside the crematory. In September 1944 a group of 94 high-ranking Russian officers were shot, including two military doctors who had been working with me in the hospital. I examined their bodies. In April 1945, a number of prominent people were shot who had been kept in the bunker. They included two French generals, whose names I cannot remember; but I recognized them from their uniform. I examined them after they were shot. In 1944 and 1945 a number of women were killed by hanging, shooting, and injections. I examined them and found that in many cases they were pregnant. In 1945, just before the camp was liberated, all ‘Nacht und Nebel’ prisoners were executed. These were prisoners who were forbidden to have any contact with the outside world. They were kept in a special enclosure and were not allowed to send or receive any mail. There were 30 or 40, many of whom were sick. These were carried to the crematory on stretchers. I examined them and found they had all been shot in the neck.

“14. From 1941 on the camp was more and more overcrowded. In 1943 the hospital for prisoners was already overcrowded. In 1944 and in 1945 it was impossible to maintain any sort of sanitary conditions. Rooms which held 300 or 400 persons in 1942 were filled with 1,000 in 1943, and in the first quarter of 1945 with 2,000 or more. The rooms could not be cleaned because they were too crowded and there was no cleaning material. Baths were available only once a month. Latrine facilities were completely inadequate. Medicine was almost nonexistent. But I found after the camp was liberated that there was plenty of medicine in the SS hospital for all the camp, if it had been given to us for use. New arrivals at the camp were lined up out of doors for hours at a time. Sometimes they stood there from morning until night. It did not matter whether this was in the winter or in the summer. This occurred all through 1943, 1944, and the first quarter of 1945. I could see these formations from the window of the autopsy room. Many of the people who had to stand in the cold in this way became ill with pneumonia and died. I had several acquaintances who were killed in this manner during 1944 and 1945.

“In October 1944 a transport of Hungarians brought spotted fever into the camp, and an epidemic began. I examined many of the corpses from this transport and reported the situation to Dr. Hintermayer but was forbidden, on penalty of being shot, to mention that there was an epidemic in the camp. He said that it was sabotage, and that I was trying to have the camp quarantined so that the prisoners would not have to work in the armaments industry. No preventive measures were taken at all. New healthy arrivals were put into blocks where an epidemic was already present. Also infected persons were put into these blocks. The 30th block, for instance, died out completely three times. Only at Christmas, when the epidemic spread into the SS camp, was a quarantine established. Nevertheless, transports continued to arrive. We had 200 to 300 new typhus cases a day and about 100 deaths from typhus daily. In all we had 28,000 cases and 15,000 deaths. Apart from those that died from the disease my autopsies showed that many deaths were caused solely by malnutrition. Such deaths occurred in all the years from 1941 to 1945. They were mostly Italians, Russians, and Frenchmen. These people were just starved to death. At the time of death they weighed 50 to 60 pounds. Autopsies showed their internal organs had often shrunk to one-third of their normal size.

“The facts stated above are true. This declaration is made by me voluntarily and without compulsion. After reading over the statement I have signed and executed the same at Nuremberg, Germany, this 9th day of January 1946.”[1]

—Signed—“Dr. Franz Blaha.

“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of January 1946 at Nuremberg, Germany. 2d Lieutenant Daniel F. Margolies.”

MR. DODD: [Continuing the interrogation.] Dr. Blaha, will you state whether or not visitors came to the camp of Dachau while you were there?

BLAHA: Very many visitors came to our camp so that it sometimes seemed to us that we were not confined in a camp but in an exhibition or a zoo. At times there was a visit or an excursion almost every day from schools, from different military, medical, and other institutions, and also many members of the Police, the SS, and the Armed Forces; also. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Will you pause so as to give the interpreter’s words time to come through; do you understand?

BLAHA: Yes. Also some State personalities came to the camp. Regular inspections were made month by month by the Inspector General of Concentration Camps, Obergruppenführer Pohl; also by SS Reichsführer Professor Grawitz, Inspector of Experimental Stations; Standartenführer Dr. Lolling; and other personalities.

MR. DODD: The presiding Justice has suggested that you pause, and it would be helpful if you paused in the making of your answers so that the interpreters can complete their interpretation.


MR. DODD: Are you able to state how long these visits lasted on an average?

BLAHA: That depended on the sort of visits being made. Some were inside for half an hour to an hour, some for 3 or 4 hours.

MR. DODD: Were there prominent Government people who visited the camp at any time while you were there?

BLAHA: While I was there many personalities came to our camp: Reichsführer Himmler came to Dachau several times and also was present at the experiments. I was present myself on these occasions. Other personalities also were there. I myself have seen three ministers of state, and from political prisoners who were Germans and therefore knew these people I heard that several other personages visited the camp. I also twice saw high-ranking Italian officers and once a Japanese officer.

MR. DODD: Do you remember the names of any of these prominent Government people, or do you remember more particularly who any of them were?

BLAHA: Besides Himmler there was Bormann; also Gauleiter Wagner; Gauleiter Giesler; State Ministers Frick, Rosenberg, Funk, Sauckel; also the General of Police Daluege; and others.

MR. DODD: Did these people whom you have just named take tours around the camp while you were there?

BLAHA: Generally the tour through the camp was so arranged that the visitors were first taken to the kitchen, then to the laundry, then to the hospital, that is, usually to the surgical station, then to the malaria station of Professor Schilling and the experimental station of Dr. Rascher. Then they proceeded to a few “blocks,” particularly those of the German prisoners and sometimes they also visited the chapel, which, however, had been fitted up inside for German clergy only. Sometimes, too, various personalities were presented and introduced to the visitors. It was so arranged that always, first of all, a “green” professional criminal was selected and introduced as a murderer; then the Mayor of Vienna, Dr. Schmitz, was usually presented as the second one; then a high-ranking Czech officer; then a homosexual; a Gypsy; a Catholic bishop or other Polish priest of high rank; then a university professor, in this order, so that the visitors always found it entertaining.

MR. DODD: Now did I understand you to name Kaltenbrunner as one of those visitors there or not?

BLAHA: Yes, Kaltenbrunner was also present. He was there together with General Daluege. That was, I believe, in the year 1943. I was also interested in General Daluege because it was he who, after Heydrich’s death, had become Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, and I wanted to see him.

MR. DODD: Did you see Kaltenbrunner there yourself?

BLAHA: Yes. He was pointed out to me. I had not seen him previously.

MR. DODD: Did I understand you mentioned the name Frick as one of those whom you saw there?

BLAHA: Yes, it was in the year of 1944, the first half of 1944.

MR. DODD: Where did you see him? Where in the camp did you see him?

BLAHA: I saw him from the hospital window as he was entering with his staff, with several people.

MR. DODD: Do you see the man whom you saw there that day, by the name of Frick, in this courtroom now?

BLAHA: Yes, the fourth man from the right in the first row.

MR. DODD: I understand you also named the name Rosenberg as one of those whom you saw there?

BLAHA: I can recall that it was shortly after my arrival in the concentration camp at Dachau that there was a visit and it was then that my German comrades pointed Rosenberg out to me.

MR. DODD: Do you see that man in this courtroom now?

BLAHA: Yes. He is the second farther to the left in the first row.

MR. DODD: I also understood you to name Sauckel as one of those who were present in the camp.

BLAHA: Yes, but I did not see him personally; I merely heard that he had also visited certain factories and armament plants; and that was in 1943, I believe.

MR. DODD: Was it general knowledge in the camp at that time that a man named Sauckel visited the camp, and particularly the munition plant?

BLAHA: Yes, that was general knowledge in the camp.

MR. DODD: I also understood you to name one of those who visited this camp as Funk.

BLAHA: Yes. He was also present at a visit, and I can remember that it was on the occasion of a state conference of the Axis Powers in Salzburg or Reichenhall. It was the custom on such occasions, when there was a Party convention or a celebration in Munich, Berchtesgaden, or Salzburg, for several personalities to come from the celebrations to Dachau for a visit. That was also the case with Funk.

MR. DODD: Did you personally see Funk there?

BLAHA: No, I did not see Funk personally; I merely heard that he was there.

MR. DODD: Was that general knowledge in the camp at that time?

BLAHA: Yes. We knew beforehand that he was to come.

MR. DODD: Were there any visits after the end of the year 1944, or in the months of 1945?

BLAHA: There were some visits still, but very few, because there was a typhus epidemic in the camp at that time and quarantine was imposed.

MR. DODD: Doctor, you are now director of a hospital in Prague, are you not?


MR. DODD: I have no further questions to ask of the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any other counsel for the Prosecution wish to ask any questions? Colonel Pokrovsky? [Colonel Pokrovsky indicated assent.] We will adjourn for a 10-minute recess.

[1] The last paragraph of this affidavit appears in the English translation signed by Dr. Blaha but not in the original German version.

[A recess was taken.]

COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): I would like permission to ask this witness several questions.

[Turning to the witness]: Tell us, witness, do you know what was the particular purpose of the concentration camp at Dachau; was it really, so to speak, a concentration camp of extermination?

BLAHA: Until the year 1943 it was really an extermination camp. After 1943 a good many factories and munition plants were established, also inside the camp, particularly after the bombardments started, and then it became more of a work camp. But as far as the results are concerned there was no difference, because the prisoners had to work so hard while going hungry that they died from hunger and exhaustion instead of from beatings.

COL. POKROVSKY: Must I understand you this way, that, in fact, both before 1943 and after 1943 Dachau was a camp of extermination and that there were different ways of extermination?

BLAHA: That is so.

COL. POKROVSKY: How many, according to your own observations, went through this camp of extermination, Dachau; how many internees came originally from the U.S.S.R., how many passed through the camp?

BLAHA: I cannot state that exactly, only approximately. First, after November 1941, there were exclusively Russian prisoners of war in uniform. They had separate camps and were liquidated within a few months. In the summer of 1942, those who remained of these—I believe there were 12,000 prisoners of war—were transported to Mauthausen; and, as I learned from the people who came from Mauthausen to Dachau, they were liquidated in gas chambers.

Then, after the Russian prisoners of war, Russian children were brought to Dachau. There were, I believe, 2,000 boys, 6 to 17 years old. They were kept in one or two special blocks. They were assigned to particularly brutal people, the “greens,” who beat them at every step. These young boys also. . .

COL. POKROVSKY: What do you mean when you refer to the “greens”?

BLAHA: Those were the so-called professional criminals. They beat these young boys and gave them the hardest work. They worked particularly in the plantations where they had to pull ploughs, sowing machines, and street rollers instead of horses and motors being used. Also in all transport Kommandos Russian children were used exclusively. At least 70 percent of them died of tuberculosis, I believe, and those who remained were then sent to a special camp in the Tyrol in 1943 or the beginning of 1944.

Then after the children, several thousand so-called Eastern Workers were killed. These were civilians who were removed from the Eastern territories to Germany and then because of so-called work-sabotage were put into concentration camps. In addition there were many Russian officers and intellectuals.

COL. POKROVSKY: I would like to ask you to be more exact in your answers in regard to those people whom you call “greens.” Did I correctly understand you when you said that those criminals had the task of supervising those internees arriving at the camp?


COL. POKROVSKY: And these professional criminals were given complete charge of the children, and they beat and ill-treated these children of Soviet citizens and put them to work far beyond their strength, so that they became tubercular?


COL. POKROVSKY: What do you know about the executions of the citizens of the U.S.S.R. which were carried out in this camp?

BLAHA: I believe I am not far from the truth when I say that of all those executed, at least 75 percent were Russians, and that women as well as men were brought to Dachau from outside to be executed.

COL. POKROVSKY: Can you give us more details in regard to the execution of 94 high field and staff officers of the Red Army, which you already spoke about in reply to the question of my colleague? Who were these officers, and what rank did they hold? What were the reasons for their execution? Do you know anything at all about it?

BLAHA: In the summer or late spring of 1944 high-ranking Russian officers—generals, colonels, and majors—were sent to Dachau. During the following weeks they were examined by the political department; that is to say, after each interrogation they were brought to the camp hospital in a completely battered condition. I myself saw and knew well some who for weeks had to lie on their bellies, and we had to remove by surgical operation parts of their skin and muscles which had become mortified. Many succumbed to these methods of investigation. The others, 94 people in number, were then brought to the crematory in the beginning of September 1944 on orders from the RSHA in Berlin and there, while on their knees, shot through the neck.

In addition, in the winter and spring of 1945 several Russian officers were brought from solitary confinement to the crematory and there either hanged or shot.

COL. POKROVSKY: I would like to ask you the same kind of question about the execution of the 40 Russian students. It is possible for you to give us a few details about the execution?

BLAHA: Yes, those Russian students and intellectuals—I can recall that a doctor was also among them—were brought from the Moosburg Camp to Dachau, and after 1 month they were all executed. That was in March of 1944.

COL. POKROVSKY: Do you happen to know what the reason was for their execution?

BLAHA: The order for it came from Berlin. We did not get to know the reason, because I saw the bodies only after the execution and the reason was read aloud before the execution took place.

COL. POKROVSKY: This execution produced the impression that it was one of the stages of the general plan for extermination of the people who entered Dachau?

BLAHA: Yes. It was easy to see that these executions, these transports of invalids, and the way epidemics were dealt with, were all part of the general plan for extermination; and particularly, and this I must emphasize, it was the Russian prisoners who were always treated the worst of all.

COL. POKROVSKY: Would you be so kind as to say what is known to you in regard to those internees who were in the “Nacht und Nebel” (night and fog) category? Were there many of these internees? Do you know the reason why they were sent to the concentration camp?

BLAHA: Many so-called Nacht und Nebel prisoners came to the concentration camp. The people so designated were mostly from the western countries of Europe, particularly Frenchmen, Belgians, and Dutchmen. The Russian people—and this was also the case with the Czechs and also in my own case—frequently had the designation “return undesirable.” This actually meant the same. Shortly before the liberation many of these people were executed on the order of the camp commander, that is, shot in front of the crematory. Many of these people, particularly the French and Russians, were serious cases of typhus and with a temperature of 40 degrees were carried on stretchers to the rifle range.

COL. POKROVSKY: It seems to me that you mentioned something about a considerable number of prisoners who died of starvation. Could you tell me how large that number was—the number of people who died of starvation?

BLAHA: I believe that two-thirds of the entire population of the camp suffered from severe malnutrition and that at least 25 percent of the dead had literally died of starvation. It was called in German “Hungertyphus.” Apart from that, tuberculosis was the most widespread disease in the camp and it spread also because of malnutrition. Most of its victims were Russians.

COL. POKROVSKY: It seems to me that you said, answering the question of my colleague, that the majority of those who died of starvation and exhaustion were French, Russians, and Italians. How do you account for the fact that in just these categories of internees more people died than in other categories?


COL. POKROVSKY: How do you explain that especially Russians, French, and Italians made up the largest number of those people who died from starvation? Was there any difference in the feeding of internees of the different nationalities, or was there some other reason?

BLAHA: It was like this: The others, the Germans, Poles, and Czechs, who had already been in the camp for some time, had had time, if I may say so, to adjust themselves to camp conditions, physically I mean. The Russian deteriorated rapidly. The same was true of the French and the Italians. Moreover, these nationals for the most part arrived from other camps suffering from malnutrition so that they then soon fell easy prey to the other epidemics and diseases. Also, the Germans, Poles, and many others who worked in the armaments industry had since the year 1943 been able to get parcels from home. That, of course, was not the case with citizens of Soviet Russia, France, or Italy.

COL. POKROVSKY: Can you answer the question about what Rosenberg, Kaltenbrunner, Sauckel, or Funk saw when they were in the Dachau Concentration Camp? Do you know what they saw and what was shown them?

BLAHA: I had no opportunity of seeing what happened during these visits. Only on very rare occasions did one have the opportunity of seeing these visitors from the window and observing where they went. I seldom had the opportunity to be present as I was in the case of Himmler’s visits and those of Obergruppenführer Pohl and once on the occasion of Gauleiter Giesler’s visit, when they were shown the experiments or the patients in the hospital. As to the others I do not know what they individually saw and did in the camp.

COL. POKROVSKY: Perhaps you had an opportunity of observing the length of the visit of those people in the camp, whether the visit was short—just for a few moments—or whether they stayed there a long time. I have in mind Rosenberg, Kaltenbrunner, Sauckel, and Funk.

BLAHA: That varied. Many visitors were there for half an hour, many, as I said before, spent as many as 3 hours there. We were always able to observe that quite well because at those times no work could be done, nor was food distributed. We did not carry on our work in the hospital and had to wait until the signal was given to us that the visitors had left the camp. Apart from that I had no means of knowing how long these visits in the camp lasted in the individual cases.

COL. POKROVSKY: Can you recall the visit of Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Funk, and Sauckel? On the basis of what you said just now could you state whether they were brief visits or whether those people stayed there for several hours? Did you understand my question or not?

BLAHA: Unfortunately, I cannot make a statement on that because, as I said, the visits took place so frequently that I have difficulty, after all these years, in recalling whether they lasted for a short or longer time. Many visits, for instance, from schools—from the military and police schools—lasted a whole day.

COL. POKROVSKY: Thank you. I have no further questions of this witness at this stage of the sitting.

M. CHARLES DUBOST (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): You alluded to a convoy of deported French people who came from Compiègne, of whom only 1,200 survivors arrived. Were there any other convoys?

BLAHA: Yes. There were transports, particularly from Bordeaux, Lyon, and Compiègne, all in the first half of 1944.

M. DUBOST: Were all the transports carried out under the same conditions?

BLAHA: The conditions under which these transports were made were, if not the same, at any rate very similar.

M. DUBOST: Each time you were able to see on arrival that there were numerous victims?


M. DUBOST: What were the causes of death?

BLAHA: The deaths were caused by the fact that too many people were packed into the cars, which were then locked, and that they did not get anything to eat or drink for several days. Usually they starved or suffocated. Many of those who survived were brought to the camp hospital, and of these a large number died from various complications and diseases.

M. DUBOST: Did you make autopsies on the people who died while en route?

BLAHA: Yes, particularly for the transport from Compiègne my services were demanded because the rumor was spread that the French Maquis and Fascists had attacked and killed each other in the cars. I had to inspect these corpses, but in no case did I find any signs of violence. Moreover, I took 10 corpses as a test, dissected them thoroughly and sent special reports on them to Berlin. All these people had died of suffocation. I was also able to note during the autopsy that these were prominent people of France. I could tell from their identity papers and uniforms that they were high-ranking French officers, priests, deputies, and well-nourished people who had been taken direct from civilian life to the cars and sent to Dachau.

M. DUBOST: After the reports which you sent to Berlin did the conditions under which the transports were made remain the same?

BLAHA: Nothing happened, as usual. Always long reports were written but conditions did not improve at all.

M. DUBOST: You indicated that some French generals had been put to death shortly before the liberation of the camp. Do you know the names of these generals?

BLAHA: Unfortunately I have forgotten these names. I can remember only what I was told by the prisoners who were kept in the bunkers with them—that they were the prominent personalities from Germany and other countries: Pastor Niemöller was there, also a French prince, Schuschnigg was there too, and members of the French Government and many others. I was told that one of the generals who had been shot was a close relative of General De Gaulle. Unfortunately I have forgotten his name.

M. DUBOST: If I understood you correctly, these generals were prisoners of war who had been transported to this concentration camp?

BLAHA: These two generals were not in the concentration camp. They were kept, along with the other prominent personalities, in the so-called “Kommandantur-Arrest,” that is, in the bunker separated from the camp. On various occasions when they needed medical attention I came into contact with them, but that was very seldom. Otherwise they did not come into contact with the other prisoners at all.

M. DUBOST: Did they belong to the category of deported people whose “return was undesirable” or were they in the Nacht und Nebel category?

BLAHA: I do not know. It was 2 days previously that all the others who were kept in the bunker were sent by special transport to the Tyrol. That was, I believe, a week or 8 days before the liberation.

M. DUBOST: You indicated that numerous visitors, German military men, students, political men, often toured the camp. Can you say if any ordinary people, like workers or farmers, knew what was going on in this camp?

BLAHA: In my opinion, the people who lived in the neighborhood of Munich must have known of all these things, because the prisoners went every day to various factories in Munich and the neighborhood; and at work they frequently came into contact with the civilian workers. Moreover, the various suppliers and consumers often entered the fields and the factories of the German armament works and they saw what was done to the prisoners and what they looked like.

M. DUBOST: Can you say in what way the French were treated?

BLAHA: Well, if I said that the Russians were treated worst of all, the French were the second in order. Of course, there were differences in the treatment of individual persons. The Nacht und Nebel prisoners were treated quite differently; likewise the prominent political personalities and the intellectuals. That was so for all nationalities. And the workers and peasants also were treated differently.

M. DUBOST: If I understood correctly, the treatment reserved for the French intellectuals was particularly rigorous. Do you remember the treatment inflicted on some French intellectuals and can you tell us their names?

BLAHA: I had many comrades among the physicians and university professors who worked with me in the hospital. Unfortunately a large number of them died of typhus. Most of the French, in fact, died of typhus. I remember best of all Professor Limousin. He arrived in very poor condition with the transport from Compiègne. I took him into my department as assistant pathologist. Then I also knew the Bishop of Clermont-Ferrand. There were other physicians and university professors whom I knew. I remember Professor Roche, Dr. Lemartin, and many others—I have forgotten their names.

M. DUBOST: In the course of the conversations which you had with Dr. Rascher were you informed of the purpose of these experiments?

BLAHA: I didn’t understand the question, excuse me please. . .

M. DUBOST: Were you informed of the purpose of the medical and biological experiments made by Dr. Rascher in the camp?

BLAHA: Well, Dr. Rascher made exclusively so-called Air Force experiments in the camp. He was a major in the Air Force and was assigned to investigate the conditions to which parachutists were subjected and, secondly, the conditions of those people who had to make an emergency landing on the sea or had fallen into the sea. According to scientific standards, insofar as I can judge, this was all to no purpose. Like all the other experiments, it was simply useless murder; and it is amazing that learned university professors and physicians, particularly, were capable of carrying out these experiments according to plan. These experiments were much worse than all the liquidations and executions, because all the victims of these experiments simply had their suffering prolonged, as various medicines such as vitamins, hormones, tonics, and injections, which were not available for the ordinary patients, were provided for these patients so that the experiments might last longer and give those people more time to observe their victims.

M. DUBOST: I am speaking now of the experiments of Dr. Rascher only. Had he received the order to make these experiments or did he make them on his own initiative?

BLAHA: These experiments were made on Himmler’s direct orders; also, Dr. Rascher had close relations with Himmler and was like a relative of his. He visited Himmler very often and Himmler visited Dr. Rascher several times.

M. DUBOST: Have you any information as to the kind of physicians who were making these experiments? Were they always SS men or were they members of medical faculties of universities who, however, did not belong to the SS?

BLAHA: That varied. For example, the malaria station was under the direction of Professor Klaus Schilling of the Koch Institute in Berlin. The Phlegmone station also had several university professors. The surgical station was manned solely by SS doctors. In the Air Force station there were exclusively SS and military doctors. It differed. Dr. Bleibeck from Vienna conducted the experiments with sea water.

M. DUBOST: Were the experiments for the Luftwaffe made on the order of Himmler only?

BLAHA: Himmler.

M. DUBOST: Do you know—this is the last question—how many Frenchmen passed through this camp?

BLAHA: I believe at least eight or ten thousand people arrived at the camp. Furthermore, I know very well that, particularly during the last period, several thousand French prisoners marched on foot from the western camps, especially from Natzweiler, Struthof, et cetera, and that only very small remnants of these ever reached Dachau.

M. DUBOST: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell us to what branches of the German service those who were employed at the camp belonged?

BLAHA: If I understood you correctly, the highest authority on everything going on in the camp was the so-called Security Main Office in Berlin. All demands and directives came from Berlin; also the experimental stations received a definite quota of subjects for the experiments and the numbers were fixed by Berlin. If the doctors making the experiments needed a larger number, new requests had to be sent to Berlin.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what I want to know is to what branch of the service the men belonged who were employed in the camp.

BLAHA: They were all SS men and most of them from the SD. During the last days, at the very end, a few members of the Armed Forces were there as guards but the men in charge were entirely SS men.

THE PRESIDENT: Were there any of the Gestapo there?

BLAHA: Yes, that was the so-called political department, which was directed by the chief of the Munich Gestapo. It had control of all the interrogations and regulations, and it proposed the executions, transports, and transports of invalids. Also, all the people who were provided for the experiments had to be approved by the political department.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel want to cross-examine the witness?

DR. SAUTER: Witness, you told us that at one time the Defendant Funk also was at Dachau, and you informed us, if I understood you correctly, that this happened on the occasion of some celebration or state conference between the Axis Powers. Please think back a little and tell us when that was approximately. Perhaps—just a moment—perhaps you could tell us the year, maybe also the season, and perhaps you could also state which political celebration it was.

BLAHA: As far as Funk is concerned, I can remember that it was, I believe, a conference of finance ministers. The papers had announced that it would take place and we were informed beforehand that some of the ministers would come to Dachau. Such a visit was actually made a few days afterwards, and it was said that Minister Funk was among the visitors. It was, I believe, during the first half of the year 1944. I cannot say that with absolute certainty.

DR. SAUTER: You mean to say: during the first half of 1944, on the occasion of a conference of finance ministers?


DR. SAUTER: Where did that conference take place?

BLAHA: If I remember correctly—I didn’t write that down, of course—that was either in Salzburg or Reichenhall or Berchtesgaden, somewhere in the neighborhood of Munich, I believe.

DR. SAUTER: From whom did you learn at that time that on the next day, or the day after, high-ranking visitors would arrive?

BLAHA: We always received an order to prepare for such a visit. Elaborate preparations were always made; everything was cleaned up; everything had to be in order, as you will understand; and those people whose presence might be undesirable or those who, in a certain sense, might be dangerous, had to disappear. Thus, whenever such high-ranking visitors were announced we always received an order from the camp headquarters 1 or 2 days beforehand; and, also these visitors were always accompanied by the camp commander.

DR. SAUTER: By the camp commander? Now, if you know that the Defendant Funk was there and people talked about it, then I think they would have mentioned also what other persons were present at this visit made by the Defendant Funk.

BLAHA: I cannot remember. There were always several important persons.

DR. SAUTER: The rest do not interest me. I am interested only in knowing whether or not at that particular visit, which was said to have been made by Funk, word was passed around the camp that such and such personalities were with him?

BLAHA: I cannot remember that now.

DR. SAUTER: You cannot remember. Can you remember afterwards, perhaps on the next day or the day after, something was said perhaps by people who had seen the visitors?

BLAHA: Yes, we always discussed that, but now I can no longer remember which personalities were mentioned.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, I am not interested in any other visit, but in this specific visit, as long as I do not say anything to the contrary. In this case I should like to know whether or not anything at all was said later on about the persons who were there with Funk.

BLAHA: That I do not know; there were so many visits. For instance, after one visit, the very next day already another visit would be announced.

DR. SAUTER: Now, you do also remember the visit that Funk made. Well, if other finance ministers were there, one would think that you would recall these other persons also.

BLAHA: I cannot remember that. It may be that the people with whom I talked did not know who these other persons were.

DR. SAUTER: Do you know why, or to put it differently, which departments of the camp were visited on the occasion when Funk was supposed to have made this visit. At any rate he did not come to you.

BLAHA: No; he did not come to the pathological department.

DR. SAUTER: He did not. But you were also prepared?

BLAHA: Yes. All departments had always to be prepared, even if no visitors came. It also happened at times that a visit was announced, and then, for one reason or another, nothing came of it.

DR. SAUTER: Witness, as regards these observations of yours that you have related to us today, have you been interrogated in regard to them many times already?

BLAHA: I was interrogated on these matters for the first time before the military court at Dachau.

DR. SAUTER: Did you also at that time say that Funk had been there? I repeat, did you before the military court at Dachau say anything to the effect that Funk had been present?

BLAHA: Yes, I said the same thing before the court at Dachau.

DR. SAUTER: About Funk?

BLAHA: Also about Funk.

DR. SAUTER: But is it true, Witness? I ask again whether it is really true, because you are here as a witness under oath.


DR. SAUTER: You were interrogated also the day before yesterday?


DR. SAUTER: Did you, at that time, also make these statements about Funk?

BLAHA: I said the same thing at the interrogation conducted by the Prosecution.

DR. SAUTER: Is that also in the record which I believe you signed?

BLAHA: I signed no record.

DR. SAUTER: You signed no record?

BLAHA: No; I simply signed what was read by the Prosecution.

DR. SAUTER: Well, that is a record.

BLAHA: Yes, but in that record there is no mention of these visits.

DR. SAUTER: Why then didn’t you mention these visits the day before yesterday?

BLAHA: I was asked about it orally, and the prosecutor told me that these matters would be taken up orally in the courtroom.

DR. SAUTER: Were you then also told where the defendants sit in the courtroom?

BLAHA: No. Before the military court I was shown all the pictures. . .


BLAHA: And I was asked to identify to the court the various people. I identified the three of whom I said today that I had seen them in person. Funk and others I did not name.

DR. SAUTER: You did not name Funk?

BLAHA: I did not say that I had personally seen him or that I could identify him.

DR. SAUTER: But when the pictures were shown to you did you see the defendants in the pictures?


DR. SAUTER: Now, if I understand you correctly, you knew today where, for instance, Funk or Frick or anyone else was sitting?

BLAHA: Funk I do not know personally, because I did not see him at that time.

DR. SAUTER: Were you not told when the pictures were shown to you at Dachau, “This is Funk; look at him; do you know him”?

BLAHA: No; that was done quite differently.


BLAHA: All the pictures were shown to me and I was asked to say which of these individuals I had seen at the Dachau camp. Of these people I named these three. There was no further discussion whatsoever in regard to the other pictures.

DR. SAUTER: Well, Dr. Blaha, when your hearing started and you were questioned by the President or by the prosecutor, you made a statement, I believe, in the Czech language.


DR. SAUTER: What then?

BLAHA: In the German language.

DR. SAUTER: No; everyone heard that that was not German, but it was obviously Czech.

BLAHA: The first sentence only.

DR. SAUTER: The first sentences? Well, now, as it will in any case come into the court transcript for practical purposes, I ask you to state and to repeat quite literally, giving the true sense, that which you said then, because we are interested in that from the point of view of the Defense.

BLAHA: I believe that it was included in the transcript because an English translation was added to my statement.

DR. SAUTER: No, I do not believe that Czech is being translated. But anyhow please repeat it. We did not hear it.

BLAHA: Yes. I said that I was ready, since it is technically impossible to use my native Czech tongue in the hearing, to give my testimony in German, because I have lived in German surroundings through all these events which occurred during the last 7 years and which are now the subject of this Trial. Moreover, the special and new expressions referring to life in the camp can be found only in German, and in no other dictionary can one find such suitable and expressive terms as in the German language.

DR. SAUTER: Then, Mr. President, I have no further questions. Thank you.

DR. THOMA: Witness, were the inmates of the Concentration Camp Dachau bound to secrecy?

BLAHA: No. Of course, if someone was discharged from the camp by the Gestapo—those cases were few and far between, particularly in the case of the Germans, who were then drafted—one had to sign a so-called pledge of secrecy.

DR. THOMA: Could the inmates of the camp, those inside the camp, who worked on farms, et cetera, talk to the other workers about conditions in the camp?

BLAHA: Yes, there were opportunities, because the people worked in the same rooms and factories with other workers—civilian workers. That was the case in the German armament industry, in the fields, and in all factories in Munich and the surroundings.

DR. THOMA: If I understood you correctly, you said previously that visitors, people who delivered things, and customers, also had an opportunity of observing these conditions in the camp without difficulty.

BLAHA: Yes. Many of these people had access everywhere, in the fields as well as in the various factories, and could observe what life was like in these places.

DR. THOMA: And what did they see there in the way of atrocities and ill-treatment, and so forth?

BLAHA: I believe they saw how the people worked, what they looked like and what was produced there. For instance, I can remember one example of what they saw quite well. At that time I was working in the fields. We were pulling a heavy street roller, 16 men, and a group of girls passed who were on an excursion. When they passed, their leader said very loudly, so that we all could hear it, “Look, those people are so lazy that rather than harness up a team of horses they pull it themselves.” That was supposed to be a joke.

DR. THOMA: Witness, when did you first have occasion, after your liberation from the concentration camp, to tell outside people about those horrible atrocities which you related to us today?

BLAHA: I did not understand that; please repeat.

DR. THOMA: When did you first have an opportunity, after your discharge or liberation from the concentration camp, of telling an outsider about these horrible atrocities?

BLAHA: Immediately after the liberation. I was at that time, as chief physician of the concentration camp, interrogated by the American investigating corps; and it was to this corps that I told this story for the first time, and I also gave them various proofs—diagrams, and the medical records which I had saved from being burnt.

DR. THOMA: That prosecutor believed the information you gave without further ado?


DR. THOMA: Witness, you said that the Defendant Rosenberg was pointed out to you in the Concentration Camp Dachau shortly after you arrived there.


DR. THOMA: When was that?

BLAHA: In the year 1941; first half of 1941.

DR. THOMA: First half?

BLAHA: I believe so, yes.

DR. THOMA: Can you perhaps remember the month?

BLAHA: I cannot remember. I arrived in April; I believe it was between April and July or something like that.

DR. THOMA: From April to July 1941?

BLAHA: I believe so.

DR. THOMA: Was Rosenberg at that time in uniform?

BLAHA: He was in uniform.

DR. THOMA: In what uniform?

BLAHA: I believe it was an SS uniform.

DR. THOMA: SS uniform?

BLAHA: It was a—I cannot say that very precisely—but he was in uniform.

DR. THOMA: All right, you remember prima facie that it was an SS uniform, that is, a black uniform?

BLAHA: No, at that time the SS no longer wore the black uniform, because after the beginning of the war they wore field uniforms and other similar uniforms.

DR. THOMA: Then, you assume it was a gray uniform?

BLAHA: Something like that; whether it was gray or yellow or brown I don’t remember any more.

DR. THOMA: That is just the point: whether it was gray, brown, or yellow. Was it a field uniform?

BLAHA: I do not know because from 1939 I was in the concentration camp, and I am not at all familiar with the various German uniforms, ranks, and branches of the Army, and so forth.

DR. THOMA: But you just said that during the war they changed the uniform.

BLAHA: Yes, the men in the Gestapo also changed theirs. When I was arrested in 1939, all Gestapo personnel wore this black uniform. Then, after the war broke out most of them wore either green or gray uniforms.

DR. THOMA: May I ask you again: Did Rosenberg wear a wartime uniform or a peacetime uniform?

BLAHA: I believe it was a wartime uniform.

DR. THOMA: Wartime uniform? The Defendant Rosenberg was pointed out to you by another comrade, wasn’t he?


DR. THOMA: At what distance?

BLAHA: Well, he was just going down the camp street. That was perhaps 30 or 40 degrees.

DR. THOMA: Thirty or forty metres you mean?

BLAHA: Well, 30 metres; 30 paces I wanted to say, 30 or 40 paces.

DR. THOMA: And had you previously seen photographs of Rosenberg? Did you already have an idea of what Rosenberg looked like?


DR. THOMA: And when this comrade showed you Rosenberg, was it then necessary for him to say, “This is Rosenberg”? Didn’t you recognize him already from having seen him in the photographs which you had previously. . .

BLAHA: I cannot remember that. But when he showed him to me I remembered that I knew him already from the various pictures in the newspapers.

DR. THOMA: May I ask you to describe the incident precisely? How it happened; where you were standing; where Rosenberg came from; and who was in his company.

BLAHA: Who was in his company? I knew only the camp commander.

DR. THOMA: Who was the camp commander at that time?

BLAHA: Pierkowski was camp commander, Sturmbannführer Pierkowski.

DR. THOMA: Do you know whether he is still alive?

BLAHA: No, I don’t.

DR. THOMA: The camp commander?

BLAHA: Pierkowski. Then the Lagerführer Ziel and Hoffmann, I knew them.

DR. THOMA: Now were you in your room and looking out of the window?

BLAHA: No, we were in one of the so-called “block” streets. This led into another street along which the visitors passed.

DR. THOMA: And what was said to you?

BLAHA: “Look, there goes Rosenberg.”

DR. THOMA: Was Rosenberg alone?

BLAHA: No, he was with the other persons.

DR. THOMA: That is to say, only with the camp commander?

BLAHA: No, there were many other people with him.

DR. THOMA: That is to say, he had an escort, a staff?


DR. THOMA: Members of Rosenberg’s staff?

BLAHA: I don’t know whether that was Rosenberg’s staff, but there were a number of persons.

DR. THOMA: A number of persons? Witness, the Defendant Rosenberg assures me most definitely that he has never been to the concentration camp at Dachau. Is it possible that there has been a mistake?

BLAHA: I believe I am not mistaken. Besides the German in question knew Rosenberg very well, I believe.

DR. THOMA: How do you know that?

BLAHA: Because he told me so definitely. Otherwise, I have no way of knowing that.



THE PRESIDENT: You will forgive me if I point out to you that this is intended to be an expeditious trial and that it is not right to take up too much time upon small points like this.

DR. THOMA: My Lord, I ask your permission to remark that the question of whether or not Rosenberg was in the concentration camp is of decisive importance. I thank you.

DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): The Defendant Frick states that he has never been in Dachau Camp. Therefore, in order to clarify the facts I should like to ask the following questions:

Witness, at what distance do you believe you saw Frick?

BLAHA: I saw him from the window as he passed with a number of people.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Did you know Frick before?

BLAHA: Yes, from pictures.

DR. PANNENBECKER: From pictures? Did you recognize him yourself or did some friend tell you that it was Frick?

BLAHA: A number of us saw him and I looked at him particularly, because at that time he was already Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. For that reason I had a personal interest in recognizing him.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Did Frick wear a uniform?

BLAHA: I do not believe so.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Did you recognize anybody who was with him, anyone from his staff or from the camp command?

BLAHA: I did not know his staff. From the camp command there was Camp Commander Weiter. Camp Commander Weiter, and his adjutant, Otto.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Could you name anyone of your comrades who also recognized him?

BLAHA: There were many comrades of mine who at that time were standing at the window. Unfortunately, I cannot say who they were, because, as you will understand, life in the concentration camp was so full of incidents that one could not record these things accurately in one’s memory. One remembers only the more important events.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Did you recognize him at once of your own accord when he passed by, or had it been mentioned previously that Frick was expected?

BLAHA: No, it was not mentioned then. We simply heard that a high-ranking visitor was expected, and we were waiting for this high-ranking visitor. We were not told beforehand who it would be.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Did you recognize Frick immediately when you came into the courtroom, or did you know beforehand that he was sitting in the fourth seat here?

BLAHA: No, I recognized him easily, because I have already seen him many times in various pictures, and because he is a well-known person in Bohemia and Moravia.

DR. PANNENBECKER: You believe then that there can be no question of any error.

BLAHA: I don’t think so.

DR. PANNENBECKER: May I then ask the Court whether Frick himself may take the stand to testify that he has never seen Dachau Camp? I want to make this motion now so that, if necessary, the witness might be confronted with Frick.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendants will understand that they will have the opportunity, when it comes to their time to present their cases, to call all the defendants, but they will not have an opportunity of calling them now. They will have to wait until the case for the Prosecution is over and they will then have an opportunity, each of them, to call the defendant for whom they appear, if they wish to.

DR. PANNENBECKER: I simply thought, that as the witness is available now. . .

[Dr. Kubuschok approached the lectern.]

THE PRESIDENT: It is now 5:00 o’clock and unless you are going to be very short . . . are you going to be very short?

DR. EGON KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for the Reich Cabinet): Yes, Sir.

[Turning to the witness.] Witness, you said that when prominent visitors came to the camp, for instance, Reich ministers, extensive preparations were made beforehand. You also said that undesirable persons were removed. Maybe you could supplement that statement. I am interested to know what the purpose of these preparations was.

BLAHA: I meant that everything had to be in order. In our infirmary all the patients had to lie in bed quietly, everything was washed and prepared; the instruments were polished, as is usually the case for high-ranking visitors. We were not allowed to do anything—no operations; no bandages nor food were given out before the visit had terminated.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Could you perhaps tell me which undesirable persons were to be removed, as you said before?

BLAHA: Well, the Russians especially were always kept strictly in their blocks. It was said that they were afraid of possible demonstrations, assassinations, et cetera.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Were prisoners kept out of sight because they showed outward signs of ill-treatment?

BLAHA: It goes without saying that before the visitors nobody was struck, beaten, hanged, or executed.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: To sum up, the purpose of these preparations was to prevent the guests from seeing the concentration camp as it really was.

BLAHA: From seeing the cruelties.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The Court will not sit in open session tomorrow, Saturday, and will only sit in the morning on Monday, because there is work to be done in the closed session tomorrow and on Monday afternoon. I thought it would be convenient for counsel to know that.

The Court will now adjourn.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 14 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]

Monday, 14 January 1946

Morning Session

THE PRESIDENT: Would you have the witness brought in? I think one of the defendants’ counsel was about to cross-examine him.

[The witness, Blaha, took the stand.]

HERR LUDWIG BABEL (Counsel for the SS and SD): I would like to put to the witness a few practical questions which I think necessary both for a better understanding of the earlier testimony of the witness and for my own information.

The witness was in the concentration camp from 1941 to 1945 and should be well informed on conditions as they were. His memory, as is evident from his previous statements, seems to be excellent.

[Turning to the witness.]

Do you know how the proportion of political and criminal inmates changed during the various periods? What were the approximate figures of political and criminal inmates in Dachau?

BLAHA: In Dachau it varied. There were political prisoners, professional criminals, and the so-called black or asocial elements. I am, of course, speaking only of the German prisoners; the inmates of other nations were all political prisoners. Only the German inmates were divided into red, green, and black prisoners. The great majority of Germans were political prisoners.

HERR BABEL: Can you indicate the approximate proportion? A quarter, a half, or three-quarters?

BLAHA: I am sorry, I didn’t hear you.

HERR BABEL: Can you give figures? How many were political prisoners—half, three-quarters, or how many? Can you give an approximate number?

BLAHA: I would say that of 5,000 German prisoners, 3,000 were political and 2,000 were green and black prisoners.

HERR BABEL: Was that the proportion during the whole 4- or 5-year period?

BLAHA: It changed; because many died, some Germans left, many were drafted, and there were many new arrivals. In the last years there were more and more political prisoners, because many of the green prisoners were drafted to the front.

HERR BABEL: What approximately was the total number in 1941, 1943, and 1945?

BLAHA: Do you mean the total number of prisoners?

HERR BABEL: Yes, the total number.

BLAHA: We had 8,000 to 9,000 in 1941; in 1943 there were 15,000 to 20,000; and between the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945 we had more than 70,000 or 80,000.

HERR BABEL: Another question: You mentioned that at first you worked in the plantations. What did you mean by plantations?

BLAHA: The plantations were a large estate of the SS, in which spices, medical herbs, and things of that sort were raised.

HERR BABEL: Was this plantation inside the camp?

BLAHA: No, it was in the near vicinity of the camp, not a part of it.

HERR BABEL: You also mentioned work in armament factories. I gathered from your testimony that these armament factories were partially within and partially outside the camp. Is that correct?

BLAHA: Yes, at first these so-called German armament works were only outside the camp. Then, as a result of the bombings, some sections were moved into the interior of the concentration camp.

HERR BABEL: What was the number of camp guards in 1941?

BLAHA: For actual guard duty usually three SS companies were in the camp, but at Dachau there were in addition a large garrison of SS and a Kommandantur. Guards were taken from other SS formations from time to time, when it was necessary. It varied and depended on how many guards were needed. For regular duty there were usually three companies.

HERR BABEL: Were the prisoners in the armament factories guarded during working hours?

BLAHA: Yes. Every labor detachment had a commander selected from the guard companies and, in addition, these so-called guards, who went with the detachment to their place of work and then brought the prisoners back to the camp.

HERR BABEL: While you were at the camp, did you witness any ill-treatment on the part of these guards in the course of their daily activities?

BLAHA: Yes; a great deal.



HERR BABEL: For what reasons?

BLAHA: The reasons varied, depending on the nature of the guards or the commanders.

HERR BABEL: But you said you were occupied, indeed according to your statements, very much occupied.


HERR BABEL: How then did you have an opportunity of observing such ill-treatment?

BLAHA: I performed many autopsies on people either shot or beaten to death at their work, and made official reports on the cause of death.

HERR BABEL: You said they were shot. Did you see such incidents yourself?


HERR BABEL: Then, how do you know that?

BLAHA: The bodies were brought to me from the place of work, and it was my duty to ascertain the cause of death; that the men had been beaten to death, for example, that the skull or ribs had been fractured, that the man had died of internal hemorrhage, or that he had been shot; I had to make an official report on the cause of death. Sometimes, but this was rare, when an investigation was conducted, I was called in as witness.

HERR BABEL: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, do you wish to re-examine the witness?

MR. DODD: I have no further questions to ask the witness at this time.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of the prosecuting staff want to re-examine? Colonel Pokrovsky?

COLONEL POKROVSKY: At this stage of the Trial I have no further questions to ask the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can go.

[The witness left the stand.]

MR. DODD: I should like to ask the Tribunal at this time to take judicial notice of the findings and the sentences imposed by the Military Court at Dachau, Germany, on the 13th day of December 1945. The findings were dated the 12th and the sentences on the 13th. I have here a certified copy of the findings and the sentences, Document Number 3590-PS, which I should like to offer as Exhibit Number USA-664.

THE PRESIDENT: Have copies of this been given to the defendants?

MR. DODD: Yes. They have been sent to the defendants’ counsel information room.


MR. DODD: I have one other matter that I should like to take up very briefly before the Tribunal this morning. It is concerned with a matter that arose after I had left the courtroom to return to the United States.

On the 13th of December we offered in evidence Document Number 3421-PS, and Exhibit Numbers USA-252 and 254. They were, respectively, the Court will recall, sections of human skin taken from human bodies and preserved; and a human head, the head of a human being, which had been preserved. On the 14th day of December, according to the Record, counsel for the Defendant Kaltenbrunner addressed the Tribunal and complained that the affidavit, which was offered, of one Pfaffenberger, failed to state that the camp commandant at Buchenwald, one Koch, along with his wife, was condemned to death for having committed precisely these atrocities, this business of tanning the skin and preserving the head. And in the course of the discussion before the Tribunal the Record reveals that counsel for the Defendant Bormann, in addressing the Tribunal, stated that it was highly probable that the Prosecution knew that the German authorities had objected to this camp commandant Koch and, in fact, knew that he had been tried and sentenced for doing precisely these things. And there was some intimation, we feel, that the Prosecution, having this knowledge, withheld it from the Tribunal. Now, I wish to say that we had no knowledge at all about this man Koch at the time that we offered the proof; didn’t know anything about him except that he had been the commandant, according to the affidavit. But, subsequent to this objection we had an investigation made, and we have found that he was tried in 1944, indeed, by an SS court, but not for having tanned human skin nor having preserved a human head but for having embezzled some money, for what—as the judge who tried him tells us—was a charge of general corruption and for having murdered someone with whom he had some personal difficulties. Indeed, the judge, a Dr. Morgen, tells us that he saw the tattooed human skin and he saw a human head in Commandant Koch’s office and that he saw a lampshade there made out of human skin. But there were no charges at the time that he was tried for having done these things.

I would also point out to the Tribunal that, we say, the testimony of Dr. Blaha sheds further light on whether or not these exhibits, Numbers USA-252 and 254, were isolated instances of that atrocious kind of conduct. We have not been able to locate the affiant. We have made an effort to do so, but we have not been able to locate him thus far.

THE PRESIDENT: Locate whom?

MR. DODD: The affiant Pfaffenberger, the one whose affidavit was offered.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Dodd.

DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): The statement just made is undoubtedly significant, but it would be of importance to have the documents which served to convict the commandant and his wife at the time. Kaltenbrunner told me that it was known in the whole SS that the commandant Koch and his wife had been taken to account also—I emphasize “also”—on account of these things and that it was known in the SS that one of the factors determining the severity of the sentences imposed had been this proved inhuman behavior.

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. As you were the counsel who made the allegation that the commandant Koch had been put to death for his inhuman treatment, it would seem that you are the party to produce the judgment.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I never had the verdict in my hand. I depended on the information which Kaltenbrunner gave me personally and orally.

THE PRESIDENT: It was you who made the assertion. I don’t care where you got it from. You made the assertion; therefore it is for you to produce the document.


COLONEL H. J. PHILLIMORE: (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal: Briefs and document books have been handed in. The documents in the document book are in the order in which I shall refer to them, and the references to them in the briefs are also in that order. On the first page of the brief is set out the extract from Appendix A of the Indictment, which deals with the criminality of this defendant.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing first of all with Raeder or with Dönitz?

COL. PHILLIMORE: With Dönitz. My learned friend, Major Elwyn Jones, will deal with Raeder immediately after. Reading at Page 1 of the brief. . .

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn for 10 minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, may I proceed?


COL. PHILLIMORE: Briefs and document books have been handed in. The documents are in the document book in the order in which I shall refer to them, and the references in the brief to the documents are in that same order. On the first page of the brief is set out the extract from the Indictment as Appendix A, which deals with the allegations against this defendant. It sets out the positions he held and charges him, first, with promoting the preparations for war, set forth in Count One; second, with participating in the military planning and preparation 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 thirdly, with authorizing, directing, and participating in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment, including particularly the crimes against persons and property on the High Seas.

Now, if at any place I appear to trespass on Count Three, it is with the consent and courtesy of the Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic.

My Lord, on the second page of the brief are set out first the positions held by the Defendant Dönitz; and the document in question is the first document in the document book, 2887-PS, which has already been put in as Exhibit Number USA-12. The Tribunal will see that after his appointment in 1935 as Commander of the Weddigen U-boat Flotilla—that was, in fact, the first flotilla to be formed after the end of the World War in 1918—the defendant, who was in effect then Commander of U-boats, rose steadily in rank as the U-boat arm expanded, until he became an admiral. And then on the 30th of January 1943, he was appointed Grossadmiral and succeeded the Defendant Raeder as Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy, retaining his command of the U-boat arm. Then on the 1st of May 1945, he succeeded Hitler as head of Germany.

My Lord, as appears from a number of documents which I shall put in evidence, the defendant was awarded the following decorations: On the 18th of September 1939 the Cluster of the Iron Cross, first class, for the U-boat successes in the Baltic during the Polish campaign. This award was followed on the 21st of April 1940 by the high award of the Knight’s Cross to the Iron Cross, while on the 7th of April 1943 he received personally from Hitler the Oak Leaf to the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross, as the 223rd recipient, for his services in building up the German Navy and, in particular, his services for the offensive U-boat arm for the coming war, which were outstanding. And now I put in the next document in the document book, D-436, which becomes Exhibit GB-183. That is an extract from the official publication Das Archiv on the defendant’s promotion to vice admiral. It is dated the 27th of September 1940, and I read the last two sentences:

“In 4 years of untiring and, in the fullest sense of the word, uninterrupted work of training, he succeeds in developing the young U-boat armed personnel and material till it is a weapon of a striking power unexpected even by the experts. More than 3 million gross tons of enemy shipping sunk in only 1 year, achieved with only a few boats, speak better than words of the merits of this man.”

The next document in the document book, 1463-PS, which I put in as Exhibit GB-184, is an extract from the diary for the German Navy, 1944 edition, and it serves to emphasize the contents of that last document. My Lord, I won’t read from it. The relevant passage is on Page 2, and if I might summarize that, it describes in detail the defendant’s work in building up the U-boat arm, his ceaseless work in training night and day to close the gap of 17 years during which no training had taken place, his responsibility for new improvements, and for devising the “pack” tactics which were later to become so famous. And then his position is summarized further at the top of Page 3. If I might read the last two sentences of the first paragraph on that page:

“In spite of the fact that his duties took on immeasurable proportions since the beginning of the huge U-boat construction program, the chief was what he always was and always will be: leader and inspiration to all the forces under him.”

And then the last sentence of that paragraph:

“In spite of all his duties, he never lost touch with his men; and he showed a masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing fortunes of war.”

It was not, however, only his ability as a naval officer which won the defendant these high honors: his promotion to succeed the Defendant Raeder as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, the personal position he acquired as one of Hitler’s principal advisers, and finally, earlier candidates, such as Göring, having betrayed Hitler’s trust or finding the position less attractive than they had anticipated, the doubtful honor of becoming Hitler’s successor. These he owed to his fanatical adherence to Hitler and to the Party, to his belief in the Nazi ideology with which he sought to indoctrinate the Navy and the German people, and to his masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing fortunes of war, referred to in the diary and which the Tribunal may think, when I have referred them to the document, may be regarded as synonymous with the capacity for utter ruthlessness. His attitude to the Nazi Party and its creed is shown by his public utterances.

I turn to the next document in the document book, D-443, which I put in to become Exhibit GB-185. It is an extract from a speech made by the defendant at a meeting of commanders of the Navy in Weimar on the 17th of December 1943. It was subsequently circulated by the defendant as a top secret document for senior officers only and by the hand of officers only. My Lord, if I might read:

“I am a firm adherent of the idea of ideological education. For what is it in the main? Doing his duty is a matter of course for the soldier. But the full value, the whole weight of duty done, is only present when the heart and spiritual conviction have a voice in the matter. Doing his duty is then quite different from what it would be if I only carried out my task literally, obediently, and faithfully. It is therefore necessary for the soldier to support the execution of his duty with all his mental, all his spiritual energy; and for this his conviction, his ideology are indispensable. It is therefore necessary for us to train the soldier uniformly, comprehensively, that he may be adjusted ideologically to our Germany. Every dualism, every dissension in this connection, or every divergence or unpreparedness imply a weakness in all circumstances. He in whom this grows and thrives in unison is superior to the other. Then indeed the whole importance, the whole weight of his conviction comes into play. It is also nonsense to say that the soldier or the officer must have no politics. The soldier embodies the state in which he lives, he is the representative, the articulate exponent of his state. He must therefore stand with his whole weight behind this state.

“We must travel this road out of our deepest conviction. The Russian travels along it. We can only maintain ourselves in this war if we take part in it, with holy zeal, with all our fanaticism. . . .

“I alone cannot do this, but it can be done only with the aid of the man who holds the production of Europe in his hand—with Minister Speer. My ambition is to have as many warships for the Navy as possible so as to be able to fight and to strike. It does not matter to me who builds them.”

My Lord, that last sentence is of importance in connection with a later document. The Tribunal will see when I come to it that the defendant was not above employing concentration camp labor for this purpose.

I put in the next document in the document book, D-640, which becomes Exhibit GB-186. It is an extract from a speech on the same subject by the defendant as Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to the Commanders on the 15th of February 1944. My Lord, it is cumulative except that I think the last two sentences add, if I might read them:

“From the very start the whole of the officer corps must be so indoctrinated that it feels itself co-responsible for the National Socialist State in its entirety. The officer is the exponent of the State, the idle chatter that the officer is non-political is sheer nonsense.”

Now, the next document is 2878-PS, which I put in to become Exhibit GB-187. It consists of three extracts from speeches. The first is from a speech made by the defendant to the German Navy and the German people on Heroes’ Day, the 12th of March 1944.

“German men and women!

“. . . What would have become of our country today, if the Führer had not united us under National Socialism! Split into parties, beset with the spreading poison of Jewry and vulnerable to it, and lacking, as a defense, our present uncompromising ideology, we would long since have succumbed to the burdens of this war and been subject to the merciless destruction of our adversaries. . . .”

My Lord, the next extract is from a speech to the Navy on the 21st of July 1944. It again shows the defendant’s fanaticism. It is perhaps worth reading the first sentence:

“Men of the Navy! Holy wrath and unlimited anger fill our hearts because of the criminal attempt which was to have cost the life of our beloved Führer. Providence wished it otherwise, watched over and protected our Führer, and did not abandon our German fatherland in the fight for its destiny.”

And then he goes on to deal with the fate which should be meted out to these traitors.

The third extract deals with the introduction of the German salute into the Armed Forces. I don’t think I need read it, but as the members of the Tribunal will see, it was the Defendant Keitel and this defendant who were responsible for the alteration of the salute in the German forces and the adoption of the Nazi salute—together with Göring. . . Pardon, I should have said: the Defendants Göring, Keitel, and Dönitz.

The next document is a monitored report of the speech made on the German wireless by this defendant, announcing the death of Hitler and his own succession. It is Document D-444. I put it in to become Exhibit GB-188, and I read a portion of it. The time is 2226—marked on the document. I read therefrom:

“It has been reported from the Führer’s headquarters that our Führer Adolf Hitler has died this afternoon in his battle headquarters at the Reich Chancellery, fallen for Germany, fighting to the last breath against Bolshevism.

“On the 30th of April the Führer nominated Grossadmiral Dönitz to be his successor. The Grossadmiral and Führer’s successor will speak to the German nation.”

And then, the first paragraph of the speech:

“German men and women, soldiers of the German Armed Forces. Our Führer Adolf Hitler is dead. The German people bow in deepest sorrow and respect. Early he had recognized the terrible danger of Bolshevism and had dedicated his life to the fight against it. His fight having ended, he died a hero’s death in the capital of the German Reich, after having led an unmistakably straight and steady life.”

Then, that document also contains an order of the day issued by the defendant, which is very much to the same effect.

Apart from his services in building up the U-boat arm, there is ample evidence that the defendant as officer commanding U-boats took part in the planning and execution of aggressive war against Poland, Norway, and Denmark. The next document in the document book, C-126(c), has already been put in as Exhibit GB-45. It is a memorandum by the Defendant Raeder, dated the 16th of May 1939, and I will call the attention of the Tribunal to the distribution. The sixth copy went to the Führer der Unterseeboote, that is to say, to the Defendant Dönitz. The document is a directive for the invasion of Poland, Fall Weiss, and I won’t read it. It has already been read.

The next document, C-126(e), on the second page of that same document, has also been put in as Exhibit GB-45. It again is a memorandum from the Defendant Raeder’s headquarters, dated the 2d of August 1939. It is addressed to the fleet, and then Flag Officer U-boats—that is, of course, the defendant . . . and it is merely a covering letter for operational directions for the employment of U-boats which are to be sent out into the Atlantic by way of precaution in the event the intention of carrying out Fall Weiss should remain unchanged. The second sentence is important:

“Flag Officer U-boats is handing in his operation orders to SKL”—that is the Seekriegsleitung, the German Admiralty—“by 12 August. A decision on the sailings of U-boats for the Atlantic will probably be made in the middle of August.”

The next document, C-172, I put in as Exhibit GB-189. It consists of the defendant’s own operational instructions to his U-boats for the operation Fall Weiss. It is signed by him. It is not dated, but it is clear from the subject matter that its date must be before the 16th of July 1939. I don’t think the substance of the document adds. It is purely an operational instruction, giving effect to the document already put in, C-126(c), the directive by Raeder.

My Lord, the next document, C-122, has already been put in as Exhibit GB-82. It is an extract from the War Diary of the naval war staff of the German Admiralty, dated the 3rd of October 1939, and records the fact that the chief of the naval war staff has called for views on the possibility of taking operational bases in Norway. It has already been read and I would merely call the Tribunal’s attention to the passage in brackets, in the paragraph marked “d”:

“Flag Officer U-boats already considers such harbors extremely useful as equipment and supply bases for Atlantic U-boats to call at temporarily.”

The next document, C-5, has already been put in as Exhibit GB-83. This is from the defendant, as Flag Officer U-boats, addressed to the Supreme Command of the Navy, the naval war staff. It is dated the 9th of October 1939, and it sets out the defendant’s view on the advantages of Trondheim and Narvik as bases. The document proposes the establishment of a base at Trondheim with Narvik as an alternative.

Now the next document, C-151, has already been put in as Exhibit GB-91. It is the defendant’s operation order to his U-boats for the occupation of Denmark and Norway, and the operation order, which is top secret, dated the 30th of March 1940, is termed “Hartmut.” The members of the Tribunal will remember that the document, in the last paragraph, said:

“The naval force will, as they enter the harbor, fly the British flag until the troops have landed, except presumably at Narvik.”

The preparations for war against England are perhaps best shown by the disposition of the U-boats under his command on the 3rd of September 1939, when war broke out between Germany and the Western Allies. The locations of the sinkings in the following week, including that of the Athenia which will be dealt with by my learned friend, Major Elwyn Jones, provide corroboration. On that, I would put in two charts; I put them in as Document D-652, and they become Exhibit GB-190.

My Lord, I have copies here for the members of the Tribunal. They have been prepared by the Admiralty. There are two charts. The first sets out the disposition of the submarines on the 3rd of September 1939. There is a certification attached to the chart, in the top left-hand corner, which I should read:

“This chart has been constructed from a study of the orders issued by Dönitz between 21 August 1939 and 3 September 1939 and subsequently captured. The chart shows the approximate disposition of submarines ordered for the 3rd of September 1939 but it cannot be guaranteed accurate in every detail as the files of captured orders are clearly not complete and also some of the submarines shown apparently had received orders at sea on or about 3 September to move to new operational areas. The documents from which this chart was constructed are held by the British Admiralty in London.”

My Lord, there are two points I would make on that first chart. First, it will be apparent to members of the Tribunal that U-boats which were in those positions on the 3rd of September 1939 had left Kiel some considerable time before. The other point which I would make is important in connection with my learned friend Major Elwyn Jones’ case against the Defendant Raeder, and that is the location of the U-boat U-30. The members of the Tribunal may care to bear it in mind while looking at the charts now.

The second chart sets out the sinkings during the first week of the war, and the location of the sinking of the Athenia will be noted. There is a short certification in the left-hand corner of the Tribunal’s copies:

“This chart has been constructed from the official records of the British Admiralty in London. It shows the positions of the sinkings of the British merchant vessels lost by enemy action in the 7 days commencing the 3rd of September 1939.”

My Lord, I turn to the defendant’s participation in War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

The course of the war waged against neutral and Allied merchant shipping by the U-boats followed under the defendant’s direction a course of consistently increasing ruthlessness. The defendant displayed his masterly understanding in adjusting himself to the changing fortunes of war. From the very early days, merchant ships, both Allied and neutral, were sunk without warning; and when operational danger zones had been announced by the German Admiralty, these sinkings continued to take place both within and without those zones. With some exceptions in the early days of the war, no regard was taken for the safety of the crews or passengers of sunk merchant ships, and the announcement claiming a total blockade of the British Isles merely served to confirm the established situation under which U-boat warfare was being conducted without regard to the established rules of international warfare or the requirements of humanity.

The course of the war at sea during the first 18 months is summarized by two official British reports made at a time when those who compiled them were ignorant of some of the actual orders issued which have since come to hand.

My Lord, I turn to the next document in the document book. It is Document D-641(a), which I put in to become Exhibit GB-191. It is an extract from an official report of the British Foreign Office concerning German attacks on merchant shipping during the period 3 September 1939 to September 1940, that is to say, the first year of the war, and it was made shortly after September 1940.

My Lord, if I might quote from the second paragraph on the first page:

“During the first 12 months of the war, 2,081,062 tons of Allied shipping comprising 508 ships have been lost by enemy action. In addition, 769,213 tons of neutral shipping, comprising 253 ships, have also been lost. Nearly all these merchant ships have been sunk by submarine, mine, aircraft, or surface craft, and the great majority of them were sunk while engaged on their lawful trading voyages. 2,836 Allied merchant seamen have lost their lives in these ships. . . .

“In the last war the practice of the central powers was so remote from the recognized procedure that it was thought necessary to set forth once again the rules of warfare in particular as applied to submarines. This was done in the Treaty of London, 1930; and in 1936 Germany acceded to the rules. The rules laid down:

“(1) In action with regard to merchant ships, submarines must conform to the rules of international law to which surface vessels are subjected.

“(2) In particular, except in the case of persistent refusal to stop on being summoned or of active resistance to visit and search, a warship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without having first placed passengers, crew, and ships’ papers in a place of safety. For this purpose, the ship’s boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured in the existing sea and weather conditions by the proximity of land or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board.”

Then, the next paragraph:

“At the beginning of the present war, Germany issued a prize ordinance for the regulation of sea warfare and the guidance of her naval officers. Article 74 of this ordinance embodies the submarine rules of the London Treaty. Article 72, however, provides that captured enemy vessels may be destroyed if it seems inexpedient or unsafe to bring them into port, and Article 73 (i) and (ii) makes the same provision with regard to neutral vessels which are captured for sailing under enemy convoy, for forcible resistance, or for giving assistance to the enemy. These provisions are certainly not in accordance with the traditional British view but the important point is that, even in these cases, the prize ordinance envisages the capture of the merchantman before its destruction. In other words, if the Germans adhered to the rules set out in their own prize ordinance, we might have argued the rather fine legal point with them, but we should have no quarrel with them, either on the broader legal issue or on the humanitarian one. In the event, however, it is only too clear that almost from the beginning of the war the Germans abandoned their own principles and waged war with steadily increasing disregard for international law, and for what is, after all, the ultimate sanction of all law, the protection of human life and property from arbitrary and ruthless attacks.”

I pass to the third paragraph on the next page which sets out two instances:

“On the 30th of September 1939 came the first sinking of a neutral ship by a submarine without warning and with loss of life. This was the Danish ship Vendia bound for the Clyde in ballast. The submarine fired two shots and shortly after torpedoed the ship. The torpedo was fired when the master had already signaled that he would submit to the submarine’s orders and before there had been an opportunity to abandon ship. By November submarines were beginning to sink neutral vessels without warning as a regular thing. On the 12th November the Norwegian Arne Kjode was torpedoed in the North Sea without any warning at all. This was a tanker bound from one neutral port to another. The master and four of the crew lost their lives and the remainder were picked up after many hours in open boats. Henceforward, in addition to the failure to establish the nature of the cargo, another element is noticeable, namely an increasing recklessness as to the fate of the crew.”

And then dealing with attacks on Allied merchant vessels, certain figures are given: Ships sunk 241, recorded attacks 221, illegal attacks 112. At least 79 of these 112 ships were torpedoed without warning.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then they were not illegally sunk, however?


THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): According to this document, the Germans have been given the benefit of the doubt.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Oh, yes, I should have read that sentence; I am obliged to Your Honor.

I pass to the second report, Document D-641(b). It is part of the same document and is put in as Exhibit GB-191. It is a report covering the next 6 months from September 1, 1940. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Are you not reading Page 3?

COL. PHILLIMORE: If Your Lordship pleases, I have read a great deal of the report and there are passages that I had not considered important.

THE PRESIDENT: I haven’t myself read it, but I think. . .

COL. PHILLIMORE: If I might read the first two paragraphs on Page 3:

“By the middle of October submarines were sinking merchant vessels without any regard to the safety of the crews. Yet 4 months later the Germans were still officially claiming that they were acting in accordance with their prize ordinance. Their own semi-official commentators, however, had made the position clear. As regards neutrals, Berlin officials had early in February stated that any neutral ship that is either voluntarily or under compulsion bound for an enemy port—including contraband control harbors—thereby loses its neutrality and must be considered hostile. At the end of February the cat was let out of the bag by a statement that a neutral ship which obtained a navicert from a British consul in order to avoid putting into a British contraband control base was liable to be sunk by German submarines, even if it was bound from one neutral port to another. As regards Allied ships, in the middle of November 1939 a Berlin warning was issued against the arming of British vessels. By that date a score of British merchantmen had been illegally attacked by gunfire or torpedo from submarines, and after the date some 15 more unarmed Allied vessels were torpedoed without warning. It is clear therefore that not only was the arming fully justified as a defensive measure but also that neither before nor after this German threat did the German submarines discriminate between armed and unarmed vessels.”

The last paragraph is merely a summing-up; it does not add.

Turning to D-641(b), which is a similar report covering the next 6 months, if I might read the first five paragraphs of Page 1:

“On the 30th January 1941 Hitler proclaimed: ‘Every ship, with or without convoy, which appears before our torpedo tubes is going to be torpedoed. On the face of it, this announcement appears to be uncompromising; and the only qualification provided by the context is that the threats immediately preceding it are specifically addressed to the peoples of the American Continent. German commentators, however, subsequently tried to water it down by contending that Hitler was referring only to ships which attempted to enter the area within which the German ‘total blockade’ is alleged to be in force.

“From one point of view it probably matters little what exactly was Hitler’s meaning, since the only conclusion that can be reached after a study of the facts of enemy warfare on merchant shipping is that enemy action in this field is never limited by the principles which are proclaimed by enemy spokesmen, but solely by the opportunities or lack of them which exist at any given time.”

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Phillimore, isn’t this document you are now reading really legal argument?

COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, some of it is. The difficulty is to leave those parts and take in the facts.


COL. PHILLIMORE: The third paragraph, if I might leave the rest of the second, is as follows:

“The effect of the German ‘total blockade’ is to prohibit neutral ships from entering an enormous stretch of sea round Britain (the area extends to about 500 miles west of Ireland, and from the latitude of Bordeaux to that of the Faroe Islands), upon pain of having their ships sunk without warning and their crews killed. As a matter of fact, at least 32 neutral ships, exclusive of those sailing in British convoys, have been sunk by enemy action since the declaration of the ‘total blockade.’ ”

The last sentence in the following paragraph about the sinking of ships without warning:

“Yet though information is lacking in very many cases, details are available to prove that, during the period under review, at least 38 Allied merchant ships exclusive of those in convoys have been torpedoed without warning in or near the ‘total blockade’ area.

“That the Germans themselves have no exaggerated regard for the area is proved by the fact that of the 38 ships referred to at least 16 were torpedoed outside the limits of the war zone.”

My Lord, the next page deals with a specific case illustrating the matter set out above. It is in the first paragraph of that page, the third sentence:

“The sinking of the City of Benares on the 17th September 1940 is a good example of this. The City of Benares was an 11,000-ton liner with 191 passengers on board, including nearly 100 children. She was torpedoed without warning just outside the ‘war zone,’ with the loss of 258 lives, including 77 children. It was blowing a gale, with hail and rain squalls and a very rough sea when the torpedo struck her at about 10 p. m. In the darkness and owing to the prevailing weather conditions, at least four of the 12 boats lowered were capsized. Others were swamped and many people were washed right off. In one boat alone 16 people, including 11 children, died from exposure; in another 22 died, including 15 children; in a third 21 died. The point to be emphasized is not the unusual brutality of this attack but rather that such results are inevitable when a belligerent disregards the rules of sea warfare as the Germans have done and are doing.”

I think the rest of that paragraph is not important.

I turn to the next document, 641(c), which is part of Exhibit GB-191.

THE PRESIDENT: It is clear, I suppose, from that statement of facts that there was no warning whatever given?


THE PRESIDENT: We think that you should read the next paragraph too.

COL. PHILLIMORE: If Your Lordship pleases.

“There are hundreds of similar stories, stories of voyages for days in open boats in Atlantic gales, of men in the water clinging for hours to a raft and gradually dropping off one by one, of crews being machine-gunned as they tried to lower their boats or as they drifted away in them, of seamen being blown to pieces by shells and torpedoes and bombs. The enemy must know that such things are the inevitable result of the type of warfare he has chosen to employ.”

My Lord, the rest is very much to the same general effect.

The document, 641(c), is merely a certificate giving the total sinkings by U-boats during the war (1939 to 1945) as 2,775 British, Allied, and neutral ships totalling 14,572,435 gross registered tons.

My Lord, it is perhaps worth considering one example not quoted in the above reports of the ruthless nature of the actions conducted by the defendant’s U-boat commanders, particularly as both British and German versions of the sinkings are available. I turn to the next document, “The sinking of S. S. Sheaf Mead.” That is Document D-644, which I put in as Exhibit GB-192. If I might read the opening paragraph:

“The British S. S. Sheaf Mead was torpedoed without warning on 27 May 1940. . .”

THE PRESIDENT: This is the German account, is it not?

COL. PHILLIMORE: This is actually in the form of a British report. It includes the German account in the shape of a complete extract from the log.

THE PRESIDENT: It bears the words, “top secret”?

COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord, this was at the time a top secret document. That was some while ago.

“The British S. S. Sheaf Mead was torpedoed without warning on 27 May 1940, with the loss of 31 of the crew. The commander of the U-boat responsible is reported to have behaved in an exceptionally callous manner towards the men clinging to upturned boats and pieces of wood. It was thought that this man was Kapitänleutnant Öhrn of U-37: The following extract from his log for 27 May 1940 leaves no doubt on the matter and speaks for itself as to his behaviour.”

Again turning to the relevant extract from the log, on the second page, the time is marked on the document as 1554.

“Surface. Stern is underwater.”—referring to the ship which has been torpedoed—“Stern is underwater. Bows rise higher. The boats are now on the water. Lucky for them. A picture of complete order. They lie at some distance. The bows rear up quite high. Two men appear from somewhere in the forward part of the ship. They leap and rush with great bounds along the deck down the stern. The stern disappears. A boat capsizes. Then a boiler explosion. Two men fly through the air, limbs outstretched. Bursting and crushing. Then all is over. A large heap of wreckage floats up. We approach it to identify the name. The crew have saved themselves on wreckage and capsized boats. We fish out a buoy. No name on it. I ask a man on the raft. He says, hardly turning his head, ‘Nix Name.’ A young boy in the water calls, ‘Help, help, please!’ The others are very composed. They look damp and somewhat tired. An expression of cold hatred is on their faces. On to the old course. After washing the paint off the buoy, the name comes to light: Greatafield, Glasgow, 5,006 gross registered tons.”

“On to the old course” means merely that the U-boat makes off.

Then the next page of that document contains an extract from the report of the chief engineer of the Sheaf Mead. The relevant paragraphs are the first and the last:

“When I came to the surface I found myself on the port side, that is, nearest to the submarine, which was only about 5 yards away. The submarine captain asked the steward the name of the ship, which he told him, and the enemy picked up one of our lifebuoys, but this had the name Greatafield on it, as this was the name of our ship before it was changed to Sheaf Mead last January.”

In the last paragraph:

“She had cut-away bows, but I did notice a net-cutter. Two men stood at the side with boat-hooks to keep us off.

“They cruised around for half an hour, taking photographs of us in the water. Otherwise they just watched us, but said nothing. Then she submerged and went off, without offering us any assistance whatever.”

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any suggestion in the German report that any warning was given?

COL. PHILLIMORE: No, My Lord. It is quite clear, indeed, that it was not.

Under the time 1414 there is a description of the sighting of the ship and the difficulty in identifying; and then at the top of the page:

“The distance apart is narrowing. The steamship draws in quickly, but the position is still 40-50. I cannot see the stern yet. Tube ready. Shall I or not? The gunnery crews are also prepared. On the ship’s side a yellow cross in a small, square, dark blue ground. Swedish? Presumably not. I raise the periscope a little. Hurrah, a gun at the stern, an A/A gun or something similar. Fire! It cannot miss. . .”—and then the sinking.

Now that it is possible to examine some of the actual documents by which the defendant and his fellow conspirators issued their orders in disregard of international law, you may think the compilers of the above reports understated the case. These orders cover not only the period referred to in the reports, but also the subsequent course of the war. It is interesting to note in them the steps by which the defendants progressed. At first they were content with breaching the rules of international law to the extent of sinking merchant ships, including neutral ships, without warning where there was a reasonable prospect of being able to do so without discovery. The facts already quoted show that the question of whether ships were defensively armed or outside the declared operational areas was in practice immaterial.

I go to the next document in the document book, C-191, which I put in as Exhibit GB-193. That is a memorandum by the German naval war staff, dated 22 September 1939. It sets out:

“Flag Officer U-boats intends to give permission to U-boats to sink without warning any vessels sailing without lights.”

Reading from the third sentence:

“In practice there is no opportunity for attacking at night, as the U-boat cannot identify a target which is a shadow in a way that entirely obviates mistakes being made. If the political situation is such that even possible mistakes must be ruled out, U-boats must be forbidden to make any attacks at night in waters where French and English naval forces or merchant ships may be situated. On the other hand, in sea areas where only English units are to be expected, the measures desired by Flag Officer U-boats can be carried out; permission to take this step is not to be given in writing, but need merely be based on the unspoken approval of the Naval Operations Staff.

“U-boat commanders should be informed by word of mouth, and the sinking of a merchant ship must be justified in the War Diary as due to possible confusion with a warship or an auxiliary cruiser. In the meanwhile, U-boats in the English Channel have received instructions to attack all vessels sailing without lights.”

Now I go to the next document, C-21, which I put in as Exhibit GB-194. My Lord, this document consists of a series of extracts from the War Diary of the German naval war staff of the German Admiralty. The second extract, at Page 5, relates a conference with the head of the naval war staff, report of the 2 January 1940, and then reading:

“1) Report by Ia”—that is the Staff Officer Operations on the naval war staff. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Shouldn’t you read above that, Paragraph 1/b?

COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, if Your Lordship pleases. It is important. The others are much to the same effect. If I might read it:

“Report by Ia.”—This is one report by Ia on the directive of Armed Forces High Command of 30 December.

“According to this, the Führer, on report of Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, has decided: (a) Greek merchant vessels are to be treated as enemy vessels in the zone blockaded by U.S.A. and Britain; (b) in the Bristol Channel all ships may be attacked without warning. For external consumption these attacks should be given out as hits by mines. Both measures may be taken with immediate effect.”

The next extract, a report by Ia, that is, the Staff Officer Operations on the naval war staff on the directive of Armed Forces High Command, dated 30 December:

“Referring to intensified measures in naval and air warfare in connection with ‘Fall Gelb’.

“In consequence of this directive, the Navy is authorized, simultaneously with the general intensification of the war, to sink by U-boats, without any warning, all ships in those waters near the enemy coasts in which mines can be employed. In this case, for external consumption, pretence should be made that mines are being used. The behaviour of, and use of weapons by, U-boats should be adapted to this purpose.”

And then the third extract, dated 6 January 1940:

“. . . pursuant to the Führer’s consent on principle (see minutes of report of Commander-in-Chief Navy of 30 December) to authorize firing without warning while maintaining the pretence of mine hits in certain parts of the American blockade zone. . . .”

Well, then the order is given to Flag Officer U-boats carrying out that decision.

The next extract, dated the 18th of January 1940, adds to some extent, and if I may read it:

“The High Command of the Armed Forces has issued the following directive dated 17th of January, cancelling the previous order concerning intensified measures of warfare against merchantmen.

“The Navy is authorized, with immediate effect, to sink by U-boats without warning all ships in those waters near the enemy coasts in which the use of mines is possible.”—My Lord, that is an extension of the area.—“U-boats must adapt their behavior and employment of weapons to the pretence, which is to be maintained in these cases, that the hits were caused by mines. Ships of the United States, Italy, Japan, and Russia are exempted from these attacks.”

Well, then there is a note emphasizing the point about maintaining the pretense of mine hits and the last extract is, I think, purely cumulative.

The next document, C-118, I put in as Exhibit GB-195. This is an extract from the B.d.U. War Diary, that is to say the defendant’s war diary. It is dated the 18th of July 1941, and it consists of a further extension of that order by the cutting down of the protected categories.

“Supplementary to the order forbidding, for the time being, attacks on U.S. warships and merchant vessels in the operational area of the North Atlantic, the Führer has ordered the following:

“1. Attacks on U.S. merchant vessels sailing in British or U.S. convoys, or independently are authorized in the original operational area which corresponds in its dimensions to the U.S. blockade zone and which does not include the sea-route U.S. to Iceland.”

As the members of the Tribunal will have seen from these orders, at one date the ships of a particular neutral under certain conditions could be sunk while those of another could not. It would be easy to put before the Tribunal a mass of orders and instances to show that the attitude to be adopted toward ships of particular neutrals changed at various times. The point is that the defendant conducted the U-boat war against neutrals with complete cynicism and opportunism. It all depended on the political relationship of Germany toward a particular country at a particular time whether her ships were sunk or not.

My Lord, I turn to the next document in the document book, D-642, which I put in as Exhibit GB-196. My Lord, this is a series of orders; the first, I should say, of a series of orders leading up to the issue of an order which enjoined the U-boat commanders not merely to abstain from rescuing crews, which is the purpose of this order, not merely to give them no assistance but deliberately to annihilate them.

My Lord, in the course of my proof of this matter, I shall call two witnesses. The first witness will give the Court an account of a speech made by the defendant at the time that he issued the order describing the policy, or his policy toward the recovery of Allied troops: that it must be stopped at all costs.

The second witness is the officer who actually briefed crews on the order.

My Lord, this document is an extract from the standing orders of the U-boat command, an extract from Standing Order Number 154, and it is signed by the defendant:

“Paragraph e) Do not pick up men or take them with you. Do not worry about the merchant ship’s boats. Weather conditions and distance from land play no part. Have a care only for your own ship and strive only to attain your next success as soon as possible. We must be harsh in this war. The enemy began the war in order to destroy us, so nothing else matters.”

THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of that?

COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, that order, the copy we have, is not dated, but a later order, Number 173, which was issued concurrently with an operational order, is dated the 2d of May 1940. The Tribunal may take it, it is earlier than the 2d of May 1940. My Lord, that is a secret order.

THE PRESIDENT: Earlier than May 1940?

COL. PHILLIMORE: Earlier than May 1940.

It was, however, in 1942, when the United States entered the war with its enormous shipbuilding capacity, that the change thus brought about necessitated a further adjustment in the methods adopted by the U-boats and of the defendant; and the defendant was guilty of an order which intended not merely the sinking of merchant ships, not merely the abstention from rescue of the crews, but their deliberate extermination.

My Lord, the next document in the document book shows the course of events, Document D-423, and I put it in as Exhibit GB-197. It is a record of a conversation between Hitler and the Japanese Ambassador Oshima, in the presence of the Defendant Ribbentrop, on the 3 of January 1942.

“The Führer, using a map, explains to the Japanese Ambassador the present position of marine warfare in the Atlantic, emphasizing that what he considers his most important task is to get the U-boat warfare going in full swing. The U-boats are being re-organized. Firstly, he had recalled all U-boats operating in the Atlantic. As mentioned before, they would now be posted outside United States ports. Later, they would be off Freetown and the larger boats even as far down as Capetown.”

And then, after further details:

“After having given further explanations on the map, the Führer pointed out that, however many ships the United States built, one of their main problems would be the lack of personnel. For that reason even merchant ships would be sunk without warning with the intention of killing as many of the crew as possible. Once it gets around that most of the seamen are lost in the sinkings, the Americans would soon have difficulties in enlisting new people. The training of sea-going personnel takes a very long time. We are fighting for our existence and our attitude cannot be ruled by any humane feelings. For this reason he must give the order that in case foreign seamen could not be taken prisoner, which is in most cases not possible on the sea, U-boats were to surface after torpedoing and shoot up the lifeboats.

“Ambassador Oshima heartily agreed with the Führer’s comments, and said that the Japanese, too, are forced to follow these methods.”

My Lord, the next document, D-446, I put in as Exhibit GB-198. I do not propose to read it. It is an extract from B. d. U. War Diary of the 16th of September 1942; and it is part of the story in the sense that it was on the following day that the order I complain of was issued, and the Defense will, no doubt, wish to rely on it. It records an attack on a U-boat which was rescuing survivors, chiefly the Italian survivors of the Allied liner Laconia, when it was attacked by an Allied aircraft.

My Lord, the next document, D-630, I put in as Exhibit GB-199. It contains four documents. The first is a top secret order, sent to all commanding officers of U-boats from the defendant’s headquarters, dated 17th of September 1942:

“1. No attempt of any kind must be made at rescuing members of ships sunk; and this includes picking up persons in the water and putting them in lifeboats, righting capsized lifeboats and handing over food and water. Rescue runs counter to the rudimentary demands of warfare for the destruction of enemy ships and crews.

“2. Orders for bringing in captains and chief engineers still apply.

“3. Rescue the shipwrecked only if their statements will be of importance to your boat.

“4. Be harsh, having in mind that the enemy takes no regard of women and children in his bombing attacks on German cities.”

Now, My Lord, that is, of course, a very carefully worded order. Its intentions are made very clear by the next document on that same page, which is an extract from the defendant’s war diary; and I should say there, as appears from the copy handed in to the Court, the war diary is personally signed by the Defendant Dönitz. It is the war diary entry for the 17th of September 1942:

“The attention of all commanding officers is again drawn”—and I would draw the Tribunal’s attention to the word “again”—“to the fact that all efforts to rescue members of the crews of ships which have been sunk contradict the most primitive demands for the conduct of warfare for annihilating enemy ships and their crews. Orders concerning the bringing in of the captains and chief engineers still stand.”

The last two documents on that page consist of a telegram from the commander of the U-boat Schacht to the defendant’s headquarters and the reply. Schacht had been taking part in the rescue of survivors from the Laconia. The telegram from Schacht, dated the 17th of September 1942, reads:

“163 Italians handed over to Annamite. Navigating officer of Laconia and another English officer on board.”

And then it goes on setting out the position of English and Polish survivors in boats.

The reply sent on the 20th:

“Action as in wireless telegram message of 17th of September was wrong. Boat was detailed to rescue Italian allies and not for the rescue of English and Poles.”

It is a small point, but of course “detailed” means before the bombing incident had ever occurred.

And then as for the next document, D-663, that was issued later and may not yet have been inserted in the Tribunal’s Document Book; D-663 I put in as Exhibit GB-200. My Lord, this is an extract from an operation order, “Operation Order Atlantic Number 56,” dated the 7th of October 1943, and the copy put in is part of sailing orders to a U-boat. As I shall prove through the second witness, although the date of this order is the 7th of October 1943, in fact it is only a reproduction of an order issued very much earlier, in the autumn of 1942.

“Rescue ships: A so-called rescue ship is generally attached to every convoy, a special ship of up to 3,000 gross registered tons, which is intended for the picking up of survivors after U-boat attacks. These ships are for the most part equipped with a shipborne aircraft and large motorboats, are strongly armed with depth charge throwers, and are very maneuverable, so that they are often taken for U-boat traps by the commander.”

And then, the last sentence:

“In view of the desired destruction of ships’ crews, their sinking is of great value.”

If I might just sum up those documents, it would appear from the War Diary entry of the 17th of September that orders on the lines discussed between Hitler and Oshima were, in fact, issued, but we have not captured them. It may be they were issued orally and that the defendant awaited a suitable opportunity before confirming them. The incident of the bombing of the U-boats detailed to rescue the Italian survivors from the Laconia afforded the opportunity and the order to all commanders was issued. Its intent is very clear when you consider it in the light of the War Diary entry. The wording is, of course, extremely careful but to any officer of experience its intention was obvious and he would know that deliberate action to annihilate survivors would be approved under that order.

You will be told that this order, although perhaps unfortunately phrased, was merely intended to stop a commander from jeopardizing his ship by attempting a rescue, which had become increasingly dangerous, as a result of the extended coverage of the ocean by Allied aircraft; and that the notorious action of the U-boat Commander Eck in sinking the Greek steamer Peleus and then machine-gunning the crew on their rafts in the water, was an exception; and that, although it may be true that a copy of the order was on board, this action was taken solely, as he himself swore, on his own initiative.

I would make the point to the Tribunal that if the intention of this order was to stop the rescue attempts in the interests of the preservation of the U-boat, first of all it would have been done by calling attention to Standing Order 154.

Second, this very fact would have been prominently stated in the order. Drastic orders of this nature are not drafted by experienced staff officers without the greatest care and an eye to their possible capture by the enemy.

Third, if it was necessary to avoid the risks attendant on standing by or surfacing, not only would this have been stated but there would have been no question of taking any prisoners at all except possibly in circumstances where virtually no risk in surfacing was to be apprehended.

Fourth, the final sentence of the first paragraph would have read very differently.

And fifth, if, in fact—and the Prosecution do not for one moment accept it—the defendant did not mean to enjoin murder, his order was so worded that he cannot escape the responsibility which attaches to such a document.

My Lord, I would call my first witness, Peter Heisig.

[The witness, Peter Josef Heisig, took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?

PETER JOSEF HEISIG (Witness): My name is Peter Josef Heisig.

THE PRESIDENT: Say this: “I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold nothing and add nothing.”

[The witness repeated the oath in German.]

COL. PHILLIMORE: Peter Josef Heisig, are you an Oberleutnant zur See in Germany?

HEISIG: I am Oberleutnant zur See in the German Navy.

COL. PHILLIMORE: And were you captured on the 27th of December 1944, and now held as a prisoner of war?


COL. PHILLIMORE: Did you swear an affidavit on the 27th of November 1945?


COL. PHILLIMORE: And is that your signature? [Document D-566 was submitted to the witness.]

My Lord, that is the Document D-566.

HEISIG: That is the document I signed.

COL. PHILLIMORE: I put that in as Exhibit GB-201.

[Turning to the witness.] Will you take your mind back to the autumn of 1942? What rank did you hold at that time?

HEISIG: I was senior midshipman at the 2d U-boat Training Division.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Were you attending a course there?

HEISIG: I took part in the training course for U-boat officers of the watch.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you remember the last day of the course?

HEISIG: On the last day of the course, Grossadmiral Dönitz, who was then Commander-in-Chief of the U-boats, reviewed the 2d U-boat Training Division.

COL. PHILLIMORE: And what happened at the end of this tour?

HEISIG: At the end of his visit—not at the end but rather during his visit—Grossadmiral Dönitz made a speech before the officers of the 2d U-boat Training Division.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Can you fix the date of his visit?

HEISIG: I remember the approximate date; it must have been at the end of September or the beginning of October 1942.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Now, will you give the Tribunal—speaking slowly—an account of what Admiral Dönitz said in his speech?

HEISIG: Grossadmiral Dönitz said in his speech that the successes of the U-boats had declined. The strength of enemy air control was responsible for that decline. New antiaircraft guns had been developed which would in future make it possible for the U-boats to fight off enemy aircraft. Hitler had personally given him the assurance that U-boats would be equipped with these antiaircraft guns before all other branches of the Armed Forces. It could be expected therefore that the successes of former times would be reached again within a few months. After speaking about his good relations with Hitler, Grossadmiral Dönitz discussed the German armament program.

A question by an officer regarding a newspaper article which stated that the Allied countries were building more than a million tons of merchant shipping every month, Admiral Dönitz answered by saying that he doubted the credibility of this estimate and said it was based on an announcement by President Roosevelt. He then spoke briefly about President Roosevelt, about the American production program and armament potential, and added that the Allies had great difficulty in manning their ships. Allied seamen considered the route across the Atlantic dangerous, because German U-boats were sinking Allied ships in great numbers. Many of the Allied seamen had been torpedoed more than once; these facts spread and make the seamen reluctant to go to sea again. Some of them were even trying to shirk a crossing of the Atlantic, so that the Allied authorities were compelled, if it became necessary, to retain the men aboard by force of law. Such indications were favorable to the Germans. From the facts that, firstly, the Allies were building very many new merchant ships and, secondly, that the Allies were having considerable difficulties in manning these newly built ships, Admiral Dönitz concluded that the question of personnel was a very grave matter for the Allies. The losses in men affected the Allies especially seriously, because they had few reserves and also because. . .

COL. PHILLIMORE: I don’t want to interrupt you, but did he say anything about rescues at all? You have told us about the Allied losses and how serious they were.

HEISIG: Yes, he mentioned rescues, but I would like to speak about that later.

Grossadmiral Dönitz said that the losses of the Allies affected them very seriously, because they had no reserves and also because the training of new seamen required a very long time. He could not, therefore, understand it, if submarines were still. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Phillimore, just a moment. I don’t think we want to hear the whole of Admiral Dönitz’ speech. We want to hear the material part of it.

COL. PHILLIMORE [to the witness.]: Now, you have dealt with the question of losses. Will you come to the crucial part of the speech, at the end, and deal with that? What did the Grand Admiral go on to say?

DR. THOMA: The testimony of the witness does not concern me directly, but I have an objection to raise. According to German law and according to the German Code of Criminal Procedure, the witness must say everything he knows about a matter. If he is asked about a speech of Grossadmiral Dönitz, he must not, at least according to German law, relate only those parts which, in the opinion of the Prosecution, are unfavorable to the defendant. I believe this principle should also apply in these proceedings, whenever a witness is questioned.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is not bound by German law. I have already said that the Tribunal does not desire to hear from this witness all of Admiral Dönitz’ speech.

It will be open to any of the counsel for the defendants to cross-examine this witness. Your intervention is therefore entirely unnecessary.

COL. PHILLIMORE [to the witness.]: Now, will you deal with the crucial parts of the Grand Admiral’s speech?

HEISIG: Grossadmiral Dönitz continued, saying approximately that under the circumstances he could not understand how German U-boats could still rescue the crews of the merchant ships they had sunk, thereby endangering their own ships. By doing that, they were working for the enemy, since these rescued crews would sail again on new ships.

The stage had now been reached in which total war had to be waged also at sea. The crews of ships, like the ships themselves, were a target for the U-boats; thus it would be impossible for the Allies to man their newly-built ships; and moreover it could then be expected that in America and the other Allied countries a strike would break out, for already a part of the seamen did not want to go back to sea.

These results could be expected if our tactics would render the war at sea more vigorous. If any of us consider this war or these tactics harsh we should also remember that our wives and our families at home are being bombed.

That, in its main points, was the speech of Grossadmiral Dönitz.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Now, about how many officers were present and heard that speech?

HEISIG: I have no experience in fixing the number of people present at large indoor gatherings. I can only give you a rough estimate: approximately 120 officers.

COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, the witness is available for cross-examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the United States prosecutor wish to ask any question?

[There was no response.]

The Soviet prosecutor?

[There was no response.]

The French prosecutor?

[There was no response.]

Now, any of the defendants’ counsel may cross-examine the witness.

FLOTTENRICHTER OTTO KRANZBÜHLER (Counsel for Defendant Dönitz): I represent Grossadmiral Dönitz.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will understand that what I said to Dr. Thoma was not intended to interfere with your cross-examination; it was only intended to save time. The Tribunal did not desire to hear unimportant passages in the Defendant Dönitz’ speech. Therefore, they did not want to hear them from this witness. However, you are at liberty to ask any questions that you please.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Oberleutnant Heisig, did you yourself take part in an action against the enemy?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: On which boat were you, and who was your commander?

HEISIG: I was on U-877, under Kapitänleutnant Finkeisen.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Please repeat your answer.

HEISIG: I served on U-877 in an action against the enemy, and the commander was Kapitänleutnant Finkeisen.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Were you successful in action against enemy ships?

HEISIG: The boat was sunk on its way to the area of operations.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Before you were able to sink an enemy ship?



HEISIG: By depth charges. Two Canadian frigates sighted the U-boat and destroyed it through depth charges.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Your testimony today differs in an essential point from the statement you made on the 27th of November. How did you come to make this statement of the 27th of November?

HEISIG: I made the statement in defense of my comrades who were put before a military court in Hamburg and sentenced to death for the murder of shipwrecked sailors.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Your statement begins by saying that you had received reports that German sailors were being accused of murder and that you therefore considered it your duty to depose the following affidavit.

What reports had you received, and when?

HEISIG: At the beginning of the Hamburg proceedings against Kapitänleutnant Eck and his officers I was a prisoner of war in Great Britain; there I heard on the radio and read in newspapers that these officers were to be tried. Since I knew one of the accused officers, Leutnant August Hoffmann, very well and had spoken with him on this subject on two or three occasions, I considered it to be my duty to come to his assistance and to his defense.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Were you not told in your interrogation on the 27th of November that the death sentence against Eck and Hoffmann had already been confirmed?

HEISIG: That—I don’t remember whether it was on the 27th of November, I only remember that I was told here that the death sentence had been carried out. I no longer remember the date, as I was interrogated several times.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Since you have knowledge of the circumstances, do you maintain that the speech of Grossadmiral Dönitz mentioned in any way that fire should be opened on shipwrecked sailors?

HEISIG: No; we gathered that from his words; and from his reference to the bombing war, we gathered that total war had now to be waged against ships and crews. That is what we understood, and I talked about it to my comrades on the way back to the Hansa.


HEISIG: We were convinced that Admiral Dönitz meant that. He did not express it clearly.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you speak about this point with any of your superiors at the school?

HEISIG: I left the school on the same day. But I can remember that one of my superiors, whose name to my regret I do not recall—nor do I recall the occasion—once spoke to us about this subject and advised us that, if possible, only officers should be on the bridge ready to annihilate shipwrecked sailors, should the possibility arise, or should it be necessary.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: One of your superiors told you that?

HEISIG: Yes, but I cannot remember in which connection and where. I received a lot of advice from my superiors on many things.


HEISIG: No; I left the U-boat Training Division on the same day.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Were you instructed at the school in the standing orders of war?

HEISIG: Yes; we were instructed in the standing orders of war.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did these standing orders mention anywhere that shipwrecked sailors were to be fired on or their rescue apparatus destroyed?

HEISIG: The standing orders did not mention that. But—I think one can assume this from an innuendo of Captain Rollmann, who was then officers’ company commander—a short time before that, some teletype message had arrived containing an order prohibiting rescue measures and demanding that sea warfare should be fought with more radical, more drastic means.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you think that the prohibition of rescue measures is identical with the shooting of shipwrecked sailors?

HEISIG: We came to this. . .

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Please, answer my question. Do you think these two things are identical?



THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, I am afraid the Tribunal will have to adjourn now; and I have an announcement to make. You may cross-examine tomorrow.

DR. THOMA: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: As I have already said, the Tribunal will not sit in open session this afternoon.

The announcement that I have to make is in connection with the organizations which are alleged to be criminal under Article 9 of the Charter, and this is the announcement:

The Tribunal has been giving careful consideration to the duty imposed upon it by Article 9 of the Charter.

It is difficult to determine the manner in which the representatives of the named organizations shall be permitted to appear in accordance with Article 9, without considering the exact nature of the case presented for the Prosecution.

For this reason, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that, at this stage of the Trial, with many thousands of applications being made, the case for the Prosecution should be defined with more precision than appears in the Indictment.

In these circumstances, therefore, it is the intention of the Tribunal to invite argument from the Counsel for the Prosecution and for the Defense, at the conclusion of the case by all prosecutors, in regard to the questions hereinafter set forth.

The questions which need further consideration are as follows:

1. The Charter does not define a criminal organization, and it is therefore necessary to examine the tests of criminality which must be applied and to decide the nature of the evidence to be admitted.

Many of the applicants who have made requests to be heard assert that they were conscripted into the organization, or that they were ignorant of the criminal purposes of the organization, or that they were innocent of any unlawful acts.

It will be necessary to decide whether such evidence ought to be received to rebut the charge of the criminal character of the organization, or whether such evidence ought more properly to be received at the subsequent trials under Article 10 of the Charter, when the organizations have been declared criminal, if the Tribunal so decides.

2. The question of the precise time within which the named organization is said to have been criminal is vital to the decision of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal desires to know from the Prosecution at this stage whether it is intended to adhere to the limits of time set out in the Indictment.

3. The Tribunal desires to know whether, in the light of the evidence, any class of persons included within the named organizations should be excluded from the scope of the declaration, and which, if any.

In the indictment of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, the Prosecution have reserved the right to request that Politische Leiter of subordinate grades or ranks, or of other types or classes, be exempted from further proceedings without prejudice to other proceedings or actions against them.

Is it the intention of the Prosecution to make any such request? If so, it should be done now.

4. The Tribunal would be glad if the Prosecution would also:

(a) Summarize in respect of each named organization the elements which in their opinion justify the charge of being a criminal organization.

(b) Indicate what acts on the part of individual defendants, indicted in this Trial—in the sense used in Article 9 of the Charter—justify declaring the groups or organizations of which they are members to be criminal organizations.

(c) Submit in writing a summary of proposed findings of fact as to each organization, with respect to which a finding of criminality is asked.

The Tribunal hopes it is not necessary to say to the Prosecution that it is not seeking to interfere with the undoubted right of the Prosecution to present its case in its own way, in the light of the full knowledge of all the documents and facts which it possesses, but the duty of the Tribunal under Article 9 of the Charter makes it essential at this time to have the case clearly and precisely defined.

This announcement will be communicated to the Chief Prosecutors and to Defense Counsel in writing.

The Tribunal will adjourn until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 15 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]

Tuesday, 15 January 1946

Morning Session

THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other Counsel for the Defense wish to cross-examine this witness? [Referring to Peter Josef Heisig, interrogated the previous day.]

[There was no response.]

Then, Colonel Phillimore, do you wish to re-examine?

COL. PHILLIMORE: No, My Lord; I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can go.

[The witness left the stand.]

COL. PHILLIMORE: Before I call my second witness, Karl Heinz Moehle, an affidavit by him is the next document in the document book.

[Karl Heinz Moehle took the stand.]

THE PRESIDENT: What is your name?

KARL HEINZ MOEHLE (Witness): Karl Heinz Moehle.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath: “I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.”

[The witness repeated the oath in German.]

THE PRESIDENT: You can sit down, if you wish.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Karl Heinz Moehle, you held the rank of Korvettenkapitän in the German Navy?

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.

COL. PHILLIMORE: You served in the German Navy since 1930?

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Will you tell the Tribunal what decorations you hold?

MOEHLE: I received the Submarine War Medal; the Iron Cross, Second Class; the Iron Cross, First Class; the Knight’s Cross; the War Service Cross, First and Second Class; and the German Cross in Silver.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Did you swear to an affidavit covering a statement you have made on the 21st of July 1945?

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir; I made such a statement.

COL. PHILLIMORE: I show you that document and ask you to say whether that is your affidavit.

[Document 382-PS was submitted to the witness.]

MOEHLE: Yes, this is my affidavit.

COL. PHILLIMORE: I put that document in, which is 382-PS, and it becomes Exhibit GB-202.

[Turning to the witness.] In the autumn of 1942 were you head of the 5th U-boat Flotilla?


COL. PHILLIMORE: Were you stationed at Kiel?

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.

COL. PHILLIMORE: How long did you hold that appointment altogether?

MOEHLE: For 4 years.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Was that from June 1941 until the capitulation?

MOEHLE: That is correct.

COL. PHILLIMORE: What were your duties as commander of that flotilla?

MOEHLE: My main duties as Flotilla Commander consisted of the fitting out of U-boats which were to be sent to the front from home bases, and giving them the orders of the U-boat command.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Had you any special responsibility to U-boat commanders in respect of the orders?

MOEHLE? Yes, Sir; it was my responsibility to see that outgoing U-boats were provided with the new orders of the U-boat command.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Had you any responsibility in explaining the orders?

MOEHLE: The orders of the U-boat command were always very clear and unambiguous. If there were any ambiguities I used to have these ambiguities cleared up myself at the Staff of the Commander-in-Chief of U-boats.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Did you personally see commanders before they went out on patrol?

MOEHLE: Yes, each commander before leaving for an operational cruise went through a so-called commander’s briefing.

COL. PHILLIMORE: I will go back, if I may, for two or three questions. Did you personally see commanders before they went out on patrol?

MOEHLE: Yes, each commander before sailing on a mission went through a briefing session at my office.

COL. PHILLIMORE: And what did that briefing session consist of? Were there any questions on the orders?

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir, all experiences of previous patrols and any questions of the ship’s equipment were discussed with the commander at that session. Also, the commanders had an opportunity at the briefing to clarify any uncertainties, which might have existed in their minds, by asking questions.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Apart from your briefing sessions, did commanders also go to Admiral Dönitz’ headquarters for briefing?

MOEHLE: As far as that was possible it was done, especially from the moment when the Commander-in-Chief of U-boats had transferred his office from Paris to Berlin.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you remember an order in the autumn of 1942 dealing with lifeboats?

MOEHLE: Yes. In September 1942 I received a wireless message addressed to all commanders at sea, and it dealt with that question.

COL. PHILLIMORE: I show you this document.

My Lord, that is the exhibit I have already put in as GB-199.

THE PRESIDENT: What other number has it?

COL. PHILLIMORE: It is Document D-630.

[Turning to the witness.] Is that the order you are referring to?

MOEHLE: Yes, that is the order.

COL. PHILLIMORE: From the time when you were captured until last Friday had you seen that order?

MOEHLE: No, Sir.

COL. PHILLIMORE: It follows, I think, that the account of the order in your statement was given from recollection?

MOEHLE: Yes, only from recollection.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Now, after you got that order did you go to Admiral Dönitz’ headquarters?

MOEHLE: Yes, at my first visit to headquarters after receipt of the order, I personally discussed it with Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch who was a specialist on the staff of the U-boat command.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Will you tell the Tribunal what was said at that meeting?

MOEHLE: At that meeting I asked Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch how the ambiguity contained in that order—or I might say, lack of clarity—should be understood. He explained the order by two illustrations.

The first example was that of a U-boat in the outer Bay of Biscay. It was sailing on patrol when it sighted a rubber dinghy carrying survivors of a British plane. The fact that it was on an outgoing mission, that is, being fully equipped, made it impossible to take the crew of the plane on board, although, especially at that time, it appeared especially desirable to bring back specialists in navigation from shot-down aircraft crews to get useful information from them. The commander of the U-boat made a wide circle around this rubber boat and continued on his mission. When he returned from his mission he reported this case to the staff of the Commander-in-Chief of U-boats. The staff officers reproached him, saying that, if he were unable to bring these navigation specialists back with him, the right thing to do would have been to attack that crew, for it was to be expected that, in less than 24 hours at the latest, the dinghy would be rescued by British reconnaissance forces, and they. . .

COL. PHILLIMORE: I don’t quite get what you said would have been the correct action to take. You were saying the correct thing to do would have been. . .

MOEHLE: The right thing to do would have been to attack the air crew as it was not possible to bring back the crew or these specialists, for it could be expected that that crew would be found and rescued within a short time by British reconnaissance forces, and in given circumstances might again destroy one or two German U-boats.

The second example. . .

COL. PHILLIMORE: Did he give you any second example?

MOEHLE: Yes, the second example I am going to recount now.

Example 2. During the first month of the U-boat warfare against the United States a great quantity of tonnage—I do not recollect the exact figure—had been sunk in the shallow waters off the American coast. In these sinkings the greater part of the crews were rescued, because of the close proximity of land. That was exceedingly regrettable, as to merchant shipping not only tonnage but also crews belong, and in the meantime these crews were again able to man newly-built ships.

COL. PHILLIMORE: You have told us about the ambiguity of the order. Are you familiar with the way Admiral Dönitz worded his orders?

MOEHLE: I do not quite understand the question.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Are you familiar with the way Admiral Dönitz normally worded his orders?

MOEHLE: Yes. In my opinion, the order need only have read like this: It is pointed out anew that rescue measures have to be discontinued for reasons of safety for the submarines. This is how, I think, the order should have been worded—if only rescue measures had been forbidden. All. . .

COL. PHILLIMORE: Are you saying that if it had been intended only to prohibit rescue measures it would have been sufficient to refer to the previous order?

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir; that would have been enough.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Was that previous order also marked “top secret”?

MOEHLE: I do not remember that exactly.

COL. PHILLIMORE: What was the propaganda at the time with regard to crews?

MOEHLE: The propaganda at that time was to the effect that the enemy was having great difficulty in finding sufficient crews for his merchant marine and. . .

THE PRESIDENT: The question as to the propaganda at that time is too general a question for him to answer.

COL. PHILLIMORE: If Your Honor pleases, I don’t press it.

[Turning to the witness.] From your knowledge of the way orders were worded, can you tell the Tribunal what you understood this order to mean?

MOEHLE: The order meant, in my own opinion, that although rescue measures remained prohibited, on the other hand it was desirable in the case of sinkings of merchantmen that there should be no survivors.

COL. PHILLIMORE: And was it because you understood this to be the meaning that you went to Admiral Dönitz’ headquarters?

MOEHLE: I did not go to the headquarters of the U-boat command on account of this order alone; these visits took place at frequent intervals in order to discuss other questions also and to have the opportunity of keeping constantly in touch with the views and opinions of the U-boat command, as I had to transmit them to the commanders.

COL. PHILLIMORE: How did you brief commanders on this order?

MOEHLE: At these briefing sessions I read the wording of the wireless message to the commanders without making any comment. In a very few instances some commanders asked me about the meaning of the order. In such cases I gave them the two examples that headquarters had given to me. However, I added, “U-boat command cannot give you such an order officially; everybody has to handle this according to his own conscience.”

COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you remember an order about rescue ships?

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Can you say what the date of that order was?

MOEHLE: I do not remember the exact date, but I think it must have been about the same as the order of September 1942.

COL. PHILLIMORE: May the witness see the Document D-663 which I put in yesterday?


COL. PHILLIMORE: It is the German copy of the document that I am showing him; the original is being held.

[Document D-663 was submitted to the witness.]

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir; I recognize that order.

COL. PHILLIMORE: You will note that the date on that document is the 7th of October 1943.

MOEHLE: Yes, this order is laid down there in the general Operational Order Atlantic Number 56. According to my recollection, this order was already contained in the previous effective Operational Order Number 54, that is in a wireless message containing practical experiences and instructions. I cannot remember exactly. The date is October 1943.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Phillimore, is that order in the index here?

COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord, that is the Document D-663, which I put in yesterday as Exhibit GB-200. If it is omitted from the index, Your Lordship will remember it is the document which, as I explained yesterday, we just received.

THE PRESIDENT: Where does it come in?

COL. PHILLIMORE: It comes in after D-630.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes. Thank you.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Your Lordship will remember the order; it deals with rescue ships attached to convoys, and it was on the last sentence that I relied.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I only wanted to get the words of it.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, Sir. My Lord, also I have the original here now and if it is thought necessary the witness can see it, but he has seen a copy.

[Turning to the witness.] Do you remember an order about entries in logs?

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir. At the time, the exact date I do not remember, it had been ordered that sinkings and other acts which were in contradiction to international conventions should not be entered in the log but should be reported orally after return to the home port.

COL. PHILLIMORE: Would you care to say why it is that you are giving evidence in this case?

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir; because when I was taken prisoner it was claimed that I was the author of these orders, and I do not want to have this charge connected with my name.

COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, the witness is available for examination by my colleagues and for cross-examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any counsel for any defendant wish to ask the witness any questions?

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Lieutenant Commander Moehle, since when have you been in the U-boat arm?

MOEHLE: Since the end of 1936.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know Grossadmiral Dönitz personally?



MOEHLE: Since October 1937.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you see him here in this room?



MOEHLE: To the left in the rear.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know Grossadmiral Dönitz as an admiral to whom none of his flotilla chiefs and commanders could speak?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Or was the opposite the case?

MOEHLE: He could be approached by everybody at any time.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Have you yourself been a commander of a U-boat?

MOEHLE: Yes, on nine operations.


MOEHLE: From the beginning of the war until April 1941.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: How many ships did you sink?

MOEHLE: Twenty ships.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: After sinking ships, did you destroy the rescue equipment or fire at the survivors?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you have an order to do that?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Had the danger passed for a U-boat after the attack on a merchantman?

MOEHLE: No; the danger to the U-boat does not end when the attack is over.


MOEHLE: Because in most instances when a ship is sunk, the ship is in a position to send SOS messages and give its position, and thus bring striking forces to attack the U-boat at the last minute.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Is there a maxim in the U-boat arm that fighting comes before rescuing?

MOEHLE: I never heard of that rule put in that way.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Prior to the order of September 1942 did you know of any other orders by which rescue work was prohibited if it entailed danger to the U-boat?

MOEHLE: Yes, but I do not know when and where this order was laid down. It had been ordered that, as a matter of principle, the safety of one’s own boat takes precedence.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was this ordered only once, or in several instances?

MOEHLE: That I cannot say.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know that the order of September 1942 was given in consequence of an incident in which German U-boats, contrary to orders, had undertaken rescue measures?

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: And the U-boats were then attacked by Allied aircraft?

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: A minute ago you classified the order of September 1942 as ambiguous, did you not?

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: You interpreted it to the commanders in the sense that the order should include the destruction of rescue facilities and of the shipwrecked crew?

MOEHLE: No, not quite; I gave the two examples to the commanders only if they made an inquiry and I passed them on in the same way as I had received them from the Commander-in-Chief Submarine Fleet and they themselves could draw that conclusion from these two examples.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: In which sentence of the order do you see a hidden invitation to kill survivors or to destroy the rescue facilities?

MOEHLE: In the sentence. . .

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Just a second, I shall read to you each sentence of the order separately.

MOEHLE: Very well.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I read from the Document D-630:

“1. No attempt of any kind must be made at rescuing members of ships sunk, and this includes picking up persons in the water and putting them in lifeboats, righting capsized lifeboats, and handing over food and water. These are absolutely forbidden.”

Do you see it in this sentence?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: “Rescue measures contradict the most primitive demands of warfare that crews and ships should be destroyed.”

Do you see that in this sentence?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Does that sentence contain anything as to the destruction of shipwrecked persons?

MOEHLE: No, of crews.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: At the end of the order is the phrase “Be harsh.” Did you hear that phrase there for the first time?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was this phrase used by Commander-in-Chief of U-boats to get the commanders to be severe themselves and to their crews?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you discuss the order with Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you remember that exactly?

MOEHLE: As far as I can rely upon my recollection after such a long time.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Where did that conversation take place?

MOEHLE: At the staff headquarters of the U-boat command, probably in Paris.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: What position did Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch occupy at the time?

MOEHLE: As far as I can remember, he was the man in charge of the Enemy Convoys Department, but I could not say that with any certainty.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was the superior officer of Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch, Commander Hessler?

MOEHLE: Superior officer? I would not say so, because Commander Hessler was on the same level as Kuppisch, a departmental chief.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch’s superior Admiral Goth?

MOEHLE: Yes, in his capacity of Chief of Staff.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you speak to Commander Hessler or Admiral Goth or with the Grossadmiral himself with regard to the interpretation to be given to the order of September?

MOEHLE: Whether I spoke to Commander Hessler, I do not remember, but in any case not to Admiral Goth or the Grossadmiral himself.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: You said Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch had told you about the opinion which was prevalent in the staff of the U-boat command.


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: With regard to the attitude towards the aviators in the Bay of Biscay, did he tell you that it was the opinion of the Grossadmiral himself?

MOEHLE: I do not remember that. It is too far back. When explanations were given at staff meetings of the U-boat command and an opinion was expressed by a responsible departmental chief, we flotilla leaders naturally took this to be the official opinion of the Commander-in-Chief of the U-boat arm. Admiral Goth personally or the Commander-in-Chief of the U-boat arm was only approached in cases where the departmental chiefs refused to commit themselves definitely or to assume the responsibility for an answer.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you not get to know that the story of the airmen who had been shot down in the Bay of Biscay was in actual fact just the opposite. . .

MOEHLE: I do not understand.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I continue: That the commander was reprimanded because he did not bring home these flyers even if it meant breaking off his operation.

MOEHLE: No, I do not know that.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did Lieutenant Commander Kuppisch tell you in connection with that second example you mentioned, that the shipwrecked or their rescue equipment off the American coast should have been destroyed?

MOEHLE: No; he only said it was regrettable that the crews had been rescued.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: And you concluded from that that it was desired to have the shipwrecked killed?

MOEHLE: I did not draw any conclusions at all from that for I passed on these examples without any commentary.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know the standing orders of the U-boat command?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do they contain the guiding principles of U-boat warfare?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Is there any order in the standing orders directing or advising the killing of shipwrecked persons or the destruction of rescue facilities?

MOEHLE: As far as I know, no.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: What grade of secrecy was attached to these standing orders?

MOEHLE: As far as I remember, top secret.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you remember that in Standing Order 511 the following was ordered. . .

Mr. President, I read from an order which I shall submit in evidence later on. I cannot do it now because I have not yet the original.

“Standing Order of the U-boat Command Number 511; 20 May 1943; taking on board of officers of sunken ships.

“1. As far as accommodation facilities on board permit, captains and chief engineers of sunken ships are to be brought in. The enemy tries to thwart this intention and has issued the following order: (a) masters are not allowed to identify themselves when questioned, but should if possible use sailors selected especially for this purpose; (b) crew has to state that masters and chief engineers remained on board.

“If in spite of energetic questioning it is not possible to find the masters or the chief engineers, then other ships’ officers should be taken aboard.

“2. Masters and officers of neutral ships, which, according to Standing Order Number 101, can be sunk (for instance, Swedish ships outside Göteborg traffic), are not to be brought in because internment of these officers would violate international law.

“3. In case ship officers cannot be taken prisoner, other white members of the crew should be taken along as far as accommodation facilities and further operations of the craft permit, for the purpose of interrogation for military and propaganda purposes.

“4. In case of the sinking of a single cruising destroyer, corvette, or escort vessel, try at all costs to take prisoners, if that can be done without endangering the boat. Interrogation of the prisoners at transit camps . . . can produce valuable hints as to antisubmarine tactics, devices, and weapons used by the enemy; the same applies to air crews of shot-down planes.”

[Turning to the witness.] Do you know that order?

MOEHLE: Yes. The order seems familiar to me.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know the order 513?

“Standing Order of U-boat Command; 1 June 1944; taking along of prisoners.

“1. Statements of prisoners are the safest and best source of information regarding enemy tactics, weapons, location appliances and methods. Prisoners from planes and destroyers may be of the greatest importance to us; therefore, as far as possible and without endangering the boat, the utmost is to be done to take such prisoners.

“2. As prisoners are extremely willing to talk when captured, interrogate them at once on board. It is of special interest to know the manner of locating U-boats by aircraft, whether by radar or by passive location methods; for instance, by ascertaining, through electricity or heat, the location of the boat. Report prisoners taken as soon as possible in order to hand them over to returning boats.”

Do you know that order?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you not notice and try to clarify a contradiction between these orders concerning the rescue of air crews in every case and the story you passed on about the destruction of air crews?

MOEHLE: No; because in the order of September 1942 it also says that the order about the bringing in of ships’ captains and chief engineers remains in force.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you hear of any instance where a U-boat brought in captains and chief engineers but shot the rest of the crew?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you consider it at all possible that such an order can be given—that is, that part of the crew should be rescued and the rest of the crew should be killed?

MOEHLE: No, Sir. One cannot make such an order.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you ever hear of any case where a U-boat commander, on the basis of your briefings, destroyed rescue equipment or killed shipwrecked persons?


FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was it permitted to attack neutral vessels outside the fixed blockade zones?

MOEHLE: Only in cases where they were not marked as neutrals according to regulations.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Was the Commander of the U-boat fleet particularly severe in enforcing this order for the protection of neutral ships?

MOEHLE: As I know of no such cases, I cannot say anything on that subject.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know that the commanders were threatened with court-martial if they did not obey the orders given for the protection of neutrals?

MOEHLE: Yes; I remember one case which happened in the Caribbean Sea.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you remember an order of 1944 directing that neutral ships be stopped and searched?

MOEHLE: Yes, it was ordered, but I do not remember the date, that particular Spanish and Portuguese ships in the North Atlantic should be stopped and searched.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Did you pass on that order to the commanders?

MOEHLE: As far as I recollect, this order was given in writing and was contained in one of the official sets of orders. I passed on orders to commanders only when they were not contained in a set of orders.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: In passing that order on, did you make an addition as to whether that order should be executed or not?

MOEHLE: Yes, I remember that I said—when that order came by radio and the commanders did not know of it yet—that they should be exceedingly careful, when stopping neutrals, as there was always the danger that also a neutral ship might disclose the position of the U-boat by radio. Owing to the air superiority of the enemy in the North Atlantic, it would always be safer or better not to be compelled to stop these ships.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Had you orders from the Commander of the U-boat fleet to make this additional remark?

MOEHLE: As far as I remember, one of the departmental chiefs in the U-boat command—I assume it was Commander Hessler—told me or took particular care to point out that any stopping of ships, even neutrals, involved considerable danger to the U-boat.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Because of the air patrol?

MOEHLE: Because of the air patrol.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Your attention has been called to the order concerning the so-called rescue ships.




FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Were these “rescue ships” recognized under international law as hospital ships, with appropriate markings?

MOEHLE: As far as I know, they were not.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: What orders existed that hospital ships should be protected?

MOEHLE: Where these orders were laid down—whether in writing I do not remember—I only know that the Commander of the U-boats fleet frequently reminded the commanders of the absolute inviolability of hospital ships.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: Do you know of any case in which a hospital ship was attacked by a U-boat?

MOEHLE: No; I don’t know of such a case.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: If the Commander of the U-boat fleet had been interested in destroying helpless human beings in violation of international law, the destruction of hospital ships would have been an excellent means, don’t you think?

MOEHLE: Without any doubt.

FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBÜHLER: I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other Defense Counsel wish to cross-examine this witness?

[No response.]

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you ever save any of the survivors of the vessels that you torpedoed?

MOEHLE: I have not been in a position to do that due to the military situation.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You mean to say it was dangerous to your boat to do it?

MOEHLE: Not only that. A great number of the ships which I sunk were in a convoy or else there was a rough sea, so that it was impossible to undertake any rescue measures owing to navigation conditions.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is all.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Phillimore, do you want to re-examine?

COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I have about three questions.


COL. PHILLIMORE: [Turning to the witness.] When you were a U-boat commander yourself, what was the order with regard to rescue?

MOEHLE: At the beginning of the war we had been told that the safety of one’s own boat was the decisive thing, and that the boat should not be endangered by rescue measures. Whether these orders already existed in writing at the outbreak of the war I do not remember.

COL. PHILLIMORE: When you got this order of the 17th of September 1942, did you take it merely as prohibiting rescue or as going further?

MOEHLE: When I received that order I noticed that it was not entirely clear, as orders of the B. d. U. normally were. One could see an ambiguity in it.

COL. PHILLIMORE: You have not answered my question. Did you take the order to mean that a U-boat commander should merely abstain from rescue measures, or as something further?

MOEHLE: I took the order to mean that something further was implied, only it was not actually ordered but was considered desirable.

COL. PHILLIMORE: The instance you were given about the Bay of Biscay, had you any knowledge of the facts of that incident?

MOEHLE: No, the circumstances of that case are not known to me.

COL. PHILLIMORE: What were the actual words you used when you passed that order on to commanders?

MOEHLE: I told the commanders in so many words: We are now approaching a very delicate and difficult chapter; it is the question of the treatment of lifeboats. The Commander of the U-boat fleet issued the following radio message in September 1942—I then read the radio message of September 1942 in full. For most of those present the chapter was closed; no commander had any questions to ask. Explanations were not given unless questions were asked. In some few instances the commanders asked, “How should this order be interpreted?” Then as a means of interpretation I gave the two examples which had been related to me at the U-boat command and added, “Officially such a thing cannot be ordered; everybody has to reconcile that with his own conscience.”

COL. PHILLIMORE: Do you remember any comment being made by commanding officers after you had read the order?

MOEHLE: Yes, Sir. Several commanders, following the reading of this radio message said, without making any further comment, “That is very clear, but damned hard.”

COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn for 10 minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I would now put before the Tribunal two cases where that order of the 17th of September 1942 was apparently put into effect. The first case is set out at the next document in the document book, which is D-645. My Lord, I put that document in and it becomes Exhibit GB-203. It is a report of the sinking of a steam trawler, a fishing trawler, the Noreen Mary, which was sunk by U-247 on the 5th of July 1944. The first page of the document contains an extract from the log of the U-boat. The time reference 1943 on the document is followed by an account of the firing of two torpedoes which missed, and then, at 2055 hours, the log reads:

“Surfaced. Fishing Vessels. . . .”—bearings given of three ships—“Engaged the nearest. She stops after 3 minutes.”

Then there is an account of a shot fired as the trawler lay stopped, and then, the final entry:

“Sunk by flak, with shots into her side. Sank by the stern.”

The Tribunal will notice there is no mention in the log of any action against the torpedoed or the shipwrecked seamen.

THE PRESIDENT: Why is it entered as 5. 7. 1943?

COL. PHILLIMORE: It is a typing error. I should have pointed it out.

My Lord, the next page of the document is a comment on the action by the U-boat command, and the last line reads:

“Recognized success: Fishing vessel Noreen Mary sunk by flak.”

And then there is an affidavit by James MacAlister, who was a deckhand on board the Noreen Mary at the time of the sinking. My Lord, reading the last paragraph on the first page of the affidavit. He has dealt earlier with having seen the torpedo tracks, which missed the trawler. The last paragraph reads:

“At 2110 hours, while we were still trawling, the submarine surfaced on our starboard beam, about 50 yards to the northeast of us, and without any warning immediately opened fire on the ship with a machine gun. We were 18 miles west from Cape Wrath, on a northwesterly course, making 3 knots. The weather was fine and clear, sunny, with good visibility. The sea was smooth, with light airs.”

My Lord, then there is an account of the firing in the next, paragraph, and then, if I might read from the second paragraph, on Page 2.

THE PRESIDENT: Why not read the first?

COL. PHILLIMORE: If Your Lordship pleases:

“When the submarine surfaced I saw men climbing out of the conning tower. The skipper thought at first the submarine was British, but when she opened fire he immediately slackened the brake to take the weight off gear”—that is, the trawl—“and increased to full speed, which was about 10 knots. The submarine chased us, firing her machine gun, and with the first rounds killed two or three men, including the skipper, who were on deck and had not had time to take cover. The submarine then started using a heavier gun from her conning tower, the first shot from which burst the boiler, enveloping everything in steam and stopping the ship.

“By now the crew had taken cover, but in spite of this all but four were killed. The submarine then commenced to circle round ahead of the vessel, and passed down her port side with both guns firing continuously. We were listing slowly to port all the time but did not catch fire.

“The mate and I attempted to release the lifeboat, which was aft, but the mate was killed whilst doing so, so I abandoned the attempt. I then went below into the pantry, which was below the waterline, for shelter. The ship was listing more and more port, until finally at 2210 she rolled right over and sank, and the only four men left alive on board were thrown into the sea. I do not know where the other three men had taken cover during this time, as I did not hear or see them until they were in the water.

“I swam around until I came across the broken bow of our lifeboat which was upside down, and managed to scramble on top of it. Even now the submarine did not submerge, but deliberately steamed in my direction and when only 60 to 70 yards away fired directly at me with a short burst from the machine gun. As their intention was quite obvious, I fell into the water and remained there until the submarine ceased firing and submerged, after which I climbed back on to the bottom of the boat. The submarine had been firing her guns for a full hour.”

My Lord, then the affidavit goes on to describe the deponent and others attempting to rescue themselves and to help each other, and then they were picked up by another trawler.

The last paragraph on that page:

“Whilst on board the Lady Madeleine the second engineer and I had our wounds dressed. I learned later that the second engineer had 48 shrapnel wounds, also a piece of steel wire 2½ inches long embedded in his body.”

And there is a sentence on which I don’t rely, and the last sentence:

“I had 14 shrapnel wounds.”

My Lord, and then the last two paragraphs of the affidavit:

“This is my fourth wartime experience, having served in the whalers Sylvester (mined) and New Seville (torpedoed), and the trawler Ocean Tide, which ran ashore.

“As a result of this attack by U-boat, the casualties were six killed . . . two missing . . . two injured. . . .”

My Lord, the next document, D-647, I put in as Exhibit GB-204. My Lord, this is an extract from a statement given by the second officer of the ship Antonico, torpedoed, set afire, and sunk, on the 28th of September 1942, on the coast of French Guiana. The Tribunal will observe that the date of the incident is some 11 days after the issue of the order. My Lord, I would read from the words “that the witness saw the dead,” slightly more than halfway down on the first page. An account has been given of the attack on the ship, which by then was on fire:

“. . . that the witness saw the dead on the deck of the Antonico as he and his crew tried to swing out their lifeboat; that the attack was fulminant, lasting almost 20 minutes; and that the witness already in the lifeboat tried to get away from the side of the Antonico in order to avoid being dragged down by the same Antonico and also because she was the aggressor’s target; that the night was dark, and it was thus difficult to see the submarine, but that the fire aboard the Antonico lit up the locality in which she was submerging, facilitating the enemy to see the two lifeboats trying to get away; that the enemy ruthlessly machine-gunned the defenseless sailors in Number 2 lifeboat, in which the witness found himself, and killed the Second Pilot Arnaldo de Andrade de Lima, and wounded three of the crew; that the witness gave orders to his company to throw themselves overboard to save themselves from the bullets: in so doing, they were protected and out of sight behind the lifeboat, which was already filled with water; even so the lifeboat continued to be attacked. At that time the witness and his companions were about 20 meters in distance from the submarine. . . .”

My Lord, I haven’t got the U-boat’s log in that case, but you may think that, in view of the order with regard to entries in logs, namely that anything compromising should not be put in, it would be no more helpful than in the case of the previous incident.

My Lord, the next Document, D-646(a), I put in as Exhibit GB-205. It is a monitored account of a talk by a German naval war reporter on the long wave propaganda service from Friesland. The broadcast was in English, and the date is the 11th of March 1943. It is, if I may quote:

“Santa Lucia, in the West Indies, was an ideal setting for romance, but nowadays it was dangerous to sail in these waters—dangerous for the British and Americans and for all the colored people who were at their beck and call. Recently a U-boat operating in these waters sighted an enemy windjammer. Streams of tracer bullets were poured into the sails and most of the Negro crew leaped overboard. Knowing that this might be a decoy ship, the submarine steamed close, within 20 yards, when hand grenades were hurled into the rigging. The remainder of the Negroes then leaped into the sea. The windjammer sank. There remained only wreckage, lifeboats packed with men, and sailors swimming. The sharks in the distance licked their teeth in expectation. Such was the fate of those who sailed for Britain and America.”

My Lord, the next page of the document I don’t propose to read. It is an extract from the log of the U-boat believed to have sunk this ship. It was, in fact, the C. S. Flight.

My Lord, I read that because, in my submission, it shows that it was the policy of the enemy at the start to seek to terrorize crews, and it is a part with the order with regard to rescue ships and with the order on the destruction of seamen.

If I might say so, in view of the cross-examination, the Prosecution do not complain of rescue ships being attacked. They are not entitled to protection. The point of the order was that they were to be given priority in attack, and the order, therefore, is closely allied with the order of the 17th of September 1942. In view of the Allied building program, it had become imperative to prevent the ships being manned.

My Lord, I pass to the period after the defendant had succeeded the Defendant Raeder. My Lord, the next document is 2098-PS. It has been referred to but not, I think, put in. I put it in formally as Exhibit GB-206. My Lord, I won’t read it. It merely sets out that the Defendant Raeder should have the equivalent rank of a minister of the Reich, and I ask the Tribunal to infer that on succeeding Raeder the Defendant Dönitz would presumably have succeeded to that right.

THE PRESIDENT: This is from 1938 onward?

COL. PHILLIMORE: From 1938 onward.

The next document, D-648, I put in as Exhibit GB-207. It is an affidavit by an official, or rather it is an official report certified by an official of the British Admiralty. The certificate is on the last page, and it sets out the number of meetings, the dates of the meetings and those present, on the occasion of meetings between the Defendant Dönitz or his representative with Hitler from the time that he succeeded Raeder until the end. The certificate states:

“. . . I have compiled from them”—that is, from captured documents—“the attached list of occasions on which Admiral Dönitz attended conferences at Hitler’s headquarters. The list of other senior officials who attended the same conferences is added when this information was contained in the captured documents concerned. I certify that the list is a true extract from the collective documents which I have examined, and which are in the possession of the British Admiralty, London.”

My Lord, I won’t go through the list. I would merely call the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that either Admiral Dönitz or his deputy, Konteradmiral Voss, was present at each of these meetings; and that amongst those who were also constantly there were the Defendants Speer, Keitel, Jodl, Ribbentrop, and Göring, and also Himmler or his lieutenants, Fegelein or Kaltenbrunner.

My Lord, the inference which I ask the Tribunal to draw from the document is that from the time that he succeeded Raeder, this defendant was one of the rulers of the Reich and was undoubtedly aware of all decisions, major decisions of policy.

My Lord, I pass to the next document, C-178. That has already been put in as Exhibit Number USA-544. It is an internal memorandum of the naval war staff, written by the division dealing with international law to another division, and the subject is the order with regard to the shooting of Commandos, of the 18th of October 1942, with which the Tribunal are, I think, familiar.

The point of the document is that some doubt appeared to have arisen in some quarters with regard to the understanding of the order, and in the last sentence of the memorandum it is suggested:

“As far as the Navy is concerned, it remains to be seen whether or not this case should be used to make sure, after a conference with the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, that all departments concerned have an entirely clear conception regarding the treatment of members of Commando units.”

My Lord, whether that conference took place or not I do not know. The document is dated some 11 days after this defendant had taken over from the Defendant Raeder.

But the next document in the book, D-649, which I put in as Exhibit GB-208, is an instance of the Navy in July of that year—July 1943—handing over to the SD for shooting Norwegian and British naval personnel whom the Navy decided came under the terms of the order. My Lord, it is an affidavit by a British barrister-at-law who served as judge advocate at the trial of the members of the SD who executed the order.

Paragraph 1 sets out that the deponent was judge advocate at the trial of 10 members of the SD by a military court held at the law courts, Oslo, Norway, which sat on Thursday, 29 November 1945, and concluded its sitting on Tuesday, 4 December 1945.

My Lord, the next paragraph sets out who convened the court and the names of the prosecuting and defending counsel, and the third paragraph states:

“The accused were charged with committing a war crime, in that they at Ulven, Norway, in or about the month of July 1943, in violation of the laws and usages of war, were concerned in the killing of. . .”

Then there follow the names of six personnel of the Norwegian Navy, including one officer, and one leading telegraphist of the Royal Navy, prisoners of war. I might read from Paragraph 4:

“There was evidence before the court which was not challenged by the Defense that Motor Torpedo Boat Number 345 set out from Lerwick in the Shetlands on a naval operation for the purpose of making torpedo attacks on German shipping off the Norwegian coast, and for the purpose of laying mines in the same area. The persons mentioned in the charge were all the crew of the torpedo boat.”

Paragraph 5:

“The Defense did not challenge that each member of the crew was wearing uniform at the time of capture, and there was abundant evidence from many persons, several of whom were German, that they were wearing uniform at all times after their capture.”

Paragraph 6:

“On 27th July 1943, the torpedo boat reached the island of Aspo off the Norwegian coast, north of Bergen. On the following day the whole of the crew were captured and were taken on board a German naval vessel which was under the command of Admiral Von Schrader, the admiral of the west coast. The crew were taken to the Bergenhus where they had arrived by 11 p. m. on 28th July. The crew were there interrogated by Lieutenant H. P. K. W. Fanger, a naval lieutenant of the Reserve, on the orders of Korvettenkapitän Egon Drascher, both of the German Naval Intelligence Service. This interrogation was carried out upon the orders of the staff of the admiral of the west coast. Lieutenant Fanger reported to the officer in charge of the intelligence branch at Bergen that in his opinion all the members of the crew were entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, and that officer in turn reported both orally and in writing to the Sea Commander Bergen, and in writing to the admiral of the west coast.

“7. The interrogation by the naval intelligence branch was concluded in the early hours of 29th July, and almost immediately all the members of the crew were handed over on the immediate orders of the Sea Commander Bergen, to Obersturmbannführer of the SD Hans Wilhelm Blomberg, who was at that time Kommandeur of the Sicherheitspolizei at Bergen. This followed a meeting between Blomberg and Admiral Von Schrader, at which a copy of the Führer Order of 18 October 1942 was shown to Blomberg. This order dealt with the classes of persons who were to be excluded from the protection of the Geneva Convention and were not to be treated as prisoners of war, but when captured were to be handed over to the SD. Admiral Von Schrader told Blomberg that the crew of this torpedo boat were to be handed over, in accordance with the Führer Order, to the SD.

“9. The SD then conducted their own interrogation. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: You can summarize the rest, can’t you?

COL. PHILLIMORE: If Your Lordship pleases.

My Lord, Paragraph 9 described the interrogation by officials of the SD, and that these officials took the same views as the naval intelligence officers, that the crew were entitled to be treated as prisoners of war; that despite this they were taken out and shot by an execution squad composed of members of the SD. Then there is a description of the disposal of the bodies.

My Lord, the last paragraph is perhaps important in connection with the case against the Defendant Keitel.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, read it.

COL. PHILLIMORE: “11. It appeared from the evidence that in March or April, 1945, an order from the Führer headquarters, signed by Keitel, was transmitted to the German authorities in Norway. The substance of the order was that members of the crew of Commando raids who fell into German captivity were from that date to be treated as ordinary prisoners of war. This order referred specifically to the Führer Order referred to above.”

The member of the Tribunal will of course have noted the date; it was time to put their affairs in order.

My Lord, the next document, C-158, I put in as Exhibit GB-209. It consists of two extracts from minutes of conferences on the 19th and 20th of February 1945, conferences between the Defendant Dönitz and Hitler. If I might read the first and last sentence from the first paragraph of the first extract:

“The Führer is considering whether or not Germany should renounce the Geneva Convention.”

That is of course the 1929 prisoners-of-war convention. And the last sentence:

“The Führer orders the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy to consider the pros and cons of this step and to state his opinion as soon as possible.”

Then the second extract—the Defendant Dönitz states his opinion in the presence of the Defendant Jodl and the representative of the Defendant Ribbentrop. It is the last two sentences on which I rely:

“. . . On the contrary, the disadvantages”—that is, the disadvantages of renouncing the convention—“outweigh the advantages. Even from a general standpoint it appears to the Commander-in-Chief that this measure would bring no advantage. It would be better to carry out the measures considered necessary without warning, and at all costs to save face with the outer world.”

My Lord, it is no small matter, that document, when one reflects that it was to that convention that we owe the fact that upwards of 165,000 British and 65,000 to 70,000 American prisoners of war were duly recovered at the end of the war. And to advocate breaching that convention, preferably without saying so, is not a matter to be treated lightly.

My Lord, the next document, C-171; I put in as Exhibit GB-210. It is another extract from the minutes of a meeting between the Defendant Dönitz and Hitler, on the 1st of July 1944. The extract is signed by the defendant:

“Regarding the general strike in Copenhagen, the Führer says that the only weapon to deal with terror is terror. Court-martial proceedings create martyrs. History shows that the names of such men are on everybody’s lips, whereas there is silence with regard to the many thousands who have lost their lives in similar circumstances without court-martial proceedings.”

My Lord, the next document, C-195, I put in as Exhibit GB-211. It is a memorandum signed by the defendant, dated late in 1944. There is no specific date on the document, but it is late in 1944—in December, I think, of 1944. The distribution on the third page includes Hitler, Keitel, Jodl, Speer, and the Supreme Command of the Air Force.

My Lord, if I might read the second paragraph. He is dealing with the review of German shipping losses:

“Furthermore, I propose reinforcing the shipyard working parties by prisoners from the concentration camps, and as a special measure for relieving the present shortage of coppersmiths, especially in U-boat construction, I propose to divert coppersmiths from the reduced construction of locomotives to shipbuilding.”

Then he goes on to deal with sabotage, and the last two paragraphs on that page are:

“Since, elsewhere, measures for exacting atonement taken against whole working parties amongst whom sabotage occurred, have proved successful, and, for example, the shipyard sabotage in France was completely suppressed, possibly similar measures for the Scandinavian countries will come under consideration.”

THE PRESIDENT: Do you need to read any more than that?

COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, no. The last sentence of the document in the next page is Item 2 of the summing-up:

“12,000 concentration camp prisoners will be employed in the shipyards as additional labor (Security Service agrees to this)”—that is the SD.

My Lord, this man was one of the rulers of Germany, and in my submission, that document alone is sufficient to condemn him. It was not for nothing that at these meetings Himmler and his lieutenants, Fegelein and Kaltenbrunner, were present.

My Lord, they were not there to discuss U-boats or the use of battleships. It is clear, in my submission, from this document that this defendant knew all about concentration camps and concentration camp labor, and as one of the rulers of Germany he must bear his full share of that responsibility.

My Lord, I pass to the last document, D-650, which I put in as Exhibit GB-212.

My Lord, this contains the orders issued by the defendant in April. The document, in my submission, shows the defendant’s fanatical adherence to the Nazi creed, and his preparedness even at that stage to continue a hopeless war at the expense of human life and with the certainty of increased destruction and misery to the men, women, and children of his country. I read the last paragraph on the second page:

“I therefore demand of the commanding officers of the Navy: . . . that they clearly and unambiguously follow the path of military duty, whatever may happen. I demand of them that they stamp out ruthlessly all signs and tendencies among the men which endanger the following of this path.”

Then he refers to an order.

“I demand from senior commanders that they should take just as ruthless action against any commander who does not do his military duty. If a commander does not think he has the moral strength to occupy his position as a leader in this sense, he must report this immediately. He will then be used as a soldier in this fateful struggle in some position in which he is not burdened with any task as a leader.”

And then the last paragraph on that page, from a further order of 19th of April, he gives an example of the type of under-officer who should be promoted.

“An example: In a prison camp of the auxiliary cruiser Cormoran, in Australia, a petty officer acting as camp senior officer, had all communists who made themselves noticeable among the inmates of the camp systematically done away with in such a way that the guards did not notice this. This petty officer is sure of my full recognition for his decision and his execution. After his return, I shall promote him with all means, as he has shown that he is fitted to be a leader.”

My Lord, of course the point is not whether the facts were true or not, but the type of order that he was issuing. My Lord, if I might just sum up, the defendant was no plain sailor, playing the part of a service officer, loyally obedient to the orders of the government of the day; he was an extreme Nazi who did his utmost to indoctrinate the Navy and the German people with the Nazi creed. It is no coincidence that it was he who was chosen to succeed Hitler; not Göring, not Ribbentrop, not Goebbels, not Himmler. He played a big part in fashioning the U-boat fleet, one of the most deadly weapons of aggressive war. He helped to plan and execute aggressive war, and we cannot doubt that he knew well that these wars were in deliberate violation of treaties. He was ready to stoop to any ruse where he thought he would not be found out: Breaches of the Geneva Convention or of neutrality, where he might hope to maintain that sinking was due to a mine. He was ready to order, and did order, the murder of helpless survivors of sunken ships, an action only paralleled by that of his Japanese ally.

My Lord, there can be few countries where widows or parents do not mourn for men of the merchant navies whose destruction was due to the callous brutality with which, at the orders of this man, the German U-boats did their work.

My Lord, my learned friend, Major Elwyn Jones, now deals with the Defendant Raeder.

MAJOR F. ELWYN JONES (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, it is my duty to present to the Tribunal the evidence against the creator of the Nazi Navy, the Defendant Raeder. The allegations against him are set out in Appendix A of the Indictment at Pages 33 and 34 (Volume I, Page 78), and the Tribunal will see that the Defendant Raeder is charged with promoting and participating in the planning of the Nazi wars of aggression; with executing those plans; and with authorizing, directing, and participating in Nazi War Crimes, particularly war crimes arising out of sea warfare.

At the outset the Tribunal may find it convenient to look at Document 2888-PS, which is already before the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-13, which the Tribunal will find at Page 96 of the document book. That is a document which sets out the offices and positions held by the Defendant Raeder. The Tribunal will see that he was born in 1876 and joined the German Navy in 1894. By 1918 he had become commander of the cruiser Köln. In 1928 he became an admiral, chief of naval command, and head of the German Navy. In 1935 he became Commander-in-Chief of the Navy. In 1936, on Hitler’s 47th birthday, he became general admiral, a creation of Hitler’s. In 1937 he received the high Nazi honor of the Golden Badge of Honor of the Nazi Party. In 1938 he became a member of the Secret Cabinet Council. And in 1939 he reached the empyrean of Grossadmiral, a rank created by Hitler, who presented Raeder with a marshal’s baton. In 1943 he became Admiral Inspector of the German Navy, which, as the Tribunal will shortly see, was a kind of retirement into oblivion, because from January 1943 on, as the Tribunal has heard, Dönitz was the effective commander of the German Navy.

In these eventful years of Raeder’s command of the German Navy from 1928 to 1943 he played a vital role. I would like in the first instance to draw the Tribunal’s attention to Raeder’s part in building up the German Navy as an instrument of war to implement the Nazis’ general plan of aggression.

The Tribunal is by now familiar with the steps by which the small navy permitted to Germany under the Treaty of Versailles was enormously expanded under the guidance of Raeder. I will do no more than to remind the Tribunal of some of the milestones upon Raeder’s road to Nazi mastery of the seas, which mercifully he was unable to attain.

With regard to the story of Germany’s secret rearmament in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, I would refer the Court to the Document C-156, which is already before the Court as Exhibit Number USA-41 and which the Tribunal will find at Page 26 of the document book. That document, as the Tribunal will remember, was A History of the Fight of the German Navy against Versailles, 1919 to 1935, which was published secretly by the German Admiralty in 1937. The Tribunal will remember that that history shows that before the Nazis came to power the German Admiralty was deceiving not only the governments of other countries, but its own legislature and at one stage its own Government. Their secret measures of rearmament ranged from experimental U-boat and S-boat building to the creation of secret intelligence and finance organizations. I only propose to trouble the Tribunal with a reference to the last paragraph at Page 33 of the document book, which refers to the role of Raeder in this development. It is an extract from Page 75 of this Document C-156, and it reads:

“The Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral . . . Raeder, had received hereby a far-reaching independence in the building and development of the Navy. This was only hampered insofar as the previous concealment of rearmament had to be continued in consideration of the Versailles Treaty.”

As an illustration of Raeder’s concealment of rearmament, I would remind the Tribunal of the Document C-141, Exhibit Number USA-47, which is at Page 22 of the document book. In that document Raeder states that:

“In view of Germany’s treaty obligations and the disarmament conference, steps must be taken to prevent the first S-boat half-flotilla—which in a few months will comprise new S-boats of the same type—from appearing openly as a formation of torpedo-carrying boats, as it was not intended to count these S-boats against the number of torpedo-carrying boats allowed us.”

The next document, C-135, which will be Exhibit Number GB-213, and which is at Page 20 of the document book, is of unusual interest because it suggests that even in 1930 the intention ultimately to attack Poland was already current in German military circles. This document is an extract from the history of war organization and of the scheme for mobilization. The German text of this document is headed “850/38,” which suggests that the document was written in the year 1938. The extracts read:

“Since under the Treaty of Versailles all preparations for mobilization were forbidden, these were at first confined to a very small body of collaborators and were at first only of a theoretical nature. Nevertheless, there existed at that time . . . an ‘Assembling Order,’ and ‘Instructions for Assembling,’ the forerunners of the present-day scheme for mobilization, also an assembling organization and adaptable instructions for assembling which were drawn up for each ‘A-year’ (cover-name for mobilization year).

“As stated, the ‘Assembling Organization’ at that time was to be judged purely theoretically, for they had no positive basis in the form of men and materials. They provided nevertheless a valuable foundation for the establishment of a war organization as our ultimate aim.”

Paragraph 2:

“The crises between Germany and Poland, which were becoming increasingly acute, compelled us, instead of making theoretical preparation for war, to prepare in a practical manner for a purely German-Polish conflict.

“The strategic idea of a rapid forcing of the Polish base of Gdynia was made a basis; and the fleet on active service was to be reinforced by the auxiliary forces which would be indispensable to attain this strategic end; and the essential coastal and flak batteries, especially those in Pillau and Swinemünde, were to be taken over. Thus in 1930 the Reinforcement Plan was evolved.”

If the Tribunal turns over the page to Paragraph 3, to the second paragraph:

“Hitler had made a clear political request to build up for him in 5 years, that is to say, by the 1st of April 1938, armed forces which he could place in the balance as an instrument of political power.”

Now that entry is a pointer to the fact that the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was a signal to Raeder to go full speed ahead on rearmament. The detailed story of this development has already been told by my American colleague, Mr. Alderman; and I would simply refer the Court in the first place to the Document C-189, Exhibit Number USA-44, which is at Page 66 of the document book. In that document Raeder tells Hitler, in June 1934, that the German Fleet must be developed to oppose England and that therefore from 1936 on the big ships must be armed with big guns to match the British King George class of battleship. It further, in the last paragraph, refers to Hitler’s demand that the construction of U-boats should be kept completely secret, especially in view of the Saar plebiscite. In November 1934 Raeder had a further talk with Hitler on the financing of naval rearmament, and on that occasion Hitler told him that in case of need he would get Doctor Ley to put 120 to 150 million from the Labor Front at the disposal of the Navy. The reference to that is the Document C-190, Exhibit Number USA-45, at Page 67 of the document book. The Tribunal may think that that proposed fraud upon the German working people was a characteristic Nazi manifestation.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?

MAJOR JONES: If Your Lordship pleases.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session

MAJOR JONES: May it please the Tribunal, the next document which I desire to draw to the Tribunal’s attention is the Document C-23, Exhibit Number USA-49, at Page 3 of the document book, which states that the true displacement of certain German battleships exceeded by 20 percent the displacement reported to the British. That, I submit, is typical of Raeder’s use of deceit.

The next document to which I wish to refer briefly is C-166, Exhibit Number USA-48, Page 36 of the document book. It is another such deceitful document, which orders that auxiliary cruisers, which were being secretly constructed, should be referred to as “transport ships.”

Then there is the Document C-29, Exhibit Number USA-46, at Page 8 of the document book, which is signed by Raeder and deals with the support given by the German Navy to the German armament industry, and, I submit, is an illustration of Raeder’s concern with the broader aspects of Nazi policy and of the close link between Nazi politicians, German service chiefs, and German armament manufacturers.

THE PRESIDENT: Has that been put in before?

MAJOR JONES: That has been put in before, My Lord, as Exhibit Number USA-46.

A final commentary on the post-1939 naval rearmament is the Document C-155, at Page 24 of the document book, which is a new document and will be Exhibit GB-214 and is a letter from Raeder to the German Navy, dated 11 June 1940. The original, which is now submitted to the Tribunal, shows the very wide distribution of this letter. There is provision in the distribution list for 467 copies. This letter of Raeder’s is a letter both of self-justification and of apology. The extracts read:

“The most outstanding of the numerous subjects of discussion in the Officers Corps are, for the time being, the torpedo positions and the problem whether the naval building program, up to autumn 1939, envisaged the possibility of the outbreak of war as early as 1939, or whether the emphasis ought not to have been laid, from the first, on the construction of U-boats. . . .

“If the opinion is voiced in the Officers Corps that the entire naval building program has been wrongly directed and if, from the first, the emphasis should have been on the U-boat weapon and after its consolidation on the large ships, I must emphasize the following matters:

“The building up of the fleet was directed according to the political demands, which were decided by the Führer. The Führer hoped, until the last moment, to be able to put off the threatening conflict with England until 1944-45. At that time the Navy would have had available a fleet with a powerful U-boat superiority and a much more favorable ratio as regards strength in all other types of ships, particularly those designed for warfare on the High Seas.

“The development of events forced the Navy, contrary to the expectation even of the Führer, into a war which it had to accept while still in the initial stage of its rearmament. The result is that those who represent the opinion that the emphasis should have been laid from the start on the building of the U-boat arm appear to be right. I leave undiscussed how far this development, quite apart from difficulties of personnel, training, and dockyards, could have been appreciably improved in any way in view of the political limits of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty. I leave also undiscussed, how the early and necessary creation of an effective air force slowed down the desirable development of the other branches of the forces. I indicate, however, with pride, the admirable and, in spite of the political restraints in the years of the Weimar Republic, far-reaching preparation for U-boat construction, which made the immensely rapid construction of the U-boat arm, both as regards equipment and personnel, possible immediately after the assumption of power. . . .”

There is here, the Tribunal sees, no trace of reluctance in co-operating with the Nazi program. On the contrary, the evidence points to the fact that Raeder welcomed and became one of the pillars of Nazi power. And it will now be my purpose to develop the relationship between Raeder, the Navy, and the Nazi Party.

The Prosecution’s submission is that Raeder, more than anyone else, was responsible for securing the unquestioned allegiance of the German Navy to the Nazi movement, an allegiance which Dönitz was to make even more firm and fanatical.

Raeder’s approval of Hitler was shown particularly clearly on the 2d of August 1934, the day of Hindenburg’s death, when he and all the men under him swore a new oath of loyalty with considerable ceremony, this time to Adolf Hitler and no longer to the fatherland. The oath is found in the Document D-481 at Page 101 of the document book. That will be Exhibit GB-215, and it may be of interest to the Court to see what the new oath was. The last paragraph reads:

“The service oath of the soldiers of the armed forces:

“ ‘I swear this holy oath by God that I will implicitly obey the Leader of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and that, as a brave soldier, I will be willing to stake my life at any time for this oath.’ ”

The Tribunal will see that for his fatherland Raeder substituted a Führer.

I am not proposing to take the Tribunal’s time with reiterating the steps by which the German Navy was progressively drawn into the closest alliance with the Nazi Party. I would remind the Court of facts of history, like the incorporation of the swastika into the ensign under which the German Fleet sailed and the wearing of the swastika on the uniform of naval officers and men, which are facts which speak for themselves.

The Nazis for their part, were not ungrateful for Raeder’s obeisance and collaboration. His services in rebuilding the German Navy were widely recognized by Nazi propagandists and by the Nazi press. On his 66th birthday, the chief Party organ, the Völkischer Beobachter, published a special article about him, to which I desire to draw the Tribunal’s attention. It is at Page 100 of the document book; it is Document D-448, Exhibit GB-216. It is a valuable summing-up of Raeder’s contribution to Nazi development:

“It was to Raeder’s credit”—writes the Völkischer Beobachter—“to have already built up by that time a powerful striking force from the numerically small fleet, despite the fetters of Versailles.

“With the assumption of power, National Socialism began the most fruitful period in the reconstruction of the German fleet.

“The Führer openly expressed his recognition of Raeder’s faithful services and unstinted co-operation, by appointing him Grossadmiral on the 20th of April 1936.”

THE PRESIDENT: Do you think it necessary to read the entire document?

MAJOR JONES: I was going to turn to the last paragraph but one, My Lord, which I think is helpful.

“As a soldier and a seaman, the Grossadmiral has proved himself to be the Führer’s first and foremost naval collaborator.”

This, in my submission, is a summing-up of his status and position in Nazi Germany.

I now propose to deal with Raeder’s personal part in the Nazi conspiracy. The evidence indicates that Raeder, from the time of the Nazi seizure of power, became increasingly involved in responsibility for the general policies of the Nazi State.

Long before he was promoted to General-Admiral in 1936, he had become a member of the very secret Reich Defense Council, joining it when it was founded on the 4th of April 1933. And thus, at an early date, he was involved, both militarily and politically, in the Nazi conspiracy. The relevant document upon that is Document EC-177, Exhibit Number USA-390, at Page 68 of the document book, which I would remind the Tribunal contains the classic Nazi directive: “Matters communicated orally cannot be proven; they can be denied by us in Geneva.”

On the 4th of February 1938 Raeder was appointed to be a member of a newly-formed secret advisory council for foreign affairs; and the authority for that statement is Document 2031-PS at Page 88 of the document book, which will be Exhibit GB-217.

Three weeks after this a decree of Hitler’s stated that, as well as being equal in rank with a cabinet minister, Raeder was also to take part in the sessions of the Cabinet. That has already been established in Document 2098-PS, which was submitted as Exhibit GB-206.

In my submission, therefore, it is thus clear that Raeder’s responsibility for the political decisions of the Nazi State was steadily developed from 1933 to 1938 and that in the course of time he had become a member of all the main political advisory bodies. He was, indeed, very much a member of the inner councils of the conspirators and, I submit, must carry with them the responsibility for the acts that led to the German invasion of Poland in 1939 and the outbreak of war.

As an illustration, I would remind the Tribunal that Raeder was present at two of the key meetings at which Hitler openly declared his intention of attacking neighboring countries. I refer the Tribunal to Document 386-PS, which is Exhibit Number USA-25 and is found at Page 81 of the document book, which the Tribunal will remember is the record of Hitler’s conference at the Reich Chancellery on the 5th of November 1937 about matters which were said to be too important to discuss in the larger circle of the Reich Cabinet. The document, which Mr. Alderman submitted, establishes conclusively that the Nazis premeditated their Crimes against Peace.

Then there was the other conference of Hitler’s on the 23rd of May 1939, the minutes of which are found in the Document L-79, Exhibit Number USA-27, at Page 74 of the document book. That, the Tribunal will remember, was the conference at which Hitler confirmed his intention to make a deliberate attack upon Poland at the first opportunity, well knowing that this must cause widespread war in Europe.

Now, those two were key conferences. At many, many others Raeder was also present to place his knowledge and his professional skill at the service of the Nazi war machine.

His active promotion of the military planning and preparation for the Polish campaign is by now well-known to the Tribunal, and I am not proposing to reiterate that evidence again. Once the war did start, however, the Defendant Raeder showed himself to be a master of the most typical of the conspirators’ techniques, namely that of deceit on a grand scale. There are few better examples of this allegation than that of his handling of the case of the Athenia.

The Athenia, as the Tribunal will be aware, was a passenger liner which was sunk in the evening of the 3rd of September 1939, when she was outward bound to America, about a hundred lives being lost.

On the 23rd of October 1939 the Nazi Party paper, the Völkischer Beobachter, published in screaming headlines the story, “Churchill Sank the Athenia.” I would refer the Court to Document 3260-PS, at Page 97 of the document book, which will be Exhibit GB-218. And I would like the Tribunal to look for a moment at the copy of the Völkischer Beobachter here, and see the scale with which this deliberate lie was perpetrated. I have a photostat of the relevant page of the Völkischer Beobachter for that day. That is the third page and the Tribunal will see on this front page, with the big red underlining, there are the words, “Now We Indict Churchill.”

The extract from the Völkischer Beobachter, which is at Page 97 of the document book, reads as follows:

“Churchill Sank the Athenia. The above picture”—and the Tribunal will see it is a fine picture of this fine ship—“shows the proud Athenia, the ocean giant, which was sunk by Churchill’s crime. One can clearly see the big radio equipment on board the ship. But nowhere was an SOS heard from the ship. Why was the Athenia silent? Because her captain was not allowed to tell the world anything. He very prudently refrained from telling the world that Winston Churchill attempted to sink the ship through the explosion of a time bomb. He knew it well, but he had to keep silent. Nearly 1,500 people would have lost their lives if Churchill’s original plan had resulted as the criminal wanted. Yes, he longingly hoped that the 100 Americans on board the ship would find death in the waves so that the anger of the American people, who were deceived by him, should be directed against Germany, as the presumed author of the deed. It was fortunate that the majority escaped the fate intended for them by Churchill. Our picture on the right shows two wounded passengers. They were rescued by the freighter City of Flint, and as can be seen here, turned over to the American coast guard boat Gibb for further medical treatment. They are an unspoken accusation against the criminal Churchill. Both they and the shades of those who lost their lives call him before the tribunal of the world and ask the British people, ‘How long will the office, one of the richest in tradition known to Great Britain’s history, be held by a murderer?’ ”

Now, in view of the maliciousness of this Völkischer Beobachter announcement and in fairness to the men of the British Merchant Navy, I think it is proper that I should say, that contrary to the allegation in this Nazi sheet, the Athenia of course made repeated wireless distress signals which were in fact intercepted and answered by His Majesty’s ship Electra, in escort, as well as by the Norwegian steamship Knut Nelson and the yacht Southern Cross.

I shall submit evidence to the Tribunal to establish that, in fact, the Athenia was sunk by the German U-boat U-30. So unjustifiable was the torpedoing of the Athenia, however, that the German Navy embarked upon a course of falsification of their records and on other dishonest measures, in the hope of hiding this guilty secret. And for their part, as the Tribunal has seen, the Nazi propagandists indulged in their favorite falsehood of seeking to shift the responsibility to the British.

The captain of the U-30, Oberleutnant Lemp, was later killed in action; but some of the original crew of the U-30 have survived to tell the tale, and they are now prisoners of war. And so that the truth of this episode may be placed beyond a peradventure, I submit to the Tribunal an affidavit by a member of the crew of the U-30, as to the sinking of the Athenia and as to one aspect of the attempt to conceal the true facts.

I refer to Document C-654, Exhibit GB-219, at Page 106 of the document book. The affidavit reads:

“I, Adolf Schmidt, Official Number N 1043-33T, of the German Navy and former member of the crew of the U-30, do solemnly declare that:

“1. I am now confined to Camp No. 133, Lethbridge, Alberta.

“2. That on the first day of war, 3 September 1939, a ship of approximately 10,000 tons was torpedoed in the late hours of the evening by the U-30.

“3. That after the ship was torpedoed and we surfaced again, approximately half an hour after the explosion, the commandant called me to the tower in order to show me the torpedoed ship.

“4. That I have seen the ship with my very eyes, but that I do not think that the ship could see our U-boat at that time on account of the position of the moon.

“5. That only a few members of the crew had an opportunity to go to the tower in order to see the torpedoed ship.

“6. That apart from myself, Oberleutnant Hinsch was in the tower when I saw the steamer after the attack.

“7. That I observed that the ship was listing.

“8. That no warning shot was fired before the torpedo was launched.

“9. That I myself observed much commotion on board the torpedoed ship.

“10. That I believe that the ship had only one smoke stack.

“11. That in the attack on this steamer one or two torpedoes were fired which did not explode but that I myself heard the explosion of the torpedo which hit the steamer.

“12. That Oberleutnant Lemp waited until darkness before surfacing.

“13. That I was severely wounded by aircraft 14 September 1939.

“14. That Oberleutnant Lemp, shortly before my disembarkation in Reykjavik 19 September 1939, visited me in the forenoon in the petty officers’ quarters where I was lying severely wounded.

“15. That Oberleutnant Lemp then had the petty officers’ quarters cleared in order to be alone with me.

“16. That Oberleutnant Lemp then showed me a declaration under oath according to which I had to bind myself to mention nothing concerning the incidents of 3 September 1939 on board the U-30.

“17. That this declaration under oath had approximately the following wording:

“ ‘I, the undersigned, swear hereby that I shall shroud in secrecy all happenings of 3 September 1939 on board the U-30, regardless whether foe or friend, and that I shall erase from my memory all happenings of this day.’

“18. That I have signed this declaration under oath, which was drawn up by the commandant in his own handwriting, with my left hand very illegibly.

“19. That later on in Iceland when I heard about the sinking of the Athenia the idea came into my mind that the U-30 on the 3 September 1939 might have sunk the Athenia, especially since the captain caused me to sign the above-mentioned declaration.

“20. That up to today I have never spoken to anyone concerning these events.

“21. That due to the termination of the war I consider myself freed from my oath.”

Dönitz’ part in the Athenia episode is described in an affidavit which he has sworn, which is Document D-638, Exhibit GB-220, at Page 102 of the document book. The affidavit was sworn in English, and I invite the Tribunal to look at it and observe the addition in Dönitz’ handwriting of four words at the end of the affidavit, the significance of which will be seen in a moment.

The Defendant Dönitz states:

U-30 returned to harbor about mid-September. I met the captain, Oberleutnant Lemp, on the lockside at Wilhelmshaven, as the boat was entering harbor, and he asked permission to speak to me in private. I noticed immediately that he was looking very unhappy and he told me at once that he thought he was responsible for the sinking of the Athenia in the North Channel area. In accordance with my previous instructions he had been keeping a sharp lookout for possible armed merchant cruisers in the approaches to the British Isles, and had torpedoed a ship he afterwards identified as the Athenia from wireless broadcasts, under the impression that she was an armed merchant cruiser on patrol. I had never specified in my instructions any particular type of ship as armed merchant cruiser nor mentioned any names of ships. I dispatched Lemp at once by air to report to the SKL at Berlin; in the meantime, I ordered complete secrecy as a provisional measure. Later in the same day or early on the following day, I received a verbal order from Kapitän zur See Fricke”—who was head of the operations division of the naval war staff—“that:

“Firstly, the affair was to be kept a total secret.

“Secondly, the OKM considered that a court-martial was not necessary as they were satisfied that the captain had acted in good faith.

“Thirdly, political explanations would be handled by the OKM.

“I had had no part whatsoever in the political events in which the Führer claimed that no U-boat had sunk the Athenia.

“After Lemp returned to Wilhelmshaven from Berlin, I interrogated him thoroughly on the sinking and formed the impression that, although he had taken reasonable care, he had still not taken sufficient precaution to establish fully the identity of the ship before attacking. I had previously given very strict orders that all merchant vessels and neutrals were to be treated according to naval prize law before the occurrence of this incident. I accordingly placed him under cabin arrest, as I felt certain that a court-martial would only acquit him and would entail unnecessary publicity”—and then Dönitz had added the words “and loss of time.”

It is right, I think, that I should add the Dönitz’ suggestion that the captain of the U-30 sank the Athenia in mistake for a merchant cruiser must be considered in the light of a document which Colonel Phillimore submitted—the Document C-191, Exhibit GB-193, dated the 22 of September 1939—in this period, which contained Dönitz’ order that “the sinking of a merchant ship must be justified in the War Diary as due to possible confusion with a warship or an auxiliary cruiser.”

Now, the U-30 returned to Wilhelmshaven on 27 September 1939. I submit another fraudulent naval document, Document D-659, Page 110 of the document book, which will be Exhibit GB-221, which is an extract from the War Diary of the chief of U-boats, and it is an extract for the 27th of September 1939. The Tribunal will see that it reads:

U-30 comes in. She had sunk: S. S. Blairlogies; S. S. Fanad Head.”

There is no reference at all, of course, to the sinking of the Athenia.

But perhaps the most elaborate forgery in connection with this episode was the forgery of the log book of the U-30, which was responsible for sinking the Athenia; and I now submit that original log book to the Tribunal as Document D-662, which will be Exhibit GB-222, and an extract from the first and relevant page of it is found at Page 111 of the document book. I would like the Tribunal to examine the original, if you will be good enough to do so, because the Prosecution’s submission is that the first page of that log book is a forgery, but a forgery which shows a curiously un-German carelessness about detail. The Tribunal will see that the first page of the text is a clear substitute for pages that have been removed. The dates in the first column of that page are in Arabic numerals. On the second and more authentic looking page, and throughout the other pages of the log book, they are in Roman numerals.

The Tribunal will also see that all reference to the action of the sinking of the Athenia on the 3rd of September is omitted. The entries are translated on Page 111 of the document book for the Court’s assistance.

The log book shows that the position at 1400 hours, of the U-30 on the 3rd of September, is given as AL 0278, which the Tribunal will notice is one of the very few positions quoted at all upon that page, and which was, in fact, some 200 miles west of the position where the Athenia was sunk. The course due south, which is recorded in the log book, and the speed of 10 knots—those entries are obviously designed to suggest that the U-30 was well clear of the Athenia’s position on the 3rd of September.

Finally, and most curiously, the Tribunal will observe that Lemp’s own signature upon the page dealing with the 3rd of September differs from the other signatures in the text. Page 1 shows Lemp’s signature with a Roman “p” as the final letter of his name. On the other signatures, there is a script “p,” and the inference I submit is that either the signature is a forgery or it was made up by Lemp at some other, and probably considerably later date.

Now, in my submission, the whole of this Athenia story establishes that the German Navy under Raeder embarked upon deliberate fraud. Even before receiving Lemp’s reports, the German Admiralty had repeatedly denied the possibility that a German U-boat could be in the area concerned. The charts which showed the disposition of U-boats and the position of sinking of the Athenia, which Colonel Phillimore introduced, have shown the utter dishonesty of these announcements; and my submission upon this matter is this: Raeder, as head of the German Navy, knew all the facts. Censorship and information control in Nazi Germany were so complete that Raeder, as head of the Navy, must have been party to the falsification published in the Völkischer Beobachter, which was a wholly dishonorable attempt by the Nazi conspirators to save their faces with their own people and to uphold the myth of an infallible Führer backed by an impeccable war machine.

The Tribunal has seen that truth mattered little in Nazi propaganda, and it would appear that Raeder’s camouflage was not confined to painting his ships or sailing them under the British flag, as he did in attacking Norway and Denmark. With regard to that last matter—the invasion of Norway and Denmark—I think it is hardly necessary that I should remind the Tribunal of Raeder’s leading part in that perfidious Nazi assault, the evidence as to which has already been presented. I think I need only add Raeder’s proud comment upon those brutal invasions, which is contained in his letter in Document C-155 at Page 25 of the document book, which is already before the Tribunal as Exhibit GB-214. That document, which is a letter of Raeder’s to the Navy, part of which I have already read, states: “The operations of the Navy in the occupation of Norway will for all time remain the grand contribution of the Navy to this war.”

Now, with the occupation of Norway and of much of Western Europe safely completed, the Tribunal has seen that Hitler turned his eyes towards Russia. Now, in fairness to Raeder, it is right that I should say that Raeder himself was against the attack on Russia and tried his best to dissuade Hitler from embarking upon it. The documents show, however, that Raeder approached the problem with complete cynicism. He did not object to the aggressive war on Russia because of its illegality, its immorality, its inhumanity. His only objection to it was its untimeliness. He wanted to finish England first before going further afield.

The story of Raeder’s part in the deliberations upon the war against Russia is told in the Document C-170, at Page 37 of the document book, which has already been submitted as Exhibit Number USA-136. That document consists of extracts from a German compilation of official naval notes by the German naval war staff.

The first entry, at Page 47 of the document book, which bore the date of 26 September 1940, which is at Page 11 of Document C-170, showed that Raeder was advocating to Hitler an aggressive Mediterranean policy in which, of course, the Navy would play a paramount role, as opposed to a continental land policy. The entry reads:

“Naval Supreme Commander with the Führer. Naval Supreme Commander presents his opinion about the situation: The Suez Canal must be captured with German assistance. From Suez, advance through Palestine and Syria; then Turkey in our power. The Russian problem will then assume a different appearance. Russia is fundamentally frightened of Germany. It is questionable whether action against Russia from the north will then be still necessary.”

The next entry at Page 48 of the document book, for the 14th of November:

“Naval Supreme Commander with the Führer. Führer is ‘still inclined’ to instigate the conflict with Russia. Naval Supreme Commander recommends putting it off until the time after the victory over England, since there is heavy strain on German forces and the end of warfare is not in sight.”

Then there is the entry on Page 50 for 27 December 1940:

“Naval Supreme Commander with the Führer. Naval Supreme Commander emphasizes again that strict concentration of our entire war effort against England as our main enemy is the most urgent need of the hour. On the one hand, England has gained strength by the unfortunate Italian conduct of the war in the eastern Mediterranean and by the increasing American support. On the other hand, however, she can be hit mortally by a strangulation of her ocean traffic which is already taking effect. What is being done for submarine and naval air force construction is much too little. Our entire war potential must work for the conduct of the war against England; thus for the Navy and Air Force, every dispersion of strength prolongs the war and endangers the final success. Naval Supreme Commander voices serious objections against Russia campaign before the defeat of England.”

At Page 52 of the document book, on the 18th of February 1941, there is the entry:

“Chief of Naval Operations (SKL) insists on the occupation of Malta even before Barbarossa.”

On the next page, on the 23rd of February, there is this interesting entry:

“Instruction from Supreme Command, Armed Forces (OKW) that seizure of Malta ‘is contemplated for the fall of 1941 after the execution of Barbarossa’ ”—which the Tribunal may think is a sublime example of wishful thinking.

The next entry, for the 19th of March 1941, which is at Page 54 of the document book, shows that by March of 1941 Raeder had begun to consider what prospects of naval action the Russian aggression had to offer. There is the entry:

“In case of Barbarossa, Supreme Naval Commander describes the occupation of Murmansk as an urgent request of the Navy; Chief of Supreme Command Armed Forces considers compliance very difficult. . . .”

In the meantime, the entries in this document show that Mussolini, the flunky of Nazism, was crying out for a more active Nazi Mediterranean policy. I refer the Court to Page 57 of the document book, the entry for the 30th of May. The word “Duce” is omitted from the first line, and the entry should read:

“Duce demands urgently decisive offensive Egypt-Suez for fall 1941; 12 divisions needed for that. ‘This stroke would be more deadly to the British Empire than the capture of London’; Chief, Naval Operations, agrees completely. . . .”

And then, finally, the entry for the 6th of June, indicating strategic views of Raeder and the German Navy at this stage, reads as follows. It is at Page 58 of the document book:

“Supreme Naval Commander with the Führer. Memorandum of the Chief, Naval Operations: ‘Observation of the strategic situation in the eastern Mediterranean after the Balkan campaign and the occupation of Crete and further conduct of the war.’ ”

A few sentences below:

“The memorandum points with impressive clarity to the decisive aims of the war in the Near East. Their advancement has moved into grasping distance by the successes in the Aegean area and the memorandum emphasizes that the offensive utilization of the present favorable situation must take place with the greatest acceleration and energy, before England has again strengthened her position in the Near East with help from the United States of America. The memorandum realizes the unalterable fact that the campaign against Russia would be opened very shortly; but demands, however, that the undertaking Barbarossa ‘which, because of the magnitude of its aims, naturally stands in the foreground of the operational plans of the armed forces leadership,’ must under no circumstances ‘lead to an abandonment, diminishing, or delay of the conduct of the war in the eastern Mediterranean.’ ”

So that Raeder was, throughout, seeking an active role for his Navy in the Nazi war plans.

Now, once Hitler had decided to attack Russia, Raeder sought a role for his Navy in the campaign against Russia; and the first naval operational plan against Russia was a particularly perfidious one. I refer the Tribunal to the Document C-170 which I have just been reading from, at Page 59 of the document book. There the Tribunal will see an entry for the 15th of June 1941:

“On the proposal of Chief Naval Operations . . . use of arms against Russian submarines south of the northern boundary of the Öland warning area is permitted immediately; ruthless destruction is to be aimed at.”

The Defendant Keitel provided a characteristically dishonest pretext for this action in his letter, the Document C-38, which is at Page 11 of the document book and which will be Exhibit GB-223. The Tribunal sees that Keitel’s letter is dated the 15th of June 1941:

“Subject: Offensive action against enemy submarines in the Baltic Sea.

“To: High Command of the Navy—OKM (SKL).

“Offensive action against submarines south of the line Memel-southern tip of Öland is authorized if the boats cannot be definitely identified as Swedish during the approach by German naval forces.

“The reason to be given up to B-day is that our naval forces believed to be dealing with penetrating British submarines.”

Now, that was on the 15th of June 1941, and the Tribunal will remember that the Nazi attack on Russia did not take place until the 22d of June of 1941. In the meantime Raeder was urging Hitler, as early as the 18th of March 1941, to enlarge the scope of the world war by inducing Japan to seize Singapore. The relevant document is C-152, Exhibit GB-122, at Page 23 of the document book. There is just one paragraph which I would like to be permitted to read. The document describes the audience of Raeder with Hitler on the 18th of March and the entries in it, in fact, represent Raeder’s own views:

“Japan must take steps to seize Singapore as soon as possible, since the opportunity will never again be as favorable (whole English fleet contained; unpreparedness of U.S.A. for war against Japan; inferiority of U.S. fleet vis-à-vis the Japanese). Japan is indeed making preparations for this action, but according to all declarations made by Japanese officers she will carry it out only if Germany proceeds to land in England. Germany must therefore concentrate all her efforts on spurring Japan to act immediately. If Japan has Singapore all other East Asiatic questions regarding the U.S.A. and England are thereby solved (Guam, Philippines, Borneo, Dutch East Indies).

“Japan wishes, if possible, to avoid war against the U.S.A. She can do so if she determinedly takes Singapore as soon as possible.”

The Japanese, of course, as events proved, had different ideas from that.

By the 20th of April 1941, the evidence is that Hitler had agreed with this proposition of Raeder’s of inducing the Japanese to take offensive action against Singapore. I refer the Tribunal again to the Document C-170 and to an entry at Page 56 of the document book, for the 20th of April 1941. A few sentences from that read:

“Naval Supreme Commander with Führer. Navy Supreme Commander asks about result of Matsuoka’s visit and evaluation of Japanese-Russian pact. . . . Führer has informed Matsuoka ‘that Russia will not be touched if she behaves in a friendly manner according to the treaty. Otherwise, he reserves action for himself.’ Japan-Russia pact has been concluded in agreement with Germany and is to prevent Japan from advancing against Vladivostok and to cause her to attack Singapore.”

Now an interesting commentary upon this document is found in the Document C-66, at Page 13 of the document book. The Document C-66 has already been exhibited as GB-81. I would refer the Court to Paragraph 3 at Page 13 of the document book. At that time the Führer was firmly resolved on a surprise attack on Russia, regardless of what was the Russian attitude to Germany. This, according to reports coming in, was frequently changing; and there follows this interesting sentence: “The communication to Matsuoka was designed entirely as a camouflage measure and to ensure surprise.”

The Axis partners were not even honest with each other, and this, I submit, is typical of the kind of jungle diplomacy with which Raeder associated himself.

I now, with the Tribunal’s permission, turn from the field of diplomacy to the final aspect of the case against Raeder, namely, to crimes at sea.

The Prosecution’s submission is that Raeder throughout his career showed a complete disregard for any international rule or usage of war which conflicted in the slightest with his intention of carrying through the Nazi program of conquest. I propose to submit to the Tribunal only a few examples of Raeder’s flouting of the laws and customs of civilized states.

Raeder has himself summarized his attitude in the most admirable fashion in the Document UK-65, which the Tribunal will find at Page 98 of the document book, and which will be Exhibit GB-224. Now that Document UK-65 is a very long memorandum compiled by Raeder and the German naval war staff on the 15th of October 1939—that is to say, only a few weeks after the war started. And it is a memorandum on the subject of the intensification of the war at sea, and I desire to draw the Tribunal’s attention to the bottom paragraph at Page 98 of the document book. It is headed, “Possibilities of Future Naval Warfare”:

“I. Military requirements for the decisive struggle against Great Britain:

“Our naval strategy will have to employ all the military means at our disposal as expeditiously as possible. Military success can be most confidently expected if we attack British sea communications wherever they are accessible to us, with the greatest ruthlessness; the final aim of such attacks is to cut off all imports into and exports from Britain. We should try to consider the interests of neutrals in so far as this is possible without detriment to military requirements. It is desirable to base all military measures taken on existing international law; however, measures which are considered necessary from a military point of view, provided a decisive success can be expected from them, will have to be carried out, even if they are not covered by existing international law. In principle, therefore, any means of warfare which is effective in breaking enemy resistance should be based on some legal conception”—the nature of which is not specified—“even if that entails the creation of a new code of naval warfare.

“The supreme war council . . . will have to decide what measures of military and legal nature are to be taken. Once it has been decided to conduct economic warfare in its most ruthless form, in fulfillment of military requirements, this decision is to be adhered to under all circumstances. Under no circumstances may such a decision for the most ruthless form of economic warfare, once it has been made, be dropped or released under political pressure from neutral powers; that is what happened in the World War to our own detriment. Every protest by neutral powers must be turned down. Even threats of further countries, particularly of the United States, coming into the war, which can be expected with certainty should the war last a long time, must not lead to a relaxation in the form of economic warfare once embarked upon. The more ruthlessly economic warfare is waged, the earlier will it show results and the sooner will the war come to an end. The economic effect of such military measures on our own war economy must be fully recognized and compensated through immediate reorientation of German war economy and the re-drafting of the respective agreements with neutral states; for”—these are the final words—“for this, strong political and economic pressure must be employed if necessary.”

I submit that those comments are most revealing; and the general submission of the Prosecution is that as an active member of the inner council of the Nazi State right up to 1943, Raeder, holding such ideas as these, must share responsibility for the many War Crimes committed by his confederates and their underlings in the course of the war.

But quite apart from this over-all responsibility of Raeder, there are certain crimes which the Prosecution submits were essentially initiated and passed down the naval chain of command by Raeder himself.

I refer to the Document C-27, at Page 7 of the document book, which will be Exhibit GB-225. Those are minutes of a meeting between Hitler and Raeder on the 30th of December 1939. I will read with the Court’s approval the second paragraph beginning:

“The Chief of the Naval Operations Staff requests that full power be given to the Naval Operations Staff in making any intensification suited to the situation and to the means of war. The Führer agrees in principle to the sinking without warning of Greek ships in the American prohibited area and of neutral ships in those sections of the American prohibited area in which the fiction of mine danger can be upheld, e.g., the Bristol Channel.”

At this time, of course, as the Tribunal knows, Greek ships were also neutral and I submit that this is yet another demonstration of the fact that Raeder was a man without principle.

This incitement to crime was, in my submission, a typical group effort, because in the Document C-12, which is at Page 1 of the document book, the Tribunal will see that a directive to the effect of those naval views was issued on the 30th of December 1939 by the OKW, being signed by the Defendant Jodl. And that Document C-12 will be Exhibit GB-226. It is an interesting document. It is dated the 30th of December 1939, and it reads:

“On the 30th of December 1939, according to a report of the Supreme Commander of the Navy, the Führer and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces decided that:

“1) Greek merchant ships in the area declared by England and the U.S.A. to be a barred zone are to be treated as enemy vessels.

“2) In the Bristol Channel all shipping may be attacked without warning—where the impression of a mining incident can be created.

“Both measures are authorized to come into effect immediately.”

Another example of the callous attitude of the German Navy, when it was under Raeder’s command, towards neutral shipping, is found in an entry in Jodl’s diary. . .

THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps you should read the pencil note, oughtn’t you?

MAJOR JONES: The pencil note on the Document C-12 reads:

“Add to 1): Attack must be carried out without being seen. The denial of the sinking of these steamships, in case the expected protests are made, must be possible.”

As I was saying, My Lord, another example of the callous attitude of Raeder’s Navy towards neutral shipping is found in an entry in Jodl’s diary for the 16th of June 1942, at Page 112 of the document book, which is Document 1807-PS, and will be Exhibit GB-227. This extract from Jodl’s Diary is dated the 16th of June 1942 and it reads:

“The Operational Staff of the Navy (SKL) applied on the 29th May for permission to attack the Brazilian sea and air forces. The SKL considers that a sudden blow against the Brazilian warships and merchant ships is expedient at this juncture because defense measures are still incomplete, because there is the possibility of achieving surprise, and because Brazil is actually fighting Germany at sea.”

This, the Tribunal will see, was a plan for a kind of Brazilian “Pearl Harbor” because the Tribunal will recollect that war did not in effect break out between Germany and Brazil until the 22d of August 1942.

Raeder himself also caused the Navy to participate in War Crimes ordered by other conspirators, and I shall give one example only of that.

On the 28th of October 1942, as the Document C-179, Exhibit USA-543, at Page 63 of the document book shows, the head of the operations division of the naval war staff promulgated to naval commands Hitler’s notorious order of the 18th of October 1942 with regard to the shooting of Commandos which in my submission amounted to denying the protection of the Geneva Convention to captured Commandos.

The Tribunal will remember the document is dated the 28th of October 1942, and it reads:

“Enclosed please find a Führer order regarding annihilation of terror and sabotage units.

“This order must not be distributed in writing to officers below the rank of a flotilla leader or a section commander. After verbal notification to subordinate sections such officers must hand this order over to the next higher section which is responsible for its withdrawal and destruction.”

What clearer indication could there be than the nature of these instructions as to the naval command’s appreciation of the wrongfulness of the murders Hitler ordered?

THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now for 10 minutes?

[A recess was taken.]

MAJOR JONES: I have drawn the Tribunal’s attention to the circulation of Hitler’s order to shoot Commandos. I now draw the Tribunal’s attention to an example of the execution of that order by the German Navy during the period when Raeder was its commander.

My learned friend Mr. Roberts has already given the Tribunal an account of a Commando operation of December 1942, which had as its objective an attack on shipping in Bordeaux harbor. The Tribunal will recollect that the Wehrmacht account he quoted, Document UK-57, Exhibit GB-164, stated that six of the 10 participants in that commando raid were arrested and that all were shot on the 23 March 1943. In connection with that episode the Prosecution has a further document throwing more light on this Bordeaux incident and showing how much more expeditiously the Navy under Raeder had implemented Hitler’s order on this particular occasion. I draw the Court’s attention to Document C-176, at Page 61 of the document book, Exhibit GB-228.

That document consists of extracts from the war diary of Admiral Bachmann, who was the German flag officer in charge of western France. The first entry, at Page 61, is dated 10 December 1942 and reads:

“About 1015. Telephone call from personal representative of the Commander of the SD in Paris, SS Obersturmführer Dr. Schmidt, to flag lieutenant, requesting postponement of the shooting, as interrogation had not been concluded. . . .

“After consultation with the Chief of Operations Staff, the SD had been directed to get approval direct from headquarters.

“1820. SD, Bordeaux, requested Superior SD Office at Führer’s headquarters to postpone the shooting for 3 days. Interrogations continued for the time being.”

The next day, 11 December 1942:

“Shooting of two English prisoners was carried out by a unit (strength 1/16 men) attached to the harbor command, Bordeaux, in the presence of an officer of the SD on order of the Führer.”

Then there is a note in green pencil in the margin opposite this entry which reads:

“SD should have done this. Phone flag officer in charge in future cases.”

The Tribunal will therefore see from this Document C-176, that the first two gallant men to be shot as a result of the Bordeaux operation were actually put to death by a naval firing party on the 11th of December 1942. They were Sergeant Wallace and Marine Ewart, who had the misfortune to be captured on the 8th of December in the preliminary stages of the operation.

Of interest is the comment of the naval war staff upon this shooting, which is found in Document D-658.

THE PRESIDENT: What do the last two lines in Document C-176 about the operation being “particularly favored” mean?

MAJOR JONES: “The operation was particularly favored by the weather conditions and the dark night”—that presumably, My Lord, is a reference to the operation of the marine Commandos in successfully blowing up a number of German ships in Bordeaux harbor. Alternately, I am advised by the naval officer who is assisting me, that it probably is a reference to the conditions prevailing at the time of the shooting of the two men.

THE PRESIDENT: I should have thought so.

MAJOR JONES: I stand corrected by the representative of the British Navy upon my interpretation of the matter.

THE PRESIDENT: Doesn’t it indicate that naval men had done it?

MAJOR JONES: The shooting was in fact, as the entry of 11 December shows, carried out by a naval party—by units belonging to the naval officer in charge of Bordeaux.


MAJOR JONES: I was seeking to draw the Tribunal’s attention to the comment of the naval war staff upon that shooting, which is in Document D-658, at Page 109, Exhibit GB-229. It reads:

“The Naval Commander, west France, reports that during the course of the day explosives with magnets to stick on, mapping material dealing with the mouth of the Gironde, aerial photographs of the port installations at Bordeaux, camouflage material, and food and water for several days were found. Attempts to salvage the canoe were unsuccessful. The Naval Commander west France has ordered that both soldiers be shot immediately for attempted sabotage, if their interrogation, which has begun, confirms what has so far been discovered; their execution has, however, been postponed in order to obtain more information.

“According to a Wehrmacht report, both soldiers have meanwhile been shot. The measure would be in accordance with the Führer’s special order but is nevertheless something new in international law, since the soldiers were in uniform.”

I submit that that last sentence shows very clearly that the Naval High Command under Raeder accepted allegiance to the Nazi conspiracy as of greater importance than any question of moral principle or of professional honor and integrity. This operation of the shooting of those two Commandos was, as I submit, not an act of war, but a murder of two gallant men; and it is upon this somber note that it is my duty to summarize this part of the Prosecution’s case against the Defendant Raeder.

The Prosecution’s submission is that he was not just a military puppet carrying out political orders. The Tribunal has seen that, before the Nazis came, he had worked actively to rebuild the German Navy behind the back of the Reichstag. When the Nazis seized power, he unreservedly joined forces with them. He was the prime mover in transferring the loyalty of the German Navy to the Nazi Party. He was as much a member of the inner councils of the Nazis as possibly any other defendant. And he was a member of their main political advisory bodies.

He was well aware of their aggressive designs and I submit he assisted in their realization not only as a military technician, but also as a mendacious politician. And he furthered, as I have submitted, their brutal methods of warfare. And yet of all these conspirators Raeder was one of the first to fall from his high position. It is in fact true that the extension of war beyond the boundaries of Poland came as a disappointment to him. His vision of a Nazi armada mastering the Atlantic reckoned without Ribbentrop’s diplomacy and Hitler’s ideas of strategy.

I would draw the Tribunal’s attention to Document C-161, at Page 35 of the document book, which is an extract, Exhibit GB-230, from a memorandum of Raeder, dated 10 January 1943, just before his retirement, entitled, “The Importance of German Surface Forces for Conducting the War by the Powers Signatory to the Three Power Pact.” The material entry reads:

“. . . it was planned by the leaders of the National Socialist Reich to give the German Navy by 1944-45 such a strength that it would be possible to strike at the British vital arteries in the Atlantic with sufficient ships, fighting power, and range.

“In 1939, the war having begun 5 years earlier, the construction of these forces was still in its initial stages. . . .”

The Tribunal will see from that document how completely Raeder was cheated in his ambitious plans by miscalculation as to when his high seas fleet would be required. The Tribunal has seen that Raeder made a great effort to recover some of his lost glory with his attack on an inoffensive Norway. He made many efforts to liven up the war at sea, both at the expense of neutrals and also of the customs and laws of the sea. But his further schemes, however, were disregarded by his fellow conspirators, and in January 1943, Raeder retired, and thereafter he was a leader in name only.

I invite the Court’s attention to the Document D-655, at Page 108 of the document book, Exhibit GB-231, which is a record in Raeder’s handwriting of his interview with Hitler on the 6th of January 1943, which led to Raeder’s retirement. I am only proposing to read the fifth paragraph, in which Raeder records:

“. . . if the Führer was anxious to demonstrate that the parting was of the friendliest character and wished that the name Raeder should continue to be associated with the Navy, particularly abroad, it would perhaps be possible to make an appointment to the Inspector General, giving appropriate publicity in the press, et cetera. But a new Commander-in-Chief of the Navy with full responsibility for this office must be appointed. The position of Inspector General, or whatever it was decided to call it, must be purely nominal.

“The Führer”—the record reads—“accepted this suggestion with alacrity. The Inspector General could perhaps carry out special tasks for him, make tours of inspection, et cetera. The name of Raeder was still to be associated with the Navy. After Commander-in-Chief of the Navy had repeated his request, the Führer definitely agreed to 30th January as his release date. He would like to think over the details.”

This was Raeder’s twilight, and indeed a very different occasion from the period of his ascendancy in 1939, when on the 12th of March Raeder spoke on the occasion of the German Heroes’ Day. I now refer the Court to the final document on Raeder, an account of that speech in March 1939, which is at Page 103 of the document book, in the Document D-653, Exhibit GB-232. The first paragraph reads:

“Throughout Germany celebrations took place on the occasion of Hero Commemoration Day. . . . These celebrations were combined for the first time with the celebration of the freedom to rearm. . . . The day’s chief event was the traditional ceremony held in the Berlin State Opera House in Unter den Linden.”

In the presence of Hitler and representatives of the Party and Armed Forces, General-Admiral Raeder made a speech, extracts from which are given below.

I turn to Page 2 of the record, Page 104 of the document book, to about the 15th line:

“National Socialism”—says Raeder—“which originates from the spirit of the German fighting soldier, has been chosen by the German people as its ideology. The German people follow the symbols of its regeneration with as much great love as fanatical passion. The German people has had practical experience of National Socialism and it has not been imposed, as so many helpless critics abroad believe. The Führer has shown his people that in the National Socialist solidarity of the people lies the great and invincible source of strength, whose dynamic power ensures not only peace at home but also enables us to release all the Nation’s creative powers.”

There follow eulogies of Hitler, and a few sentences below:

“This is the reason for the clear and unsparing summons to fight Bolshevism and international Jewry, the nation-destroying activities of which our own people have sufficiently suffered. Therefore, the alliance with all like-minded nations who, like Germany, are not willing to allow their strength, dedicated to construction and peaceful work at home, to be disrupted by alien ideologies and by parasites of a foreign race.”

Then a few sentences on:

“If later on we instruct in the technical handling of weapons, this task demands that the young soldier should also be taught National Socialist ideology and the problems of life. This part of the task, which becomes for us both a duty of honor and a demand which cannot be refused, can and will be carried out if we stand shoulder to shoulder and in sincere comradeship to the Party and its organizations. . . .”

The next sentence:

“The Armed Forces and the Party thus became more and more united in attitude and spirit.”

And then just two sentences on the next page:

“Germany is the protector of all Germans within and beyond our frontiers. The shots fired at Almeria are proof of that.”

That refers, of course, to the bombardment of the Spanish town of Almeria, carried out by a German naval squadron on the 31 May 1937 during the course of the Spanish Civil War.

There are further references to the Führer and his leadership, and then a final sentence of the first paragraph of Page 3:

“They all planted into a younger generation the great tradition of death for a holy cause, knowing that with their blood they will lead the way towards the freedom of their dreams.”

My submission is that that speech of Raeder’s is the final proof of his deep personal involvement in the Nazi conspiracy. There is the mixture of heroics and fatalism that led millions of Germans to slaughter. There are boasts of violence used on the people of Almeria. There is the lip service to peace by a man who planned conquest. “Armed Forces and the Party have become more and more united in attitude and spirit”—there is the authentic Nazi voice. There is the assertion of racialism. Finally, there is the anti-Semitic gesture, Raeder’s contribution to the outlook that produced Belsen. Imbued with these ideas he became an active participant on both the political and military level in the Nazi conspiracy to wage wars of aggression and to wage them ruthlessly.

MR. RALPH G. ALBRECHT (Associate Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, the United States will continue with the presentation, showing the individual responsibility of the Defendant Von Schirach. It will be made by Captain Sprecher.

CAPTAIN DREXEL A. SPRECHER (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, it is my responsibility to present the individual responsibility of the Defendant Schirach for Crimes against the Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity as they concern directly the Common Plan or Conspiracy.

The Prosecution contends that the Defendant Schirach is guilty of having exercised a leading part in the Nazi conspiracy from 1925 until the Nazi downfall.

The conspiratorial acts and the criminality of the Defendant Schirach may be grouped for purposes of convenience into three principal phases: (1) His early support of the conspirators over the period 1925-1929; (2) his leadership and direction of German youth over the period 1929-1945; (3) his leadership of the Reichsgau Vienna as chief representative of the Nazi Party and the Nazi State in Vienna for the period July 1940 to 1945. The presentation will take up each of these principal phases after a brief listing of all the principal positions which Schirach held.

In presenting first a listing of the positions held by Schirach, it is not intended immediately to describe the functions of each of these positions. Insofar as a description of the functions of any particular position is still felt necessary at this stage of the Trial, it will be given later during the discussion of Schirach’s conspiratorial acts as Nazi Youth Leader and as Nazi official in Vienna.

For the consideration of the Tribunal, we have submitted a brief on this subject. The document book contains English translations of 29 documents. Although we feel that we have reduced the number of documents to the minimum, the document book is still large. But Schirach’s subversion of German youth is a large subject, even apart from any of his other acts. Most of these documents are from German publications, of which the Tribunal can take judicial notice. Therefore, in most cases, it is intended only to paraphrase these documents, unless the Tribunal in particular instances will indicate that they like fuller treatment.

Before passing to the proof I want to express my appreciation, particularly to Major Hartley Murray, Lieutenant Fred Niebergall at my right, and Mr. Norbert Heilpern for their assistance in research, analysis, translation, and organization of these materials.

Schirach agrees he held the following positions. They are found in two affidavits, an affidavit of certificate and one affidavit of report dated December 1945, which is Document 3302-PS, document book, Page 110.

I want to offer that affidavit as Exhibit Number USA-665. The certificate, which I will rely on for only one point, is Document 2973-PS. It is already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-14.

Turning first to Document 3302-PS: This affidavit shows that Schirach was a member of the Party from 1925 to 1945; that he was a leader of the National Socialist Student League from 1929 to 1931; that he was leader of the Hitler Youth Organization from 1931 to 1940. In 1931 and 1932 Schirach was Reich Youth Leader on the staff of the SA Supreme Command, where at that time all Nazi youth organizations were centralized. Also, Schirach was Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP from 1931 to 1940.

In 1932 Schirach became an independent Reich Leader (Reichsleiter), in the Party. Upon acquiring this relatively independent position, he no longer remained on the staff of the SA Supreme Command, since Nazi youth affairs thereafter, with the creation of the Reich Youth Leadership, were directly subordinate to Hitler with Schirach at the helm. We had that kind of condition existing in the Party where, under the Leadership Principle, at the pinnacle you had one man, Schirach, and you no longer had the youth affairs underneath the SA. However, within the SA, Schirach retained the rank and the title of a Gruppenführer throughout the period from 1931 to 1941, and in that year, 1941, he was elevated to the rank of an SA Obergruppenführer, a rank which Schirach continued to hold in the SA until the collapse.

Schirach was Reich Leader of Youth Education in the NSDAP from 1932 until the collapse. In other words, from before the Nazis came to state power until the final downfall, this defendant held the high position of a Reichsleiter, a Reich Leader, inside the Party.

Now, in addition to these positions in the Party, Schirach held the following positions in the Nazi State:

Reich Youth Leader, 1933 to 1940; Reich governor (Reichsstatthalter) of the Reichsgau Vienna, 1940 to 1945; Reich Defense Commissioner of Vienna, 1940 to 1945.

Now, although Schirach gave up some of his positions with respect to the leadership of German youth in 1940 when he accepted these positions in Vienna, he still continued to hold after that time the Party position of Reich Leader for Youth Education in the NSDAP. Moreover, he was given a very special position: Deputy to the Führer for the Inspection of the Hitler Youth, the organization which he, of course, had led until 1940. He continued in these last two positions until the downfall.

The certificate, Document 2973-PS, the only thing I rely on there in this particular presentation, is to show that Schirach was a member of the Reichstag from 1932 to 1945.

We next take up acts showing that Schirach actively promoted the NSDAP and its affiliated youth organizations before the Nazis seized power. Schirach was an intimate and a servile follower of Hitler from the year 1925. In that year, when he was only 18 years old, Schirach joined the Nazi conspirators by becoming a member of the Party. Upon special request of Hitler, he went to Munich to study Party affairs. He became active in converting students to National Socialism. I am paraphrasing there, Your Honors, from Paragraph 2 of Schirach’s own affidavit, Document 3302-PS, Exhibit Number USA-665, found at Page 110 of the document book.

Now, this was the start of conspiratorial activities which Schirach thereafter continued for two decades in a spirit of unbending loyalty to Hitler and to the principles of National Socialism. Hitler’s early personal attentions to this defendant bore fruit for the conspirators, and we find Schirach’s stature in the Party circles rapidly growing through these early years.

In 1929 Schirach was made national leader of the entire National Socialist German Students League. He retained this position for 2 years until 1931. Document 3464-PS, document book, Page 121, is an extract from the 1936 edition of the Party manual, Exhibit Number USA-666, which I would like to offer in evidence. This makes it clear that the purpose of the Nazi Students League was the ideological and political conversion of students in universities and technical schools to National Socialism.

After 1931 Schirach devoted his full time to Party work. Schirach was elected a Nazi member of the Reichstag in 1932, and therefore he played his part in the unparliamentary conduct of the Nazi Reichstag members during the last months of the existence of the Reichstag as an independent instrument of government.

Some of the best evidence concerning Schirach’s support of the conspiracy in its early stages comes from Schirach’s own words in his book The Hitler Youth. Excerpts from this book are found in Document Number 1458-PS, document book, Page 1. It is offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-667. Now, since this book, Your Honors, covers many years and many topics, I shall be required to refer to it occasionally later on.

An example of Schirach’s servile loyalty to Hitler during the early years is found at Page 17 of this book, Page 12 of your document book. There he writes of his early years of Party activity as follows:

“We were not yet able to account for our conception in detail. We simply believed. And when Hitler’s book Mein Kampf was published, it was our bible, which we almost learned by heart in order to answer the questions of the doubters and superior critics. Almost everyone who today is leading youth in a responsible position joined us in those years.”

Before 1933 Schirach moved throughout Germany, leading demonstrations, summoning German youth to membership in the Hitler Youth. When the Hitler Youth and the wearing of its uniform were forbidden by law, Schirach continued his activities by illegal means. Of this period he himself writes, at Page 26 of his book on The Hitler Youth, Pages 16 and 17 of your document book, as follows:

“At this time the HJ (the Hitler Jugend) gained its best human material. Whoever came to us during this illegal time, boy or girl, risked everything. . . . With pistols in our pockets we drove through the Ruhr district while stones came flying after us. We jumped every time we heard a bell ring, because we lived in constant fear of arrests and expected our houses to be searched.”

At Page 27 of the same book, Page 18 of Your Honors’ document book, Schirach indicates that in the early intra-Party fight between Hitler and Strasser, Schirach clung steadfastly to the Hitler clique, and then, in discussing Strasser, he exchanged his confidence only with Hitler and the Defendant Streicher. It is hardly necessary to argue that such an intimate of the Führer, himself, was advised from the beginning of the general purposes, plans, and methods of the conspiracy.

As an interesting sidelight, I believe a number of those conferences, you will note, took place in Schirach’s apartment in Munich, and that Hitler used to come there occasionally.

Schirach was the leading Nazi conspirator in destroying all independent youth organizations and in building the Nazi youth movement. In connection with this point, the attention of the Tribunal is invited to the brief of the United States Chief of Counsel entitled “The Reshaping of Education, Training of Youth,” which was written for the United States Chief of Counsel by Major Hartley Murray, and to the documents cited therein under the section headed “b.” “The Nazi conspirators supplemented the school system by training youth through the Hitler Jugend.” These documents were offered in evidence in Document Book D in the earlier phase of this Trial. The attention of the Tribunal is also called to the motion picture The Nazi Plan, which was shown before the Tribunal on the 11th of December, insofar as that film involved the Defendant Schirach and his Hitler Youth organization. Occasions when Schirach’s activities are shown in this film are noted in Document Number 3054-PS, the index and the guide to this film, which is already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-167.

It was the task of Schirach to perpetuate the Nazi regime through generations by poisoning the minds of youth with Nazi ideology and preparing youth for aggressive war. This poisoning will long outlive the defendant. Indeed, one of the principal purposes of this exposure must be to bring to those German youths who survived the Nazi-created catastrophe a true picture of this man whom Nazi propaganda presented as a great youth hero; a man against whom the living breath of free criticism and the truth itself could make no answer before German youth or before the German people, for more than 10 years.

Again, from Schirach’s own hand in his book, The Hitler Youth, we have crystal-clear evidence concerning the methods and the tactics employed by this defendant in his destruction of independent youth organizations and their incorporation into the Hitler Youth. At Page 32, Pages 19 and 20 of Your Honors’ document book, Schirach states that in 1933 the new Cabinet ministers were too overburdened to solve the youth question by their own initiative; that therefore he, Schirach, then leader of the Hitler Youth, commissioned one of his confederates to lead 50 members of the Berlin Hitler Youth in a surprise raid on the Reich Committee of German Youth Organizations. This raid resulted in destroying the Reich Committee and its absorption within the Hitler Youth. This raid was closely followed by a second surprise raid of like success upon the Youth Hostels Organization, Page 33, The Hitler Youth, found at Pages 20 and 21 of the document book.

Now, after these successful showings of force and terror, Schirach’s star climbed higher. He was appointed Youth Leader of the German Reich in June 1931 in a solemn ceremony before Hitler. Concerning his next steps, Schirach writes at Pages 35 and 36 of his book, Page 22 of the document book, as follows:

“The first thing I did was to dissolve the Greater German League. Since I headed all German youth organizations and I had the right to decide on their leadership, I did not hesitate for a moment to take this step which was for the Hitler Youth the elimination of an unbearable state of affairs.”

Schirach accomplished the dissolution and destruction of most youth organizations by orders which he issued and signed as Youth Leader of the German Reich. This is shown by the order contained in Document Number 2229-PS, your document book, Page 65, which is offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-668.

By this one order of Schirach nine youth organizations were dissolved, including the Boy Scout movement.

The Protestant and Catholic youth organizations were the last to be destroyed and absorbed by the Hitler Youth. Schirach accomplished the absorption of the Protestant youth organization by agreement with the Hitler-appointed Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller, Page 38 of The Hitler Youth, Page 24 of the document book. Schirach’s objective in forcing all German youth into the Hitler Youth was finally accomplished in December 1936 by the basic law on the Hitler Youth. Document Number 1392-PS is a decree, 1936, Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 993, of which, of course, the Tribunal may take judicial notice. This law declared in part, and Your Honors, I read from this because it shows so clearly the nature of what was to happen and what was already happening to German youth under Schirach.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it set out in the document book?



CAPT. SPRECHER: It is Document Number 1392-PS. It is at Page 6 of your document book:

“The future of the German nation depends on its youth, and German youth will have to be prepared for its future duties. . . . All of the German youth in the Reich is organized within the Hitler Youth. . . . The German youth, besides being reared within the family and school, shall be educated physically, intellectually, and morally in the spirit of National Socialism to serve the people and the community through the Hitler Youth. . . . The task of educating the German youth through the Hitler Youth is being entrusted to the Reich Leader of German Youth in the NSDAP. . . .”

The first executive order on this basic law concerning the Hitler Youth was issued on the 25th of March 1939. If you refer to Page 40 of your document book, this decree, 1939, Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 709, among other points confirms the exclusive nature of Schirach’s responsibility concerning German youth. I will quote only one sentence:

“The Youth Leader of the German Reich is solely competent for all missions of the physical, ideological, and moral education of the entire German youth outside home and school.”

THE PRESIDENT: Captain Sprecher, I think you have told us enough now to satisfy us that Von Schirach was in charge, of the ideological education of German youth and completely in charge of it.


THE PRESIDENT: And we don’t desire to hear any more of it.

CAPT. SPRECHER: I understand.

In exercising his far-reaching control over German youth, Schirach naturally relied on the common techniques of the Nazi conspirators, including the Leadership Principle, the nature of which has already been established before this Tribunal. The Tribunal will find a galling glorification and explanation of the Leadership Principle as it was applied to German youth, in Schirach’s book, The Hitler Youth, at Page 68, translated at Page 32 of the document book. I won’t read from that.

In his affidavit, Document Number 3302-PS, Paragraph 5, Schirach states, “It was my task to educate the youth in the aims, ideology, and directives of the NSDAP, and beyond this to direct and to shape them.”

Naturally, Schirach established and directed an elaborate propaganda apparatus to accomplish a thorough-going poisoning of the minds of German youth. Document Number 3349-PS, your document book Page 114, is offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-666.

This is an excerpt from Pages 452 and 453 of the 1936 edition of the Party manual. This document will show that the Reich Youth Leadership (Reichsjugendführung) of the NSDAP prepared and published numerous periodicals ranging from a daily press service to monthly magazines. This document also shows that the propaganda office of the Hitler Youth maintained, through liaison agents, a political and ideological connection with the propaganda office of the NSDAP and with the Propaganda Ministry, both of which, of course, were headed by the conspirator Goebbels.

Schirach shares with the conspirator Dr. Robert Ley, Reich Organizationsleiter of the NSDAP, the responsibility for the establishment and general administration of the Adolf Hitler Schools. This is shown by a joint statement of Ley and Schirach in the year 1937, which is found in the document book at Page 100. It is our Document 2653-PS, offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-669. This document shows that these Adolf Hitler Schools were open free of charge to outstanding and proved members of the Young Folk, the junior section of the Hitler Youth organization. It further shows that the object of these schools was the building of youthful leadership for the Nazi Party and the Nazi State apparatus.

Schirach extended his education of German Youth into the field of law and the legal profession even though these fields were principally under the control of the Defendant Frank. Proof is found in Document Number 3459-PS, Page 120 of the document book. This is a one-page extract from an account of the Congress of German Law in 1939. It is offered as Exhibit Number USA-670. This document shows that beyond purely technical education in law it was considered by the conspirators to be the task of the Party to exercise influence upon the ideological conceptions of the Young Law Guardians League. This league was a junior organization of the National Socialist Law Guardians League, a Nazi-controlled organization of lawyers.

Now, at this Congress to which the document refers, an official of the youth law guardians declared that ignorance of the simplest legal principles could best be fought within the Hitler Youth and that, therefore, the legal education program of the Hitler Youth was to receive the broadest support.

Obergebietsführer Arthur Axmann, the subordinate of Schirach at that time and who in 1940 was to succeed him as leader of the Hitler Youth, was at that time, namely, May 1939, appointed the chairman of a youth legal committee for the establishment of the Youth Law. He was appointed by the Defendant Frank.

THE PRESIDENT: Captain Sprecher, I don’t think I made it quite clear that the Tribunal is not really interested in these details by which the Defendant Von Schirach acquired his power over the German Youth. You have told us sufficient to establish in our minds, so far at any rate, that he managed to get absolute command over the German youth. The only thing that seems to me to be material, at the present stage, is whether or not you can show us any direct evidence that the Defendant Schirach was a party to the aggressive aims of the Reich leaders, or to any War Crimes or to any Crimes against Humanity. Unless you can show us that, your address to us is really not useful to us at this stage.

CAPT. SPRECHER: I plan to take up directly, Your Honor, the question of the militarization of youth. I did want to make one reference at this point to the relation of the Hitler Youth to the League for Germans Abroad, if that is satisfactory to Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, that may bear on the aggressive aims of the Reich leaders.

CAPT. SPRECHER: Schirach extended the influence of the Hitler Youth beyond the borders of Germany by means of co-operation between the Hitler Youth and the League for Germans Abroad, the VDA. This is proved by an agreement made in 1933 between Schirach and leaders of the VDA which is contained in Document L-360(h), document book Page 3. This is offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-671.

Now, Schirach discusses in his book, The Hitler Youth, under the chapter heading, “Work Abroad”—that is Chapter 4 of the book, Pages 34 to 38 of the document book—some of the connections of the Hitler Youth with such Nazi ideas as Lebensraum, colonial policy as an ideological weapon.

I won’t read from that, since it also covers to a certain extent. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Did it talk about Lebensraum?

CAPT. SPRECHER: It actually used the word Lebensraum. At Page 36 of the document book there is reference made to the Ostraum, space in the East. . .

THE PRESIDENT: I thought the document you were dealing with was L-360 on Page 3.

CAPT. SPRECHER: I am sorry. I had gone on from there, to speak about Schirach’s book, Document 1458-PS, and I had mentioned that at Pages 34 to 38 of the document book there were references concerning the Nazi ideas of colonial policy and Lebensraum, and that this book by Schirach indicated that the Hitler Youth was charged with spreading those ideas.

He uses the word “Ostraum” in speaking of space in the East, and he discusses German youth organizations abroad and the German schools in these countries. And then I wish particularly to point out on Page 37 the following sentence:

“It will be taken into consideration concerning this schooling that the guiding line of German population policy which aims at the utilization of the space in the East will not be violated.”

Now, the conspirators devoted a great deal of energy to the perpetuation of their scheme of things by selecting and training successors for Nazi leadership, selecting and training and acquiring active Nazis for the rank and file of the NSDAP and its affiliated organizations, including the SA and the SS which are alleged here to be criminal organizations.

A number of orders issued by the Party Chancellery under the heading, “Successor Problems,” show the dominant part assumed by Schirach and his Hitler Youth in this field. Our Document Number 3348-PS, “Selections from Volume I of the Decrees, Regulations, and Announcements of the Party Chancellery,” already marked in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-410, contains some of these orders, which I won’t take the time to read. But they are all contained on one page, Page 113, of your document book.

Only Hitler Youth members who distinguished themselves were to be admitted to the Party. Nazi leaders were directed to absorb full-time Hitler Youth leaders into their staffs so as to offer them practical experience and thus secure necessary successors for the Leadership Corps which is also alleged as a criminal organization. This pivotal and central function of the Hitler Youth in the domination of German life by the Party is also shown at Pages 80 and 81 of the 1938 Party manual, Exhibit Number USA-430, found at Page 74 of the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: That last page, Page 113, does that refer to any of the matters to which I drew your attention? It is simply the organization of the youth; it has nothing to do with any criminal aims.

CAPT. SPRECHER: Your Honor, it certainly is the contention of the Prosecution that any man who took an active part in furnishing for these criminal organizations young members committed a crime.

THE PRESIDENT: I quite understand that, and that is why I told you that we were satisfied that so far you had shown that he had acquired absolute control over and was the leader of the German youth. The only thing we want to hear about at this stage is whether he was a party to the schemes for aggressive war, to War Crimes, or to Crimes against Humanity. That is what we want to hear, and we don’t want to hear anything else.

CAPT. SPRECHER: Your Honors, may I pass, then, to the connection of Hitler Youth to the SS. Document 2396-PS, which is found at Page 69 of the document book and which is offered as Exhibit Number USA-673, has a quotation in it concerning the Streifendienst of the Hitler Youth; the Streifendienst being the patrol service, a type of self-police organization of the Hitler Youth. The quotation which I intend to read will indicate how this organization became the principal supplier of the SS.

Are Your Honors interested in having me read that quotation concerning the Hitler Youth as the main source of the SS?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, perhaps; I haven’t read it.

CAPT. SPRECHER: This document is an agreement between Schirach and Himmler. It was concluded in October 1938. It bears, I think, partial quoting:

“Organization of the Streifendienst.

“1. Since the Streifendienst in the Hitler Youth has to perform tasks similar to those which the SS perform for the whole movement, it is organized as a special unit for the purpose of securing recruits for the General SS. However, as much as possible, recruits for the SS Special Troops, for the SS Death’s Head Units, and for the officer-candidate schools, should also be taken from these formations.”

I am skipping down now to 4a, which is underlined in red in your book:

“The selection of Streifendienst members is made according to the principles of racial selection of the Schutzstaffel. The competent officials of the SS, primarily unit leaders, race authorities, and SS physicians, will be consulted for the admission tests.”

Skipping to 5:

“To insure from the beginning a good understanding between Reich Youth Leadership and Reich SS leadership, a liaison officer will be ordered from the Reich Youth Leadership to the SS Main Office starting 1 October 1938. The appointment of other leaders to the higher SS sections is a subject for a future agreement.”

Then, going down to what I think is the most striking quotation, Your Honor, 6:

“After the organization is completed, the SS takes its replacement primarily from these Streifendienst members. Admission of youths of German blood who are not members of the Hitler Youth is then possible only after information and advice of the competent Bannführer.”

Now, the Bannführer referred to there was the local leader of the Hitler Jugend; and without his consent no one could go into the SS in the future after that agreement was made, which was in October 1938.

Now, the second agreement which Schirach made with Himmler was made in December 1938. It is found in our document book, Number 2567-PS, Page 98. It is offered in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-674. It states that the Farm Service of the Hitler Youth “is, according to education and aim, particularly well suited as a recruiting agency for the SS, General SS, and the armed section of the SS, SS Special Troops, and SS Death’s Head battalions.”

The agreement concludes by stating that Farm Service members of the Hitler Youth who pass the SS admission tests will be taken over by the SS immediately after leaving the Hitler Youth Farm Service.

I might point out to Your Honors that this meant that after that time any Hitler Youth member who was in the Farm Service was obliged to go into the SS.

And now, to come directly to the point you have been inquiring about, Your Honor:

Throughout the 6 years of Nazi political control over Germany before the launching of aggressive war, Schirach was actively engaged in militarizing German youth. From the beginning, the Hitler Youth was set up along military lines with uniforms, ranks and titles. It was regimented and led in military fashion under the Leadership Principle.

If Your Honors will take any edition whatsoever of the Organization Book, the Party manual, and turn to the tables, beginning with Table 54, and leaf through the book, you will see the very striking insignia of the Hitler Youth and how much it compares to what the normal military insignia were. You will further notice that one of the most prominent insignia is an “S” of the same type that the Nazis used with respect to the SS. You will notice that part of the uniform was a long knife.

THE PRESIDENT: Isn’t that all a part of what they are pleased to call the Nazi ideology? I mean, the Führer Principle, military training?

CAPT. SPRECHER: There is a relation between all of these things, perhaps, and the Leadership Principle, because the Leadership Principle dominated absolutely every aspect of German life. However, Your Honors, I suggest that showing to you, in this graphic means, the similarity between the uniform of the Hitler Youth and military uniforms has some bearing upon the preparation for aggressive wars, about which I am further to speak in just a moment.

Now, Document 2654-PS, found at Page 102 of your document book, is a whole book given over to just this question of the organization and the insignia of the Hitler Youth.

The Tribunal will see how the Hitler Youth was divided into branches or divisions which were very similar to military divisions.

That document is offered as Exhibit Number USA-675. I will refer no further to it.

Now, in a speech in February 1938, when the conspirators had already dropped some of the camouflage which surrounded their earlier military preparations for the wars which we have recently suffered, Hitler discussed the military training of the Hitler Youth in the Völkischer Beobachter of the 21st of February 1938. This is our Document 2454-PS, found at Page 97 of the document book. It is offered as Exhibit Number USA-676.

Hitler there said that thousands of German boys had received specialized training through the Hitler Youth in naval, aviation, and motorized groups and that over 7,000 instructors had trained more than 1 million Hitler Youth members in rifle shooting. That was February 1938, shortly before the Anschluss. Note the progress of military training within the Hitler Youth between then and August 1939, just 1 month before the invasion of Poland.

At that time the Defendant Schirach and the Defendant Keitel, as Chief of the High Command, entered into another one of those informative agreements, which many of these defendants liked to make among themselves. It is Document Number 2398-PS, your document book Page 72. It is offered as Exhibit Number USA-677. It is taken from Das Archiv which, in introducing the actual agreement, declared that this agreement was “the result of close co-operation” between Schirach and Keitel. The agreement itself states, in part:

“While it is exclusively the task of the Hitler Youth to attend to the training of their units in this direction, it is suitable, in the sense of a uniformed training corresponding to the demands of the Wehrmacht, to support the leadership of the Hitler Youth for their responsible task as trainers and educators in all fields of training for defense by special courses.”

And then, skipping down towards the end, you will note this quotation within the agreement: “A great number of courses are in progress.”

Your Honor, if I may take about 5 minutes, I can finish this one section on the aggressive war phase.


CAPT. SPRECHER: Whereas Hitler, in February 1938, mentioned that 7,000 Hitler Youth leaders were engaged in training German youngsters in rifle shooting, Schirach and Keitel, in their agreement of August 1939, note the following:

“. . . 30,000 Hitler Youth leaders are already being trained annually in field service. The agreement with the Wehrmacht gives the possibility of roughly doubling that number. The billeting and messing of the Hitler Youth leaders is done, according to the regulations for execution already published, in the barracks, drill grounds, et cetera, of the Wehrmacht, at a daily cost of 25 Pfennig.”

Just as Schirach dealt with the head of the SS in obtaining zealous recruits for organized banditry and the commission of atrocities, so also he dealt with the head of the Wehrmacht in furnishing young men as human grist for the mill of aggressive war.

The training of German youths runs through the Nazi conspiracy as an important central thread. It is one of the manifestations of Nazism which has shocked the entire civilized world. The principal responsibility for the planning and execution of the Nazi Youth policy falls upon this defendant.

I wish to take merely one sentence from his own affidavit, Paragraph 5, Document Number 3302-PS, so that there can be no doubt before this Tribunal or before the world, indeed, as to this defendant’s own feeling of responsibility: “I feel myself responsible for the policy of the youth movement in the Party and later within the Reich.” I underline the phrase “I feel myself responsible.”

Your Honor, that is a convenient breaking point before coming to a discussion of Schirach’s connection to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.


[The Tribunal adjourned until 16 January 1946 at 1000 hours.]

Wednesday, 16 January 1946

Morning Session

CAPT. SPRECHER: May it please the Tribunal, I now pass to activities which involve Schirach in the commission of Crimes against Humanity as they bear directly on Count One. The presentation of all specific acts will deal with the Reichsgau Vienna; but first allow me to refer back to two important points in the previous proof, which will show that Schirach bears responsibility for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity which bring in the whole of Europe. Through his agreements with Himmler he provided, through the Hitler Youth, many if not most of the SS men who administered, in the main, the concentration camps and whose War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity throughout Europe generally are notorious.

Nor should we pass to further specific acts of Schirach without mentioning one more thing: that he cannot escape responsibility for implanting in youth the Nazi ideology generally, with its tenets of a master race, sub-human peoples, and Lebensraum and world domination. For such notions were the psychological prerequisites for the instigation and for the tolerance of the atrocities which zealous Nazis committed throughout Germany and the occupied countries.

To present Schirach’s responsibilities for crimes committed within the Reichsgau Vienna, where Schirach was Gau leader and Reich governor from July 1940 until the downfall, the general basic functions of these two offices must be held in mind.

The first document I refer to is Document Number 1893-PS. This is an extract from the Party manual of 1943 and therefore catches Schirach in midstream in his activities in the Reichsgau Vienna. That is Page 42 of the document book, and Pages 70, 71, 75, 98, 136, and 140b of the Party manual, extracts from each of those pages appearing in your document book.

The following highlights concerning the Gau leader’s functions will appear, and I propose only to paraphrase. Since Your Honor may take judicial notice of the Party manual, you may check at your leisure unless you wish me to read from any one of these specific orders. These orders make it appear that the Gau leader was the highest representative of Hitler in his Gau, that he was the bearer of sovereignty—the top Hoheitsträger—and that he had sovereign political rights. Beyond that, he was responsible for the entire political situation in his Gau. He could call—and we believe this is important—he could call upon SA and SS leaders as “needed in the execution of a political mission.” Beyond that he was obliged to meet at least once a month with the leaders of the affiliated Party organizations within his Gau, and this, of course, included the SS.

Now, the position of the Reich Governor in Vienna is somewhat special. After the Anschluss the State of Austria was abolished, and Austria was divided into seven Reich Gaue. The most important of these Gaue was the Reichsgau Vienna, of which Schirach was Governor. Reference to any statistical manual of the Reich at this time will establish that at that time Vienna had a population of over 2 million people. Therefore it was certainly one of the principal cities of the Reich. The Tribunal is asked to take judicial notice of the decree, 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 777, our Document Number 3301-PS, found at Page 107 of the document book. This is the basic law on the administrative reorganization of Austria. It was enacted in April 1939, a little more than a year before Schirach became Governor. This law shows that Schirach, as Governor, was the lieutenant of the head of the German State, Hitler; that he could issue decrees and orders within the limitations set by the supreme Reich authorities; that he was especially under the administrative supervision of the Defendant Frick, Reich Minister of the Interior; and that he was also the first mayor of the city of Vienna. For the same period that Schirach was Gau leader and Reich Governor of Vienna, he was also Reich Defense Commissioner of Vienna; and after 1940, of course, the Reich was engaged in war.

Because of his far-reaching responsibilities and authority in these positions, the Prosecution contends that Schirach must be held guilty, specifically, of all the crimes of the Nazi conspirators in the Reichsgau Vienna, on the ground that he either initiated, approved, executed, or abetted these crimes. Specific examples follow which, in fact, demonstrate that Schirach was actively and personally engaged in Nazi crimes, and that, when he became boastful—a characteristic never lacking in most of these defendants—he himself admitted his own involvement in acts which are crimes within the competence of this Tribunal.

I come first to slave-labor.

The slave-labor program naturally played its part in staffing the industries of as large and important a city as Vienna. The general nature of this program and the crimes flowing therefrom have been in part set before you by Mr. Dodd. The Soviet prosecutors will present further acts later on. Our Document Number 3352-PS, found at Page 116 of your document book, which I would like to offer as Exhibit USA-206, gives extracts from a number of orders of the Party chancellery. Each of these orders from which the extracts have been taken bear on the Gau leader’s responsibility for manpower placement and utilization. They prove quite simply and in unmistakable language that the Gau leaders under the direction of the experienced old Gau leader Sauckel, who was plenipotentiary for manpower, became the supreme integrating and co-ordinating agents of the Nazi conspirators in the entire manpower program. At Page 116 of your document book—Page 508 of the original volume of orders—the Defendant Göring is shown to have agreed, as leader of the Four Year Plan, to Sauckel’s suggestion that the Gau leaders be utilized to assure the highest efficiency in manpower. At Page 117 of your document book—Page 511 of the orders of the Party chancellery—Sauckel in July 1942 makes the Gau leaders his special plenipotentiaries for manpower within their Gaue, with the duty of establishing a harmonious co-operation of all interests concerned. In effect the Gau leader became the supreme arbitrator for all the conflicting interests that exist during wartime with respect to claims upon manpower. Under this same order the regional labor offices and their staffs were “directed to be at the disposal of the Gau leaders for information and advice and to fulfill the suggestions and demands of the Gau leader for the purpose of improvements in manpower. . . .” At Pages 118 and 119 of your document book—Page 567 of the Party chancellery orders—the Defendant Sauckel ordered that his special plenipotentiaries, the Gau leaders, familiarize themselves with the general regulations on Eastern Workers. He stated that his immediate objective was “to prevent politically inept factory heads giving too much consideration to the care of Eastern Workers and thereby cause justified annoyance among the German workers.”

We submit to the Tribunal that if Schirach as Gau leader was required to concern himself in such manpower details as concern over the alleged annoyance of German workers for the consideration given Eastern Workers, it is unnecessary to press further into the detailed workings of the manpower program to establish Schirach’s connection with, and responsibility for, the slave-labor program in the Reichsgau Vienna.

I now pass to the persecution of the churches.

The elimination of the religious youth organizations while Schirach was chief Nazi youth leader has already been noted. In March 1941 two letters, one from the Defendant Bormann, the other from the conspirator Hans Lammers. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Captain Sprecher, have you any other evidence which connects Von Schirach with the problem of manpower?

CAPT. SPRECHER: I had planned on presenting nothing further, Your Honor. I felt that in view of the fact that our Soviet colleagues are going further with the details of the manpower program, particularly in the East, the main objective under Count One should merely be to show the general responsibility of the Defendant Schirach for the slave-labor program, and the question of specific acts will have to be taken from the other proof in the Record, which will come, into the Record later.


CAPT. SPRECHER: There is just one further point: When I come to the treatment of the Jews in a few minutes, there will be one or two specific examples.

THE PRESIDENT: You are now going to deal with the persecution of churches, is that right?


Now, the Tribunal is referred to Document R-146, at Page 5 of the document book. This is offered as Exhibit USA-678.

I am a little in doubt, Your Honors, as to whether I should read all this document, in view of our common anxiousness to pass rapidly on; but perhaps I may paraphrase it, and if you are not satisfied I will read it.

These documents establish clearly that during a visit by Hitler to Vienna, Schirach and two other officials brought a complaint before the Führer that the confiscations of Church property in Austria, made on various pretexts, should be made in favor of the Gaue rather than of the Reich. Later the Führer decided the issue in favor of the position which had been taken by Schirach, namely, in favor of the Gau. I use this merely to connect Schirach with the persecution of the churches, concerning which there has been a great deal of evidence before this time.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): None of it is in evidence yet. You have not put anything in evidence. We cannot take judicial notice of something unless you ask us to.

CAPT. SPRECHER: Your ruling is that this would not be in evidence unless I read it?

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I am not making any ruling; I was merely pointing out to you that we have nothing in evidence on the last document.

CAPT. SPRECHER: I think, under the circumstances, I had better read this document:

“Munich, 20 March 1941, Brown House, Personal-Secret.

“To: All Gau leaders. Subject: Sequestration of Church properties (Monastery property, et cetera).

“Recently, valuable church properties have had to be sequestered on a large scale, especially in Austria; according to reports of the Gauleiter to the Führer, these sequestrations were often because of violations of ordinances relating to war economy (for example, hoarding of foodstuffs of various kinds, textiles, leather goods, et cetera). In other cases they were for violations of the law relating to subversive acts against the State and in some cases because of illegal possession of arms. Obviously no compensation is to be paid to the churches for sequestrations made for the above-mentioned reasons.

“With regard to further sequestrations, several Austrian Gau leaders, on the occasion of the Führer’s last visit to Vienna, attempted to clarify the question of who should acquire such sequestered properties. Please take note of the Führer’s decision, as contained in the letter written by Reich Minister Dr. Lammers to the Reich Minister of the Interior, dated 14 March 1941. I enclose copy of extracts of the same.”—Signed—“M. Bormann.”

I had offered that document as Exhibit USA-678. Do you still wish me to read the enclosure that went with it?

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I don’t wish you to read anything; I was simply pointing out that, as you had not read it, it was not in evidence.

CAPT. SPRECHER: In that event I will continue, Your Honor. The copy reads as follows:

“Berlin, 14 March 1941; The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery.

“To the Reich Minister of the Interior. Subject: Draft of an ordinance supplementing the provisions on confiscation of property of enemies of the People and State.

“The Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter Von Schirach, Dr. Jury and Eigruber complained recently to the Führer that the Reich Minister of Finance still maintains the point of view that confiscation of property of enemies of the People and State should be made in favor of the Reich and not in favor of the Reich Gaue. Consequently the Führer has informed me that he desires the confiscation of such properties to be effected in favor of the Reich Gau in whose area the confiscated property is situated, and not in favor of the Reich. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: You need not read any more of it.

CAPT. SPRECHER: I pass over now to the Jewish persecution.

The Prosecution submits, finally, that Schirach authorized, directed, and participated in anti-Semitic measures. Of course, the whole ideology and teaching of the Hitler Youth was predicated upon the Nazi racial myth. Before the war, Schirach addressed a meeting of the National Socialist German Students’ League, the organization he headed from 1929 to 1931. Document 2441-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-679, an affidavit by Gregor Ziemer. I wish to read merely from the bottom of Page 95 of the document book to the end of the first paragraph at the top of Page 96 of the document book. The deponent Ziemer is referring to a meeting at Heidelberg, Germany, which he personally attended some time before the war, at which Baldur von Schirach addressed the Students’ League, which he himself had at one time led. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: What is this document?

CAPT. SPRECHER: It is an affidavit of Gregor Ziemer:

“He”—meaning Schirach—“declared that the most important phase of German university life in the Third Reich was the program of the NSDSTB. He extolled various activities of the League. He reminded the boys of the service they had rendered during the Jewish purge. Dramatically he pointed across the river to the old university town of Heidelberg where several burnt-out synagogues were mute witnesses of the efficiency of Heidelberg students. These skeleton buildings would remain there for centuries as inspiration for future students, as warning to enemies of the State.”

To attempt to visualize the true extent of the fiendish treatment of Jews under Schirach, we must look to his activities in the Reichsgau Vienna and to the activities of his assistants, the SS and the Gestapo, in Vienna.

Document Number 1948, Page 63 of your document book, is offered as Exhibit USA-680. You will note it is on the stationery of the last Governor of Vienna.

THE PRESIDENT: Captain Sprecher, I have been reading on in this Document 2441-PS, on Page 96 of the document book. It seems to me you ought to read the next three paragraphs on Page 96 from the place where you left off.


THE PRESIDENT: The second, third, and fourth paragraphs.

CAPT. SPRECHER: “Even as old Heidelberg Castle was evidence that Old Germany had been too weak to resist the invading Frenchmen who destroyed it, so the black remains of the synagogues would be a perpetual monument reminding coming generations of the strength of New Germany.

“He reminded the students that there were still countries which squandered their time and energy with books and wasteful discussions about abstract topics of philosophy and metaphysics. Those days were over. New Germany was a land of action. The other countries were sound asleep.

“But he was in favor of letting them sleep. The more soundly they slumbered, the better opportunity for the men of the Third Reich to prepare for more action. The day would come when German students of Heidelberg would take their places side by side with legions of other students to conquer the world for the ideology of Nazism.”

I was about to refer, Your Honors, to Document Number 1948-PS, which is found at Page 63 of your document book, and which I offer as Exhibit USA-680. This, you will note, is on the stationery of the Reich Governor of Vienna, the Reichsstatthalter in Vienna.

“. . . 7 November 1940.

“Subject: Compulsory labor of able-bodied Jews.

“1. Notice: On 5 November 1940 telephone conversation with Colonel”—Standartenführer—“Huber of the Gestapo. The Gestapo has received secret directions from the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) as to how able-bodied Jews should be drafted for compulsory labor service. Investigations are being made at present by the Gestapo to find out how many able-bodied Jews are still available, in order to make plans for the contemplated mass projects. It is assumed that there are not many more Jews available. If some should still be available, however, the Gestapo has no scruples to use the Jews even for clearing away the destroyed synagogues.

“SS Standartenführer Huber will make a report personally to the Regierungspräsident in this matter.

“I have reported to the Regierungspräsident accordingly. The matter should be kept further in mind.”

The signature is by Dr. Fischer.

I want to call the Court’s attention to the significance of the title Regierungspräsident. The SS Colonel, you will note, was to report to the Regierungspräsident. If you will refer back again to the decree which set up the Reichsgau Vienna, 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 777 (Document 3301-PS), you will find that the Regierungspräsident was Schirach’s personal representative within the governmental administration of Vienna.

Now, it seems to us that this Document Number 1948-PS, which was signed by Fischer, concerning compulsory labor of able-bodied Jews, answers the argument that persons of the rank of Gauleiter were ignorant of the atrocities of the Gestapo and the SS in their own locality. It shows further that even the assistants of the Gau leaders were informed of the details of the persecution projects which were afoot at the time.

Schirach also had concern for, and knowledge of, the housing shortage in Vienna, which was alleviated for some members of the alleged master race who succeeded to the houses of the luckless Jews who were moved into oblivion in Poland.

On December 3, 1940, the conspirator Lammers wrote a letter to Schirach. It is our Document 1950-PS, Page 64 of your document book, and it is offered in evidence as Exhibit USA-681. The letter is very short:

December 1940. . .”

the stationery of the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, and it is marked “secret”:

“To the Reich Governor in Vienna, Gauleiter Von Schirach:

“As Reichsleiter Bormann informs me, the Führer has decided, after receipt of one of the reports made by you, that the 60,000 Jews still residing in the Reichsgau Vienna will be deported most rapidly”—that is, still during the war—“to the Government General, because of the housing shortage prevalent in Vienna. I have informed the Governor General in Kraków, as well as the Reichsführer SS, about this decision of the Führer, and I request you also to take cognizance of it.”—Signed—“Lammers.”

As a last piece of illustrative evidence against this youngest member of the defendants in the dock, I take something from his own lips, which was published for all Vienna and, indeed, for all Germany and the world to know, even at that time. It appears in the Vienna edition of the Völkischer Beobachter, on the 15th of September 1942, Document 3048-PS, your document book, Page 106. It is already in evidence as Exhibit USA-274.

I would like to point out that these words were uttered before the so-called European Youth League in Vienna in 1942. The Tribunal will recall that Schirach was still Reich Leader for Youth Education in the NSDAP at that time:

“Every Jew who exerts influence in Europe is a danger to European culture. If anyone reproaches me with having driven from this city, which was once the European metropolis of Jewry, tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of Jews into the ghetto of the East, I feel myself compelled to reply, ‘I see in this an action contributing to European culture.’ ”

Although Schirach’s principal assistance to the conspiracy was made in his commission of the German youth to the conspirators’ objectives, he also stands guilty of heinous Crimes against Humanity as a Party and governmental administrator of high standing, after the conspiracy had reached its inevitable involvement in wars of aggression.

This completes, Your Honors, the presentation on the individual responsibility of the Defendant Schirach.

The Prosecution will next take up the responsibility of the Defendant Martin Bormann, and the presentation will be made by Lieutenant Lambert.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, as to the various errors made in the case against Schirach, I shall state my position when the Defense has its turn. But I should like to take the opportunity now of pointing out an error in translation in one of the documents. It is in Document 3352-PS.

It is an order of the Reich Chancellery to the subordinate offices, and this order mentions that the labor offices had to be at the disposal of the Gauleiter under certain circumstances. In the German original of this order it reads as follows: “Anregungen und Wünsche.” Now “Anregungen und Wünsche,” that is. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Which page of the document is it?

DR. SAUTER: I think, Page 512 of Document 3352-PS, on Page 117 of the document book.

This German expression “Anregungen und Wünsche” has been translated by “suggestions” (for “Anregungen”) and “demands” (for “Wünsche”).

The first translation, the translation for “Anregungen,” we consider to be correct; but the second translation, namely, “demands” for “Wünsche,” we consider false, because, so far as we know, this word is “Befehle” or “Forderungen” in German. We should consider it correct if the English translation “demands” could be translated by another word, “wishes,” which is an exact translation of the word “Wünsche.” I do not know whether I have pronounced the word correctly in English. That is all I have to say for the time being. Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT (to Captain Sprecher): Do you wish to say anything about that?

CAPT. SPRECHER: I think that Dr. Sauter has made a very good point. I have checked with the translator beside me, Your Honor, and the German word “Wünsche” has been translated too strongly.


LIEUTENANT THOMAS F. LAMBERT, JR. (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution comes now to deal with the Defendant Bormann and to present the proofs establishing his responsibility for the crimes set forth in the Indictment. And, if the Tribunal will allow, we should like to observe on the threshold that because of the absence of the Defendant Bormann from the dock we believe that we should make an extra effort to make a solid record in the case against Bormann, out of fairness to Defense Counsel and for the convenience of the Tribunal.

I offer the document book supporting this trial address as U.S. Exhibit JJ, together with the trial brief against the Defendant Bormann.

The Defendant Bormann bears a major responsibility for promoting the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators, the consolidation of their total power over Germany, and the preparation for aggressive war set forth in Count One of the Indictment.

Upon the Record of this Trial the Nazi Party and its Leadership Corps were the main vehicles of the conspiracy and the fountainhead of the conspiracy.

Now, following the flight of the Defendant Hess to Scotland in May 1941, Bormann became executive chief of the Nazi Party. His official title was Chief of the Party Chancellery. Before that date Bormann was chief of staff to the Defendant Hess, the Deputy to the Führer.

By virtue of these two powerful positions—Chief of the Party Chancellery and Chief of Staff to the Deputy to the Führer—Bormann stands revealed as a principal architect of the conspiracy. Subject only—and we stress—subject only to the supreme authority of Hitler, Bormann engineered and employed the vast powers of the Party, its agencies, and formations, in furtherance of the Nazi conspiracy; and he employed the Party to impose the will of the conspirators upon the German people; and he then directed the powers of the Party in the drive to dominate Europe.

Accordingly, the Defendant Bormann is blameworthy for the multiple crimes of the conspiracy, for the multiple crimes committed by the Party, its agencies, and the German people, in furthering the conspiracy.

It might be helpful to give a very brief sketch of the career in conspiracy of the Defendant Bormann.

Bormann began his conspiratorial activities more than 20 years ago. In 1922, only 22 years of age, he joined the Organization Rossbach, one of the illegal groups which continued the militaristic traditions of the German Army and employed terror against the small struggling pacifist minority in Germany. While he was district leader for this organization in Mecklenburg, he was arrested and tried for his part in a political assassination, which, we suggest, indicates his disposition to use illegal methods to carry out purposes satisfactory to himself. On 15 May 1924 he was found guilty by the State Tribunal for the Protection of the Republic and sentenced to 1 year in prison.

Upon his release from prison in 1925 Bormann resumed his subversive activities. He joined the militarist organization “Frontbann,” and in the same year he joined the Nazi Party and began his ascent to a prominent position in the conspiracy. In 1927 he became press chief for the Party Gau of Thuringia. In other words, relating back to the case against the Leadership Corps, he became an important staff officer of a Gauleiter. On 1 April 1928 he was made District Leader (Bezirksleiter) in Thuringia and business manager for the entire Gau.

We come now to a particularly important point involving Bormann’s tie-up with the SA.

From 15 November 1928 to August 1930 he was on the staff of the Supreme Command of the SA.

Now the Tribunal has heard the demonstration of the criminality of the SA and knows full well that this was a semi-military organization of young men whose main mission was to get control of the streets and to impose terror on oppositional elements of the conspiracy.

Our submission at this stage is that, by virtue of Bormann’s position on the staff of the Supreme Command of the SA, he shares responsibility for the illegal activities of the SA in furtherance of the conspiracy.

In August 1930 Bormann organized the Aid Fund (Hilfskasse) of the Nazi Party, of which he became head. Through this fund he collected large sums for the alleged purpose of aiding the families of Party members who had been killed or injured while fighting for the Party.

As the Tribunal knows, on 30 January 1933 the conspirators and their Party took over the Government of Germany. Shortly thereafter, in July 1933, Bormann was given the number three position in the Party, that of chief of staff to the Defendant Hess, the Deputy to the Führer. At the same time he was made a Reichsleiter; and as the Tribunal knows, that makes him a member of the top level of the alleged illegal organization, the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party.

In November 1933 he was made a member of the Reichstag.

I request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the authoritative German publication The Greater German Reichstag, edition of 1943. The facts which I have recited in the foregoing sketch of Defendant Bormann’s career are set forth on Page 167 of that publication, the English translation of which appears in Document 2981-PS of the document book now before the Tribunal.

With respect to Bormann’s conviction for political murder, I offer in evidence Document 3355-PS, Exhibit USA-682, which is the affidavit of Dr. Robert M. W. Kempner, and I quote therefrom briefly as follows:

“I, Robert M. W. Kempner, an expert consultant of the War Department, appeared before the undersigned attesting officer and, having been duly sworn, stated as follows:

“In my capacity as Superior Government Counsellor and Chief Legal Advisor of the pre-Hitler Prussian Police Administration, I became officially acquainted with the criminal record of Martin Bormann, identical with the Defendant Martin Bormann now under indictment before the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany.

“The official criminal record of Martin Bormann contained the following entry:

“Bormann, Martin, sentenced on May 15, 1924, by the State Tribunal for the Protection of the Republic, in Leipzig, Germany, to 1 year in prison, for having been an accomplice in the commission of a political murder.”—Signed—“Robert M. W. Kempner.”—End of quotation.

THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Lambert, I don’t think it is necessary for you, when dealing with a document of that sort, to read the formal parts. If you state the nature of the document and read the material part, you needn’t deal with the formal parts, for instance, “I, Robert Kempner, an expert consultant,” and all that. Do you understand me?

LT. LAMBERT: Thank you very much, Sir, for a very helpful suggestion.

As Defendant Hess’ chief of staff, Bormann was responsible for receiving and channelling up to the Defendant Hess the demands of the Party in all fields of State action. These demands were then secured by the Defendant Hess by virtue of his participation in the legislative process, his power with respect to the appointment and promotion of government officials, and by virtue of his position in the Reich Cabinet.

I come now, as it seems to us, to an important point, which ties up the Defendant Bormann with the SD and the Gestapo. As chief of staff of the Defendant Hess, Bormann took measures to reinforce the grip of the Gestapo and the SD over the German civil population. I request the Tribunal to notice judicially a Bormann order of 14 February 1935, set forth in the official publication Decrees of the Deputy of the Führer, Edition 1937, Page 257. I quote merely the pertinent portions of that decree, the English version of which is set forth in our Document 3237-PS, which reads as follows. That is our Document 3237-PS.

THE PRESIDENT: If it is a document of which we can take judicial notice, it is sufficient for you to summarize it without reading it.

LT. LAMBERT: I appreciate that, Sir. This quotation is so succinct and so brief that we perhaps could avoid summarization.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, go on.

LT. LAMBERT: “The Deputy to the Führer expects that Party offices will now abandon all distrust of the SD and will support it wholeheartedly in the performance of the difficult tasks with which it has been entrusted for the protection of the Movement and our people.

“Because the work of the SD is primarily to the benefit of the work of the Party, it is inadmissable that its development be upset by uncalled-for attacks when individuals fall short of expectations. On the contrary, it must be wholeheartedly assisted.”—Signed—“Bormann, Chief of Staff to the Deputy to the Führer.”

That is with respect to Bormann’s support of the SD. I deal now with Bormann’s effort to support the work of the Gestapo.

THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant Lambert, wouldn’t it be sufficient to say that document indicates the support Bormann promised to the SD?

LT. LAMBERT: I was anxious merely on one point, Sir, that a document was not in evidence unless it had been quoted.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you began by asking us to take judicial notice of it. If we can take judicial notice of it, it need not be quoted.

LT. LAMBERT: Then, with respect to Bormann’s efforts to reinforce the grip of the Gestapo, I request the Tribunal to notice judicially a Bormann order of 3 September 1935, calling on Party agencies to report to the Gestapo all persons who criticize Nazi institutions or the Nazi Party. This decree appears in the official Party publication Decrees of the Deputy of the Führer, 1937, at Page 190. The English translation is set forth in our Document 3239-PS. I shall summarize the effect of this document shortly. In its first paragraph it refers to a law of 20 December 1934. As the Tribunal will recall, this law gave the same protection to Party institutions and Party uniforms as enjoyed by the State; and in the first and second paragraphs of this decree it is indicated that whenever a case came up involving malicious or slanderous attack on Party members or the Nazi Party or its institutions, the Reich Minister of Justice would consult with the Deputy of the Führer in order to take joint action against the offenders. Then, in the third paragraph, Bormann gives his orders to all Party agencies with respect to reporting to the Gestapo individuals who criticized the Nazi Party or its institutions. I quote merely the last paragraph.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I took down what you said in your first sentence, which was that the document showed that he was ordering that a report should be made to the Gestapo on anyone criticizing the Party. Well, that is sufficient, it seems to me, and all that you said after is cumulative.

LT. LAMBERT: There is, however, one brief point, if I may be permitted, which I should like to emphasize, about the last paragraph, because I think it is helpful to the Prosecution’s case against the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party.

The Tribunal will recall that it asked certain very material questions with respect to whether the Prosecution’s evidence involved the rank and file of the Leadership Corps. In the last paragraph of this decree Bormann instructs the Ortsgruppenleiter—now that is way down in the Leadership Corps hierarchy under Kreisleiter and Gauleiter—to report to the Gestapo persons who criticize Nazi Party institutions.

Now, an important point with respect to the tie-up between Bormann and the SS. The Tribunal has already received the evidence establishing the criminality of the SS. In this connection, I respectfully request the Tribunal to notice judicially the July 1940 issue of Das Archiv, our Document 3234-PS. On Page 399 of that publication, under date 21 July 1940, it is stated that the Führer promoted Defendant Bormann from major general to lieutenant general in the SS. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that Bormann is chargeable and jointly responsible for the criminal activities of the SS.

After the flight of the Defendant Hess to Scotland in May 1941, the Defendant Bormann succeeded him as head of the Nazi Party under Hitler, with the title Chief of the Party Chancellery. I request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of a decree of 24 January 1942, 1942 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 35. In our conception this is an extremely important decree, because by virtue of it the participation of the Party in all legislation and in government appointments and promotions had to be undertaken exclusively by Bormann. He was to take part in the preparation—and we emphasize that—as well as the enactment and promulgation of all Reich laws and enactments; and further, he had to give his assent to all enactments of the Reich Länder—that is, the states—as well as all decrees of the Reich governors. All communications between state and Party officials had to pass through his hands. And, as a result of this law, we respectfully submit, Bormann is chargeable for every enactment issued in Germany after 24 January 1942 which facilitates and furthers the conspiracy.

It will be helpful, I believe, to point out and to request the Court to take judicial notice of a decree of 29 May 1941, 1941 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 295 (Document 2099-PS); in this decree Hitler ordered that Bormann should take over all powers and all offices formerly held by the Defendant Hess. I request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of another very important decree, that of the Ministerial Council for Defense of the Reich, 16 November 1942 . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Are these documents set out in the document book?

LT. LAMBERT: Yes, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: You haven’t given us the reference.

LT. LAMBERT: That is true, Sir. I recall from memory, although I do not have it in my manuscript, that document, that important decree of 24 January 1942, is our Document, I believe, 2100-PS.

I now request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the important decree of the Ministerial Council for Defense of the Reich, dated 16 November 1942, 1942 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 649 (Document JN-5). Under this decree all Gauleiter, who were under Bormann by virtue of his position as Chief of the Party Chancellery, were appointed Reich defense commissars and charged with the co-ordination, supervision, and management of the aggressive Nazi war effort.

From then on the Party, under Bormann, became the decisive force in planning and conducting the aggressive Nazi war economy.

On 12 April 1943, as is shown in the publication The Greater German Reichstag, 1943 edition, Page 167, our Document 2981-PS, Bormann was appointed Secretary of the Führer, and we submit that this fact testifies to the intimacy and influence of the Defendant Bormann with the Führer and enlarges his role in, and responsibility for, the conspiracy.

We now come to the important point of Bormann’s executive responsibility for the acts of the Volkssturm. I request the Tribunal to notice judicially a Führer order of 18 October 1944, which was published in the official Völkischer Beobachter, 20 October 1944 edition, in which Hitler appointed Bormann political and organizational leader of the Volkssturm. This is set forth in our Document 3018-PS. In this decree Himmler is made the military leader of the Volkssturm, but the organizational and political leadership is entrusted to Bormann. The Tribunal will know that the Volkssturm was an organization consisting of all German males between 16 and 60. By virtue of his leadership of the Volkssturm Bormann was instrumental in needlessly prolonging the war, with a consequential destruction of the German and the European economy and a loss of life and destruction of property.

We come now to deal with the responsibility of the Defendant Bormann with respect to persecution of the Church. The Defendant Bormann authorized, directed, and participated in measures involving the persecution of the Christian Church. The Tribunal, of course, has heard much in this proceeding concerning the acts of the conspiracy involving the persecution of the Church. We have no desire now to rehash that evidence. We are interested in one thing alone, and that is nailing on the Defendant Bormann his responsibility, his personal, individual responsibility, for the persecution of the Church.

I shall now present the proofs showing the responsibility of Bormann with respect to such persecution of the Christian churches.

Bormann was among the most relentless enemies of the Christian Church and Christian clergy in Germany and in German-occupied Europe. I refer the Tribunal, without quoting therefrom, to Document D-75, previously introduced in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-348, which contains a copy of the secret Bormann decree of 6 June 1941 entitled “The Relationship of National Socialism to Christianity.” In this decree, as the Tribunal will well recall, Bormann bluntly declared that National Socialism and Christianity were incompatible, and he indicated that the ultimate aim of the conspirators was to assure the elimination of Christianity itself.

I next refer the Tribunal, without quotation, to Document 098-PS, previously put in as Exhibit Number USA-350. This is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 22 February 1940, in which Bormann reaffirms the incompatibility of Christianity and National Socialism.

Now, in furtherance of the conspirators’ aim to undermine the Christian churches, Bormann took measures to eliminate the influence of the Christian Church from within the Nazi Party and its formations. I now offer in evidence Document 113-PS, as Exhibit USA-683. This is an order of the Defendant Bormann, dated 27 July 1938, issued as chief of staff to the Deputy of the Führer, Hess, which prohibits clergymen from holding Party offices. I shall not take the time of the Tribunal to spread this quotation upon the Record. The point of it is, as indicated, that Bormann issued an order forbidding the appointment of clergymen to Party positions.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps this would be a good time to break off for 10 minutes.

[A recess was taken.]

LT. LAMBERT: May it please the Tribunal, we are dealing with the efforts of the Defendant Bormann to expel and exorcise from the Party all church and religious influence.

I offer in evidence Document 838-PS, as Exhibit USA-684. I shall not burden the Record with extensive quotation from this exhibit, but merely point out that this is a copy of a Bormann decree dated 3 June 1939, which laid it down that followers of Christian Science should be excluded from the Party.

The attention of the Tribunal is next invited to Document 840-PS, previously introduced in evidence as Exhibit USA-355. The Tribunal will recall that this was a Bormann decree of 14 July 1939, referring with approval to an earlier Bormann decree of 9 February 1937 in which the Defendant Bormann ruled that in the future all Party members who entered the clergy or who undertook the study of theology were to be expelled from the Party.

I next offer in evidence Document 107-PS, Exhibit USA-351. This is a circular directive of the Defendant Bormann, dated 17 June 1938, addressed to all Reichsleiter and Gauleiter—top leaders of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party—transmitting a copy of directions relating to the non-participation of the Reich Labor Service in religious celebrations. The Reich Labor Service, the Tribunal will recall, compulsorily incorporated all Germans within its organization.

DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD (Counsel for Defendant Bormann): The member of the Prosecution has just submitted a number of documents, in which he proves that, on the suggestion of Bormann, members of the Christian religion were to be excluded from the Party or from certain organizations. I beg the High Tribunal to allow the member of the Prosecution to explain to me how and why this activity, that is, the exclusion of Christians from the Party, can be a War Crime. I cannot gather this evidence from the trial brief. The Party is described as criminal—as a conspiracy. Is it a crime to exclude certain people from membership in a criminal conspiracy? Is that considered a crime? How and why is the exclusion of certain members from the Party a crime?

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will answer you.

LT. LAMBERT: If the Tribunal will willingly accommodate argument at this stage, we find that the question. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Only short argument.

LT. LAMBERT: Yes, Sir. . . . admits of a short, and, as it seems to us, an easy answer.

The point we are now trying to prove—and evidence is abounding on it—is that Bormann had a hatred and an enmity and took oppositional measures towards the Christian Church. The Party was the repository of political power in Germany. To have power one had to be in the Party or subject to its favor. By his efforts, concerted, continuing, and consistent, to exclude clergymen, theological students, or any persons sympathetic to the Christian religion, Bormann could not have chosen a clearer method of showing and demonstrating his hatred and his distrust of the Christian religion and those who supported it.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Bormann can present his argument upon this subject at a later stage. The documents appear to the Tribunal to be relevant.

LT. LAMBERT: With the Tribunal’s permission, I had just put in Document 107-PS and pointed out that it transmitted directions relating to the non-participation of the Reich Labor Service in religious celebrations. I quote merely the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Page 1 of the English translation of Document 107-PS, which reads as follows:

“All religious discussion is forbidden in the Reich Labor Service because it disturbs the comrade-like union of all working men and women.

“For this reason also any participation of the Reich Labor Service in church, that is, confessional, services and celebrations is impossible.”

The attention of the Tribunal is next invited to Document 070-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA-349. The Tribunal will recall that this was a letter from Bormann’s office to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 25 April 1941, in which Bormann declared that he had achieved progressive success in reducing and abolishing religious services in schools and in replacing Christian prayers with National Socialist mottoes and rituals. In this letter Bormann also proposed a Nazified morning service in the schools in place of the existing confession and morning service.

In his concerted efforts to undermine and subvert the Christian churches, Bormann authorized, directed, and participated in measures leading to the closing, reduction, and suppression of theological schools, faculties, and institutions. The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document 116-PS, Exhibit Number USA-685, which I offer in evidence. This is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 24 January 1939, enclosing for Rosenberg’s cognizance a copy of Bormann’s letter to the Reich Minister for Science, Education, and Popular Culture. In the enclosed letter Bormann informs the Minister as to the Party’s position in favor of restricting and suppressing theological faculties. Bormann states that, owing to war conditions, it had become necessary to reorganize the German high schools and, in view of this situation, he requested the Minister to restrict and suppress certain theological faculties.

I now quote from the first paragraph on Page 3 of the English translation of Document 116-PS, which reads as follows:

“I therefore should like to see you put the theological faculties under substantial limitations, where, for the above reasons, they cannot be entirely eliminated. This will apply not only to the theological faculties at universities but also to the various state institutions which, as seminaries having no affiliation with any university, still exist in many places.

“I request that no express explanations be given to churches or other institutions and that public announcement of these measures be avoided. Complaints and the like are to be answered if at all, with the explanation that these measures are carried out in the course of planned economy and that the same is happening to other faculties.

“I would be glad if the professorial chairs thus made vacant could then be turned over especially to those fields of research newly created in recent years, such as racial research, archeology, et cetera, Martin Bormann.”

In our submission, what this document comes to is a request from Bormann to this effect: Please close down the religious faculties and substitute in their place Nazi faculties and university chairs with the mission of investigating racism, cultism, Nazi archeology. This sort of thing was done in the Hohe Schule, as was so clearly demonstrated in the Prosecution’s case against the plundering activities of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg.

The attention of the Tribunal is next invited to Document 122-PS, previously put in as Exhibit Number USA-362. The Tribunal will recall that 122-PS is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 17 April 1939, transmitting to Rosenberg a photostatic copy of the plan of the Reich Minister of Science, Education, and Popular Culture for the combining and dissolving of certain specified theological faculties. In his letter of transmittal Bormann requested Rosenberg to take “cognizance and prompt action” with respect to the proposed suppression of religious institutions.

I next offer in evidence Document 123-PS, Exhibit USA-686. This is a confidential letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Minister of Education, dated 23 June 1939, in which Bormann sets forth the Party’s decision to order the suppression of numerous theological faculties and religious institutions. The Tribunal will note that the letter lists 19 separate religious institutions with respect to which Bormann ordered dissolution or restriction.

After directing the action to be taken by the Minister in connection with the various theological faculties, Bormann stated as follows—and I quote from the next to last paragraph of Page 3 of the English translation of Document 123-PS:

“In the above I have informed you of the Party’s wishes, after thorough investigation of the matter with all Party offices. I should be grateful if you would initiate the necessary measures as quickly as possible. With regard to the great political significance which every single case of such a consolidation will have for the Gau concerned, I ask you to take these measures and particularly to fix dates for them always in agreement with me.”

I next offer in evidence, without quotation, Document 131-PS as Exhibit USA-687. In summary, without quotation therefrom, this is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 12 December 1939, relating to the suppression of seven professorships in the near-by University of Munich.

Now I deal briefly with the responsibility of Bormann for the confiscation of religious property and cultural property. Bormann used his paramount power and position to cause the confiscation of religious property and to subject the Christian churches and clergy to a discriminatory legal regime.

I offer in evidence Document 099-PS, Exhibit USA-688. This is a copy of a letter from Bormann to the Reich Minister for Finance, dated 19 January 1940, in which Bormann demanded a great increase in the special war tax imposed on the churches. I quote from the first two paragraphs of Page 2 of the English translation of Document 099-PS, which read as follows:

“As it has been reported to me, the war contribution of the churches for the 3-month period beginning 1 November 1939 has been tentatively set at RM 1,800,000 per month, of which RM 1 million are to be paid by the Protestant Church, and RM 800,000 by the Catholic Church.

“The fixing of such a low amount has surprised me. I see from numerous reports that political communities are obliged to raise such a large war contribution that the performance of their tasks—some of them very important; for example, in the field of public welfare—is endangered. In view of this, a higher quota also from the churches appears to me to be absolutely justified.”

The question may arise: Of what criminal effect is it to demand larger taxes from church institutions? As to this demand of Bormann’s taken by itself, the Prosecution would not suggest that it had criminal effect, but when viewed within the larger frame of Bormann’s demonstrated hostility to the Christian Church and his efforts not merely to circumscribe but to eliminate it, we suggest that this document has probative value in showing Bormann’s hostility and his concrete measures to effectuate that hostility against the Christian churches and clergy.

I next refer the Tribunal to Document 089-PS, previously put in as Exhibit Number USA-360. The Tribunal will recall that this was a letter from Bormann to Reichsleiter Amann, dated 8 March 1940, in which Bormann instructed Amann, Reichsleiter of the Press, to make a sharper restriction in paper distribution against religious writings in favor of publications more acceptable to the Nazi ideology.

I next offer in evidence Document 066-PS, as Exhibit USA-689. This is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 24 June 1940, transmitting a draft of a proposed discriminatory church law for Danzig and West Prussia. This decree is a direct abridgment of religious freedom, for in Paragraph 1—I do not quote, but briefly and rapidly summarize—the approval of the Reich deputy for Danzig and West Prussia is required as a condition for the legal competence of all religious organizations.

Paragraph 3 of the decree suspended all claims of religious organizations and congregations to state or municipal subsidies and prohibited religious organizations from exercising their right of collecting dues without the approval of the Reich deputy.

In Paragraph 5 of the decree the acquisition of property by religious organizations was made subject to the approval of the Reich deputy. All credit rights acquired by religious organizations prior to 1 January 1940 were required to be ratified by the Reich Deputy in order to become actionable.

I now offer in evidence Document 1600-PS, Exhibit USA-690. This comprises correspondence of Bormann during 1940 and 1941 relating to the confiscation of religious art treasures. I quote the text of the second letter set forth on Page 1 of the English translation of Document 1600-PS, which is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to Dr. Posse of the State Picture Gallery in Dresden, dated 16 January 1941, which reads as follows, and I quote:

“Dear Dr. Posse:

“Enclosed herewith I am sending you the pictures of the altar from the convent in Hohenfurth near Krumau. The convent and its entire property will be confiscated in the immediate future because of the subversive attitude of its inmates toward the State.

“It would be up to you to decide whether the pictures are to remain in the convent at Hohenfurth or are to be transferred to the museum at Linz after its completion.

“I shall await your opinion in the matter. Bormann.”

The Tribunal may know that, in what is described as Hitler’s last will and testament, he makes a bequest of all the art treasures he had in the museum at Linz, and from a legal point of view he uses the euphemism “art treasures which I have bought.” This document, on its face, suggests how at least certain of the properties, the art treasures in the museum at Linz, were acquired.

Finally, as the war drew increasing numbers of German youth into the Armed Forces, the Defendant Bormann took measures to exclude and exorcise all religious influence from the troops. The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document 101-PS, previously put in as Exhibit Number USA-361. The Tribunal will recall that this is a letter from the Defendant Bormann, dated 17 January 1940, in which Bormann pronounced the Party’s opposition to the circulation of religious literature to the members of the German Armed Forces. In this letter Bormann stated that if the influence of the church upon the troops was to be effectively fought, this could only be done by producing, in the shortest possible time, a large amount of Nazi pamphlets and publications.

I now offer in evidence Document 100-PS, as Exhibit Number USA-691. This is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to Rosenberg, dated 18 January 1940, in which Bormann declares that the publication of Nazi literature for army recruits as a counter measure to the circulation of religious writings was the “most essential demand of the hour.”

I forbear quoting from that document. Its substance is indicated.

I now request the Tribunal to notice judicially the authoritative Nazi publication entitled Decrees of the Deputy of the Führer, edition of 1937; and I quote from Page 235 of this volume the pertinent and important decree issued by the Defendant Bormann to the Commissioner of the Party Directorate, dated 7 January 1936, the English version of which is set forth in the English translation of our Document 3246-PS. In this one sentence Bormann aims and directs the terror of the Gestapo against dissident church members who crossed the conspirators, and I quote:

“If parish priests or other subordinate Roman Catholic leaders adopt an attitude of hostility toward the State or Party, it shall be reported to the Secret State Police”—Gestapo—“through official channels.”—Signed—“Bormann.”

By leave of the Tribunal, I come now to deal with the responsibility of the Defendant Bormann for the persecution of the Jews.

Again, the Prosecution seeks not to rehash the copious evidence in the Record on the persecution of the Jews but rather to limit itself to evidence fastening on the Defendant Bormann his individual responsibility for the persecution of the Jews. Bormann shares the deep guilt of the Nazi conspirators for their odious program in the persecution of the Jews. It was the Defendant Bormann, we would note, who was charged by Hitler with the transmission and implementation of the Führer’s orders for the liquidation of the so-called Jewish problem.

Following the Party-planned and Party-directed program of 8 and 9 November 1938, in the course of which a large number of Jews were killed and harmed, Jewish shops pillaged and wrecked, and synagogues set ablaze all over the Reich, the Defendant Bormann, on orders from Hitler, instructed the Defendant Göring to proceed to the “final settlement of the Jewish question” in Germany.

The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document 1816-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA-261. The Tribunal is well acquainted with this document. It has frequently been referred to. The Tribunal knows that Document 1816-PS is the minutes of a conference on the Jewish question, held under the direction of Göring on the 12th of November 1938. 1 quote only the first sentence of Document 1816-PS, which fastens the responsibility upon Bormann and which reads as follows:

“Göring: ‘Gentlemen, today’s meeting is of a decisive nature. I have received a letter written on the Führer’s orders by the Chief of Staff of the Führer’s Deputy, Bormann, requesting that the Jewish question be now, once and for all, co-ordinated and solved in one way or another.’ ”

The Tribunal is well aware of the proposals, the discussions, and the actions taken in this conference that constituted the so-called “settlement of the Jewish question.”

As a result of this conference a series of anti-Jewish decrees and measures were issued and adopted by the Nazi conspirators. I offer in evidence Document 069-PS, Exhibit USA-589. This is a decree of Bormann, dated 17 January 1939, in which Bormann demands compliance with the new anti-Jewish regulations stemming and flowing from the Göring conference just referred to, under which Jews were denied access to housing, travel, and other facilities of ordinary life. I quote the Bormann order, which appears at Page 1 of the English translation of Document 069-PS, which reads as follows:

“According to a report of General Field Marshal Göring, the Führer has made some basic decisions regarding the Jewish question. The decisions are brought to your attention in the enclosure. Strict compliance with these directives is requested.”—Signed—“Bormann.”

In the interests of expediting the proceedings, I shall resist the temptation to quote extensively from the enclosed order in Bormann’s letter of transmittal. In effect, the crux of it is that Jews are denied sleeping compartments in trains, the right to give their trade to certain hotels in Berlin, Munich, Nuremberg, Augsburg, and the like. They are banned and excluded from swimming pools, certain public squares, resort towns, mineral baths, and the like. The stigma, the degradation, and the inconvenience in the ordinary affairs of life promoted by this decree are plain.

I next request the Tribunal to notice judicially the decree of 12 November 1938, 1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 1580 (Document JN-6), quite familiar to this Tribunal, for it was the decree which excluded Jews from economic life. This decree forbade Jews to operate retail shops, and it was a decree which went far to eliminate Jews from economic life.

Now Bormann also acted through other state agencies to wipe out the economic existence of large sections of the Jewish population. In that respect I request the Tribunal to notice judicially the authoritative Nazi publication entitled Decrees of the Deputy of the Führer, edition of 1937, our Document 3240-PS. At Page 383 of this publication there appears a decree of the Defendant Bormann, dated 8 January 1937, reproducing an order of the Defendant Frick, issued at Bormann’s instigation, denying financial assistance to government employees who employed the services of Jewish doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, morticians, and other professional classes. I shall forbear from quoting the text of that decree. Its substance is as given.

If it please the Tribunal, for the benefit of the translators I shall continue reading from Page 25 of the manuscript.

After the outbreak of war the anti-Jewish measures increased in intensity and brutality. Thus, the Defendant Bormann participated in the arrangements for the deportation to Poland of 60,000 Jewish inhabitants of Vienna, in co-operation with the SS and the Gestapo. I have no doubt that the Tribunal received this document in connection with the case against Von Schirach; it is our Document 1950-PS, and on its face it points out, and Lammers says: Bormann has informed Von Schirach of your proposal to bring about the deportations. I limit myself to pointing out that single, solitary fact.

When Bormann succeeded the Defendant Hess as Chief of the Party Chancellery, he used his vast powers in such a way that he was a prime mover in the program of starvation, degradation, spoliation, and extermination of the Jews—and we use those terms advisedly—subject to the Draconian rule of the conspirators.

I request the Tribunal to notice judicially the decree of 31 May 1941, 1941 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 297, which was signed by the Defendant Bormann and which extends the discriminatory Nuremberg laws into the annexed Eastern territories. I request the Tribunal to notice judicially the 11th ordinance under the Reich citizenship law of 25 November 1941, 1941 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 722, signed by Defendant Bormann, which ordered the confiscation of the property of all Jews who had left Germany or who had been deported.

I request the Tribunal to notice judicially an order of Bormann’s dated 23 October 1941. . .

THE PRESIDENT: You have not given us the PS numbers of either the decree of 31 of May 1941 or the one after that.

LT. LAMBERT: I confess dereliction of duty there. These decrees, in translated form, are all in the document book. I do not have, in my manuscript, their PS citation. However, in the brief now filed with or soon to be delivered to the Tribunal, these decrees are given with their PS numbers opposite.

THE PRESIDENT: 3354-PS and 3241-PS.

LT. LAMBERT: That is very good of you, Sir. Thank you.

I request the Tribunal to notice judicially an order of the Defendant Bormann, dated 23 October 1942, Volume II of the publication Decrees, Regulations, Announcements, Page 147. This is our document, I rejoice to be able to say, 3243-PS, which announces a Ministry of Food decree, issued at Bormann’s instigation, which deprived Jews of many essential food items, all special sickness and pregnancy rations for expectant mothers and ordered confiscation of food parcels sent to the beleaguered Jews from the sympathetic outside world.

I now request the Tribunal to notice judicially the 13th ordinance under the Reich citizenship law of 1 July 1943, 1943 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 372, signed by the Defendant Bormann, under which all Jews were completely withdrawn from the protection of the ordinary courts and handed over to the exclusive jurisdiction of Himmler’s police. This is our Document 1422-PS.

With leave of the Tribunal, we respectfully request the opportunity to underline the significance of that decree. In a society which desires to live under the rule of law, men are judged only after appearance before, and adjudication by, a court of law. The effect of this decree was to remove all alleged Jewish offenders from the jurisdiction of the courts of law and to turn them over to the police. The police were to have jurisdiction over alleged Jewish offenders, not the tribunal of law.

The result of this law was soon forthcoming, a result for which the Defendant Bormann shares the responsibility. On July 3, 1943, Himmler issued a decree, our Document 3085-PS, 1943 Ministry of Interior Gazette, Page 1085. I respectfully request the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this decree, which charged the Himmler police and Gestapo with the execution of the foregoing ordinance closing the courts to the Jews and entrusting them to Himmler’s police.

Finally, with respect to Bormann’s responsibility for the persecution of the Jews, I request the Tribunal to notice judicially a decree of Bormann’s, dated 9 October 1942, Volume II, Decrees, Regulations, Announcements, Pages 131, 132. It declared that the problem of eliminating forever millions of Jews from Greater German territory could no longer be solved by emigration merely, but only by the application of ruthless force in special camps in the East.

THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What are you referring to there?

LT. LAMBERT: That, Sir, is Document 3244-PS.

We had desired at the outset, Sir, to quote this decree in full as an irrefutable answer to a question put by Defense Counsel some days ago in cross-examination, as to whether or not anti-Semitic policies of the conspirators were the policies merely of certain demented or deviational members of the conspiracy and not the concerted, settled policy of the conspiracy itself. Time does not permit the full quotation of this decree, but with the indulgence of the Tribunal, if I may offer the essence of this decree in a brief sentence or two.

Bormann starts out in this decree by saying: Recently rumors have been stimulated throughout the Reich as to “ ‘violent things’ we are doing with respect to the Jews.” These rumors are being brought back to the Reich by our returning soldiers who have eye-witnessed them in the East. If we are to combat the effect of these rumors, then our attitude, as I now outline it to you officially, must be communicated to the German civil population. Bormann then reviews what he terms “the two-thousand-year-old struggle against Judaism,” and he divides the Party’s program into two spheres: the first, the effort of the Party and the conspirators to excommunicate and expel the Jews from the economic and social life of Germany. Then he adds: When we started rolling with our war, this measure by itself was not enough; we had to resort to forced emigration and set up our camps in the East. He then goes on to say that: As our armies have advanced in the East, we have overrun the lands to which we have sent the Jews, and now these emigration measures, our second proposal, are no longer sufficient.

Then he comes to the proposal, the considered proposal of himself and the Party Chancellery: We must transport these Jews eastward and farther eastward and place them in special camps for forced labor. I quote now merely the last sentence of Bormann’s decree:

“It lies in the very nature of the matter that these problems, which in part are very difficult, can be solved only with ruthless severity in the interest of the final security of our people.”—Bormann.

With leave of the Tribunal, I come now to deal. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Is it signed by Bormann? It does not appear to be. I thought you said, “Bormann.”

LT. LAMBERT: That is what I said, true, Sir.

If the Tribunal will refer, as it has, to Document 3244-PS, it is clear that this is a Bormann decree, issued from the Office of the Deputy to the Führer. It is true in this translation of the decree, Sir, Bormann’s name is not affixed; but in the original volume it is very clear that this is a decree of Bormann’s, issued from the Party Chancellery. The Prosecution so assures the Tribunal and accepts responsibility for that submission.

With leave of the Tribunal, I now come to deal with the responsibility of the Defendant Bormann for overt acts, for the commission and planning of a wide variety of crimes in furtherance of the conspiracy. The Tribunal knows the vast powers that Bormann possessed; that has already been put in evidence. Our point is that he used these vast powers, buttressed by his position as secretary to the Führer attending all the conferences at the Führer’s headquarters, in the planning, the authorization, and the participation in overt acts denominated War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document L-221, previously put in as Exhibit USA-317. The Tribunal knows that this document is a comprehensive report, dated 16 July 1941, made by the Defendant Bormann just 3 weeks after the invasion of the territory of the Soviet Union by Germany. It is a report of a 20-hour conference at Hitler’s field headquarters with the Defendants Göring, Rosenberg, Keitel, and with Reich Minister Lammers. This conference resulted in the adoption of detailed plans and directives for the enslavement, depopulation, Germanization, and annexation of extensive territories in the Soviet Union and other countries of eastern Europe.

In his report on this conference, set forth in Document L-221, Bormann included numerous proposals of his own for the execution of these plans.

Later the Defendant Bormann took a prominent part in implementing the conspiratorial program. The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document 072-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA-357. The Tribunal will recall that this is a letter from the Defendant Bormann to the Defendant Rosenberg, dated 19 April 1941, dealing with the confiscation of cultural property in the East. I quote merely the last two paragraphs of the English translation of Document 072-PS, which reads as follows:

“The Führer emphasized that in the Balkans the use of your experts”—I parenthetically insert that that is the experts of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg organization, the plundering organization—“the use of your experts would not be necessary, since there were no art objects to be confiscated. In Belgrade, only the collection of Prince Paul existed, which would be returned to him completely. The remaining material of the lodges, et cetera, would be seized by the men of SS Gruppenführer Heydrich.

“The libraries and art objects of the monasteries confiscated in the Reich were to remain for the time being in these monasteries, insofar as the Gauleiter had not determined otherwise. After the war, a careful examination of the stock could be undertaken. Under no circumstances, however, should a centralization of all the libraries be undertaken . . . .”—Signed—“Bormann.”

I now offer in evidence Document 061-PS, Exhibit USA-692. This is a secret letter from Bormann, dated 11 January 1944, in which Bormann discloses—and we stress this, very important as it seems to us—the existence of large-scale operations to drain off commodities from German-occupied Europe for delivery to the bombed-out population in Germany. The Tribunal knows that the Hague Regulations and the laws of war permit the requisitioning of goods and services only for the use of the Army of Occupation and for the needs of the administration of the area. This proposal and this action represent the requisitioning of materials in occupied areas for the use of the folk at home—of the home front.

I now quote the first two paragraphs of the English translation—Bormann’s letter of 11 January 1944, set forth in the English translation of our Document 061-PS, which reads as follows:

“Since the supply of textiles and household goods for the bombed population is becoming increasingly difficult, the proposition was made repeatedly to effect purchases in the occupied territories in greater proportions. Various Gauleiter proposed to let these purchases be handled by suitable private merchants who know these districts and have corresponding connections.

“I have brought these proposals to the attention of the Reich Minister of Economics and am quoting his reply of 16 December 1943 on account of its fundamental importance:

“ ‘I consider it an especially important task to make use of the economic power of the occupied territories for the Reich. You are aware of the fact that, since the occupation of the Western territories, the buying out of these countries has been effected to the greatest extent possible. Raw materials, semi-finished products, and stocks in finished goods have been rolling into Germany for months; valuable machines were sent to our armaments industry. Everything was done at that time to increase our armament potentialities. Later on, the shipments of these important economic goods were replaced by the so-called transfer of orders from industry to industry.’ ”

I shall end the quotation there. The rest is not material to the point.

In the course of the war—and this is of utmost importance in the view of the Prosecution. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Is it clear that that was confiscation?

LT. LAMBERT: It was not suggested, Sir, that this was confiscation. Our point was that the Hague regulations allow requisitions in return for payment only for the needs of the army of occupation and for the needs of administration of the occupied area. This represents, as it seems to us, a requisitioning program for the needs of the home front. It is on that point that we offer it.

We come now to what the Prosecution considers a most important point against the Defendant Bormann. In the course of the war Bormann issued a series of orders establishing Party jurisdiction over the treatment of prisoners of war, especially when employed as forced labor.

The Tribunal knows that, under the Geneva Convention of 1929 relating to prisoners of war, prisoners of war are the captives, not of the troops who take them or even of the army which captures them, but of the capturing power; and it is the capturing power which has jurisdiction over and responsibility for them.

By the series of decrees now to be put in, Bormann asserts and establishes Nazi Party jurisdiction over Allied prisoners of war. In the exercise of that Party jurisdiction he called for excessively harsh and brutal treatment of Allied prisoners of war.

I now offer in evidence Document 232-PS as Exhibit USA-693. This is a decree of the Defendant Bormann, dated 13 September 1944, addressed—will the Tribunal please note—to all Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and Kreisleiter, and leaders of the Nazi affiliated organizations—numerous levels, that is, of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party—a decree establishing Nazi Party jurisdiction over the use of prisoners of war for forced labor.

I quote the first three paragraphs of Bormann’s order, set forth on Page 1 of the English translation of Document 232-PS, which reads as follows:

“The regulations valid until now on the treatment of prisoners of war and the tasks of the guard units are no longer justified in view of the demands of the total war effort.”

The Prosecution would intrude to ask the question: Since when do the exigencies of the war effort repeal or modify the provisions of international law?

“Therefore, the OKW, on my suggestion issued the regulation, a copy of which is enclosed.

“The following observations are made on its contents:

“1. The understanding exists between the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces and myself that the co-operation of the Party in the commitment of prisoners of war is inevitable. Therefore, the officers assigned to the prisoner-of-war organization have been instructed to co-operate most closely with the Hoheitsträger. The commandants of the prisoner-of-war camps have immediately to detail liaison officers to the Kreisleiter.

“Thus the opportunity will be afforded the Hoheitsträger to alleviate existing difficulties locally, to exercise influence on the behavior of guards units”—and this is the point we underline—“and better to assimilate the commitment of prisoners of war to the political and economic demands.”

Will the Tribunal permit me to observe that on the face of this order, addressed to Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and Kreisleiter, and so to the officials of the Leadership Corps, in the terms of the order itself Hoheitsträger are referred to as co-operating media in this scheme.

The Tribunal has graciously given me an opportunity to observe that this decree is addressed to Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, and to the leaders of the affiliated and controlled Nazi organizations. As the Tribunal knows, within the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party the Kreisleiter is a pretty low level. That is a county leader. On the face of the decree itself the co-operation of the Hoheitsträger is directed—and the Tribunal knows, under the evidence presented against the Leadership Corps, that Hoheitsträger range all the way from the Reichsleiter on the top—down to and including the 500,000 or so Blockleiter implicated.

I next offer in evidence Document D-163 as Exhibit USA-694. This is a letter of the Defendant Bormann, dated 5 November 1941, addressed—the Tribunal will please note—to all Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and Kreisleiter (the last just mere county leaders), transmitting to these officials of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party the instructions of the Reich Minister of the Interior prohibiting decent burials with religious ceremonies for Russian prisoners of war. I quote the pertinent portions of these instructions, beginning with the next to the last sentence of Page 1 of the English translation of D-163, which reads as follows:

“To save costs, service departments of the Army will generally be contacted regarding transport of corpses (furnishing of vehicles) whenever possible. No coffins will be indented for the transfer and burial. The body will be completely enveloped with strong paper (if possible, oil, tar, asphalt paper) or other suitable material. Transfer and burial is to be carried out unobtrusively. If a number of corpses have to be disposed of, the burial will be carried out in a communal grave. In this case, the bodies will be buried side by side (not on top of each other) and in accordance with the local custom regarding depth of graves. Where a graveyard is the place of burial a distant part will be chosen.

“No”—we repeat—“No burial ceremony or decoration of graves will be allowed.”

I now offer in evidence Document 228-PS, Exhibit USA-695. This is a Bormann circular, dated 25 November 1943, issued from the headquarters of the Führer, demanding harsher treatment of prisoners of war and the increased exploitation of their manpower. I now quote the Bormann circular which is set forth on Page 1 of the English translation of Document 228-PS, which reads as follows:

“Individual Gau administrations often refer in reports to a too indulgent treatment of prisoners of war on the part of the guard personnel. In many places, according to these reports, the guarding authorities have even developed into protectors and caretakers of the prisoners of war.

“I informed the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces of these reports, with the comment that the productive German working population absolutely cannot understand it if, in a time when the German people is fighting for existence or nonexistence, prisoners of war—hence our enemies—are leading a better life than the German working man and that it is an urgent duty of every German who has to do with prisoners of war, to bring about a complete utilization of their manpower.

“The chief of prisoner-of-war affairs in the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces has now given the unequivocal order, attached hereto in copy form, to the commanders of prisoners of war in the military districts. I request that this order be brought orally to the attention of all Party office holders in the appropriate manner.

“In case that in the future, complaints about unsuitable treatment of prisoners of war still come to light, they are to be immediately communicated to the commanders of the prisoners of war with a reference to the attached order.”

The Tribunal will note, of course, that on the face of the decree Bormann instructs that these orders be communicated orally to all Party officials and that surely must include the members of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party.

THE PRESIDENT: Speaking for myself, I don’t see anything particularly wrong in that communication.

LT. LAMBERT: On that point, Sir, we submit that if you take a document which says, “We wish to utilize all the labor power of prisoners of war in our control possible and to get this result by suitable means,” probably it tends to appear unexceptional. But viewing this document in relation to the other evidence in, and to be presented, which show a concerted and settled policy by Bormann and his co-conspirators to. . .

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it isn’t necessary to argue it.

LT. LAMBERT: Yes, Sir. Thank you, Sir.

The attention of the Tribunal is invited to Document 656-PS, previously put in as Exhibit USA-339. The Tribunal will recall that this is a secret Bormann circular transmitting instructions of the Nazi High Command of 29 January 1943, providing for the enforcement of labor demands on Allied prisoners of war through the use of weapons and corporal punishment. I quote a brief excerpt from these instructions, beginning with the third sentence of the third numbered paragraph of Page 2 of the English translation of Document 656-PS, which reads