4000bce - 399
400 - 1399
1400 - 1499
1500 - 1599
1600 - 1699
1700 - 1799
1800 - 1899
1900 - 1999
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 now 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."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
9 Jan. 46
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 Fuehrer) suggested, particularly with regard to Italy, that Prince Paul clarify his political attitude towards the Axis by a gesture. Me 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
9 Jan. 46
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
9 Jan. 46
defendant, in a note to the Prime Minister Cvetkovic-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'etat 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 Goering "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
9 Jan. 46
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 Brautigam, 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
9 Jan. 46
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.
9 Jan. 46
"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 cooperation 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 wit be concentrated against Japan.
9 Jan. 46
"'As Fuehrer 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
9 Jan. 46
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
"'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 Fuehrer 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
9 Jan. 46
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."
9 Jan. 46
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 Fuehrer's headquarters on the 6th of June 1944. If I might read the first paragraph:
"Obergruppenfuehrer 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
9 Jan. 46
Defendant Goering "the Reich Foreign Minister"-the Defendant Von Ribbentrop "and the Reichsfuehrer SS.V-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.
9 Jan. 46
"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 Of 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 Of Office is basically in agreement with the proposed measures.
9 Jan. 46
"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 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
9 Jan. 46
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 de&cd 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 Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer. The only part which I would like the Tribunal to have in mind is Article 5 and Subarticle 2:
9 Jan. 46
"2. The Reich Protector, as representative of the Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer 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
9 Jan. 46
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 of 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 Of 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,'
9 Jan. 46
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 aIl 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 Krakow 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.
9 Jan. 46
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
9 Jan. 46
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 personliche Verantwortlichkeit des Angeklagten Frank fur Verbrechen gegen den Frieden, fur 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
9 Jan. 46
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.
9 Jan. 46
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.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
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.
9 Jan. 46
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
9 Jan. 46
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 practicably 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 1 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
9 Jan. 46
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?
HERR BOEHM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
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.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
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
9 Jan. 46
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 Fuehrer in such a manner that: He promoted the military preparations for war set forth in Count One...."
If I may read it shortly the 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 Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer, 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
9 Jan. 46
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 Fuehrer has stated that the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty and the Locarno Pact regarding the demilitarized zone are being observed. To the aide-memoire of the French charge 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,
9 Jan. 46
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. How, 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.
9 Jan. 46
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.]
9 Jan. 46
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 Grun" 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 Fuehrer met alone, showing the intimate connection between Keitel and the Fuehrer. 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."
9 Jan. 46
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 Fuehrer 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,
9 Jan. 46
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 wit 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 St Staff were in the field.
9 Jan. 46
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 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 Fuehrer was still looking for an excuse for the "Weser" operations. That is the 13th of March, My Lord, 1809-PS:
"The Fuehrer does not give the order yet for Weser. He is still looking for an excuse."
And then, on the 14th of March, "Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer 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
9 Jan. 46
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's, 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 Fuehrer 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.
9 Jan. 46
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 Fuehrer's decree of 13 May 1941" that is C-50, the Barbarossa decree "in the communication mentioned above:
"a) All of flees 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
9 Jan. 46
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 Fuehrer'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 Fuehrer'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 Fuehrer 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
9 Jan. 46
January 1944. My Lord, the heading is "Be: 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 Of lice. In five cases members of the British Armed Forces were arrested as participants. Thereupon they were shot in compliance with the order from the Fuehrer. 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 of lice copy which is the original.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no actual signature?
MR. ROBERTS: No.
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 Eichstatt 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,
9 Jan. 46
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 Fuehrer'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.
9 Jan. 46
"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 Fuehrer's headquarters, 9 January 1944. The Chief of OKW has handed the Deputy Chief" that ought to be WSt, 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 Fuehrer'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
9 Jan. 46
see that he at any rate signed and circulated an infamous order of the Fuehrer 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
9 Jan. 46
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 2865-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 Fuehrer 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 Volkische 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 Fuehrer for the supervision of the ideological education of the NSDAP, the German labor front, and all related organizations."
9 Jan. 46
The Document 2865-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 Honors 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
9 Jan. 46
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
9 Jan. 46
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 antireligious 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 2865-PS, which I offer as Exhibit Number USA-595.
9 Jan. 46
This is an excerpt from the Volkischer 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 OO1-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
9 Jan. 46
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 Fuehrer'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 Fuehrer's delegate are described as follows:
"The sphere of activity of the Fuehrer'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 Fuehrer'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:
9 Jan. 46
"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 Fuehrer'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 Fuehrer'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;
9 Jan. 46
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.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. BRUDNO: Your Honors will recall that it was in his capacity as Fuehrer'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....
9 Jan. 46
The National Socialist movement, and beyond that, the entire German people will be deeply gratified that the Fuehrer 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 Bucher 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 Fuehrer'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
9 Jan. 46
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 Fuehrer 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 of 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. Of 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 Fuehrer, the Fuehrer'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
9 Jan. 46
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."
"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 of office Julius Gombos, 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...."
9 Jan. 46
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 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.
9 Jan. 46
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 of 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
9 Jan. 46
good time. By bringing continuing influence to bear, the of 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
9 Jan. 46
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 cooperation 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
9 Jan. 46
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 win 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
9 Jan. 46
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 Fuehrer 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 Fuehrer'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 Goering's Green Folder, already in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-320.
9 Jan. 46
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 Fuehrer 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:
9 Jan. 46
"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."
9 Jan. 46
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.
9 Jan. 46
"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
9 Jan. 46
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.
9 Jan. 46
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.]
|Nuremberg Trials Page||Volume 5 Menu|