Nuremberg Trial – The Fourth Day
Friday, 23rd November, 1945
DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for the defendant Keitel): Mr. President, you advised the defence in yesterday’s session that they should at once, at this stage of the trial, raise objections if they believe they have any against the documentary evidence introduced by the Prosecution.
The Chief Prosecutor introduced in Court yesterday a graphic presentation concerning the Reich Ministries and other bureaux and offices at the highest level of the German government. My client is of the opinion that this presentation is erroneous in the following respects which concern his own person:
(1) A Reich Defence Council has never existed. The Reich Defence Law, which foresaw a Reich Defence Council in the event of war, has never been published; a session of a Reich Defence Council has never taken place. For this reason, the defendant Keitel was never a member of a Reich Defence Council.
(2) The Secret Cabinet Council which was to be created in accordance with the law of 4th February, 1938, never came into existence. It was never constituted; it never held a session.
(3) The defendant Keitel never was Reich Minister. Like the commanders in chief of the Army and the Navy, he merely had the rank of a Reich Minister. Consequently, he never was a Minister without portfolio either. He did not participate in any advisory Cabinet session.
I should like to ask the Court for its opinion as to whether these objections may be made the object of an examination at this stage of the trial or whether they are to be reserved for a later stage?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rules that the documents are admissible, but the defendants can prove at a later stage any matters, which are relevant to the documents. It is not necessary for the defendants to make objections at this stage. At a later stage they can prove any matters which are relevant to the weight of the documents.
DR. RUDOLF DIX (defence Counsel): May I ask the Tribunal a question:
We have now been able to see, in part, the briefs and documents which were introduced in Court yesterday. In that connection we have established that these documents comprise some with which the representative of the prosecution did not acquaint the Court either in their entire contents or as regards their nature. My question now is: Shall the contents, the entire contents of all the documents which were presented to Court form part of the basis for the Court’s decision, even in cases where the prosecutor who presented the documents did not refer to their contents?
In other words, must we consider all of the documents presented in Court – including those the contents of which were not verbally referred to – as a basis for the judgement and, consequently, should they be examined with a view to determining whether the defendants wish to raise any objections?
In conclusion, I ask the Tribunal whether we are to understand that the entire contents of all the documents which were introduced in Court yesterday, or which still may be introduced at a future date, will form the basis for formulation of the judgement, even in cases concerning documents which the prosecutor has not presented verbatim, whose contents he has not given and to which he has not referred otherwise?
THE PRESIDENT: Every document, when it is put in, becomes part of the record and is in evidence before the Tribunal, but it is open to the defendants to criticise and comment upon any part of the document when their case is presented.
DR. DIX: Thank you. The question is clarified herewith.
THE PRESIDENT: There are three announcements which I have to make on behalf of the Tribunal; and the first is this: That we propose that the Tribunal shall not sit on Saturday morning in this week, in order that defendants’ counsel may have more time for the consideration of the documents and arguments, which have been made up to that time. That is the first matter.
The second matter is that the Tribunal desires that all motions and applications shall, so far as practicable, be made in writing, both by the prosecution and by the defence. There are occasions, of course, such as this morning when motions and applications for the purpose of explanation, are more conveniently made orally, but as far as practicable, it is the desire of the Tribunal that they shall be made in writing, both by the prosecution and by the defence.
The other matter is an observation, which the Tribunal desires me to make to the prosecution, and to suggest to them that it would be more convenient to the Tribunal and possibly also to the defence that their briefs and volumes of documents should be presented to the Tribunal before counsel-speaking begins that branch of the case, so that the brief and volume of documents should be before the Tribunal while counsel is addressing the Tribunal upon that branch of the case; and also that it would be convenient to the Tribunal – if it is convenient to counsel for the prosecution-that he should give a short explanation – not a prolonged explanation – of the documents which he is presenting to the Court, drawing their attention to any passages in the documents to which be particularly wishes to draw attention.
I will now call upon the Chief Prosecutor for the United States to continue his address.
COLONEL STOREY: May it please the Tribunal: Yesterday afternoon it appeared that there was some question about the identification of documents formally offered in evidence yesterday. Therefore, with the Tribunal’s permission I should like to offer them by number, formally, so that the Clerk can get them on his record and they may be identified, with your Honour’s permission.
The United States – and may I say, Sir, that we offer each one of these exhibits in evidence – requests that they be received and filed as evidence for the United States of America, with the understanding that defence counsel may later interpose objections. If that is agreeable, Sir, the first is exhibit U.S.A. 1, the affidavit of Major William H. Coogan, concerning the capture, processing and authentication of documents, together with Robert C. Storey’s accompanying statement:
- Exhibit USA 2 being document 2903-PS, being the Nazi Party Chart, together with authentication certificates.
- Exhibit USA 3, being document 2905-PS, the Nazi State Chart, together with authenticating certificates;
- Exhibit USA 4, document 2836-PS, the original statement of defendant Goering as to positions held;
- Exhibit USA 5, document 2829-PS, the same, concerning defendant Ribbentrop;
- Exhibit USA 6, document 2851-PS, being the same with reference to defendant Rosenberg;
- Exhibit USA 7, being document 2979-PS, the same concerning defendant Frank;
- Exhibit USA 8, being document 2978-PS, the same relating to defendant Frick;
- Exhibit USA 9, being document 2975-PS, regarding defendant Streicher
- Exhibit USA 10, being document 2977-PS, relating to defendant Funk
- Exhibit USA 11, being document 3021-PS, relating to defendant Schacht;Exhibit USA 12, being document 2887-PS, relating to defendant Donitz;
- Exhibit USA 13, being document 2688-PS, relating to defendant Raeder;
- Exhibit USA 14–
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Storey, might not the numbering of those documents be done by the General Secretary?
COLONEL STOREY: Yes, Sir, that is correct. That is agreeable with us, Sir, but the General Secretary raised the question that it was not in the record. We have the complete tabulation describing each document by number, and if it is agreeable to your Honour I will offer the description of this page, correctly describing, by exhibit number, each one that was offered in evidence yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: We will authorise the General Secretary to accept the documents so numbered.
COLONEL STOREY: Thank you, Sir. The tabulation referred to is set forth in the following words and figures:
- USA 1 Major Coogan’s affidavit with Col. Storey’s statement.
- USA 2 (2903-PS) Nazi Party Chart and authenticating papers.
- USA 3 (2905-PS) Nazi State Chart and authenticating papers.
- USA 4 (2695-PS) Original statement of Goering’s positions.
- USA 5 (2829-PS) Original statement of Ribbentrop’s positions.
- USA 6 (2851-PS) Original statement of Rosenberg’s positions.
- USA 7 (2979-PS) Original statement of Frank’s positions.
- USA 8 (2978-PS) Original statement of Frick’s positions.
- USA 9 (2975-PS) Original statement of Streicher’s positions.
- USA 10 (2977-PS) Original statement of Funk’s positions.
- USA 11 (3021-PS) Original statement of Schacht’s positions.
- USA 12 (2887-PS) Original statement of Donitz’ positions.
- USA 13 (2888-PS) Original statement of Raeder’s positions.
- USA 14 (2973-PS) Original statement of von Schirach’s positions.
- USA 15 (2974-PS) Original statement of Sauckel’s positions.
- USA 16 (2865-PS) Original statement of Jodl’s positions.
- USA 17 (2910-PS) Original statement of Seyss-Inquart’s positions.
- USA 18 (2980-PS) Original statement of Speer’s positions.
- USA 19 (2972-PS) Original statement of von Neurath’s positions.
- USA 20 (2976-PS) Original statement of Fritzsche’s positions.
- USA A Common Objectives, Methods, and Doctrines of Conspiracy.
- USA B The Acquiring of Totalitarian Control over Germany; Political First Steps; Control Acquired.
- USA C Consolidation of Control (Utilisation and Moulding of Political Machinery.
- USA F Purge of Political Opponents; Terrorisation.
- USA G Destruction of Trade Unions and Acquisition of Control over Productive Labour Capacity in Germany.
- USA H Suppression of the Christian Churches in Germany.
- USA I Adoption and Publication of the Programme for Persecution of the Jews.
May it please the Tribunal, Mr. Justice Jackson called my attention while we were offering all of these exhibits on behalf of the United States; naturally they are for the benefit of and on behalf of all the other nations who are co- operating in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: That is understood.
MAJOR WALLIS: May it please the Court, when we adjourned yesterday afternoon, I was in the process of developing the various means by which these conspirators acquired a totalitarian control of Germany. I wish to continue on that subject this morning, and I will first discuss the reshaping of education and the training of youth; and in accordance with your Honour’s suggestion, I offer the document book, United States Exhibit D, and would call to the Court’s attention that this book contains translations of the documents which we rely upon with respect to this portion of the case. These documents consist of German writings, German speeches of the defendants, and other Nazi leaders, and are matters that we suggest are clearly within the purview of judicial notice of the Court. In the brief which is offered for the assistance of the Court in connection with this subject, the exact portions of the documents which are desired to be brought to the attention of the Tribunal are set forth either by quotation from the documents, or by reference to the specific page number of the documents.
Meanwhile, during this entire pre-war period, the nation was being psychologically prepared for war. One of the most important steps was the re-shaping of the educational system so as to educate the German youth to be amenable to their will. Hitler publicly announced this purpose in November, 1933, and I am quoting from document 2455-PS, when he said:
“When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side, and you will not get me on your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to me already. A people lives forever. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camps. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.'”
He further said in May, 1937, and I refer to document 2454- PS:
“This new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its education and its own upbringing.”
The first steps taken in making the German schools the tools of the Nazi education system were two decrees in May 1934, whereby the Reich Ministry of Education was established and the control of education by local authorities was replaced by the absolute authority of the Reich in all educational matters. These decrees are set out in documents 2078-PS, 2088-PS, 2992-PS. Thereafter, the curricula and organisation of the German schools and universities were modified by a series of decrees in order to make these schools effective instruments for the teaching of Nazi doctrines.
The Civil Service Law of 1933, which was presented in evidence yesterday, made it possible for the Nazi conspirators to re-examine thoroughly all German teachers and to remove all “harmful and unworthy elements”, harmful and unworthy in the Nazi opinion. Many teachers and professors, mostly of them Jews, were dismissed and were replaced with State-spirited teachers. All teachers were required to belong to the National Socialist Teachers’ League, which Organisation was charged with the training of all teachers in the theories and doctrines of the N.S.D.A.P. This is set forth in document 2452-PS. The Fuehrerprinzip was introduced into the schools and universities. I refer to document 2393-PS.
In addition, the Nazi conspirators supplemented the school system by training the youth through the “Hitler Jugend.” The law of the Hitler Jugend, which is set forth in document 1392-PS, states:
“The German youth, besides being reared within the family and school, shall be educated physically, intellectually and morally in the spirit of National Socialism to serve the people and community through the Hitler Youth.”
In 1925 the Hitler Youth was officially recognised by the Nazi Party and became a junior branch of the S.A. In 1931 the defendant Schirach was appointed Reich Youth Leader of the N.S.D.A.P. with the rank of S.A. Gruppenfuehrer. I refer to document 1458-PS. In June, 1933, the defendant Schirach was appointed Youth Leader of the German Reich. I refer to the same document, 1458-PS. In that same month, on orders of the defendant Schirach, the Nazi conspirators destroyed or took over all other youth organisations. This was accomplished by force in the first instance. The defendant Schirach, by decree dated 22nd June, 1933, dissolved the Reich Committee of the German Youth Associations and took over their property. I refer to document 2229-PS. By similar decrees, all of which are set forth in the document book, all the youth organisations of Germany were destroyed. Then the Nazi conspirators made membership in the Hitler Jugend compulsory. I refer to document 1392-PS.
The Hitler Jugend from its inception had been a formation of the Nazi Party. By virtue of the 1936 Youth-Law, making membership compulsory, it became an agency of the Reich Government while still retaining its position as a formation of the Nazi Party. This is set forth in document 1392-PS. By 1940 membership in the Hitler Jugend was over 7,000,000. I refer you to document 2435-PS. Through the Hitler Jugend the Nazi conspirators imbued the youth with Nazi ideology. The master race doctrine and anti-Semitism, including physical attack on the Jews, were systematically taught in the training programme. I refer you to document 2436-PS. The Hitler Jugend indoctrinated the youth with the idea that war is a noble activity. I refer to document 1458-PS. One of the most important functions of the Hitler Jugend was to prepare the youth for membership in the Party and its formations. The Hitler Jugend was the agency used for extensive pre- military and military training of youth. I refer to document 1850-PS. In addition to general military training, special training was given in special formations. These included flying units, naval units, motorised units, signal units, etc.
The full details, with the accompanying documents of the methods used by the Nazi conspirators in re-shaping the educational system and supplementing it with the Hitler Jugend so as to educate the German youth to be amenable to the Nazi will, and prepare youth for war, are set forth in the document book which has been offered, and in the accompanying briefs.
Now I would like to direct your attention to the weapon of propaganda that was used during this period, and for this purpose I offer exhibit USA E with the accompanying brief. This document book and the briefs which accompany it.
THE PRESIDENT: Have any copies of these documents been provided for the defence counsel?
COLONEL STOREY: I understand they have been sent to the Defendants’ Information Centre. I may say, Sir, that by to- morrow we will have then in advance for everybody, including the Court and the defence counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MAJOR WALLIS: This document book and the accompanying brief entitled “Propaganda Censorship and Supervision of Cultural Activities.”
During this period one of the strongest weapons of the conspirators was propaganda. From the outset they appreciated the urgency of the task of inculcating the German masses with the National Socialist principles and ideology. The early utterances of Hitler and his fellow conspirators evidenced full recognition of the fact that their power could endure only if it rested on general acceptance of their political and social views.
Immediately following their accession to power, the Nazi conspirators instituted a determined programme for wholesale Organisation of the masses by seizing control of all vehicles of public expression. The widespread use of propaganda by the political machine thus created became a key device in establishing control over all phases of the German economy, public and private. They conceived that the proper function of propaganda was:-
“To prepare the ground psychologically for political action and military aggression, and to guarantee popular support of a system which was based on a permanent and steadily intensified application of terror and aggression, both in the sphere of domestic politics and foreign relations.”
To attain these objectives, propaganda was used to create a specific thought pattern designed to make the people amenable to the aims and programme of the Nazis and to foster their active participation therein to the greatest extent possible. The nature of this propaganda is within the judicial purview of the Court. As Goebbels put it, it was aimed at “the conquest of the masses.” Its intended effect was the elimination of all serious resistance in the masses. To achieve this result, as will be shown later in the evidence, the Nazi conspirators were utterly unscrupulous in their choice of means, a total disregard of veracity that presented their case purely from the standpoint of political expediency and their conception of national self-interest. Inasmuch as propaganda was the means to an end, “the conquest of the masses,” it required different strategy at different times, depending on the objectives issued and pursued by the Nazi conspirators at any given moment. According to Hitler: “the first task of propaganda is gaining of people for the future organisation.”
The recruiting of people for enlistment in the Party and supervised organisations was the primary objective in the years preceding and immediately following the seizure of power. After the rise to power, this task was broadened to include the enlistment of the people as a whole for the active support of the regime and its policies. As the Reich Propaganda Leader of the Party and Reich Minister for Propaganda, Goebbels stated:-
“Propaganda, the strongest weapon in the conquest of the State, remains the strongest weapon in the consolidation and building up of the State.”
The methods which they used to control this strongest weapon in the power of the State are set forth in a chart which I would like to call to the Court’s attention at this time, and would like to introduce in evidence as exhibit USA 21.
As you will note from the charts, there were three separate levels of control within the German Reich. The first level was the Party Controls, which are represented on the chart by the top block. And you will see that the Party through its Examining Commission controlled the books and magazines, and issues of books and magazines setting forth the ideology of the Party.
The second block, the Press Leader Division, supervised all publishers, and headed the Party newspapers and book publishers.
The third block, Press Chief – this office controlled the Press Political Office, the Press Personnel Office, and supervised the Party treatment of the Press and treatment of Party affairs in the Press.
The centre block, the Office of Propaganda Leader, had under its control not only the Press, but Exhibits, Affairs, Speaker’s Bureau, Films, Radio, Culture, and other means of expression, and dissemination of the ideology of the Party and its purposes.
The next block, Ideology, was devoted exclusively to the ideology of the Party headed by the defendant Rosenberg. It supplied all the training periodicals, prepared for the schools, and the indoctrination of the people into the ideology of the Party. On that same level is Youth Education, presided over by the defendant Schirach, who had under his control the Hitler Jugend; and then there were the University Students and Teachers Division of the Party Control.
On the next level you have the controls that were exercised by the State, and reading from left to right you have the Propaganda Co-ordination, Foreign Co-ordination, and Co- operation.
Radio, which was under the control of the defendant Fritzsche, Film, Literature, the German Press, Periodicals, Theatre, Arts, Other Cultural Things, and the Ministry for Education.
Then, in the last, there is what is known as the Corporate Controls. These were under a semi-official control of both the Party and the State. These are the so-called Cultural Chambers. Their purpose was to have full control over the personnel engaged in the various arts and cultures, and engaged in the preparation and dissemination of news. First the Press. All reporters and writers belonged to that section. The next section was Fine Arts, Music, Theatre, Film, Literature, Radio, and then going over into the Educational Branch the organisation which the University Teachers, the Students, the former Corps Members of the University had to belong to.
By means of this vast network of propaganda machinery, the Nazi conspirators had full control over the expression and dissemination of all thought, cultural activities, and dissemination of news within the Reich. Nothing was or could be published in Germany that did not have the approval, express or implied of the Party and State. The defendant Schacht in his personal notes explains the effect of the killing of a piece of news in a totalitarian dictatorship. As he states it, it has never become publicly known that there have been thousands of martyrs in the Hitler regime. They have all disappeared in the cells or graves of the concentration camps, without ever having been heard of again; and he goes on to say, “what is the use of martyrdom in the fight against terror if it has no chance of becoming known and thus serving as an example for others.”
I would . . .
THE PRESIDENT: What were you reading from then? From what document were you reading when you quoted Schacht?
MAJOR WALLIS: I am afraid . . .
THE PRESIDENT: You can tell us later on.
MAJOR WALLIS: I will tell you later on, Sir. I would now like to turn your attention . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Before you pass from this subject, there is a note on the documents which shows that certain documents are missing. What does that mean?
MAJOR WALLIS: Those documents are in the process of being reproduced and will be furnished to the Court, I hope, before the close of the day, Sir. They have been added to that book and, as yet, have not been completed in their process of reproduction.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Have they been translated ?
MAJOR WALLIS: Yes, Sir, they have been translated, and the translations are in the process of being reproduced.
THE PRESIDENT: Are the documents in their original form in German?
MAJOR WALLIS: Yes, I believe they are, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MAJOR WALLIS: I would now like to direct the Court’s attention to the militarisation of Nazi-dominated organisations during this pre-war period, and for that purpose I offer Exhibit USA J, which consists of a document book with English translations, and I present to the Court also a brief which accompanies this portion of the case.
Throughout this pre-war period, and while the Nazi conspirators were achieving and consolidating their totalitarian control of Germany, they did not lose sight of their main objective-aggressive war. Accordingly, they placed a considerable number of their dominated organisations on a progressively militarised footing, with a view to the rapid transformation of these organisations whenever necessary, as instruments of war. These organisations were the SS, the SA, the Hitler Jugend, the NSKK or National Socialist Motor Corps, the NSFK (the National Socialist Aviation Corps), the RAD (Reich Labour Service), and the OT, the Todt Organisation.
The manner in which the militarisation was accomplished is detailed in part in the documents, which have been presented to us, and will be detailed further when the particular organisations are taken up and discussed and their criminality established at subsequent stages in the case. At this time, I would like to call the Court’s attention to a chart, and while the chart is physically being placed on the board, I would offer exhibits USA 22 and 23, I beg your pardon–exhibit 22, which is document 2899-PS, and is a reproduction of Page 15 of the book entitled, “History of the Nazi Party”. You will note that on the left lower corner of the chart placed oil the board, there are some papers attached. The top paper is an affidavit which reads as follows: “I certify that the above enlargement is a true and correct copy prepared under my direct supervision, of document Number 2833-PS, Page 15 of the book entitled “History of the Nazi Part,” and you will note underneath is a second paper and this affidavit states it is a correct photographic copy, and which appears in the left-hand corner of the panel. This affidavit is signed by David Zablodowsky, sworn to and subscribed 23rd November, 1945, at Nuremburg, Germany, before James H. Johnston, 1st Lt., Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel.
This chart visualises, as vividly as possible, just how this militarisation took place in Germany. The chart is entitled, “The Organic Incorporation of German Nationals into the National Socialist System, and the Way to Political Leadership”.
Starting at the bottom of the chart, you see the young folk, between the ages of 10 and 14. The arrows point both right and left. The arrow to the right is the Adolf Hitler School, for youth between the ages of 12 and 18. Both from the School and from the young folk, they proceed to the Hitler Jugend. At 18 years of age, they graduate from the Hitler Jugend into the various party formations, the SA, SS, the NSKK, and the NSFK. At the age of 20 they continue from these party formations into the Labour Service, and from the Labour Service, after they have served their period of time there, back again to the party formations, of the SA, the SS, NSKK, and NSFK, until they reach the age of 21. Then they proceed into the Army, serve in the Army from the ages of 21 to 23, and then back again into the party formations of SA, SS, etc.
And from that group, the select move to be Political Leaders (Leiter) of the Nazi Party, and from that group are selected the cream of the crop who go to the Nazi Party Special Schools and from these schools, as is represented on the top of the chart, graduate the political Fuehrers of the People.
I would emphasise again to the Court that this chart is not anything that was prepared by counsel in this case. It was prepared by the Nazi Party people and it comes from their own history.
Thus, by the end of the pre-war period, the Nazi conspirators had achieved one of the first major steps in their grand conspiracy. All phases of German life were dominated by Nazi doctrine and practice and mobilised for the accomplishment of their militant aims. The extent to which this was accomplished can be no better expressed than by the words of Hitler when he spoke to the Reichstag on 20th February, 1938. I refer to document 2715-PS. He said:
“Only now have we succeeded in setting before us the great tasks and in possessing the material things which are the prerequisites for the realisation of great creative plans in all fields of our national existence. Thus, National Socialism has made up with a few years for what centuries before it had omitted. . . . National Socialism has given the German people that leadership which as Party not only mobilises the nation but also organises it, so that on the basis of the natural principle of selection, the continuance of a stable political leadership is safeguarded forever . . . National Socialism . . .possesses Germany entirely and completely since the day when, five years ago, I left the house in Wilhelmsplatz as Reich Chancellor. There is no institution in this State which is not National Socialist. Above all, however, the National Socialist Party in these five years not only has made the nation National Socialist, but has given itself the perfect organisational structure which guarantees its permanence for all future. The greatest guarantee of the National Socialist revolution lies in the complete domination of the Reich and all its institutions and organisations, internally and externally, by the National Socialist Party. Its protection against the world abroad, however, lies in its New National Socialist armed forces. . . .
In this Reich, anybody who has a responsible position is a National Socialist. . . . Every institution of this Reich is under the orders of the supreme political leadership. . . . The Party leads the Reich politically, the armed forces defend it militarily. . . . There is nobody in any responsible position in this State who doubts that I am the authorised leader of this Reich.” Thus spoke Adolf Hitler at the end of this period on the 2oth February, 1938.
COLONEL STOREY: If the Tribunal please …
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendant Frank): Mr. President, may I make a few short remarks in this connection? The defendants were given, along with the Indictment, a list of the documents, which is introduced as follows:
“Every one of the defendants is hereby being informed that the prosecution will use several or all the documents listed in the enclosure…”
THE PRESIDENT (interposing): You must speak more slowly.
DR. SEIDL (continuing):
“…in order to implement the points enumerated in the Indictment.”
Now, the Chief Prosecutor introduced in Court this morning about twelve documents and a check of that list revealed that not a single one of the documents is mentioned. Thus, already now, at the very beginning of the trial, we are confronted with the fact that documents are presented to the Court with the contents of which the defendant is unacquainted and, further, that documents which are not even listed are being used as documentary evidence. Not a single one of these documents is mentioned in the list, and I must confess that an adequate defence is altogether impossible under these circumstances. I therefore move:
(1) That the Tribunal supply the prosecution with a list of all documents available, which are to be placed before the Court as evidence.
(2) To instruct the prosecution to make available to the defence and their counsel – at the latest on the day when documents are being presented to the Court – a copy of the German text; and
(3) That the main proceedings be suspended until the prosecution will be in a position to comply with these requests. Otherwise I, at least, will not be able to proceed with the defence.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Storey, or counsel for the prosecution, will you say what answer you have to make to this objection?
COLONEL STOREY: If the Tribunal please, in the first place practically every document referred to by Major Wallis is a document of which the Court would take judicial knowledge. Secondly, a list of documents was filed in the Defendants’ Information Centre on 1st November. I am not sure as to whether all of these or a part of them were included. Each attorney presenting each segment of the case sends down to the Defendants’ Information Centre a list of the documents which he proposes to offer in evidence Upon his presentation. Thirdly, I wonder if the Tribunal and defence counsel realise the physical problems that are imposed? I am informed that copies of these documents in English as well as copies of the briefs, were delivered either last night or this morning in Defendants’ Information Centre. Lastly, other presentations that follow, we will abide by the Tribunal’s request, namely, that, prior to the presentation the Court will be furnished with these documents books, with these briefs, and defence counsel will also be furnished with them in advance. The week-end will permit us to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that the trial must now continue without any adjournment, but that in future as soon as possible the defendants’ counsel will be furnished with copies of the documents which are to be put in evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for defendant Sauckel): I should like to present the following: The documents are presented to the Court also in an English translation. An examination of these translations should be made available to the defence. I point out particularly that the translation of technical terms could possibly lead to misunderstandings. Moreover, the documents are provided with an introductory remark and a table of contents. The defence should also have opportunity to read through this table of contents and examine it.
I make the motion that these English translations and their preliminary remarks be made available to the defence.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Storey, I understood from you that you proposed to make available to the defendants the trial briefs which contain certain observations upon the documents put in.
COLONEL STOREY: That is right, sir. They have been, are now, and will be completed during the week-end, and, as I understand defence counsel were willing for the briefs to be furnished in English, and if they want a translation, there will be German speaking officers in Defendants’ Information Centre at their service. I understood that was agreeable yesterday.
Sir, while I am on my feet, and in order to obviate some misapprehension, for the benefit of defence counsel, when we refer to document numbers as, say, 1850-PS, in many instances that is a document which is a copy of a citation or a decree in the Reichsgesetzblatt, and, therefore, is not a separate document of ours. We have placed In the Defendants’ Information Centre ample copies and sets of the Reichsgesetzblatt, and I dare say that one-half of the documents referred to in Major Walllis’s presentation will be found in the Reichsgesetzblatt. I assure your Honour that over the week-end we will do the utmost to explain to defence counsel and to make available to them all information that we have and will do so in the future in advance.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. The Tribunal will now adjourn for ten minutes.
(The Tribunal then took a ten-minute recess, after which proceedings continued as follows:)
COLONEL STOREY: If your Honour pleases, the next subject to be presented is the economic preparation for aggressive war, by Mr. Dodd.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD: May it please the Tribunal, Mr. President, and Members of the Tribunal: In view of the discussions which took place just before the recess period, I believe it proper for me to inform the Tribunal that a list of the documents to which I shall make reference, has been lodged in the Defendants’ Information Centre, and photostatic copies of the originals have also been placed there this morning.
It is my responsibility on behalf of the Chief Prosecutor for the United States of America to present the proof with reference to the allegations of the indictment under Section XV E, on page 6 of the English version of the Indictment, and particularly beginning with the second paragraph under E, which is entitled, “The Acquiring of Totalitarian Control in Germany, Economic, and the Economic Planning and Mobilisation for Aggressive War.” The second paragraph:-
” 2. They used organisations of German business as instruments of economic mobilisation for war.
3. They directed Germany’s economy towards preparation and equipment of the military machine. To this end they directed finance, capital investment, and foreign trade.
4. The Nazi conspirators, and in particular the industrialists among them, embarked upon a huge rearmament programme, and set out to produce and develop huge quantities of materials of war and to create a powerful military potential.”
The fifth paragraph under that same heading A, and the final one in so far as my responsibility goes this morning, is that which reads
“With the object of carrying through the preparation for war the Nazi conspirators set up a series of administrative agencies and authorities. For example, in 1936 they established for this purpose the office of the Four-Year Plan with the defendant Goering as plenipotentiary, vesting it with overriding control over Germany’s economy. Furthermore, on 26th August, 1939, immediately before launching their aggression against Poland, they appointed the defendant Funk Plenipotentiary for Economics; and on 30th August, 1939, they set up the Ministerial Council for the Defence of the Reich to act as a War Cabinet.”
I will not take the time of this Tribunal to prove what the world already knows that the Nazi conspirators rearmed Germany on a vast scale. I propose to place in evidence the secret records of the plans and deliberations of the inner councils of the Nazis, which prove that the reorganisation of the German government, the financial wizardry of the defendant Schacht, and the total mobilisation of the German economy largely under the defendants Schacht, Goering and Funk, were directed at a single goal – aggressive war.
I should like to hand to the Court at this point the so- called document book which contains the English translation of the original German document. I do not make an offer at this time of these documents in evidence, but hand them to the Court for the purpose of easing the task of the Court in following the discussion concerning these documents. I might say at this point also that I should like to submit at a little later date a brief for the assistance of the Court after I have concluded my remarks before it this morning.
The significance of the economic measures adopted and applied by the conspirators can, of course, be properly appraised only if they are placed in the larger social and political context of Nazi Germany. The economic measures were adopted while the conspirators were, as has already been shown, directing their vast propaganda to the glorification of war. They were adopted while the conspirators were perverting physical training into training for war. They were adopted while, as my colleagues will show, these conspirators were threatening to use force and were planning to use force to achieve their material and political objects. In short, if your Honour pleases, these measures constitute in the field of economics and government administration the same preparation for aggressive war which dominated every aspect of the Nazi State.
In 1939 and 1940 after the Nazi aggression upon Poland, Holland, Belgium, and France, it became perfectly clear to the world that the Nazi conspirators had created probably the greatest instrument of aggression in history. That machine was built up in its entirety in a period of less than one decade. In May of 1939, Major-General George Thomas, former Chief of the Military-Economic Staff in the Reich War Ministry, reported that the German Army had grown from seven infantry divisions in 1933 to thirty-nine infantry divisions, among them four fully motorised and three mountain divisions; eighteen corps headquarters; five panzer divisions; twenty-two machine-gun battalions. Moreover, General Thomas stated that the German Navy had greatly expanded by the launching, among other vessels, of two battleships Of 35,000 tons, four heavy cruisers of 10,000 tons, and other warships; further, that the Luftwaffe had grown to a point where it had a strength of 260,000 men, twenty-one squadrons, consisting Of 240 echelons, and thirty- three anti-aircraft batteries.
He likewise reported that out of the few factories permitted by the Versailles Treaty there had arisen – and I now quote him from the document EC 28, which consists of a lecture which he delivered on the 24th May, 1939 – in the Nazi Foreign Office: “The mightiest armament industry”; or rather he reported that out of the few factories permitted by the Treaty of Versailles there had arisen “the mightiest armament industry now existing in the world. It has attained the performances which in part equal the German wartime performances and in part even surpasses them. Germany’s crude steel production is to-day the largest in the world after the Americans. The aluminium production exceeds that of America and of other countries of the world very considerably. The output of our rifle, machine gun, and artillery factories is at present larger than that of any other State.”
That quotation, I repeat, was from a document hearing the lettering “EC” and the number after the dash “28.”
These results – the results which General Thomas spoke about in his lecture in May of 1939–were achieved only by making preparation for war the dominating objective of German economy. And, to quote General Thomas from that same speech, he stated: “History will know only a few examples of cases where a country has directed, even in peace time, all its economic forces so deliberately and systematically towards the requirements of war, as Germany was compelled to do in the period between the two World Wars.”*
[*NB. This quotation is not taken from the lecture given by General Thomas in may 1939, but from his manuscript entitled “Basic Facts for a History of German War Armaments Economy” (1944).]
That quotation from General Thomas will be found in the document 2353-PS.
THE PRESIDENT (interposing): Mr. Dodd, it would help me personally if I knew where, in the document, you were reading from.
MR. DODD: Very well, Sir. Would you like me to refer back to number EC-28.
THE PRESIDENT: I have it before me, but I haven’t the particular passage in the document which you were reading.
MR. DODD: That document – the one which I have just been reading, your Honour – is document 2353-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not in EC-28?
MR. DODD: No. It is another quotation from General Thomas, but from another writing of his.
THE PRESIDENT: 2353?
MR. DODD: The document is 2353-PS. The passage will be found on the third page of that document.
THE PRESIDENT: I seem to have only two pages of that document 2353-PS.
MR. DODD: I am sorry; there should be a third page.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a page in between?
MR. DODD: There should be a third page. There may be one page missing.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes; I have it now.
MR. DODD: The task of mobilising the German economy for aggressive war began promptly after the Nazi conspirators’ seizure of power. It was entrusted principally to the defendants, Goering and Funk.
The defendant Schacht, as is well known, was appointed President of the Reichsbank in March of 1933 and Minister of Economics in August of 1934. The world did not know, however, that the responsibility for the execution of this programme was entrusted to the office of the Four Year Plan under the defendant Goering.
I should now like to call to your Honour’s attention document EC-408, and I should also like to refer at this time to another document for your Honour’s attention while I discuss the material, which is number 2261-PS. To continue.
Nor did the world know that the defendant Schacht was designated Plenipotentiary for the War Economy on 21St May, 1935, with complete control over the German civilian economy for war production in the Reich Defence Council, established by a top secret Hitler decree.
I invite your Honour’s attention to document 2261-PS, which I referred to a few minutes ago.
The defendant Schacht recognised that the preparation for war came before all else for, in a memorandum concerning the problem of financing rearmament written on 3rd May, 1935, he stated that his comments were based on the assumption that the accomplishment of the armament programme–
THE PRESIDENT (interposing): Pardon me, but you referred us to document 2261.
MR. DODD: Yes, your Honour.
THE PRESIDENT: But you haven’t read anything from it.
MR. DODD: I did not; I merely referred the Court to it since it –
THE PRESIDENT: (interposing): It would help us, I think, if, when you refer to a document, you refer to some particular passage in it.
MR. DODD: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it must be the middle paragraph in the document: “The Fuehrer has nominated the President of the Directorate of the Reichsbank, Dr. Schacht.”
MR. DODD: Yes, that is the paragraph to which I wish to make reference. If your Honour pleases, I refer to the second paragraph, or the middle paragraph, which states, in a letter dated 24th June, 1935, at Berlin:
“The Fuehrer and Reichs Chancellor has nominated the President of the Directorate, Dr. Schacht, to be Plenipotentiary General for the War Economy.”
I might point out, in addition to the second paragraph, the last paragraph or the last sentence of that letter, which reads: “I point out the necessity of strictest secrecy once more”; the letter being signed, “von Blomberg.”
Through Schacht’s financial genius monetary measures were devised to restore German industry to full production; and through the control of imports and exports, which he devised under his plan of 1934, German production was channelled in accordance with the requirements of the German war machine.
I shall, with the Court’s permission, later discuss the details of documentary proof of this assertion.
In 1936, with an eye to the experience in the First World War, the Nazi conspirators embarked on an ambitious plan to make Germany completely self-sufficient in strategic war materials such as rubber, gasoline, and steel, in a period of four years, so that the Nazi conspirators would be fully prepared for aggressive war. The responsibility for the execution of this programme was entrusted to the office of the Four-Year Plan under the defendant Goering – and at this point I should like to refer to the document bearing the number and the lettering EC-408. It is dated the 30th day of December, 1936, marked “Secret Command Matter”, and entitled, “Report, Memorandum on the Four-Year Plan and Preparation of the War Economy.”
This document sets out that the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor has conferred powers in regard to mobilisation preparations in the economic field that need further definition. In the third paragraph it refers specifically to Minister President, Generaloberst Goering, as Commissioner of the Four-Year Plan, by authority of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor granted the 18th day of October, 1936. The existence of this programme involved the reorganisation and control of the whole German economy for war.
Again referring to Major General Thomas – and specifically to our document EC-27 – General Thomas, in a lecture on the 28th of January, 1939, made at the Staff Instructor’s Course, stated:
“The National Socialist State, soon after taking over power, reorganised the German economy in all sections and directed it towards a military view-point, which had been requested by the Army for years. Due to the reorganisation, agriculture, commerce and professions become those powerful instruments the Fuehrer needs for his extensive plans, and we can say to-day that Hitler’s mobile politics, as well as the powerful efforts of the Army and economy, would not have been possible without the necessary reorganisation by the National Socialist Government. We can now say that the economic organisation as a whole corresponds with the needs, although slight adjustments will have to be made yet. These reorganisations made a new system of economics possible which was necessary in view of our internal and foreign political situation as well as our financial problems. The directed economy, as we have it to-day concerning agriculture, commerce and Industry, is not only the expression of the present State principles, but at the same time also the economy of the country’s defence.”
If your Honour pleases, this programme was not undertaken in a vacuum it was deliberately designed and executed to provide the necessary instrument of the Nazi conspirators’ plans for aggressive war.
In September of 1934 the defendant Schacht frankly acknowledged to the American Ambassador in Berlin that the Hitler Party was absolutely committed to war, and the people too ready and willing. That quotation is found in the Ambassador’s diary and is document 2832-PS, particularly on page 176 of that diary.
At the same time, the defendant Schacht promulgated his new plan for the control of imports and exports in the interest of rearmament. A year later he was appointed Plenipotentiary for the War Economy by the top secret decree referred to a few minutes ago.
In September, 1936, the defendant Goering announced – at a meeting attended by the defendant Schacht and others – that Hitler had issued instructions to the Reich Minister on the basis that the show-down with Russia is inevitable, and added that “all measures have to be taken just as if we were actually in the stage of imminent danger of war.”
I refer the Court to document EC-416. Before I discuss the quotation I might indicate that this document is also marked a secret Reich matter in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting of 4th September, 1936, at 12 o’clock noon. It tells who was present: the defendant Goering, von Blomberg, the defendant Schacht, and others.
On the second page of that document, in the second paragraph, is found the quotation by Goering. It starts from the basic thought that: “The show-down with Russia is inevitable. What Russia has done in the field of reconstruction we too can do.”
On the third page of that document, in the second paragraph, Goering stated: “All measures have to be taken just as if we were actually in the stage of imminent danger of war.”
In the same month the office of the Four-Year Plan was created with the mission of making Germany self-sufficient for war in four years. I refer back, at this point, to document EC-408, and I particularly refer your Honour to the third paragraph, again, of that document, where the statement is made as regards the war economy: Minister President Generaloberst Goering sees it as his task, within four years, to put the entire economy in a state of readiness for war.
The Nazi Government officials provided the leadership in preparing Germany for war. They received, however, the enthusiastic co-operation of the German industrialists. The role played by industrialists in converting Germany to a war economy is an important one, and I turn briefly to that aspect of the economic picture.
On the invitation of the defendant Goering, approximately twenty-five of the leading industrialists of Germany, and the defendant Schacht, attended a meeting in Berlin on the 20th day of February, 1933. This was shortly before the election of 5th March, 1933, in Germany. At this meeting Hitler announced the conspirators’ aim to seize totalitarian control over Germany, to destroy the parliamentary system, to crush all opposition by force, and to restore the power of the Wehrmacht.
Among those present on that day, in February of 1933 in Berlin, were Gustav Krupp, head of the huge munitions firm, Alfred Krupp, A.G.; four leading officials of I.G. Farben, one of the world’s largest chemical concerns; and, I repeat, also present was the defendant Schacht. Albert Vogler, the head of the huge steel trusts, the United Steel Works of Germany, was there too, as were other leading industrialists.
In support of the assertion with respect to that meeting at that time and in that place, I refer your Honour to the document EC-439, it being an affidavit of George von Schnitzler, which reads as follows:-
“I, George von Schnitzler, a member of the Vorstand of I.G. Farben, make the following deposition under oath:
At the end of February, 1933, four members of the Vorstand of I.G. Farben, including Dr. Boech, the head of the Vorstand, and myself were asked by the office of the President of the Reichstag to attend a meeting in his house, the purpose of which was not given. I do not remember the two other colleagues of mine who were also invited. I believe the invitation reached me during one of my business trips to Berlin. I went to the meeting which was attended by about twenty persons, who I believe were mostly leading industrialists from the Ruhr.
Among those present, I remember: Dr. Schacht, who at that time was not yet head of the Reichsbank again and not yet Minister of Economics.
Krupp von Bohlen, who in the beginning of 1933 presided over the Reichsverband der Deutschen Industrie, which later on was changed in the semi-official Organisation ‘Reichsgruppe Industrie.’
Dr. Albert Vogler, head of the Vereinigte Stahlwerke.
Von Loewenfeld, from an industrial works in Essen.
Dr. Stein who was head of the I.G. Farben owned mine – Gewerkschaft Auguste Victoria – and also an active member of the Deutsche Volkspartei.
I remember that Dr. Schacht acted as a kind of host.
While I had expected the appearance of Goering, Hitler entered the room, shook hands with everybody and took a seat at the table. In a long speech he talked mainly about the danger of Communism over which he pretended that he had just won a decisive victory.
He then talked about the Bundnis – alliance – into which his party and the Deutschnationale Volkspartei had entered. This latter party, in the mean-time, had been reorganised by Herr von Papen. At the end he came to the point which seemed to me the purpose of the meeting. Hitler stressed the importance that the two aforementioned parties should gain the majority in the coming Reichstag election. Krupp von Bohlen thanked Hitler for his speech. After Hitler had left the room, Dr. Schacht proposed to the meeting the raising of an election fund of, as far as I remember, RM3,000,000. The fund should be distributed between the two ‘ allies’ according to their relative strength at the time being. Dr. Stein suggested that the Deutsche Volkspartei should be included- ”
THE PRESIDENT: (interposing): Mr. Dodd, it seems to me that really all that that document shows is that there was a meeting at which Schacht was present, and at which it was determined to subscribe an election fund in 1933.
MR. DODD: That is quite so, your Honour. I will not trouble to read it all. There were some other references, but not of major importance, in the last paragraph, to a division of the election fund. I just call your Honour’s attention to it in passing.
I should like, at this point, to call your Honour’s attention to the document D-203, which is a three-page document.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number?
MR. DODD: D-203. I wish to read only excerpts from it very briefly. It is the speech delivered to the industrialists by Hitler, and I refer particularly to the second paragraph of that document:-
“Private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy;” .
THE PRESIDENT (interposing): What is the date of that?
MR. DODD: It is the speech made at the meeting on the 20th February, 1933, at Berlin.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
“Private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy; it is conceivable only if the people have a sound idea of authority and personality.”
I refer now to page 2 of the document, and I should like to read an excerpt from the first paragraph on page 9, about thirteen sentences down, beginning with the words: “I recognised even while in the hospital that one had to search for new ideas conducive to reconstruction. I found them in Nationalism, in the value of strength and power of individual personality.”
Then, a little further down, the next to the last and the last sentence of that same paragraph, Hitler said:-
“If one rejects pacifism, one must put a new idea in its place immediately. Everything must be pushed aside, must be replaced by something better.”
Then, in the third paragraph, the last sentence beginning: “We must not forget that all the benefits of culture must be introduced more or less with an iron fist, just as once upon a time the farmers were forced to plant potatoes.”
Then finally, on that page, in the fourth paragraph – nearly at the end of it: “With the very same courage with which we go to work to make up for what had been sinned during the last fourteen years, we have withstood all attempts to move us from the right way.”
Then, at the top of the next page, in the second paragraph, these words: “Now we stand before the last election. Regardless of the outcome there will be no retreat, even if the coming election does not bring about a decision.”
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you not read the last line on page 2: ” While still gaining power, one should not start the struggle against the opponent”?
MR. DODD: Beginning with the words “while still gaining power”?
THE PRESIDENT: The sentence before, “We must first gain complete power if we want to crush the other side completely. While still gaining power, one should not start the struggle against the opponent. Only when one knows that one has reached the pinnacle of power, that there is no further possible development, shall one strike.”
MR. DODD: I was going to refer to that, if your Honour pleases, in a minute.
However, I think it is quite proper to have it inserted here.
Before starting to read this last paragraph, I suggest that as it is now the accustomed time, as I understand it, and it is a rather lengthy paragraph – THE PRESIDENT (interposing): Yes, we will adjourn until two o’clock.
(Whereupon at 12.30 hours the Tribunal adjourned, to reconvene at 14.oo hours of the same date.)
MR. DODD: If your Honour pleases, if I may go back for just a very little bit to take up the train of thought where I left off at the noon recess.
We were discussing document D-203, and I had referred particularly to the third page of that document, and even more particularly to the second paragraph on that page; and I wish to read from a sentence approximately eight or ten lines down in that second paragraph, which reads as follows:
“The question of restoration of the Wehrmacht will not be decided at Geneva but in Germany, when we have gained internal strength through internal peace.”
I wish to refer again to the same page of the same document, and to the last paragraph and the last sentence, which refers to the defendant Goering, who was present at that same meeting to which this document refers, the meeting of 20th February, 1933, in Berlin. Goering said:
“That the sacrifices asked for surely would be so much easier for industry to bear if it realised that the election of 5th March will surely be the last one for the next ten years, probably even for the next hundred years.”
In a memorandum, dated the 22nd day of February, 1933, and, for the information of the Court, in the document book, bearing the number D-204, Gustav Krupp described this meeting briefly, and in the memorandum wrote that he had expressed to Hitler the gratitude of the twenty-five industrialists present at the meeting on 20th February, 1933.
There were other expressions in that memorandum, which we do not deem to be particularly pertinent to the allegations of the Indictment with which we are now concerned.
I might point out to the Court that this memorandum, together with the report of the speech of Hitler, were found by the British and the United States Armies in the personal files of the defendant Krupp.
I am aware, if your Honours please, that the method I am pursuing here is a little tedious, because I am trying to refer specifically to the documents, and particularly to the excerpts referred to in my remarks, and therefore this presentation differs very considerably from that which has gone before. I trust, however, that you will bear with me, because this part of the case requires some rather careful and detailed explanations.
In April of 1933, after Hitler had entrenched himself in power, Gustav Krupp, as Chairman of the Reich Association of German Industry, which was the largest association of German industrialists, submitted to Hitler the plan of that association for the reorganisation of German industry, and in connection therewith, undertook to bring the Association into line with the aims of the conspirators, and to make it an effective instrument for the execution of their policies.
In a letter of transmittal, Krupp stated that the plan of reorganisation which he submitted on behalf of the Association of Industrialists, was characterised by the desire to co-ordinate economic measures and political necessity, adopting the Fuehrer conception of the new German State. A copy of that letter of transmittal is set out in the document book under the number D-157.
In the plan of reorganisation itself, Krupp stated:
“The turn of political events is in line with the wishes which I myself and the Board of Directors have cherished for a long time. In reorganising the Reich Association of German Industry, I shall be guided by the idea of bringing the new organisation into agreement with the political aims of the Reich Government.”
The ideas expressed by Krupp on behalf of the members of the Reich Association of German Industry for introducing the leadership principle into industry, were subsequently adopted.
I respectfully refer the Court to the Reichsgesetzblatt of 1934, Part I, 1194, Sections 11, 12 and 16.
Under the decrees introducing the leadership principle into industry, each group of industry was required to have a leader who was to serve without compensation. The leaders were to be appointed and could be removed at the discretion of the Minister of Economics. The charter of each group was to be created by the leader, who was bound to lead his group in accordance with the principles of the National Socialist State.
I think it is fair to argue that the introduction of the leadership principle into the organisations of business permitted the centralisation of authority, and guaranteed the efficient execution of orders, which the government issued to business, in the interest of a promotion of a war economy. And the overwhelming support given by the German industrialists to the Nazi war programme is very vividly described in a speech prepared by Gustav Krupp in January of 1944, for delivery at the University of Berlin; and I must again respectfully refer your Honour to the document in your book bearing the identification number D-317.
I shall not, of course, bore this court with a reading of the whole document, but I should like to quote from it without wrenching any of the material from its true context.
And this statement is found beginning in the third and fourth paragraphs, being the first large paragraph on the first page:
“War material is life-saving for one’s own people, and whoever works and performs in these spheres can be proud of it. Here, enterprise, as a whole, finds its highest justification of existence. This justification, I may inject this here, crystallised especially during the time of interregnum between 1919 and 1933, when Germany was lying down disarmed.”
And further on:
“It is the one great merit of the entire German war economy that it did not remain idle during those bad years, even though its activity could not be brought to light for obvious reasons. Through years of secret work, scientific and basic groundwork was laid in order to be ready again to work for the German Armed Forces at the appointed hour without loss of time or experience.”
And further quoting from that same speech, and the last paragraph, particularly on the first page:
“Only through the secret activity of German enterprise, together with the experience gained meanwhile through production of peacetime goods, was it possible, after 1933, to fall into step with the new tasks arrived at, restoring Germany’s military power. Only through all that could the entirely new and various problems, brought up by the Fuehrer’s Four-Year Plan for German enterprise, be mastered. It was necessary to supply the new raw materials, to explore and experiment, to invest capital in order to make German economy independent and strong – in short, to make it war-worthy.”
Quoting even further from the same speech:-
“I think I may state here that the German enterprises followed the new ways enthusiastically, that they made the greatest intentions of the Fuehrer their own, by fair competition and conscious gratitude, and became his faithful followers. How else could the tasks between 1933 and 1939, and especially those after 1939, have been overcome?”
It must be emphasised that the secret rearmament programme was launched immediately upon the seizure of power by the Nazi conspirators. On 4th April, 1933, the Reich Cabinet passed a resolution establishing a Reich Defence Council. The function of this council was secretly to mobilise for war; and at the second meeting of the Working Committee of the Councillors for Reich Defence, which was, by the way, the predecessor of the Reich Defence Council, at that second meeting which was held on 22nd May, 1933, the Chairman was the defendant Keitel, then Colonel Keitel; and he stated that the Reich Defence Council would immediately undertake to prepare for war emergency. He stressed the urgency of the task of organisms a war economy, and announced that the Council stood ready to brush aside all @f their obstacles. Fully aware of the fact that their action was in flagrant violation of the Treaty of Versailles, the defendant Keitel emphasised the extreme importance of absolute secrecy – I quote from page 5, document EC-177 – when he said:-
“No document ought to be lost, since otherwise it may fall into the hands of the enemies’ Intelligence Service. Orally transmitted matters are not provable; they can be denied by us in Geneva.”
The singleness of purpose with which the Nazi conspirators geared the German economy to the forging of a war machine is even further shown by the secret minutes of the second meeting of the Working Committee of the so-called Reich Defence Council, held on the 7th of February, 1934, as shown in the document EC-404, marked “Secret Command Matter,” and dated the 7th of February, 1934. At this meeting, Lieutenant- General Beck pointed out that ” The actual state of preparation is the purpose of this session.”
Parenthetically, I may say that on the first page of that document it appears that besides Lieutenant-General Beck, the defendant Jodl was present, then Lieutenant-Colonel Jodl. There were also present a Captain Schmundt, a Colonel Guderian, a Major-General von Reichenau and a Major Warlimont. All these are names that your Honour will hear more of in the course of the presentation of this case.
Detailed measures of financing a future war were discussed and it was pointed out that the financial aspects of the war economy would be regulated by the Reich Finance Ministry and the Reichsbank, which was headed by the defendant Schacht.
On May 31st, 1935, as stated earlier –
THE PRESIDENT: Are you passing from EC-404?
MR. DODD: I am, your Honour.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, go on.
MR. DODD: As was stated earlier in this morning’s discussion, the defendant Schacht was secretly appointed Plenipotentiary-General of the War Economy, and he had the express function of placing all economic forces of the nation in the services of the Nazi war machine.
By the secret defence law of 21st May, 1935, under which Schacht received this secret appointment, he was in effect, given charge of the entire war economy. In case of war, he was to be virtual economic dictator of Germany. His task was to place all economic forces into the service for the conduct of the war and to secure economically the life of the German people. The Ministers of Economy, of Food, Agriculture, Labour, Forestry, as well as all Reich agencies directly under the Fuehrer, were subordinated to him. He was to be responsible for the financing as well as for the conduct of the war; and he was even authorised to issue ordinances within his sphere of responsibility, even if these deviated from the existing laws.
The rearmament of Germany proceeded at an amazingly rapid pace. By the summer of 1935, the Nazi conspirators were emboldened to make plans for the reoccupation of the Rhineland, and at the tenth meeting of this same Working Committee of the Council, the question of measures to be taken in connection with the proposed reoccupation of the Rhineland were discussed.
I refer to the document EC-40S:
At that meeting, held on the 26th day of June, 1935, it was said that the Rhineland required special treatment, because of the assurances given by Hitler to the French that no military action was being undertaken in the de-militarised zone. Among the matters requiring special treatment was the preparation of economic mobilisation, a task specifically entrusted to the defendant Schacht, as secret Plenipotentiary for the War Economy.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you reading from this document?
MR. DODD: I am quoting in part from it, your Honour, and it is upon pages 4 and 5 of this document that I base my statements. I dislike annoying the Court with constant references to these documents, but I thought it would be the best way to proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: If you tell us exactly where it is in the document we can find it there.
MR. DODD: It is on page 4, if your Honour pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
MR. DODD: On page 4, the middle of the page, the fifth paragraph, the first sentence, “the de-militarised zone requires special treatment.”
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. DODD: And on page 5, ” J,” under “The Preparations,” “preparation of economic mobilisation.” On page 4, the last paragraph just before the setting-out of the ” A,” “B,” “C,” and “D,” it said –
THE PRESIDENT: I think you ought to read on page 4, the last paragraph 1 -“since political entanglements.”
MR. DODD: That was the one I had proceeded to read.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you had gone on to page 5.
“Since political entanglements abroad must be avoided at present under all conditions, only those preparatory measures that are urgently necessary may be carried out. The existence of such preparations, or the intention of them must be kept in strictest secrecy in the zone itself as well as in the rest of the Reich.”
Preparations are then set out, and they include, as I have indicated a few minutes ago, as the last one in the list, the preparations for economic mobilisation.
There are many others, of course, for preliminary restoring of measures, and for the financial preparation for evacuation measured, and so forth. We shall pass now from that document to the rapid success of the German re- armament, primarily attributable to the work of the defendant Schacht. In the Fall of 1934, the Nazi conspirators announced the so-called “New Plan,” aiming at the control of imports and exports in order to obtain the raw materials, which were needed for armaments and the foreign currency which was required to sustain the armament programme. The new plan was the creation of the defendant Schacht, and under the plan, the defendant Schacht controlled imports by extending the system of Supervisory Boards for import control, which was previously limited to the main groups of raw materials, and all goods imported into Germany, whether those raw materials were semi- manufactured goods or finished products. The requirement of licences for imports enabled the Nazi conspirators to restrict imports to those commodities which served their war aims.
Subsequently, in February, 1935, the “Devisen” Law was passed which can be found by referring to the Reichsgesetzblatt 1935, 1, 105. Under it, all transactions involving foreign exchange were subject to the approval of Devisenstellen (Foreign Exchange Control Offices). By thus controlling the disposition of foreign exchange, the conspirators were able to manipulate foreign trade so as to serve their needs and desires.
Thus every aspect of German economy was being geared to war under the guidance of the Nazi conspirators, particularly of the defendant Schacht. In a study of the economic mobilisation for war as of 30th September, 1934, it was stated that steps had already been taken to build up stock piles, to construct new facilities for the production of scarce goods, to re-deploy industry, to secure areas and to control fiscal and trade policies. References were made to the fact that the task of stock piling had been hampered by the requirement of secrecy and camouflage. Reserves of automobile fuels and stocks of coal were accumulated and the production of synthetic oil was accelerated. Civilian supply was purposely organised so that most plants would be working for the German Armed Forces. Studies were made of the possibility of barter trade with “supposedly” neutral countries in case of war.
The matter of financing the armament programme presented a difficult problem for the conspirators. In 1934 and 1935 the German economy could by no possibility have raised funds for their extensive rearmament programme through taxes and public loans. From the outset, the armament programme involved “the engagement of the last reserves.”
Apart from the problem of raising the huge sums required to sustain this programme, the Nazi conspirators were exceedingly anxious, in the early stages to conceal the extent of their feverish armament activities.
After considering various techniques of financing the armament programme, the defendant Schacht proposed the use of “mefo” bills. One of the primary advantages of this method was the fact that figures indicating the extent of rearmament, that would have become public through the use of other methods, could be kept secret through the use of mefo bills. These mefo bills were used exclusively for armament financing.
Transactions in mefo bills worked as follows:
Mefo bills were drawn by armament contractors and accepted by a limited liability company, the Metallurgische Forscbungsgesellschaft m.b.H., whose initials spell the word “mefo” from which the transaction takes its name. This company had a nominal capital of one million Reichsmarks and was therefore merely a dummy Organisation. The bills were received by all German banks for possible rediscounting with the Reichsbank, and the bills were guaranteed by the Reich. Their secrecy was assured by the fact that they appeared neither in the published statements of the Reichsbank nor in the budget figures.
The mefo bill system continued to be used until 1st April, 1938. To that date, twelve billion Reichsmarks of mefo bills for the financing of rearmament had been issued. Since it was no longer deemed necessary to conceal the vast progress of German rearmament, mefo financing was discontinued at that time.
A further source of funds which defendant Schacht drew upon to finance the secret armament programme was the funds of political opponents of the Nazi regime, and marks of foreigners on deposit in the Reichsbank. As Schacht stated, “Our armaments are also financed partly with the credits of our political opponents.”
That statement was made in the memorandum from the defendant Schacht to Hitler, dated 3rd May, 1935, and is in document 1168-PS, and the specific sentence I found in the second paragraph is:
“The outstanding mefo bills at all times represented a threat to the stability of the currency because they could be tendered to the Reichsbank for discount, in which case the currency circulation would automatically have to be increased.”
Thus, there was an ever-present threat of inflation. But Schacht continued on his course, because “he stands with unswerving loyalty to the Fuehrer, because he fully recognises the basic idea of National Socialism and because at the end, the disturbances, as compared to the great task, can be considered irrelevant.”
High ranking military officers paid tribute to the defendant Schacht’s contrivances on behalf of the Nazi war machine. In an article written for the “Military Weekly Gazette” in January, 1937, it is said:
“The German Defence Force commemorates Dr. Schacht to- day as one of the men who have done imperishable things for it and its development in accordance with directions from the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor. The Defence Force owes it to Schacht’s skill and great ability that, in defiance of all currency difficulties, it has, according to plan, been able to grow up to its present strength from an army of 100,000 men.”
After the reoccupation of the Rhineland, the Nazi conspirators redoubled their efforts to prepare Germany for a major war. The Four-Year Plan was proclaimed by Hitler in his address at the Nuremberg Party Convention on 9th September, 1936, and it was given a statutory foundation by the decree concerning the execution of the Four-Year Plan dated 18th October, 1936, which I found in Reichsgesetzblatt 1936, 1, 887. By this decree the defendant Goering was put in charge of the plan. He was authorised to enact any legal and administrative measures deemed necessary by him for the accomplishment of his task, and to issue orders and instructions to all government agencies, including the highest Reich authorities.
The purpose of the plan was to enable Nazi Germany to attain complete self-sufficiency in essential raw materials, notably motor fuel, rubber, textile fibre, and non-ferrous metals, and to intensify preparations for war. The development of synthetic products was greatly accelerated despite their high costs.
Apart from the self-sufficiency programme, however, the Nazi conspirators required foreign exchange to finance propaganda and espionage activities abroad. Thus, in a speech on 1st November, 1937, before the Wehrmachtakademie, General Thomas stated:
“If you consider that one will need during the war considerable means in order to organise the necessary propaganda, to pay for the espionage services and similar purposes, then it will be clear that our internal Mark can therefore be of no use, and that foreign exchange will be needed.”
This particular need for foreign exchange was reduced in part by the virtue of the espionage and propaganda services rendered free of charge to the Nazi State by some leading German industrial concerns.
I hold in my hand document D-206, dated at Essen 12th October, 1935. It was found in the files of the Krupp Company by representatives of United States and the British Isles. I shall not read all of it unless your Honour requires it, but I will start at the beginning by way of establishing its purpose and the information contained therein. It is entitled “Memorandum”. There is the subheading: “Concerns-distribution official propaganda literature abroad with help of our foreign connections”. It goes on and says that on the morning of 11th October the district representative of Ribbentrop’s Private Foreign Office, Dienststelle Ribbentrop, made an appointment by telephone for a Mr. Lachman to arrive at an appointed time. ” In answer to my question as to with whom I was dealing, and which official bureau he represented, he informed me that he was not himself the district representative of Ribbentrop’s Private Foreign Office, but that a Mr. Landrat Bollman was such, and that he himself had come at Mr. Bollman’s orders.”
The next paragraph states that “there exists a very great mix-up in the field of foreign propaganda, and Ribbentrop’s Foreign Office wants to create a tighter organisation for foreign propaganda. For this purpose the support of our firm and above all an index of addresses were needed.” The next sentence, in the third paragraph, I would like to read. “I informed Mr. Lachman that our firm had put itself years ago at the disposal of official bureaux for purposes of foreign propaganda, and that we had supported all requests addressed to us to the utmost.”
I now hold in my hand document P-167. This is also a copy of a document found in the files of the Krupp Company by representatives of the Americans and of the British Isles. It is dated 12th October-14th October, 1937, and states it is a memorandum of Herr Sonnenberg of the meeting at Essen on 12th October, 1937. It indicates that only in the “Maze” representing the Intelligence with the combined service of the ministry is the department coming under the Defence Office, as for the Intelligence in the foreign department, but not including matters published in newspapers. The intelligence received by Koch was from agents, and threading through other channels to be passed on by the services of the Intelligence.
Finally, the third paragraph states: On our part we undertook to supply cases to combine the service of ministry as required.
I have concluded reading from that document, and I pass on now to discuss the conspirators’ programme, carried out, as I have said so many times here to-day, with amazing-really amazing speed; the production of steel, for example, as shown in the official German publications, rose as follows:
In the year of 1933 —- 74,000 tons
……………………1934 —- 108,000 tons
……………………1935 —- 145,000 tons
……………………1936 —- 186,000 tons
……………………1937 —- 217,000 tons
and in the year 1938 — 477,000 tons
The production of gasoline increased at an even greater tempo: from 370,000 tons in 1934 to 1,494,000 tons in 1938.
The Nazi conspirators pressed the completion of the armament programme with a sense of urgency which clearly betrayed their awareness of the imminence of war. At a 4th September, 1938, meeting, Goering pointed out that “all measures have to be taken just as if we were actually in the state of imminent danger of war.” He pointed out that “if war should break out tomorrow we would be forced to take measures from which we might possibly shy away at the present moment. They are therefore to be taken.” The extreme urgency was manifested by Goering’s remark that “existent reserves will have to be touched for the purpose of carrying us over this difficulty until the goal ordered by the Fuehrer has been reached; in case of war, he added, they are not a reliable backing in any case.”
By a letter marked “top secret” and “an important secret, top secret,” on 21st August, 1936, the defendant Schacht was informed of Hitler’s order that all formations of the Air Force be ready by 1st April, 1937. This served to accentuate the urgent sense of immediacy that had pervaded the Nazi economy from the outside, thus laying the groundwork for further aggressive action.
Reading from other sections in Hitler Nazi-
THE PRESIDENT: I am going to interrupt you. In so far as I understand, you have not referred us to any document since document 167.
MR. DODD: No, your Honour, the figures there on the production of steel, and of oil, are from the statistical year book of the German Reich, 1939 and 1940, and the statistical year book of the German Reich 1941 and 1942 inclusive. That is, with respect to the steel figures; and the figures which I quoted with respect to the production of gasoline are from the statistical year book of the German Reich, 1941 and 1942. The statements of the defendant Goering are based upon the document marked EC-416, in document book.
I quoted a remark about the-
THE PRESIDENT: That is the document you already referred to?
MR. DODD: Yes, it has been referred to heretofore, I believe. Some of these documents contain references to more than one part of the presentation, and I have to refer to them at different times in the presentation I make.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Go on, if you want to refer to it.
MR. DODD: The sixth paragraph on the first page: “Existing reserves will have to be touched for the purpose of carrying through over this difficulty until the goal ordered by the Fuehrer has been reached, and then in the case of war, they are not a reliable backing in any case.” And on the second page, the eighth paragraph down: “If war should break out to- morrow, we would be forced to take measures from which we might possibly still find a way at the present moment. They are therefore to be taken.” With reference to the assertion that the defendant Schacht was advised that Hitler ordered that all formations of the Air Force be ready by 1st April, 1937, I respectfully refer to document 1301-PS, dated 31st August, 1936. 1 am advised that the document should bear an additional number. It should read 1301-PS-7. On the first page, if your Honour pleases, the third paragraph, or the paragraph marked 3 and after the words “air force”–
THE PRESIDENT: The third page?
MR. DODD: No, on the first page, 1301-PS-7. In your folio, it is page 19 of the group of documents bearing the serial number 1301-PS.
THE PRESIDENT: Our documents are not paged.
MR. DODD: I think you will find the number on the upper left- hand corner, very near to the top and at the extreme left.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I’ve got this document now.
MR. DODD: Paragraph No. 3 after the words “air force.”
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. DODD: It states that according to an order of the Fuehrer, the setting up if all air force units had to be completed on 1st April, 1937; and if your Honour will turn the page, page 20, about midway in the page, you will observe that a copy of this document was sent to the president of the Reichsbank, Dr. Schacht.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, what are you passing to now?
MR. DODD: I am passing to another document immediately, your Honour. After their successes in Austria and in the Sudetenland, the Nazi conspirators redoubled their efforts to equip themselves for the war of aggression, and in a conference on 14th October, 1938, shortly before the Nazi conspirators made their first demands on Poland, the defendant Goering stated that, “The Fuehrer had instructed him to carry out a gigantic programme, by comparison with which the performances thus far were insignificant. These difficulties must be overcome with the greatest energy and ruthlessness.” And that statement may be found in the document 1301-PS, on page 25 of that document, and particularly the second sentence of the opening paragraph: “Everybody knows from the Press what the world situation looks like, and therefore the Fuehrer has issued an order to him-”
THE PRESIDENT: That’s not on page 25, is it? Is that on page 25 of 1301 ?
MR. DODD: Yes, your Honour.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
“Everybody knows from the Press what the world situation looks like, and therefore the Fuehrer has issued an order to him to carry out a gigantic programme compared to which previous achievements are insignificant. There are difficulties in the way which he will overcome with the utmost energy and ruthlessness.”
The supply of foreign currency had shrunk because of preparations for the invasion of Czechoslovakia, and it was considered necessary to replenish it. These – and I am now referring to the third paragraph of that same page 25 of document 1301-PS – “these gains made through export are to be used for an increased armament. The armament should not be curtailed by the export activities.” He received the order from the Fuehrer to increase the armament to an abnormal extent, the Air Force having first priority. ” Within the shortest time, the Air Force should be increased five-fold; also the Navy should create war weapons more rapidly, and the Army should procure large amounts of war weapons at a faster rate, particularly heavy artillery and heavy tanks. Along with this manufacture of armaments a larger production of armament, especially fuel, rubber, powders and explosives must be moved to the foreground. This should be coupled with an accelerated expansion of highways, canals, and particularly of the railroads.”
In the course of these preparations for war, a clash of wills ensued between two men, the defendant Goering and the defendant Schacht, as a result of which the defendant Schacht resigned his position as head of the Ministry of Economics and Plenipotentiary for the War Economy in November of 1937 and was removed from the presidency of the Reichsbank in January of 1939, I do not propose, at this moment, to go into the details of this controversy. There will be more said on that subject at a later stage in these proceedings, but for the present, I should like to have it noted that it is our contention that Schacht’s departure in no way implied any disagreement with the major war aims of the Nazis. The defendant Schacht took particular pride in his vast attainments in the financial and economic fields in aid of the Nazi war machine. And in the document EC-257, which is a copy of a letter from the defendant Schacht to General Thomas, in the first paragraph of the letter, he wrote, “I think back with much satisfaction to the work in the rearmament of the German people as ‘conditio sine qua non’ of the establishment of a new German nation.” The second paragraph is of a more personal nature. It has no real bearing on the issues before us at this time.
In the document EC-252, a letter written to General von Blomberg, dated 8th July, 1937, the defendant Schacht wrote,
“The direction of the war economy by the plenipotentiary would in that event never take place entirely independent of the rest of the war mechanism, but would be aimed at an accomplishment of the political war purpose with the assistance of all economic forces. I am entirely willing, therefore, to participate in this way in the preparation of the forthcoming order giving effect to the Defence Act.”
In the spring of 1937, the defendant Schacht participated with representatives of the three branches of the Armed Forces in war games in war economy which is probably something new by way – or was something new by way of military exercises. The war games in war economy were held at Godesberg, Germany.
And I refer to the document EC-174. It has as a heading, or subheading, under the summary, “War economy tasks in Godesberg undertaken by General Staff between 25th May and 2nd June,” and it goes on to outline, in some slight detail, that there was a welcome to the General Staff war economy trip. It tells something in a rather vague and not altogether clear way of just how a war game in war economy was conducted, but it leaves no doubt in the mind that such a war game in war economy had been conducted at Godesberg at that time. And on the second page of this document, the last paragraph, is the translation of Part 1 of the speech welcoming Dr. Schacht. It says: “Before I start with the discussion of the war game in war economy, I have to express how grateful we all are that you, President Dr. Schacht, have gone to the trouble to personally participate in our final discussion to-day despite all your other activities. This proves to us your deep interest in war economy tasks shown at all times, and your presence is renewed proof that you are willing to facilitate for us the difficult war economic preparations and to strengthen the harmonious co- operation with your offices.”
I should also like to call the Court’s attention to the next, to the last paragraph, on the first page. It is a one- sentence paragraph, and it simply says, “I want to point out, however, that all material and all information received has to be kept in strict secrecy,” and it refers to the preceding paragraph concerning the war games in war economy.
It appears that the annexation of Austria was a goal which the defendant Schacht had long sought, for in a speech to the employees of the former Austrian National Bank, as set out in the document bearing the label EC-297, and particularly the second paragraph of the first page of that document, nearly at the end, four or five lines from the end of that paragraph, we find these words, immediately after “large applause”: ” Austria has certainly a great mission, namely, to be the bearer of German culture, to ensure respect and regard for the German name, especially in the direction of the South-east. Such a mission can only be performed within the Great German Reich and based on the power of a nation of 75,000,000, which, regardless of the wish of the opponents, forms the heart and the soul of Europe.” Dr. Schacht goes on to say, “We have read a lot in the foreign Press during the last few days that this aim, the union of both countries, was to a certain degree justified, but that the method of effecting this union was terrible. This method, which certainly did not suit one or the other power, was nothing but the consequence of countless perfidies and brutal acts and violence which foreign countries have practised against us.” And I refer now to page 3 of this same document and to the fourth paragraph, about the centre of the page, and reading from it: “I am known for sometimes expressing thoughts which give offence and there I would not like to depart from this consideration. I know that there are even here, in this country, a few people – I believe they arc not too numerous- who find fault with the events of the last few days; but nobody, I believe, doubts the goal, and it should be said to all grumblers that you can’t satisfy everybody. One person says he would have done it maybe one way, but the remarkable thing is that they did not do it, and that it was only done by our Adolf Hitler; and if there is still something left to be improved, then those grumblers should try to bring about these improvements from the German Reich, and within the German community, but not to disturb us from without.”
In the memorandum of 7th January, 1939, written by the defendant Schacht and other directors of the Reichsbank to Hitler, urging a balancing of the budget in view of the threatening danger of inflation, it was stated, and I now refer to the document bearing the label EC-369 and particularly to the paragraph at the bottom of the first page of that document: “From the beginning the Reichsbank has been aware of the fact that a successful foreign policy can be attained only by the reconstruction of the German Armed Forces. It (the Reichsbank) therefore assumed to a very great extent the responsibility of financing the rearmament in spite of the inherent dangers to the currency. The justification therefore was the necessity, which pushed all other considerations into the background, to carry through the armament at once, out of nothing, and furthermore under camouflage, which made a respect-commanding foreign policy possible.”
The Reichsbank directors, as experts on money, believed that a point had been reached where greater production of armaments was no longer possible. That was merely a judgement on the situation and not a moral principle, for there was no opposition to Hitler’s policy of aggression. Doubts were entertained as to whether he could finance that policy. Hitler’s letter to Schacht on the occasion of Schacht’s departure from the Reichsbank, as contained in document EC-397, paid high tribute to Schacht’s great efforts in furthering the programme of the Nazi conspirators. The armed forces by now had enabled Hitler to take Austria and the Sudetenland. We say Schacht’s task up to that point had been well done. And to quote from document EC-397, in the words of Hitler, in a letter which he wrote to the defendant Schacht, “Your name, above all, will always be connected with the first epoch of the national rearmament.”
Even though dismissed from the presidency of the Reichsbank, Schacht was retained as a minister without portfolio and special confidential adviser to Hitler. The defendant Funk stepped into Schacht’s position as president of the Reichsbank. And I ask at this point that the Court might take judicial notice of the Volkischer Beobachter Of 21St January, 1939. The defendant Funk was completely uninhibited by fears of inflation, for like Goering, under whom he had served in the Four-Year Plan, he recognised no obstacles to the plan to attack Poland.
In document 699-PS, a letter from the defendant Funk to Hitler, written on 25th August, 1939, only a few days before the attack on Poland, the defendant Funk reported to Hitler that the Reichsbank was prepared to withstand any disturbances of the international currency and credit system occasioned by a large-scale war. He said that he had secretly transferred all available funds of the Reichsbank abroad into gold, and that Germany stood ready to meet the financial and economic tasks which lay ahead.
And it seems plain and clear from the writings, from the acts, from the speeches of the Nazi conspirators themselves, that they did in fact direct the whole of the German economy toward preparation for aggressive war. To paraphrase the words the defendant Goering once used, the conspirators gave the German people “guns instead of butter ” and they also gave – we say, they also gave history its most striking example of a nation gearing itself in time of peace to the single purpose of aggressive war. Their economic preparations, formulated and applied with the ruthless energy of Goering, the cynical financial wizardry of the defendant Schacht, and the willing complicity of Funk, among others, were the indispensable first act in the heart- breaking tragedy which their aggression inflicted upon the world.
I should like to offer, if I may at this time, your Honour, those documents which I have referred to in the course of this discussion. We have here the original documents in the folders, and they compare with the translations which have been submitted to the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the defendants had the opportunity of inspecting these documents?
MR. DODD: I doubt that they have had full opportunity to inspect them, your Honour. The documents are there, but I don’t think they have had the opportunity to inspect them because they haven’t been there long enough for that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal – I think that they should be given full opportunity of inspecting them and comparing them with the copies which have been submitted to us before the originals are put in.
MR. DODD: Very well, your Honour. We may offer these later, as I understand?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. The Tribunal will adjourn for ten minutes.
(Whereupon the Court, at 15.25 o’clock, recessed for ten minutes.)
COLONEL STOREY: May it please the Tribunal:
The United States Prosecution now passes into the aggressive war phase of the case and it will be presented by Mr. Alderman.
MR. SIDNEY S. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal:
I rise to present on behalf of the United States Chief of Counsel, evidence to support the allegation of Count 1 of the Indictment relating to the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of illegal and aggressive war, and relating to the conspiracy to commit that crime.
The aggressive war phase of the case, the aggressive war phase of the conspiracy case under Count 1, and the aggressive war phase of the entire case is really, we think, the heart of the case. If we did not reach it in our presentation we would not reach the heart of the case. If we did not present it to the Tribunal in the necessary detail, we would fail to present what is necessary to the heart of the case.
After all, everything else in this case, however dramatic, however sordid, however shocking and revolting to the common instinct of civilised peoples, is incidental to, or subordinate to, the aggressive war aspect of the case.
All the dramatic story of what went on in Germany in the early phases of the conspiracy, the ideologies used, the technics of terror used, the suppressions of human freedom employed in the seizure of power, and even the concentration camps and the Crimes against Humanity, the persecutions, tortures and murders committed, all of these things would have had little juridical international significance except for the fact that they were the preparation for the commission of aggressions against peaceful neighbouring peoples.
Even the aspects of the case involving War Crimes in the strict sense are aspects which are merely the inevitable, proximate result of the wars of aggression launched and waged by these conspirators, and of the kind of warfare they waged, that is total war, the natural result of the totalitarian party-dominated State that waged it, and atrocious war, the natural result of the atrocious doctrines, designs and purposes of these war-makers.
For these reasons, I repeat, that in our view the phases of the case dealing with territorial gains acquired by threats of force and with actual aggressions and aggressive wars, constitute the real heart of the case. Accordingly, we ask the indulgence of the Tribunal if for these reasons we may make the presentation of this part of the case as detailed as seems to us necessary in view of the outstanding importance of the subject matter.
The general scope of the case to be presented by the American prosecution has been stated in the opening address of Mr. Justice Jackson. That address indicated to the Tribunal the general nature and character of the evidence to be offered by the American prosecution in support of the allegations with which I shall deal. However, before approaching the actual presentation of that evidence, it seems to us it would be helpful to an orderly presentation of the case, to address the Tribunal in an introductory way concerning this specific segment of the prosecution’s case. In doing so, I shall not attempt to retrace the ground so ably covered by Mr. Justice Jackson. On the contrary, I shall confine my introductory remarks to matters specifically and peculiarly applicable to that part of the American case relating to the crime of illegal warfare, and the Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit that crime.
The substantive rule of law which must guide the considerations of the Tribunal on this aspect of the case, and the rule of law which must be controlling in the final judgement of the Tribunal on this part of the case, is stated in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. Article 6, so far as is pertinent here, reads as follows:-
“Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, either as individuals or as members of organisations, committed any of the following crimes.
The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility.
(a) Crimes Against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; ”
Sub-paragraph’s (b) and (c) of Article 6 are not pertinent to this aspect of the case. However, the unnumbered final paragraph of Article 6 is of controlling importance on this aspect of the case. That paragraph reads:-
“Leaders, organisers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.”
In receiving evidence on this aspect of the case I would request the Tribunal to have in mind five principles derived from the portions of the Charter I have just read:
(1) The Charter imposes “individual responsibility” for acts constituting “Crimes against Peace;”
(2) The term “Crimes against Peace” embraces planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of illegal war;
(3) The term “Crimes against Peace” also embraces participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit illegal war;
(4) an illegal war consists of either a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.
These two kinds of illegal war might not necessarily be the same. It will be sufficient for the prosecution to show that the war was aggressive, irrespective of breach of international treaties, agreements or assurances. On the other hand it would be sufficient for the prosecution to show that the war was in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances irrespective of whether or not it was a war of aggression. We think the evidence in this case will establish conclusively that the wars planned, prepared, initiated, and waged by these defendants, and the wars which were the object of their Common Plan and Conspiracy, were illegal for both reasons. The fifth principle which I ask you to bear in mind, is that individual criminal responsibility of a defendant is imposed by the Charter not merely by reasons of direct, immediate participation in the crime. It is sufficient for the prosecution to show that a defendant was a leader, an organiser, instigator, or accomplice who participated either in the formulation or in the execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit Crimes against Peace. In the case of many of the defendants the evidence will show direct and immediate personal participation in the substantive crime itself. In the case of some of the defendants the evidence goes to their participation in the formulation and execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy. In the case of each defendant we think the evidence will establish full individual responsibility for Crimes against Peace, as defined in the Charter of this Tribunal. In this connection I wish to emphasise that the Charter declares that the responsibility of conspirators extends not only to their own acts, but also to all acts performed by any persons in execution of the Conspiracy.
It is familiar law in my country that if two or more persons set out to rob a bank, in accordance with a criminal scheme to that end, and in the course of carrying out their scheme one of the conspirators commits the crime of murder, all the participants in the planning and execution of the bank robbery are guilty of murder, whether or not they had any personal participation in the killing. This is a simple rule of law declared in the Charter. All the parties to a Common Plan or Conspiracy are the agents of each other and each is responsible as principal for the acts of all the others as his agents.
So much for the terms of the Charter having a bearing on this aspect of the case.
I invite the attention of the Tribunal to the portions of the Indictment lodged against the defendants on trial which relate to the crimes of illegal war or war of aggression. Particularly I ask the Tribunal to advert to the statements of offences under Count 1 and Count 2 of the Indictment in this case.
The statement of offences under Count 1 of the Indictment is contained in paragraph III. The offences there stated, so far as pertinent to the present discussion, are:-
“All the defendants, with divers other persons, during a period of years preceding 8th May, 1945, participated as leaders, organisers, instigators, or accomplices in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit, or which involved the commission of, Crimes against Peace, as defined in the Charter of this Tribunal. . . . The Common Plan or Conspiracy embraced the commission of Crimes against Peace, in that the defendants planned, prepared, initiated and waged wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.” . . .
The statement of offences under Count 2 of the Indictment is also relevant at this point. It must be obvious that essentially Counts 1 and 2 interlock in this Indictment. The substance of the offence stated under Count 2, paragraph V of the Indictment is this:-
“The emphasis in the statement of offences under Count 1 of the Indictment is on the Common Plan or Conspiracy. The emphasis under Count 2 of the Indictment is on the substantive crimes to which the Conspiracy related and which were committed in the course of and pursuant to that conspiracy.”
I should hasten to add at this point that in the division of the case as between the Chief Prosecutors of the four Prosecuting Governments, primary responsibility for the presentation of the evidence supporting Count 1 has been placed on the American prosecutor, and primary responsibility for the presentation of the evidence supporting Count 2 of the Indictment has been placed on the British prosecutor.
But as we shall show somewhat later, there will, to some extent, be a co-operative effort as between the prosecutors to present both counts together. In addition to the statement of offence relating to illegal warfare in paragraph III under Count 1 of the Indictment, Count 1 also contains what amounts to a bill of particulars of that offence. In so far as those particulars relate to illegal warfare, they are contained in paragraph IV (F) of the Indictment which sets out in the English text on page 7 through to the top of page 10 under the general heading “Utilisation of Nazi Control for Foreign Aggression.” The allegations of this bill of particulars have been read in open Court, in the presence of the defendants; and the Tribunal, as well as the defendants, are certainly familiar with the contents of those allegations. I call attention to them, however, in order to focus attention on the parts of the Indictment which are relevant in consideration of the evidence which I intend to bring before the Tribunal.
My introduction to the presentation of evidence in this matter would be faulty if I did not invite the Tribunal to consider with me the relationship between history and the evidence in this case. Neither Counsel nor Tribunal can orient themselves to the problem at hand-neither counsel nor Tribunal can present or consider the evidence in this case in its proper context- neither can argue nor evaluate the staggering implications of the evidence at hand to be presented without reading that history, reading that evidence against the background of recorded history, and by recorded history, I mean the history merely of the last twelve years.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, of the U.S. Supreme Court, found in his judicial experience that “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” My recollection is that he stated it perhaps better, perhaps earlier in the preface to his book on the common law where he said, I think, ” The life of the law has been not logic but experience.” I submit, that in the present case, a page of history is worth a hundred tons of evidence. As lawyers and judges we cannot blind ourselves to what we know as men. The history of the past twelve years is a burning, living thing in our immediate memory. The facts of history crowd themselves upon us and demand our attention.
It is common ground among all systems of jurisprudence that matters of common knowledge need not be proved, but may receive the judicial notice of courts without other evidence. The Charter of this Tribunal, drawing on this uniformly recognised principle, declares in Article 21:-
“The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but it shall take judicial notice thereof.”
The facts of recorded history are the prime example of facts of common knowledge which require no proof. No court would require evidence to prove that the Battle of Hastings occurred in the year 1066, or that the Bastille fell on the 14th of July, 1789, or that Czar Alexander II freed the serfs in i863, or that George Washington was the first President of the United States, or that George III was the reigning King of England at that time.
If I may be allowed to interpolate, an old lawyer-professor of mine used to present a curiosity of the law – that a judge is held to responsibility for no knowledge of the law whatsoever, that a lawyer is held to a reasonable knowledge of the law, and a layman is held to an absolute knowledge of all the laws. It works inversely as to facts, or facts of common knowledge. There, the judge is imputed to know all of those facts, however many of them he may have forgotten as an individual man. So one of the purposes of this presentation will be to implement the judicial knowledge, if a hypothesis actually exists.
It is not our purpose however, to convert the record of these proceedings into a history book. The evidence which we offer in this case is evidence which for the moment has been concealed from historians. It will fill in recorded history, but it must be read against the background which common knowledge provides. The evidence in this case consists primarily of captured documents – these captured documents fill in the inside story underlying the historical record which we all already knew. The evidence which we will offer constitutes an illustrative spot-check on the history of recent times as the world knows it. The evidence to be offered is not a substitute for history. We hope the Tribunal will find it to be an authentication of history. The evidence which we have drawn from captured documents establishes the validity of the recent history of the past twelve years – a history of many aggressions by the Nazi conspirators accused in this case.
As I offer to the Tribunal document after document, I ask the Court to see in those documents definite additions to history, the addition of new elements long suspected and now proved. The elements which the captured documents on this particular aspect of the case will add to recorded history are the following:-
(1) the conspiratorial nature of the planning and preparation which underlay the Nazi aggressions already known to history;
(2) the deliberate premeditation which preceded those acts of aggression;
(3) the evil motives which led to the crimes;
(4) the individual participation of named persons in the Nazi conspiracy for aggression;
(5) the deliberate falsification of the pretexts claimed by the Nazi aggressors as their reason for their criminal activities.
These elements the captured documents will demonstrate beyond possible doubt, and these elements, in the context of historical facts, we think are all that need be shown.
The critical period between the Nazi seizure of power and the initiation of the first war of aggression was a very short period. This critical period of lawless preparation and illegal scheming which ultimately set the whole world aflame was unbelievably short. It covered six years, 1933 to 1939. The speed with which all this was accomplished evidences at once the fanatical intensity of the conspirators and their diabolical efficiency. Crowded into these six short years is the making of the greatest tragedy that has ever befallen mankind.
A full understanding of these six years, and the vibrant six years of war that followed, demands that we see this period of time divided into rather definite phases, phases that reflect the development and execution of the Nazi master plan. I suggest that the Tribunal as it receives evidence, fit it into five phases. The first was primarily preparatory, although it did involve overt acts. That phase covers roughly the period from 1933 to 1936. In that period the Nazi conspirators, having acquired government control of Germany by the middle of 1933, turned their attention toward utilisation of that control for foreign aggression. Their plan at this stage was to acquire military strength and political bargaining power to be used against other nations. In this they succeeded. The second phase of their aggression was short. It is rather interesting to see that as the conspiracy gained strength, it gained speed. During each phase the conspirators succeeded in accomplishing more and more in less and less time until toward the end of the period, the rate of acceleration of their conspiratorial movement was enormous. The second phase of their utilisation of control for foreign aggression involved the actual seizure and absorption of Austria and Czechoslovakia in that order. By March, the third month of 1939, they had succeeded in that phase. The third phase may be measured in months rather than years, from March 1939 to September 1939. The previous aggression being successful, having been consummated without the necessity of resorting to actual war, the conspirators had obtained much desired resources and bases and were ready to undertake further aggressions by means of war, if necessary. By September 1939 war was upon the world. The fourth phase of the aggression consisted of expanding the war into a general European war of aggression. By April 1941, the war which had heretofore involved Poland, the United Kingdom and France, had been expanded by invasions into Scandinavia and into the Low Countries and into the Balkans. In the next phase the Nazi conspirators carried the war Eastward by invasion of the territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and finally, through their Pacific ally, Japan, precipitated the attack on the United States at Pearl Harbour.
The final result of these aggressions is fresh in the mind of all of us.
I turn now to certain outstanding evidence at hand. While on this phase of the case we shall not rest exclusively on them alone, the essential elements of the crime which I have already pointed out can be made out by a mere handful of captured documents. My order of presentation of these will be first to present one by one this handful of documents, documents which prove the essential elements of the case on aggressive war up to the hilt. These documents will leave no reasonable doubt concerning the aggressive character of the Nazi war or concerning the conspiratorial premeditation of that war. Some of this group of documents are the specific basis for particular allegations in the Indictment. As I reach those documents, I shall invite the attention of the Tribunal to the allegations of the Indictment which are specifically supported by them. Having proved the corpus of the crime in this way, I will follow the presentation of this evidence with a more or less chronological presentation of the details of the aggressive war, producing more detailed evidence of the relevant activities of the conspirators from 1933 to 1941.
The documents which we have selected for single presentation at this point, before developing the case in detail, are ten in number. The documents have been selected to establish the basic facts concerning each phase of the development of the Nazi conspiracy for aggression. Each document is conspiratorial in nature. Each document is one, I believe, heretofore unknown to history and each document is self- contained and tells its own story. Those are the three standards of selection which we have sought to apply.
I turn to the period of 1933 to l936, a period characterised by an orderly, planned sequence of preparations for war. This is the period covered by paragraphs 1 and 2 of section IV (F) of the Indictment, to be found at page 7 of the printed English text. The essential character of this period was the formulation and execution of the plan to re-arm and to re-occupy the Rhineland, in violation of the treaty of Versailles and other treaties, in order to acquire military strength and political bargaining power to be used against other nations.
If the Tribunal please, we have what have been referred to as document books. They are English translations of German documents, in some cases German versions. I shall ask that they be handed up and we will hand one copy at the moment to counsel for the defendants. It has been physically impossible to prepare twenty-one sets of them. If possible, we shall try to furnish further copies to the defendants.
DR. DIX (Counsel for defendant Schacht): I would be very much obliged. In order that there should be no misunderstanding, we have arranged that tomorrow-
THE PRESIDENT: Speak a little bit slower.
DR. DIX: We have arranged that tomorrow we will discuss with the authorities in what way in the future the whole of the evidence may be made available to all the defence counsel. It is, of course, necessary that no one has the advantage over the other. For this reason, I should like to acknowledge the goodwill on the part of the prosecution in this difficult situation.
I should like to take one copy, but if I were to do so this would be an unfair advantage over the others. I am not in a position during this procedure to give my colleagues the evidence. For this reason, I hope you will understand if I do not accept this document. I am convinced that tomorrow we shall be able to agree on a perfect method of obtaining the evidence, and we shall try to continue to-day as we have done so far.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Alderman, can you inform the Tribunal how many copies of these documents you will be able to furnish to defence counsel by Monday?
MR. ALDERMAN: I cannot at the moment. If your Honour pleases, may I make this suggestion in connection with it, which I think may be of help to all concerned? I think many of us have underestimated the contribution of this interpreting system to this trial. We all see how it has speeded the proceeding, but in so far as my presentation of German documents is concerned, I shall let the documents speak. I expect to read the pertinent parts of the documents into the system so that they will go into the transcript of the record. Counsel for the German defendants will get their transcript in German; our French and Russian Allies will get their transcript in their language, and it seems to me that that is the most helpful way to overcome this language barrier. I can recognise that for Dr. Dix to receive a volume of documents which are English translations of German documents might not seem very helpful to him. Further, as an aid, we will have an original German document in Court, one copy, and if the Court will allow, I would ask that the original German document, from which I shall read, be passed to the German interpreter under Colonel Dostert, so that instead of undertaking to translate an English translation back into perhaps a bad German, he will have the original document before him and in that way, the exact German text will be delivered in the daily transcript to all of the counsel for the defendants. I hope that may be a helpful suggestion.
THE PRESIDENT: That, to some extent depends, does it not, upon how much of the document you omit?
MR. ALDERMAN: That is quite true, Sir, as to these ten documents with which I propose to deal immediately. I expect to read into the transcript practically the whole of the documents, because the whole of them is significant, much more significant than anything I could say. Also all of these ten documents were listed in the list of documents which we furnished counsel for the defendants on, I believe, the 1st of November.
THE PRESIDENT: You say that they were in the list. Arc the documents very long ?
MR. ALDERMAN: Some of them are very long and some of them are very short; you can’t generalise. Whenever it is a speech of Adolf Hitler you can count it is fairly long.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you not by Monday have in the hands of every member of the defence counsel copies of these ten documents? It is suggested to me that the photostating could be done quite easily.
MR. ALDERMAN: I understand our photostatic facilities and our mimeographing facilities are right up to the hilt with work. It is a very difficult mechanical problem.
COLONEL STOREY: If the Tribunal please, in further explanation, the documents which Mr. Alderman intends to offer were on the defendants’ list filed in the document centre on 1st November, 1945. Lt. Barrett had twenty-three of each one photostated as far as he could on that list. Six copies went into the Defendants’ Information Centre. Now, we can’t say at this time whether six copies, that is photostatic copies of each one, have been furnished to the defendants, but, whenever they wanted copies of any particular one, either the original was exhibited to them or photostatic copies were made.
Again, Sir, I call attention to the physical problems that are almost insurmountable to make twenty-three photostatic copies which are required of every document.
THE PRESIDENT: If I may interrupt you, I imagine the list which was deposited on 1st November didn’t contain only these ten documents but contained a great number of other documents.
COLONEL STOREY: That is correct, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: So that the defendants’ counsel wouldn’t know which out of that list of documents were going to be relied upon.
COLONEL STOREY: Except, Sir, they were notified that the Prosecution would use all or some of those documents if necessary and if the copies were not furnished upon request, they have since been made and delivered to them.
May I say, Sir, that working twenty-four hours a day, we are trying to furnish ten sets of all of these to defendants’ counsel and there will be one complete set. One complete set was delivered to defendants’ counsel here now as a convenience to follow. The other sets, I feel certain, will be in their hands sometime Sunday, but one complete list we now turn over to them – not a list, complete copies.
DR. SIEMERS (Counsel for defendant Raeder): I beg the pardon of the Court for being rather hoarse. I should like to point out one fact. The prosecution had declared this morning that those documents that will be put before us today are contained in the list which on the 1st of November was made available to us, or were in the list which was made available to us this morning. This morning a list was made available to us in room fifty-five. I have it in my hand. This morning nine documents were named. Of these documents only one, contrary to what the prosecution said, was present; the other eight or nine documents were neither in the old list, nor in the new list. The eight other documents are as I ascertained at lunch-time today, not in the document room, not available in photostatic copies, so they could not be made available to me. I think, Sirs, that it will not be possible for us to work on this basis. I therefore request that, first of all, we may wait until we have had our discussion tomorrow with the prosecution, which they have kindly offered to us and see how this –
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal proposes to adjourn now and to give defence counsel the opportunity of meeting counsel for the prosecution tomorrow morning. Both counsel for the prosecution and defence counsel appear to be perfectly ready to make every possible effort to deal with the case in a most reasonable way, and at that meeting you will be able to discuss these documents which you say have been omitted and the counsel for the prosecution will try to satisfy you with reference to the other documents.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I have one more request. It has just been said by the prosecution that it will hardly be possible to make twenty-three photostatic copies. I believe, Sirs, if this is a case of such very important documents, as the prosecution said today, it is a conditio sine qua non that every defence counsel and every accused should have a photostatic copy of these documents.
As we all know it is easy to produce a photostat in a few hours’ time. With the excellent apparatus here available to the prosecution it should, in my opinion, be easy to produce twenty or forty photostats of these ten documents in forty-eight hours.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you will meet the counsel for the prosecution tomorrow and attempt to come to some satisfactory arrangement with them then; and now the Tribunal will adjourn.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 26th November, 1945, at 10.00 hours.)