The Tribunal is sufficiently informed on this point so it is unnecessary to insist upon it. and villages. Page 20 of my presentation. The policy of terrorism which the German armies had in France against the forces of the Resistance, against the FFI went beyond all measures and their anger was turned no longer against the resistance themselves but against the inhabitants of villages and towns suspected of having given asylum to these FFI, as having given them assistance; and I quote in this connection from a brochure which was put out by the high command of the army under date of 6 May 1944, bearing the name of the chief of the OKW, the signature of the Defendant Jodl. This is document FR 1439, formerly FR 665, submitted 31 January 1946, under No. RF 430. The paragraph 161 of this notice reads as follows: "The cleaning out of villages suspected of concealing bands necessitates experience. The Forces of the Security Service, SD, and the Secret Police of the countryside are to be used. The real aids of the bands are to be recognized and seized with the utmost energy. Collective measures against the population of entire villages, among which measures the burning of localities can be ordered only in exceptional cases and exclusively by division Commanders or chiefs of police and of SS." Page 21 of my presentation. But the Defendant Jodl, what he had prescribed as an exceptional measure, was in the Spring and in the Summar of 1944 to become a common rule. Actions of isolated character at the moment of the signing of this notice, they new became actions of great scope, ordered and carried through by units of the army, supported in violation of the law of nations by forces of the security service and the secret police of the countryside. elements of the Resistance, German officers and soldiers unscrupulously observed the orders given by the chief of the general staff of operations, and it was thus that the falling back of the German armies in France was measured by those cities and villages, henceforth indeed, which among others, bear the names of Oradour-Sur-Glane, Maille, Cerisay, Saint-Die, and Vassieuxen-Vercore.
most arbitrary arrests and reached the stage of tortures, massacre, generalized massacre of the inhabitants, men, women, old people, children, infants, to the pillaging and burning of these localities; no discrimination among the inhabitants, all, even the youngest children were "auxiliaries." Never have the necessities of war justified such measures, which constitute many violations of Article 46 and 50 of the Hague Convention. civilian workers and to the deportation of civilians for forced labor. The decree of appointment of Sauckel in the capacity of general, mandatory for the utilization of manpower, under date of 21 March, 1942, bears the signatures of Hitler, Lammers, Chief of the Reichschancellory and of the defendant Keitel. This is Document FR 1440 , 1666-PS, submitted on the 12 December 1945, under No. US 208 by the American prosecution.
force to the end of its utilization for the German war industry and particularly for the armament industry. There were to be submitted under this obligation all workers not employed in Germany, in the protectorates in the general government, and in all the occupied territories. This is a violation of Article 52 of the Hague Convention. have alluded to earlier, the Defendant Jodl, speaking of the tasks which were incumbent upon the populations of the territories occupied by Germany, declared in Document RF 1431, which I quoted some time ago, it states:
"In my opinion the time has come to take action without scruples rigorous and resolute measures in Denmark, in Holland, in France and in Belgium, in order to force millions of idle people to execute work on fortifications, which is more important than any other work. The necessary orders for this have already been given."
Sauckel does not express himself in any other way. Jodl, also, becomes the champion of this requisition of services to utilize for military ends profitable to Germany alone the potential labor of the Western occupied territories. The concern with the triumph of Germany, total war, for him too, comes before respect for international conventions on the usages of war. economic and artistic pillaging. I shall be extremely brief. I point out to the Tribunal three documents which have already been submitted to it. I simply refer to them, Document RF 1441, FA 1, submitted yesterday by my colleague of the economic section. This is document RF 1437-PS, submitted by the American prosecution under Number US 379 and finally RF 1433, submitted yesterday under number RF 1310. letter of five lines, addressed by Keitel to the Special Staff Rosenberg, Chief of the Einsatzstab. This is RF 1444, Document 148 PS, which reads as follows:
"Very Honored Minister:
"Having received your letter of the 20 of February, I inform you that I have charged the High Command of the Army to make an agreement in accord with your delegate and the necessary decisions for the work of the special commando services in the territory of these operations." from the beginning, by the most constant assistance of the Army and it is in this way that Keitel himself brought his personal contribution on the artistic looting of France and of the countries of the Nest. juridical justification. They did not take place by virtue of a law but as a simple guarantee for the future negotiations of peace. But these measures quickly degenerated into a generalized spoliation of the art treasures of all kinds possessed by these countries of the West, in violation of the stipulations of Articles 46, 47 and 56 of the Hague Convention, which forbids the confiscation of private property, pillaging andseizures of works of art and scientific works by the members of the occupying Army. concerns (page 28) the violations of conventions and laws of war relative to war prisoners. In this field, in particular, Keitel and Jodl have made themselves guilty of particularly unjustified measures, contrary to the laws of war and it is first of all, a violation of Article 6 of the Annex to the Hague Convention, which stipulates that work carried out by war prisoners shall not be excessive and shall have no connection with war operations. Keitel, as Chief of the OKW, forces to work, related to war operations, the Russian war prisoners interned in the Reich. This is proved by Document EC 194, submitted by the American Prosecution on 12 December, 1945, under Number US 214. In this text Keitel expresses himself thus:
"The Fuehrer has just ordered that even the work capacity of Russian war prisoners shall be broadly used for wholesale uses for the war industry."
these prisoners into the German war economy. This document, it is true, is in 1941 and concerns itself only with Russian war prisonersbut beginning 21 March, 1942, the use of all war prisoners for purposes of the German war industry, and particularly for the armament industry, is carried out, The decree appointing Sauckel to the post of General Plenipotentiary for Labor, for manpower, which has already been referred to provides, likewise, for the use of all war prisoners in the German armament industry. This is shown by Document 1666 PS, which reveals this violation of Articles 21, 26, 27, 31 and 33 of the Geneva Convention. thus, in his program of mobilization of a labor force, Document RF 1446, 016 PS, submitted 11 December, 1945 by the American Prosecution, under Number U.S. 208:
"The utilization of all war prisoners and the use of a gigantic number of new civilian workers from abroad, men and women, has become an undoubted necessity for the solving of the mobilization of the labor program in the course of this war." in a speech which he made at Posen, Sauckel succeeded in incorporating into the war economy of the Reich 1,658,000 war prisoners, as Document RF 1447 reveals. This is also Document 1739-PS, submitted by the French Prosecution under Number RF 10. The 1,658,000 war prisoners were distributed thus: 55,000 Belgians; 932,000 French; 45,000 British; 101,000 Yugoslavs; 33,000 Poles; 488,000 Russians; others 4,000, making a total of 1,658,000. contingent of war prisoners implies a perfect collusion between the labor services under Sauckel and Keitel, Chief of the OKW, responsible for this reservoir of manpower and responsible for its utilization. Convention were to be accompanied by measures inspired or authorized by the defendant of a character even more serious in the sense that they no longer violated the rights of prisoners of war but were susceptible of entailing physical assaults against persons, which went to the point of death and these violations bear on the following points:
30 January, 1946, which presents us with a report drawn up for the services of the High Command of the Army. It relates to the American and French Air Forces. The Staff of Operations of the Luftwaffe proposed this set-up, to obtain, through the presence of these imprisoned aviators, protection for the population of the interested cities against eventual attacks of the Anglo-American aviation. Jodl, expressed a favorable opinion, considering that there was no conflict with international law if one limited oneself to the setting up of new camps.
believe, like the defendant Jodl, that there is present no conflict with international law. But this measure has to do, above all, as the first lines of this document specify, this measure has to do first of all with the assuring of protection to the German urban population. The Allied war prisoners are but a means for warding off the eventual air attacks and to this end there is no hesitation in aggravating their condition and exposing them to the dangers of war. This is a grave violation of the obligation of security, which the Geneva Convention in Article 9 imposes upon the power which holds prisoners of war within its charge.
And Keitel annotates this document with only two words; "No objections." These words are followed with the initials of his name.
I now come to the measures taken against escaped prisoners. The character of these measures was to assume a particular gravity. This is what Document RF 1449 reveals to us, Document 1650-PS, submitted on the 16 of December, 1945 by the American Prosecution under Number RF 246. The Tribunal is sufficiently informed as to this and it is not necessary, I think, for me to read it.
This document reveals to us the "Kugel Aktion" was thought up in order to put an end to the escapes of officers and non-commissioned officers. It had no aim but to confine to police organizations -- to hand over escaped prisoners to police officers through the handling of official orders and reports. But this special treatment, as you know, is no other than that of extermination. Yet, in the terms of Article 47 of the Geneva Convention, only disciplinary penalties, in this case arrests, can be inflicted by the authority upon escaped prisoners of war. Keitel did not hesitate to abandon these means for more radical ones.
DR. NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): The French Prosecutor is about to refer to a document which is in the document book under RF 711 and has been presented to the Court. This document is marked as a summary of an interrogation of the German General Westhoff and it is an especially hard reproach against the defendant Keitel, that is to say, it is about the execution of British R.A.F. officers, who had escaped from the Camp of Sagan.
reasons: statements of General Westhoff.
Second, the report has not been signed by the interrogator. It is not signed at all but has only the remark of the translator. author of this report. Westhoff has been questioned personally. Nurnberg. General Westhoff. is marked as a summary of an interrogation, can be used as proof,
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall I find the document?
M. GUATRE: Mr. President: I should like to say I shall be in a position this evening to furnish the Tribunal with the minutes of the interrogation of General Westhoff, accompanied by an affidavit by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. I received this document at the last moment and I didn't introduce it into my document book but I shall be able this evening to produce this for the Tribunal
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what do you say to the various points that have been raised by Dr. Nelte?
M. QUATRE: Mr. President; I recognize perfectly the basis of the request by the Defense and, as I said a moment ago, I shall be in a position at the end of this session to produce before the Tribunal the complete minutes of the interrogation of General Westhoff, the complete minutes, accompanied by an affidavit by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. I received these minutes too late and for those reasons was not able to insert it in the document book,
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that the document which you have submitted to us cannot be admitted. It is a mere resume. The Tribunal thinks, also, that it can only allow the interrogatory to be used if a copy of it is handed to the Defendants' Counsel and the witness who made the interrogatory is submitted to the Defendants' Counsel for cross-examination, if they wish to cross-examine him. Otherwise you must call General Westhoff and examine him orally. Is that clear? I will repeat it if you like.
The document you have submitted to us is rejected. You can either call General Westhoff as a witness, in which case, of course, he will be liable to cross-examination or you can put in the interrogatory and after you have supplied a copy of it to Defense Counsel, then General Westhoff, who made the interrogatory, will be liable to cross-examination by the Defense Counsel,
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would the Tribunal allow me to intervene for one moment? been certified by myself, is a report of the United Nations War Crimes Commission, which I received from the Chairman, Lord Reith, and certified as such a report. It therefore, in my respectful submission, becomes admissible under Article 21 of the Charter.
It is not merely a transcript of the interrogation. That is the document to which my learned friend referred and that is available and can be procured quite shortly.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I follow that point, but at the same time that does not altogether meet the situation. If it is true that General Westhoff is in Nurnberg at the present moment it would scarcely be fair that a document of that sort should be put in unless the person who made the statement or from whose interrogatory the statement was composed was submitted for cross-examination,
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With the greatest respect, my Lord, I should like the Tribunal to consider that point because the Tribunal has not got the document in front of it but it is a report to the United Nations War Crimes Commission, based on the interrogatory. It therefore, in my respectful submission, becomes admissible as a report within the actual words of Article 21 and therefore is a matter which the Tribunal shall, under the Charter, take judicial notice of.
THE PRESIDENT: Would your submission be that the right course -would be to take that report into consideration and leave it to the defendants if they wished it, to call General Westhoff?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be my submission - that is my submission because of the effect of Article 21 or the course which is contemplated in view of the special powers and special validity given to such reports by Article 21.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know whether the interrogation was made by the prosecution in Nurnberg?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told that the interrogation was made in London, I did not know that General Westhoff was in Nurnberg, I will make inquiries on that point,
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, were you able to inform us whether or not the interrogation was made in Nurnberg or in London?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told it was made in London,
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know where the witness is now?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I did not know he was in Nurnberg until your Lordship mentioned it. But I can easily verify that point.
DR. NELTE: Last week I received a letter from General Westhoff from the prison here in Nurnberg with answers to several questions. He was here last week,
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken from 1520 to 1540),
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if I might just add one or two words to clarify the position. particular attached very great importance. British Government sent a full report of this incident to the United Nations War Crimes Commission. That report included statements before a court of inquiry, statements of allied witnesses, statements taken from German witnesses, including General Westhoff, copy of the official lists of the dead and a report of the Protecting Power. All that was sent by the British Government to the United Nations War Crimes Commission last September, and the statement of General Westhoff, which I certified as being a report of the United Nations War Crimes Commission, was part of an appendix to that report which was then in the custody of the United Nations War Crimes Commission, and of which a copy was sent to me here. report made by General Westhoff at an interrogation which took place in London as a part of the matter of that report. of a subsequent interrogation of General Westhoff taken in Nurnberg. to the Tribunal - because, as I say, the incident is one of some importance and the British Government's report will be, I hope, tendered the Tribunal by my Soviet colleague, as the incident lies to the east of the line which we have drawn through the centre of Berlin and therefore falls within the Soviet case.
But I don't want the Tribunal to be under any misapprehension as to the nature of the earlier report that was made, the one which my learned friend referred to as being able to put in later should the Tribunal require it.
THE PRESIDENT: But you are agreed that the document which is now being offered to the Tribunal is not a Governmental document within Article 21 of the Charter?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE. I quite respectfully agree that that is not really the document on which I intervened. I intervened on the second one.
THE PRESIDENT: At this stage we are not concerned with that, only with the document offered in evidence to which document nobody objected, and that document is not a Government document within Article 21.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That I understand is so, but I was really intervening to explain that the second document comes-
THE PRESIDENT: I quite understand, yes.
The Tribunal allows the objection of Dr. Nelte. It considers that the document which has been submitted is not a Governmental document within Article 21 of the Charter and is therefore rejected. The Tribunal adheres to the decision which I announced just before we adjourned, namely, that if the Prosecution desired to do so, they can produce the interrogation of which the document submitted to them is a resume, and if they do so, then they must produce the witness, General Westhoff for cross-examination by Defendant's Counsel. And they must also give a copy of the interrogation to the Defendant's Counsel. In the alternative, they can produce and call General Westhoff himself and then, of course, he will be liable to cross-examination by the Defendant's Counsel.
M. QUATRE: I take cognizance of the statements of the Tribunal, and I should like to state that I am anxious to avoid the difficulties which have arisen during this session today.
We won't speak now of this document, but simply point out to the Tribunal that if the opportunity comes later at the time of the interrogation of the Defendant, at that time we may like to summon General Westhoff. May I continue, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: You may.
M. QUATRE: I had reached, gentlemen, page 36 of my brief, concerning the treatment of Allied aviators who were prisoners.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I ought to say that the Tribunal will be willing to sit this evening until half-past five, in order that the case against the Defendant Hess may be concluded, but it is very important that the case should be concluded tonight, against the Defendant Hess, because the Soviet Prosecution will require the whole day for their presentation tomorrow.
M. QUATRE: Mr. President, I shall be very brief. I shall go immediately to the conclusion. I shall say nothing concerning the treatment of Allied aviators. You know the circumstances, as well as the treatment of commando troops, and I once more beg the Tribunal's pardon for having been so lengthy. I shall conclude now. present in the planning and drawing up of orders and directives which have just been examined. Just as one could not deny the reality of the acts perpetrated as a result of these decisions, we must not overlook either, on underestimate, this moral element by which French penal law to use the formula of an eminent jurist, qualifies the acquaintance by the agent of an illicit character of the acts which he accomplishes. This knowledge of the illicit character of the orders which they knew would be followed scrupulously or carried out scrupulously, was one of which the two Defendants were fully cognizant. The systematic rejection by them of the laws and customs which were to attenuate the rigor of war, the establishment of the guiding principle of the most barbarous methods are with Keitel and Jodl the reflection of the precepts and the norms of National Socialism and its leader, for whom any international law, any convention, any ethical law, was an unbearable restraint, which would prevent them from carrying out the desired end and henceforth would put an obstacle to the superior interests of the German community. It is not a matter of indifference to know whether Keitel and Jodl were driven on by the desire to carry out their mission or whether, faithful to the traditional pan-Germanism of the General Staff, they yielded to the National Socialist myth, in the desire to see blossom one day the bold pretensions of Germany. made of their own volition and knowingly to the destructive undertaking carried out by the Third Reich.
For ten years Keitel was the "kingpin" of the German Army and from 1936 Jodl continued to be his collaborator. Before the war they worked for the war.
And during the war they deliberately flouted the rules of law and justice, the only safeguards for men who struggle. In the most scornful manner they ignored the dignity of mankind and thus failed to do their duty as soldiers. "Nacht und Nebel", the bullet action or "Kugel Action," the "Sonderbehandlung," the destruction of our cities -- all this will remain forever associated with the names of these men, particularly the name of Keitel who proclaimed that human life was less than nothing. toward the innumerable absent ones who for that sacrificed their life.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES (For the British Prosecution): May it please the Tribunal, it is my duty to present the evidence upon Counts One and Two of the Indictment, against the defendant Hess. them, has been made out in the form of a fairly full note of the evidence to wh I intend to refer, and it may be of convenience to the Tribunal to have it before them during the court sitting. in Appendix A of the Indictment, and say a word about his early life.
This Defendant was born in 1894. He is now 52 years old. He served in the German Army during the last war and in 1919 he went to Munich University. There he became the leader of the Nazi organization in that university and in 1920 he became a member of the Nazi Party itself. He was among the first of the SA, and he became the leader of the students' corps of police. In 1923 he took part in the Munich putsch and as a result of that he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Half of that period he served in jail with Hitler himself. I stress that, because it was during those seven and one-half months in prison with Hitler that Hitler dictated "Mein Kampf."
THE PRESIDENT; Have you got -
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: I think I know what the difficulty is. This case was originally scheduled to be presented by the American Delegation and they did have a brief of their own. It may be that that is the brief which Justice Biddle has before him. I will hand you up a spare copy.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may go on.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: It was during that time that Hitler dictated "Main Kampf" to this Defendant.
Now, dealing with his actual appointments: From 1925 until 1932 he was private secretary and ADC to Hitler. In 1932 he became the chairman of the Central Political Committee of the Party, in succession to Gregor Strasser. In March, 1933, after the Nazi Party became a power, he became a member of the Reichstag, and in April of that year he was appointed Deputy to the Fuehrer a position which he held until he flew to England in May of 1941. called, "Dates of the History of the Nazi Party," by Volz, which is already in evidence as No. PS-3132 and was put in evidence as US-952. Deutsches Fuehrer Lexicon, PS-3191, US-593. Portfolio, another position which he held throughout the remainder of his time in Germany. That appears in the Reichsgesetzblatt. It is PS-3178and it goes in now as GB-2478. On the 4th of February, 1938, he became a member of the Secret Cabinet Council. My Lord, that is PS-1389, and becomes GB-2479.
for Defense of the Reich, Document PS 2018, which becomes GB 250. On the 1st of Spetember 1939 he was appointed successor designate to the Fuehrer, after Goering. Goering, it will be remembered was successor No. 1, and during that time he held the positions of Obergruppenhuehrer in the SS and in the SA. the indictment. I would say a word upon the authority he exercised under and holding these positions. The Tribunal will remember that in appointing Hess as his Deputy the Fuehrer decreed, in the decree by which he made the appointment, as follows: "I hereby appoint Hess as my Deputy and give him full power to make decisions in my name in all questions of party leadership." The extent of his office as Deputy Fuehrer can be seen from the party Year Book of 1941, to which I would briefly refer the Tribunal. It appears on page 104 of the Tribunal's Document Book. It is PS-3163 and has already been put in as U.S. 255. I quote from that Year Book:
"By decree of the Fuehrer of April 21, 1933, the Deputy of the Fuehrer received full power to decide in the name of the Fuehrer all matters concerning Party leadership. Thus, the Deputy of the Feuhrer is the representative of the Fuehrer, with full power over the entire leadership of the National Socialist German Workers Party. The office of the Deputy of the Fuehrer is therefore an office of the Fuehrer. In essence, it is the duty of the Deputy of the Fuehrer to direct the basic policies of party work, to give directives, and take care that all Party work be done according to National Socialist principles. All the threads of the Party work are gathered together by the Deputy of the Fuehrer. He gives the final party word on all intra-Party plans and all questions vital for the existence of the German people. The Deputy of the Fuehrer gives the directives required for all the Party work, in order to maintain the unity, determination, and striking power of the National Socialist German Workers Party as the bearer of the National Socialist philosophy. In addition to the duties of party leadership, the Deputy of the Fuehrer has far-reaching powers in the field of the State. These are participation in national and State legislation, including the pre paration of Fuehrer orders.
The Deputy of the Fuehrer in this way validates the conception of the party as the guarder of National Socialist philosophy.
"Two, approval of the Deputy of the Fuehrer of proposed appointments for official and labor service leaders.
"Three, securing the influence of the party over the self-government of the municipal units." chart that sets out the organization of the Deputy of the Fuehrer's office. It appears on page 119 of the Document Book. It is PS-3201, which becomes 251 OB. I would particularly refer the Tribunal to the square in the center, showing the liaison officer of the Wehrmacht, and showing his close association with the army; and in the right-hand column at the top "Chief of the Foreign Organization," of which I shall tell the Tribunal in a moment; "Commissioner for Foreign Policy", showing his concern with the foreign policy of the German State; "Commissioner for all technicological matters and organization;" "Commissioner for all University Matters"; "Commissioner of University Policy", showing his concern with the education of Germany; and further down "Office for Racial Policy", showing his concern with the antiJew policy of the Nazi Government that followed; and at the bottom again "Specialist on Education," every aspect and every branch of Nazi life and the organization and administration of the State. As Reichsminister without portfolio, in the law to secure the unity of Party and State of 1st of December 1933 it was states that his task was to guarantee the close working cooperation of the party and the SA with public authority. Put in as 1395, it becomes 252. extract which I have read from the Nazi Year Book of 1941. I would particularly draw the attention of the Tribunal to a decree of Hitler's dated 27 July. The extract which I wish to quote is set out in the trial brief. It has already been read and therefore I will do nothing now other than to draw the attention of the Tribunal to it. The document is D 138 and has been put in as U.S. 403.
By the law for the protection of people in November 1933, it will be remembered that Hitler and his cabinet obtained for themselves full powers of legislation, independently of the Reichstag, and this defendant, being a member of the cabinet, of course shared in these powers. 16th of January 1937, and a short extract is again set out in the trial brief that the Tribunal has before them.
"National Socialist has seen to it that vital necessities of our nation can today no longer be torn to peices by a Reichstag and made the object of the haggling of parties. You have seen that in the new government decisions of historic scope are made by the Fuehrer and his cabinet, decisions which in other countries must be preceded by parlimentary debates lasting weeks and weeks." That these powers and offices were no sinecure is clear from Hess's own order which he issued in October 1934. I will not read it now because it has already been road. It is D 139 and was put in as U.S. 404, and the Tribunal will remember that he is there issuing a decree showing he has been given the right to participate in legislation by the Fuehrer, and any office that is promoting legislation, in which he therefore ought to take part, must let him have the draft in time to take effective action on it if he disapproves of it. describes the powers that he had without my referring: to more than two other documents upon this matter. On page 5 of the trial brief it will be seen that he acquired powers and took part in the organization and production under the 4-Year Plan. I quote from a lecture given by the defendant Frick on the 7 March 1940, which is PS--2608 and which as already been put in as 714. But the short passage that I quote now was not actually read. In that lecture Frick said:
"In order to guarantee the coordination of the various economic agencies of the 4-Year Plan, those agencies were formed into a general council, under the chairmanship of Goering. Its members are the State Secretaries of the agencies working in the field of war economy, the Chief of Military Office of Economy, and a representative of the Deputy of the Fuehrer."
which is M 102 and becomes GB 254. My Lord, it appears on page 4 of the trial brief. I quote these passages, set out simply to save the Tribunal's time in referring to the Document Book. It does appear on page 12 of the Document Book if the Tribunal desires to refer to the full extract.
"A long while ago" -- it was still before the outbreak of the war -Rudolph Hess was once called the 'Conscience of the Party. If we ask why the Fuehrer's Deputy was given this undoubtedly honorable title, the reason for this is plain to see. There is no phenomenon of our public life which is not the concern of the Fuehrer's Deputy. So enormously many-sided and diverse is his work and sphere of duty that it cannot be outlined in a few words; and it lies in the nature of the obligation laid on the Fuehrer's Deputy that wide publicity hears little of the activity of Rudolph Hess. Few know that many government measures taken, especially in the sphere of war economy and the Party, which meet with such hearty approbation when they are notified publicly, can be traced back to the direct initiation of the Fuehrer's Deputy." secret cabinet council, that council was appointed by Hitler to advise him in the conduct of foreign policy. The Tribunal will find attached to that document book a few photos. They are of little importance. They were really to emphasize or remind the Tribunal of the film that was shown earlier in the course of these proceedings, when, it will be remembered, the defendant Hess appeared in practically every scene of that film "The Rise to Power of the Nazi Party." These photographs are not actually photographs from that film; they are other somewhat similar and I produce an affidavit with them to state they were taken by Hitler's own private photographer That affidavit becomes GB 255. perhaps I might be allowed to make one short submission upon that. I make it in respect of this defendant Hess, although it is perhaps a submission which can be made in respect of every one of these defendants.
defendants in the form of a collection of documents which directly refer and directly connect these defendants with specific instances of participation in the various crimes that were committed by the German people. My lord, it will be my submission that it is sufficient, to justify and bring home the conviction of this man and his colleagues, to produce simply evidence of their positions in the Nazi State and the control of that State, and also the general evidence of the crimes which were committed by the German people. It is only perhaps new, at this late stage in the trial, as day by day the extent and scope of those crimes is becoming clearer, that we realize that they cannot have happened by themselves. Crime on that scale must be organized, coordinated, and directed. If the government of Nazi German, or the government of any country, is not the organization that directs and coordinates, what is? If the members of that government and the people who control and give orders to the members of the German nation who are committing those crimes are not the people responsible for them, then, in my submission, one is entitled to ask, who is?