It is a purely academic question; Would Hitler's power have taken such deep root, or would it have maintained itself if these inhumanities had become known to larger sections of the people and of the hierarchy? They just did not? sions is concentrated in the hands of a single individual, the orders of this one man are absolutely binding on the members of the hierarchy. This individual is their sovereign, their legibus solutus, as was first formulated-as far as I can see-by French political science with as much logic as eloquence. After all, the world is not faced by such a phenomenon for the first time. In former times it may even have seemed to be normal. In the modern world, a world of constitutions based on the separation of powers under the supervision of the people, absolute monocracy does not seem to be right in principle. And even if this is not yet the case today, one day the world will know that the vast majority of thinking Germans did not think any differently on this matter from the majority of thinking people of other nations of Europe and outside it. come about as the result of events which no individual can grasp in their entirety and even less control at will . This is what happened in Germany from the beginning of 1933 onwards. This is what happened gradually, stage by stage to the parliamentary Weimar Republic, which under Hindenburg was changed into a presidential republic, in a process which partly furthered the development by acts of state which stressed legal forms and which can be read in state documents, but partly simply formed the rules by accepted custom. The Reich law of the 24 March 1933, by which the institution of Reich government laws was created and thus the separation of powers in the sense in which it had been customary was, in practice, eliminated, was, according to the transcript of the Reichstag session, brought about with a majority sufficient for altering the constitution.
Doubts about the legality of the law have nevertheless been raised on the grounds that a section of the elected deputies had been kept away from the session by the police and another section of the deputies who were present had been intimidated so that only an apparent majority sufficient for altering the constitution had passed the law. It has even been said that no Reichstag, not even if everybody had been present and all of them had voted, could have abolished the fundamental constitutional principle of the separation of powers, as no constitution could legalise its own suicide. We need not go into this: the institution of government laws became so firmly rooted as a result of undisputed practice that only a formal jurisprudence that is entirely cut off against the realities of life and to ignore the constitutional change which had taken place. And for the same reason one's arguments are misguided if one ignores how the institution of government laws, i. e. of cabinet laws, was later changed by custom into one of several forms in which the Fuehrer legislated. At the base of every state order, as of any order whatsoever, there lie habit and custom. From the time when Hitler became head of the state, practice quickly led to Hitler standing both before the hierarchy and before the whole people as the undisputed and undisputable possessor of all competence. The result of the development was at any rate that It was not least of all under the impression of the surprising successes, or what were considered successes in Germany and abroad, above all during the course of this war, that he became this. Perhaps the German people is - even though with great differences between North and South, West and East - particularly easily subjected to actual power, particularly easily led by orders, parti cularly used to the idea of a superior.
Thus the whole process may have been made easier. Finally the only thing that was not quite clear was Hitler's relationship to the judiciary. For, even in Hitler-Germany, it was not possible to kill the idea that it was essential to allow justice to be exercised by independent courts, at least in matters which concern the wide masses in their everyday life. Up to the highest group of party officials - this has been shown by some of the speeches by the then Reich Justice Leader. The defendant, Dr. Frank, presented here - there was resistance, which was actually not very successful, when justice in civil and ordinary criminal cases was also to be forced into the "sic volo sic jubeo" of the one man. But: apart from the judiciary, which was actually also tottering, absolute monocracy was complete. The Reichstag's pompous declaration about Hitler's legal position, dated the 26 April 1942 was actually only the statement of what had become practice long before.
The Fuehrer's orders were law already a considerable time before this second World War. a partner by the other states, and this in the whole field of politics. In this connection I do not wish to stress the way (so impressive to the German people and so fatal to all opposition) in which this took place in 1936 at the Olympic Games, a show which Hitler could not order the delegations of foreign nations to attend, as he ordered Germans to the Nurnberg party rally in the case of his state shows. I should like rather only to point out that the governments of the greatest nations in the world considered the word of this "almight" man the final decision, incontestably valid for every German and based their decisions on major questions on the fact that Hitler's order was incontestably valid. To mention only the most striking cases, this fact was relied upon when the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, after the Munich conference, displayed the famous peace paper when he landed at Croyden. This fact was adhered to when people went to war against the Reich as the barbarous despotism this one man.
it or who feel its effects abroad. The German political system in the Hitler era displeased a particularly large and ever increasing number of people at home and abroad. But that does not in any way alter the fact that it existed, not lastly because of the recognition from abroad and because of its effectiveness, which caused a British Prime Minister to make the new world-famous statement at a critical period, that democracies need two years longer than the totalitarian governments to attain a certain goal. Only one who has lived as if expelled from amongst his own people, amidst blindly believing masses who idolized this man as infallible, knows how firmly Hitler's power was anchored in the anonymous and innumerable following who believed him capable only of doing what was good and right. They did not know him personally, he was for them what propangada made of him, but this he was so uncompromisingly that everybody who saw him from close to and saw otherwise, knew clearly that resistance was absolutely useless and, in the eyes of other people, was not even martyrdom. if both the following assertions were to be realized at the same time in the rules of this trial?:
1.) The Reich was the despotism of this one man, and
2.) Every functionary had the right - in fact the duty amine the orders of the monocrat to determine their legality. For them these orders could not be illegal at all, with one exception which will be discussed later - an exception which, if carefully examined, is seen to be only an apparent one - namely with the exception of these cases in which the monocrat placed himself - ac cording to the indisputable values of our times - outside every human order, and in which a real question of right or wrong was not put at all and thus a real examination was not demanded.
Hitler's will was the ultimate authority for their consi derations on what to do and what not to do.
The Fuehrer's order cut off every discussion.
Therefore: A person who, the Fuehrer's, is not trying to provide a ground for being the assertion that his conduct is illegal; for the order ception of the difficult inner struggles which so many German officials had to fight out in these years in face of many a decree or resolution of Hitler's. For them such cases were not a question of a conflict between right and wrong:
disputes about legality sank into insignificance. For them the problem was one of legitimacy: as time went on, human and divine law opposed each other ever more strongly and more frequently.
Therefore: Whatever the Charter understands by the orders which it sets aside as a ground for exemption from punishment, can the Fuehrer's order be meant by this? Can it come within the meaning of this rule? Must one not accept this order for what it was according to the interior German constitution as it had developed, a constitution which had been explicitly or implicitly recognized by the community of states? Many Germans did not like Hitler's position of power from the very beginning, and to many Germans who welcomed it at first because they yearned for clear and quick decisions, it later became a horror.
But that does not in any way alter the following fact: must not those people who did their duty in this hierarchy, willingly or unwillingly, in accordance with this consittution, feel that an injustice was being done to them if they were sentenced because of a deed or an omission which was ordered by the Fuehrer ? as such states as have a despotic constitution. But up, to now this has not been the case. If it is to be different in the future, the non-despotic powers must take the necessary steps to prevent any member of the family of states truning into a despotic power and to prevent any despotic power entering the family circle from outside. Today people are realising more and more clearly that this is the crux of our question. The circumstances must be very special if a modern people lets itself be governed despotically, ever if it is as well disciplined as the German people. But as soon as such circumstances do exist, there are no internal counter-measures left. Then only the outside world can help. But if, instead of this, the outside world recognizes this constitution, it is impossible to see where successful internal resistance can come from. In pointing to these special circumstances and to the recognition by the outside world, we draw attention to facts, for the existence of which no German was, in our case, responsible but which cannot be ignored when one asks how all this was possible. knowledge of which one cannot fully grasp the fact that Hitler's absolute monocracy was able to get such a terribly firm hold. Hitler combined in his person all the powers of issuing legislative and administrative orders on the highest level, orders which could not be questioned and were absolutely valid but immediately below him the power of the state was divided up into a vast mass of spheres of competence. But the dividing lines between these spheres were not always sharply drawn. In the modern state, particularly in the major states of a technical era, this cannot be avoided.
But the tendency to exagerate questions of competence is certainly no less marked in Germany than in any other country. This facilitated the erection of dividing lines between the departments. Every department watched jealously to see that no other one trespassed into its field. It everywhere suspected tendencies of other departments to expand ; considering the great mass of tasks which the so-called "totalitarian" state had heaped upon itself, cases where two or three departments were competent for the same matter could not be avoided. Conflicts between departments were inevitable. If a conspiracy existed, as the Indictment assumes, the conspirators were remarkably incompetent organizers. Instead of co-operating and going through thick and thin together, they fought each other. Instead of a conspiracy we rather have a dispiracy. under Hitler has still to be written . And let us now remember that in the relations between all departments, and within each department, people surrounded themselves with ever increasing secrecy: between departments and, within the departments, between ranks and within the various ranks, more and more matters were classed as "secret". Never before has there been so much "public life", i.e. non-private life, in Germany as under Hitler; but also never before was public life so screened from the people, above all from the individual members of the hierarchy themselves, as under Hitler.
It became the mechanical connecting link for the whole. A functionary who met with objections or even resistance to one of his orders from other functionaries only needed to refer to an order of the Fuehrer's to get his way. For this reason many, very many, among those Germans who felt Hitler's regime to be intolerable, who indeed hated him like the devil, looked ahead only with the greatest anxiety to the time when this man would disappear from the scene : for what would happen when this connecting link disappeared It was a vicious circle.
I repeat : an order of the Fuehrer's was binding - and indeed legally binding- on the person to whom it was given, even if the directive was contrary to international law or to other traditional values.
But was there really no dividing line ? During the first period at any rate i.e. just at the time when the foundations of power were being laid, at the time when the monocratic constitution was being developed step by step Hitler's followers amongst the people saw in their Fuehrer a man close to the people, a selfless, almost superhumanly intuitive and clear thinking pilot, believed only the best of him and only had one worry : whether he was also choosing the right men as his assistants and whether he was always aware of what they were doing. The tremendous power, the unlimited authority were given to this Hitler. As in every state it also included harsh orders. But it was never intended as authority to be inhuman. Here lies the dividing line. But this line has at no time and nowhere been quite clearly drawn Today the German epople are completely disrupted in their opinions, feelings and intentions; but they are probably in agreement on one thing, with very few exceptions : they would not wish to draw this line with less severity as accusers than other peoples do towards their leaders. Beyond that line, Hitler's order constituted no legal justification. but follows a different course in peace to what it does in war time, when so many values are changed, and when men of all nations, especially in our days, take pride in deeds which would horrify them at any other time. And the decision to wage war does not in itself overstep that line, in spite of its tremendous consequences. Not in any nation in the world. Hitler himself, at any rate, did not recognise this dividing line of inhumanity of non-humanity, as a limit of obedience in his relations with his subordinates, and here also opposition would have been considered a crime punishable by death in the eyes and for the decisions of this man with limitless power who controlled an irresistible machine. What should a man who received an order overstepping this line, have done ? A terrible situation . The reply of Greek tragedy, the reply of Antigone in such a conflict cannot be imposed. It would be Utopian to expect it, or even deman it, as a mass phenomenon. the power of deciding about war and peace, a further word remains to be said about the forms which Hitler's orders assumed.
Hitler's orders are solely the decisions of this one man, whether they were given orally or in writting, and in the latter case, whether they were clothed in more or less ceremony. diately. They are called "Erlass" (Decree) like the Decree concerning the setting up of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia of 16 March 1939, or "Verordnung" (order), like the order for the execution of the Four-Year Plan of 19 October 1936, or "Weisung" (Directive), like the strategic decisions, so often cited during this trial or simply "Beschluss" (Decision) or "Anordnung" (Instructions) often they are signed in Hitler's name only; sometimes we find the signatures of one or more of the high or highest civil or military functionaries as well. But it would be fundamentally wrong to assume that this was a case of counter-signatures as they are understood in the modern democratic constitutional law of nations ruled constitutionally or by a parliament - of a counter-signature which makes the sighatory responsible to a parliament or to a State Court of Law. Hitler's orders were his own orders and only his own orders. He was much too fanatical a champion of the one-doctrine, i.e. of the principle that every decision must be made by one -and only one- man, to consider anything else even possible, above all things in the case of his own decisions. We will leave his high opinion of himself entirely aside in this connection. Whatever the more or less decorative significance of such counter-signing may have been, there was never any doubt that the Fuehrer's orders represented only his own decision and no one else's. Special attention must here be drawn to those laws which appeared as Reich Cabinet laws or Reichstag laws. Hitler's signing of a law of the Reich Cabinet represented the formal certification of a Cabinet decision. In actual fact, however, a stage was reached where the Reich Cabinet laws were also solely decisions by Hitler who had previously given some of his ministers the opportunity to state the opinion of their departments. And when Hitler signed a law which, according to its preamble, had been decreed by the Reichstag, this was again only a case of a formal certification. In reality, however, it was a decision by Hitler.
From November 1933 onwards at the latest, the German Reichstag was not a parliament but an assembly for the acclamation of Hitler's declarations or decisions. These scenes of legislation appeared to many people at home and abroad almost to be an attempt to make democratic forms of legislation ridiculous by caricaturing them; nobody -either at home or abroad- regarded them as proceedings during which an assembly of several hundred men arrived at a decision after consideration, speeches and counter-speeches. but which can immediately be recognised as his orders. They are drawn up by a Reich Minister or some other high functionary, who states in the introduction "The Fuehrer has ordered" the"Fuehrer has decreed". We have before us not an order by the signatory, but a report by the signatory on an order given orally by Hitler. The order by Hitler as Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces were thus often clothed in the form of such a report. by a member of the public if he possesses knowledge of the constitutional position. When the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces (The OKW) issues an order, it is always an order by Hitler, Hitler himself, together with his working staff, was the OKW. The power to issue OKW orders rested solely with Hitler.
have already -so to speak by implication- dealt with the question as to who was responsible for the ultimate decisions- for this state's decisions regarding questions of existence, especially for the decision about war and peace..... already mentioned above, "probably the Fuehrer alone". We must say :Quite definitely alone. legislature. For Article 45 demands a Reich law for a declaration of war and for the conclusion of peace. And a Reich law could be passed only by the Reich stag or by a vote of the German people. Neither the Reich President, i.e. the Head of the State, nor the Reich Cabinet had to power. They might, at most, have created such circumstances by acts lying within their jurisdiction -possibly the Reich President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces- as to give the Reich legislature no option in its decision; a problem which, as far as I know is well-known, has become a real one in the United States with regard to the relationship of the president to Congress and has, therefore, been seriously discussed, while it was not a real one for the Germany of the Weimar Constitution. If, however, the Reich legislature had, by means of a law, taken the decision to wage war, the Reich President and the whole State hierarchy particularly the Armed Forces, would have been bound by this decision with no right of examination, let alone of objection, even if all the experts on international law in the world had regarded the law as contrary to international law. The Wiemar Democracy could have tolerated as little as any other nation a state of affairs in which military leaders as such could examine the decision to wage war taken by the political leaders, in the sense that they could refuse obedience if they thought fit. The military means of power must be at the disposal of the political leaders of a state. Otherwise they are not means of power at all. This has always been so. And it will have to be so all the more if the duty to give assistance against aggression is really to apply amongst the nations. which laid particular emphasis on legal forms, Hitler replaced all the highest authorities of the Weimar period, and combined all the highest competences in his own person. His orders were law.
solely competent for the decision about war and peace, has, in practice, no - or not the soul-authority. If however, both the solo legal competence and the sole authority in actual practice have ever been coincidental in any state such was the case in Hitelr Germany. And if, in any question, Hitler even even accepted the advice of a third party, such was not the case in the question of war or peace. He was the arbiter of war and peace between the Reich and ether nations.
In conclusion: would be something completely new legally something revolutionarily new. It makes no difference whether we view the matter from the point of view of the British or the French Chief Prosecutors. presuppose other laws than those in force when the actions laid before this ned with that - I S T H U S P O S E D I N I T S F U L L C O M P L E X IT Y. For not one of the defendants could have held even one of the two views of the legal world constitution on which the Chief Prosecutors base their arguments.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, could we take up the time between 4 July M LJG 11-1a now and 1:00 o'clock in dealing with that letter if you have it now, and possibly Dr. Exner also has his letter.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for defendant Funk): The defendant, Walter Funk was questioned here as a witness under oath. After his examination, he told me that on one point his testimony was not quite correct, and he asked me to correct his testimony on this point, since he himself had no opportunity to do so. letter to the President of the International Military Tribunal, which is signed by Defense Counsel Dr. Sauter as well as by thee defendant Walter Funk personally. I shall read the text of the letter:
"Re.: P enal case against Walter Funk; correction of the testimony:
"The defendant Walter Funk in his cross examination on 7 May said that he--that is, Funk-heard only through. Vice President Puhl of a deposit of the SS at the Reichsbank. The witness, Emil Puhl, when he was examined, testified that it was Funk who had spoken with the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and he--that is, Puhl-was then informed by Funk about the deposit to be set up. From the statements of the witness Emil Puhl the defendant Funk reached the conclusion that, in fact, on this point, the statement of she witness Emil Puhl is correct, and, after some consideration, the defendant Funk believed that he could remember himself that it was he, Funk, to whom Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler first applied concerning the establishment of a deposit for the SS and that he then informed Vice President Puhl about this matter.
"The statement by the defendant Funk under cross-examination was due to faulty recollection, because of the fact that these cross-examination questions of the Prosecution had completely surprised and greatly disturbed Funk. Immediately after the examination of the witness Puhl, Funk informed me of his mistake and asked me to correct his factually incorrect statement on this point, since he himself would have no opportunity to do so.
4 July M LJG 11-2a "I bring this request of the defendant Funk, and I take the liberty of informing the President of the correct state of affairs.
The defendant Funk agrees with this correction by co-signing this letter."
Then there are the two signatures, Walter Funk and Dr. Sauter. That is the contents of the letter which I sent on 17 June 1946 to the President to correct the testimony of Funk.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Sauter.
Dr. Exner, have you got your letter that you can read?
DR. EXNER (Counsel for defendant Jodl): Mr. President, I was downstairs in the General Secretary's office, and I was promised it at 1:30, but I have not yet received it. I an sorry; at the moment I am not in a position to fulfill your request.
THE PRESIDENT: You probably will have it at 2:00 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
(The Tribunal reconvened at 1400 Hours)
4 July A LJG 13-1 AFTERNOON SESSION
DR. EXNER: Mr. President, I shall read the letter dated 22 June 1946, sent to the International Military Tribunal:
"Mr. President: the British Prosecution presented the Defendant Jodl Document C 139, obviously thinking that the document showed evidence of preparatory measures for occupying the Rhineland as early as May 2, 1935."
THE PRESIDENT: I am told that the English is coming through on the Russian line.
(The proceedings suspended temporarily)
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Exner.
DR. EXNER: "The defendant Jodl has stated that he had not known the document. After looking through the document, he explained that it is quite obvious from the document that in the West, at any rate, there was no plan for any German action, but that only defensive measures were being expressly talked about. Where it was supposed to be arranged or where it was supposed to take place, he could only guess.
"Defendant Freiherr von Neurath has now informed him that in 1934, during the summer, Mussolini had stationed several divisions at the Brenner Pass in or or to occupy northern Tyrol.
"The defendant Jodl after receiving this information perused the document again, and he now guesses that with this document an operation was meant to be prepared, and that the Italians, in the event of their marching in, should be thrown back across the Brenner. But he knows nothing about this affair.
"The entire matter does not affect the defendant Jodl at all, and for that reason I shall not refer to it during this session. He attaches the greatest importance, however, to the fact that the impression is not created that he intended to conceal anything."
It is signed "Exner" , and now Jodl has signed, also.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Now I call on Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, first of all, I should like to remark that I have still to complete the case Katyn.
The case 4 July A LJG 13-2 Katyn has not been incorporated into the book which has been submitted to the Tribunal, because only Monday and the day before yesterday did we collect the evidence.
the book. It is only a brief presentation, and the interpreters will have copies of my document. However, I cannot submit a translation to the Tribunal at this moment, since it was only the day before yesterday that we concluded the hearing of the evidence, and I have not been able to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Some second voice is coming through on the English line.
(The proceedings suspended temporarily.)
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: During the time which I had stated, the case Katyn had not been included. Nevertheless, I hoped that I should be able to finish in the time which I have announced; in fact, I may be even a little quicker.
May it please the Tribunal: this Trial, which is of a historical and political importance, and a significance in shaping new laws and which is of dimensions such as have not been known hitherto in the history of law, these proceedings which concern not only the defendants present in the court, but which are of the greatest importance to the German people, are now passing into a new phase.
The position of the defense in these proceedings is especially difficult; for there is an all too unequal distribution of strength between the prosecution and the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take a recess.
(A recess was taken.) of a huge staff of experienced co-workers, was able to explore all the offices and archives in and outside Germany and to examine witnesses in all territories. So, it was in a position to submit to the Tribunal a tremendous amount of documentary material. fact that, in the Anglo-American procedure on which this trial is based there is a clause missing which is contained in the German criminal procedure according to which the prosecution is also bound to procure and submit evidence, exonerating the accused.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, let me tell you that the statement you have just made is entirely inaccurate. There is no such thing as an English code of criminal procedure but it is the universal practice for the Prosecution to disclose to the defense any document and any witness who assists the defense and therefore your statement is entirely false and I believe the same practice obtains in the United Sates. difficulties as compared with the Prosecution, that also is entirely inaccurate because I feel certain that the Prosecution in this case have observed the same rules that would have been observed in England and would have disclosed to the Defense any document or any witness over whom they had control who would assist the Defense and there have been various occasions on which the Prosecution had disclosed in this case to the Defense documents which have been supplied to them which appeared to then to help the Defense.
or practically every document has been procured for then after great effort, by the Prosecution and investigations have been made all over Germany and I may say almost all over the world in order to help the Defense in their defense in this case.
DR. STAHMER: Thank you for your instructions, Mr. President. question of the presiding judge as to whether he pleaded guilty or not guilty, declared: "Not guilty in the sense of the indictment." charges made by the Prosecution. of considerable importance for his defense, during his personal examination. He expressed his opinion in detail with regard to political and military happenings and exhaustively described the motives for his actions, and the origin and course of events. matters in all their breadth, as he saw, felt and experienced them, for this, and only this direct personal portrayal can afford good insight into the personal attitude of the accused and made it possible to give a reliable opinion of his personality. This knowledge is absolutely necessary if the Tribunal is to come in a decision, which is not only in harmony with objective law out which also renders the maximum of justice to the individuality of the perpetrator. exhaustively on all particulars - to deal with every question, to which he has already given the requisite explanation. In view of this I shall limit the defense to the following statements: we are in a transitory period of history of the greatest significance. An age is coming to an end which has beenless known for its concept of order than for its concept of liberty.
This striving for liberty released tremendous forces - so gigantic that in the and it was impossible to master them. The tremendous progress this era has unquestionably brought about in scientific and technical spheres we have dearly paid for with the shattering of all human order and the loss of peace in the entire world. So far the profound reasons for such a disastrous development have hardly been discussed in this court. But in order to rightly understand the grave crimes and confusion which are indicted here it is imperative to throw some light on the historical background. National Socialism are to be found in a period far removed from us. He goes back even right to the beginning of the last century. He sees the first step to a leading astray of the German character in Fichtes "Reden an die deutsche Nation".
Fichte preached the doctrine of "Pan-Germanism" he says, insofar as he wanted to see the world planned and organized by others, just as he himself saw it and would have liked it to be shaped. I cannot understand how this should express more than the universal human desire to take part in the shaping of a common destiny. Only the methods of such attempts to participate may, at times, be justly criticized. A Swiss assertion, which also perceives in Fichte the cause of Germany's going astray, seems to me to be clarifying in this respect. It does not, however, accuse him of PanGermanism, that is, of the will to subjugate foreign peoples, but rather reproaches him for having attempted at all, to unite the Germans into one nation. It contends that this was an inadmissible attempt to imitate the French and British, whereas it would have been more suited to the German character to remain a nation made up of different peoples. For only as such could it have continued its historical mission to remain the nucleus of a European federation. Judging by Fichte alone the development is therefore not so easily interpreted. Fichte alone. For his "Reden an die deutsch Nation" was only an answer to the "Ruf an Alle" which the French revolution had sent out into the world, and they were directly provoked by the appearance of Napoleon.
One must go back over the chain of causes and effects to their very beginning. This, the beginning of a national and personal striving for liberty which has characterised the whole of modern times, we find in the Middle Ages. which had typified ancient times was overcome by the conception of one eternal omnipotent Christian church. With this a state order superseded the dynamic forces of the time, an order which according to the doctrine of the church was created by the Lord himself and was therefore "full of "God's grace" (von Gottes Gnaden). It strove to enfold universally all of humanity and to lead to peace and rest in God. It was the teachers of the church in the Middle Ages who first ventured to subject war to the principles of law. Prior to that it was taken as a matter of course or a natural phenomenon, like sickness orbad weather, and was often looked upon as a judgment of God. Men like St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas opposed this conception and declared that one must differentiate between a just and an unjust war. They did this upon the basis and within the framework of a Christian belief, by which God had entrusted mankind with the fulfilment of a moral world order to bind one and all and which would provide the answer to the question of the righteousness or unrighteousness of a war. the medieval order was shaken, this development into a universal world peace took on the opposite character. Life, formerly inclined towards an orderly peace based upon the state, now turned into a torrent which, as it swept ever faster through the centuries, gradually grow to the present catastrophe. The individual thirsting for freedom dispensed with the shackles of church and class distinction. The State, declaring itself sovereign, violated the universal order of God as represented by the church. Not recognizing any superior power, it began to conquer as much living space (Lebensraum) as it could on this earth, as long as the stronger will of another nation did not impose any natural barriers on it.