So far, my examinations have been based on the norms of actual criminal law as laid down in par.
6. I should not like to close my statement without drawing the Court's attention to the relation between politics and law. sovereign states, the defence of the interests of one's own people. In order not to let this interpretation of politics become debased to unscrupulousness, international life has established the concept of the settlement of interests, and diplomacy as representative of this principle. It has been diplomacy which has had an essential influence in establishing the principles of international relations and, therefore, of international law. The imperfection of international legal order is caused by the co-existence of many countries, which were acting on a base of equality. Its Achillean heel was the lack of any superior authority which could have been in a position to ensure the existence of legal order in the same way as the authority of a state is able to do within its own borders. For all the time unrestrained display of forces has, therefore, played a far greater part in the international sphere. Statesmen are committed to take care of their people's interests. If they fail in their politics then the countries they were acting for, have to bear the consequences, and they themselves are judged by the judgement of history. But in a legal sence they were responsible only to their proper country for acts which their country was charged with; acts looked upon as infringing international law. The foreign country injured by the action in question could not hold responsible the acting individual . The partition erected by international law, respectful of national sovereignty, between the acting individual and foreign powers, was only removed in the case of war crimes, whereof I have spoken. of international law, and it was not affected by any opposing attempts. men of the late regime the fact that a German government, which might be able to take jurisdiction in these cases, was no longer in existence. cannot remain hidden to a critical observer that such a sharp logic has led to a false conclusion. Any organized resistance headed by a national government came to an end when the German Wehrmacht was utterly defeated and the whole of the German territory occupied by the Allies.
together with actual authority, a legal title recognized by international law concerning any decision as to the fate of the German national territory. They could have divided up Germany. But they chose another way. In the Berlin declaration of June 5, 1945, they assumed "supreme authority within Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German government, the High Command and any state, municipal or local government or authority." But this was all. The declaration expressly emphasized that the transfer of the said authority did not effect the annexation of Germany. Commission, composed of the commanders-in-chief of the four occupation zones. lasting at present. At the Potsdam conference held in July 1945 the four powers have come, among themselves, to further agreements, made public by means of the statement of August 2, 1945. The Potsdam "Agreement for the establishing of a Council of Foreign Ministers" transfers to the said council the preparation of a peace settlement, which is to be ratified by a German government "when a government suitable for this purpose has been constituted." A second agreement provides regulations concerning Germany under allied control that it is being placed under allied control and that the establishment of a German government is planned. This government is to accept, at a future date, peace conditions. This involves a government which is in a position to enter into commitments towards foreign powers as an internationally qualified partner. given to them by conquest in such a manner as not to destroy the German State. During the transition period they themselves exercise the functions of the temporarily non-existing - German government. We are therefore entitled to take the Potsdam Declaration as a foothold for the legal interpretation of Germany's position.
The German state, accordingly, has not been annihilated. Germany is burdened with obligations, which arose from her past. This is possible only, when the state upon whose attitude the obligation is based on and the one who must answer for it are countenanced as one and the same legal body.
according to International law through its own organs, it has not vanished from the sphere of the international legal order.
The final deductions of Mr. de Menthon cannot be accepted in view of the fact that his suppositions are wrong. Therefore the jurisdiction of the victorious powers over German Nationals with regard to acts connected with National Socialistic policy cannot be based on current International Law. Thus, the Charter deviates from the international legal order. Furthermore it contradicts fundamental principles of criminal law. the Authority of the German state to punish, a state which according to the opinion of Mr. de Menthon does not exist at this time, then he must logically apply the sentence "nullum crimen sine lege" to the criminal law existing in Germany. An act could therefore be made punishable only, if at the time of its commitment it was punishable according to the German law. This does not apply to personal criminal responsibility for the violation of international treaties and assurances, as well as for the participation in the conspiracy and the common plan. ation No.3 has reinstituted in the system of German criminal law, two international principles, wherefrom the Hitler Regime had deviated : namely, prohibiting retroaction and analogy. which have to be considered as the germ of a code of world law. Herr v. Ribbentrop, at the time these incriminating events took place, lacked the perception of such a code of world law. One can dispense with the principle, that a crime can be punished only if its elements are stated in advance, only in the very few cases in which the cruelty of the act is so evident that its deserved punishment is beyond doubt. This could hold true for crimes which, in consequence of certain measures of the abnormal amorality of the Hitler Regime, were during the last years not punished in Germany. valid International Law and the charter which you Mr. President, in the cession of 20 June 1946, have again stressed as the basis for legal findings in these proceedings.
Up to how, the code of international law has been unable to solve the problems which are to be decided here.
On the basis of these shortcomings, the second world war broke out. The repercussions of this catastrophy - which could not be prevented by this legal order - cannot be fully evaluated today. humanity as expressed in the treaty of London of 8 August 1945. That the objectives of this treaty could not be reached is shown with alarming certainty by the fact, that on the very day on which the charter of this Court was proclaimed as a now law of the world, the war between the Soviet Union and Japan broke out. Its possibility had been predicted to the allies of the Soviet-Union 6 months prior to that. To justify it, it was pointed out that Russia had to settle an old account with Japan. In other words, this typifies a case of an unprovoked attack. by a general definition inside the sphere of the phenomena of reality. The attacker can only be branded by a World authority. This supreme organ of humanity must possess not only an actual but also a moral authority. Universal trust must be put in its impartial judgment. It must be an Areopagus which stands above the conflicting parties and before which these parties can only appear, searching for justice, but not to participate in it as judges. ruins around us were created, to a new code of world law, which takes shape but is as yet not morally and effectively consolidated. Minister Herr von Ribbentrop, his share in the happenings, the limits of his capability, and his own personal guilt is a difficult task, taxing human endurance almost beyond strength in this period of transgressions and development.
THE PRESIDENT : We will call on Dr. Nelte, Counsel for the Defendant Keitel.
DR. NELTE (Counsel for the defendant Keitel): "We must approach our task with so much inner deliberation and mental integrity that this trial will later appear to posterity as the fulfilment of human longing for justice." be the guiding principle for all those who have been entrusted with the noble task of contributing to the search for truth in this trial. That this truth cannot be absolute the prosecutors Justice Jackson and M. Dubost have already stated. The purpose of the indictment is not to determine the historical aspect, let alone the historical development of this short but so tragically important period, but instead to find out whether, and to what extent, the defendants sitting on this bench partook in the events which have affected the entire world by their consequences, and which have brought such indescribable misery upon it, and not least upon the German people. the defendants, and submit only such incriminating evidence. Thus, in contrast to the principle of objective accusation which dominates the German criminal proceedings, it made clear its definitely biased standpoint in an indictment which obliges the defense to submit all circumstances and consider
THE PRESIDENT: I have already corrected this misstatement which you have made in your speech here, in dealing with one of theother speeches for the defense. It is not the practice of the prosecution to conceal any evidence which tends in favor of the accused.
DR. NELTE: I am afraid I can't hear.
THE PRESIDENT: What I said was that I had already corrected the erroneous view which is expressed in this paragraph in your speech, that it is the practice of the prosecution to conceal anything they know which may tend in favor of the accused.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, on this very spot Mr. Justice Jackson stated, "We cannot serve two masters", when he replied to the statement that according to German criminal law the prosecution would also have to produce material in favor of the defendants. accusation against the prosecution. To the contrary, from the point of view for which it stood it has done everything that was possible.
I merely wanted to justify my point of view as defendant's counsel and say why -
THE PRESIDENT: The only reason I interrupted you was because of the sentence in your speech, "It made clear its definitely biased standpoint." In the second paragraph, the second sentence of that paragraph, you say, "Thus, in contrast to the principle of objective accusation which dominates the German criminal proceedings, it made clear" -- that is, the prosecution made clear -- "its definitely biased standpoint in an indictment..."
DR. NELTE: I said "one-sided", that contrary to the governing principle of German criminal procedure, which is objective indictment, it has made clear its definitely one-sided standpoint of indictment which obliges the defense to submit all circumstances and considerations which are indispensable for an objective administration of justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on. It may be a different translation.
DR. NELTE: For this purpose, it is first necessary to clarify certain concepts whichare needed for the perception of responsibility and guilt. As far as concepts of International and Constitutional law are concerned, they have been examined and presented by Professor Dr. Jahrreis. fundamental statements. conduct, obedience, loyalty, performance of duty and patriotism. It is my belief that all men recognize those concepts to be good. But it is permissible to say that not all of those concepts are unequivocal. Thus are proposed: "best soldierly conduct" and "militarism", "natural obedience" and "despicably blind obedience", "the categoric imperative of the performance of duty", and "the exaggerated sense of responsibility", "the deep love for the country", and "chauvinism". evil. The origin and the essence of these concepts is everywhere the same, but the form they take on through tradition and education, and thus the effects they have, vary greatly.
whether the feeling is still in the realm of good or has already reached the sphere of evil? at the creation of order. Order is certainly a relative concept, too, but it is everywhere the establishment of the relationship of human beings to each other which guarantees the best possible means of living peacefully side by side in view of the intrinsic character of each country. nations.
Who should determine in this order what is right and what is wrong? The criterion for this might be, according tohitherto acquired knowledge, only a constitutional, i.e. a national one. The drawing closer of the nations in world traffic and general civilization brought withthem the result that the various national concepts became adjusted to each other in spite of many difference. It must be admitted that this process of adjustment suffered a harmful sot-back through certain national-socialist doctrines and their methods. Nevertheless, the principle remains inviolable that the criterion of right or wrong must be a national one if order is not to be dissolved. The only thing worth striving for is the adjustment of nations and national fundamental concepts to each other as is now being attempted through world organization.
If the national criterion, i.e. the national judgment of good and bad, right and wrong, was well-established in any case up to now, the concepts were never deprived of their relativity, especially when national differences existed for other reasons. A convincing example of this is the opinion expressed about the resistance movement. patriotism when someone risks his life for his country and exposes himself to the greatest danger. According to the Hague Rules of Land Warfare it is a fact that such a resistance movement is forbidden. We have here a clear example of the contrast between ethical and legal evaluation. This proves that there are no absolute concepts of good and bad, or right and wrong, and that above all written law there are unwritten laws which acquit the wrongdoer because he obeyed higher laws.
Those higher laws, however, also depend on subjective and national - i.e. collectively subjective - considerations. If non believe something to be good or right this faith may come into existence out of an actually higher law, a truly higher idea, but it may also grew out of a misled faith, out of a false idea. Who wishes to or who is able to judge whether a faith or an idea was or was not right? History has proven that usually the successful idea is recognized as right, to a certain extent because it is the judgment of God. I do not wish to decide whether that is always true. The question here, however, is whether the people whoso guilt is to be judged, acted in good faith, in accordance with such an idea and such a faith. If divine judgment has shown this faith to be wrong, the question remains open whether it was for comprehensible or explainable reasons that people could believe the idea to be good. Keitel but also the entire German nation. According to the speech of the French prosecution not only the defendants in this trial are the really guilty ones but the entire German nation.
The extent raid importance of this thesis are tremendous. Should the Tribunal - if only in the grounds for its decision - come to the conclusion that the entire German nation is guilty, every German for incalculable time will bear the brand of Cain which finally must load to the destruction of this people, and its dissolution. of accusing the entire German people. Through unconditional surrender we are left entirely to the mercy of the victorious powers. It was said however, that the verdict of this tribunal is to be just. Here in this court it is not clemency or inclemency which are to be the guiding principle, but justice. Justice does not mean mildness. A verdict, however, will only be just if it takes into consideration all the circumstances which underlie the actions and conduct of the defendants. There is no excuse for what has happened and for what forms the subject of this indictment. I ca only try to give you an analysis. The misery, the misfortune that has fallen i t. The German people, especially after having learned the catastrophe with horror and pity for the victims.
The German nation knows what this misfortune means; for it is stricken as hardly any other people is, not evacuations and escapes in ice and snow.
We know, therefore, what it means to be in misery, to have to suffer.
But while other nations are able to look upon this misery and misfortune as a chapter of the past and in the protection of constitutional order have the comforting hope of returning to an orderly existence and a happy future, there still rests upon this nation the gloom of despair.
By affirming the guilt of the entire nation the verdict of this Tribunal would perpetuate this despair. The German people does not expect to be acquitted. It does not expect the cloak of Christian charity and oblivion to be spread over all that has happened. The German nation is ready to the last to take the consequences upon itself. It is willing to accept its fate and to do everything to participate in removing the consequences. It hopes, however, that the Souls and hearts of the rest of mankind will not be so hardened that the existing tension, in fact the existing gulf between this nation and the rest of mankind will remain.
Your taks your Honors, is a terribly hard one. We not only speak different languages, all of us feel with the soul of our own country. Much of what has happened in this country will seem incomprehensible to you. The feelings of the German people in its different categories are not your feelings. One of the most essential points, especially in the case of the soldiers, seems to me the way of judging what is felt to be liberty. In this country, too, the ideal of liberty was proclaimed. All of us know that the most extreme form of liberty is anarchy. No state desires anarchy because it means surrender of its own existence. If therefore, all countries agree that the absolute concept of freedom is never worth striving for and can never be sanctioned, there results, perforce, relativity of the concept of freedom. No concept has been so misused as the concept of freedom and yet every political system proclaim, freedom as the greatest of all blessings. By that, I by no means wish to say that the concept of freedom as proclaimed by National Socialism was the right solution. What I do wish to say, however, is that national socialism also knew the concept of freedom and made it clear to the people through propaganda that its conception of freedom was the right one. National Socialism was aided in this by the fact that under the effects of the Treaty of Versailles Germany could indeed make no claim to be really free. The limitations of its sovereignty were so pronounced and so evident that it was easy for national socialism to proclaim the fight for freedom of the fatherland.
As long as the fatherland is recognized in the world as the highest earthy possession one will have to understand endeavours to keep this possession and one will not be able to disapprove of them even when it is an adversary who makes them. One may be of a different opinion as to the method which should be used for the realization of these endeavours and as to how freedom is to be attained. This, however, is not decided by the individual but by that person or these persons who hold the power in a state. Every human being wants something to hold on to in life; he must have it if he is not to fall into despair or anarchy. The national order is, besides the moral order, a firm support and the foundation of his existence and this gives him a feeling of security in his life and professional activities. It is the deep longing of all civilized men for order which finds its highest fulfillment in the institutions of the state. On the other hand, the citizen must have confidence that the state, i.e. its official agencies will safeguard law and order. In this respect it should not matter which party provides the guardians of its inviolable principles. That is just where the confidence of anation as a whole expresses itself, namely by leaving leadership to the prevailing majority. National Socialism undoubtedly aimed at and suceeded in rousing the belief in wide circles of the German people that its endeavours were supported by the majority of the people. It thereby procured for itself the alibi of legality. rals have testified here, the leaders of the Wehrmacht believed in the legitimacy of Hitler's government. It looked upon itself as the instrument of a legal government, as it did when the Kaiser, Ebert and von Hindenburg were Germany's representatives. feeling of patriotism and of a soldierly attitude bears in itself a tender cy to become more radical and thereby to degnerate if external circumstances create an actual basis for it. We have experienced the exaggeration of sound national ideas and their development into national chauvinism and we can observe retrospectively bow the sound soldierly idea was exaggerated by influences foreign to its nature and transformed into the militaristic way of thinking.
All these developments are not desultory, which makes them easily recognizable and regulated. The driving forces are mostly not apparent to those who they concern. They are like a poison which acts slowly and unnoticed, and the effect of which finds some day a horrible eruption. It needs no special reasoning that a part of the soldierly and military person who is being geared to a possible war, is ruggedness, and in its potentiality turns into brutality. One often finds on the part of famous, and not only German war leaders the stand point that the brutal war is frequently the mildest one is it leads to a quick ending. This, of course, is desired by every war leads Once the obstacles of peace are removed by the war, all that remains is brutality. It reveals the causes of total war and the source of the terrible disaster, which resulted from it.
The defense has a difficult task in this trial. The German people loc to Nuernberg and with dissension in itself. Some are sceptical and partly tile toward the Defense because they believe the Defense is favoring those whom they consider as war criminals and believe that the Defense wishes to prevent that just punishment be meted out to the defendants. Others say that trial is just a show, at which the defense counsel act, as dummies to give the trial the appearance of a judicial procedure. Accordingly, in the view of these Germans we would make ourselves guilty of patronizing the enemy. at this trial we are fulfilling an obligation in line with the precept of our calling, which needs no justification. the truth, the importance and effects of which on the German people is today inclaculable; in getting to the bottom of the causes, and in answering the question of how all, this could have happened. brought on the disaster over this world will create the possibility for the future of our people to find tis way again to the rest of the world. and metaphysical reasons for this Second World War and not even to examine the flow of events in its entirety, but rather to determine whether and what part these defendants played in that which the victor nations made the object of these proceedings.
finding the truth, had to consist of examining which actual and legal point if any, could be stated in favor of the defendants. It should be said here that with all the cooperation on the part of the Tribunal shown the Defense in producing their evidence, the actual possibility of bringing on defense material was extremely limited. Justice Jackson said in his basic prosecuting speech :
"The accuser and accused are obviously --"
THE PRESIDENT: You seem to be coming back to further attacks upon way in which this case has been tried and that is not what you are here to now. What you are here to do now is to present the case on behalf of the defendant Keitel. communication to you of various documents and you refer to a discussion of the subject which took place as long ago as February of 1946. On that occasion I expressed the view that on behalf of the Tribunal, that the French prosecution might properly show to you or give you the opportunity to look at their documents. From that day to this, that is to say from February until July, you have made no application to the Tribunal or made any complaint to the Tribunal that that has not been done and now, in your final speech, you make this complaint that you have not been allowed to see the documents in spite of the fact that in February I expressed, on behalf of the Tribunal, the opinion that you might see such documents. now to make these complaints after all these months, apart from the fact that you have already spent time which has been involved in reading eleven pages of your speech without coming to anything which really affect the defendant Keitel.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I believe that away back in February you told the Prosecution, according to the record, that they should place these documents at my disposal. The Prosecution, unfortunately, have not placed these documents at my disposal.
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you not come back to the Tribunal? You knew perfectly well that I had expressed my opinion on behalf of the Tribunal, and if there was anything to complain about, you had full access to the Tribunal from February until today. It seems to me that it is a frivolous complaint to come now.
DR. NELTE: I hope, Mr. President, that nevertheless the facts which I am putting to you in my manuscript will be considered by the Tribunal, and in a particular sense I shall refer to this matter at a later stage. On 1 February the session took place during which this affair came up, and on 12 February I went to the French Delegation.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I have stated, Dr. Nelte. I have already pointed that out to you.
DR. NELTE: And the French Prosecution did not give it to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you not come back to the Tribunal if you had any complaint to make? I have said -- and I repeat -- that I think to make a complaint now after not having made it for all these months is a frivolous complaint and an attempt to create prejudice, and I should be glad of your explanation.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, it is merely an attempt to show you that I did not wish to raise a complaint about the Prosecution right away, recognizi as I did that the Prosecution did not want to help me. I am not inclined to raise complaints with higher authorities, and I did not want to do it in this case either.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, I think that is a most unfair and a most improper thing for a responsible counsel to say. I think the mention of such a complaint is, as I have said, simply an effort on your part to create prejudice against the French Prosecution and against the fair conduct of this trial.
DR. NELTE: No, Mr. President, in my view it was merely meant to show you how very difficult it was for us to find material for our clients.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps you will try and get on to something that is really material for the Tribunal to consider.
DR. NELTE: May I ask you to turn to page 15 where, under Figure 3, I am dealing with the documents. The document governs the hearing of evidence before this Tribunal. Against that the witnesses remain in the background. The more essential it is that we examine these documents to ascertain the possibility of their utilization and their probative value. The Prosecution has submitted as evidence to a large extent official reports which are admitted according to Article 21 of the Charter.
I intended to show with respect to a number of these documents that the value of such documents is only limited.
But I shall limit myself to a in examining this kind of evidence will take my statements into consideration. These numerous official reports submitted contain factual statements which to a great extent are based on witnesses' testimony. These testimonies are not always related in the form of protocols but as summarizing reports. I do not want to dispute that these testimonies of witnesses are made as depsoed in the reports. However, I will not do injustice to any of the witnesses who are not known by the Tribunal, whose testimony is hard to verify for lack of a personal impression, when I say that it concerns mostly very subjective attestations. There are a number of documents in which this is clearly recognizable , and in fact stated, and even documents in which hatred finds its clear expression. I can understand the hatred of these hard hit people. The suffering they had to endure was so great that one cannot expect objectivity from them. I may, however, say too, that such personal feelings are not conducive to rendering the testimony of these sorely afflicted a suitable basis for finding the real truth. I am thinking of the formula of oath so often heard here on the part of the witnesses:
"Swear that you will tell the truth without hatred or fear, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
These official reports often contain not only factual statements, but final conclusions and judgments. Insofar, the probative value of these official reports cannot be recognized. At the present these judgments go so far, that outside the sphere of those directly involved, they level reproaches against agencies, i. e., the OKW, and Keitel, without it being possible to recognize fromthe document itself, on what the conclusion drawn rests. Aslong as it is a question of the indictment of an individual like the defendant Keitel, one must have recourse to documentary proof which yields concrete facts for responsibility or which at least reveals casual coherence. Above all, it cannot suffice, in order to consider Keitel's responsibility as proved,if in such reports crimes committed by soldiers and officers of the Army or of the Armed Forces are alleged, and we derive responsibility on the part of the defendant Keitel, from this fact alone because he was the chief of staff of the OKW.
It must be added that in these reports, military agencies have often been erroneously misquoted and confused, for example, when the defendant Keitel is spoken of as the "High Commander of the Armed Forces", which is called "OKW" (High Command of the Armed Forced), instead of "O.K.H." (High Command of the Army), etc.
It is not always possible to decide to what extent it is a question of an erroneous conception on the part of the Prosecution or whether it comes from a translation which is not in accordance with the meaning. In order to examine the responsibility of the defendant Keitel, I wish to make clear to the Tribunal, in a manner which excludes any doubt, what were the channels of command and competence, and to this end I have submitted two documents to the Court.
a) "The channels of command in the east" (Document book II K 10)
b) "The development of the situation in France 1940-1945 and the mili tary authorities" (Document bock II K 13) The letter affidavit has also been signed by the co-defendant Jodl.
I will refer these affidavits and make them the contents of my argument without reading from them. Field Marshal Keitel. I shall skip over pages 19 to 21. The reading of the general Indictment and the special Indictment in the trial briefs can be omitted here since, with the exception of the Jewish problem and the persecution of the Church, there is no part of the Indictment which the Prosecution has not raised against the defendant Keitel. holds Keitel responsible only for the period after 1938 and that, as the first point of the Indictment, Keitel is described as Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces of Germany. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecution, Keitel was also held responsible for the period after 1933 although the American, British and French Prosecutions have seem to have dropped the allegation that Keitel was Chief of the Supreme Command of the Army and the German Armed Forces. The indictment of Field Marshal Keitel is split, therefore, between the periods 1933 to 1938 and after 4 February 1938 until the end.
I shall now continue on page 21, the last paragraph.
but is also accused of personally participating in all the crimes. This comprehensive indictment is a result of the space which the prosecution has devoted to the defendant in its statements. tion, as that of the defendant Keitel. Again and again we hear the words "Keitel - order", "Keitel's decree" and just as often " order of the OKW", "directives of the OKW" etc. in connection with Keitel's name as "chief OKW" after 4 February 1938. From this deprives the very substance of the Indictment, namely, the position the defendant Keitel occupied after 4 February 1938. But from it also derives the scope of the justification. Here, it is not a question of examing to what extent the defendant participated in the individual facts of the case, which in the long run arose from the so-called "Keitelorders" or "OKW instruction", but what matters is the position he occupied; whether he took part and whatpart he took in the planning and execution of those orders and instructions, and finally and most important of all, whether his part in it was casual and culpable in the sense of the law which is to be applied here. It seems of consequence, to stress fromthe outset, several points of view, which are important far the treatment of the case and for its appreciation.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours) AFTERNOON SESSION 8 July A LJG 12-1 (The Tribunal reconvened at 1400 hours, 8 July 1946)
DR. NELTE: The defendant has declared that he admits the contents of the General indictment to be proved from the objective and factual point of view -- that is to say not every individual case -- and this in consideration of the law of procedure governing this trial. It would he senseless, despite the possibility of refuting several documents or indicidual facts, to attempt to shake the indictment as a whole. Therefore, I shall mainly confine myself to the questions concerning the subjective facts and the conspiracy and I will treat only these individual points which are of special imporatnce as regards the personal participation of the defendant Keitel. The disproportion between the happenings and the defendant's present destiny is so great that the defendant Keitel, out of this consideration, would have to wish that such on attitude would expose him to the suspicion that he is fighting for his life, because he would have to fight at any rate out of moral constraint But the defendant has already made it quite clear in his argumentation that he is not fighting for his lead out for his face. eye through Adolf Hitler's death. From 1938 onwards he was in his closest circle and was his almost permanent companion. It is clear to him what that means for this trial. It has often been alleged by the prosecution that by reforming to the deceased the defendants desired to unload their own responsibility upon them. If the purpose of this trial is to obtain the most faithful picture possible of events and connections, it is not fair to start out by discrediting any mention of the deceased, who -- as the prosecution knows also -- are the major culprits. This is especially true for the defendant Keitel whose position, influence, and actions cannot possibly be correctly judged without throwing a light upon the person of Adolf Hitler and upon his relationship with Keitel.
As can already be seen from Mr. Justice Jackson's speech 8 July A LJG 12-2 of Indictment, we are dealing here with an indictment against the National Socialist system.
Actually, the indictment is a global indictment against this system, split into 21 individual indictments. The individual defendants are, to a certain extent, more symbolic figures of the spheres of authority of the state which was ruled by this system; namely, the Party, Cabinet and Wehrmacht.
If I understand Mr. Justice Jackson correctly, he goes even further in saying:
"Above all personal forces are nameless and impersonal forces; their conflict with each other makes up much of humanity's history... What are the real forces which are battling here in front of you?" be left unmentioned at this trial, a problem which M. de Menthon also pointed out: The importance and influence of the so forces which shape fate. Fate and guilt are two poles which do not exclude each ether from their respective spheres; they are ranges which overlap so that there are spheres of life and spheres of effect in which the two forces are at work which make the world move. It can only be hinted at briefly here what forces are at work which shape fate, i.e. what forces cannot be considered as originating in the conscious will of the individual defendants, a sense of national unity, historic events, opinions which are rooted in traditions and environment. Therefore, I will have to go into this background insofar as it is relevant to the defendant Keitel as a parson and type of one of the groups under indictment, because by this means only will you be given the possibility of obtaining a correct picture of the share which the defendant Keitel had in what happened. is said with the full agreement of the defendant Keitel; and insofar as aspects and facts are stated which might exonorate the defendant Keitel, it should be taken as a contribution towards the clarification of what happened and as an answer 8 July A LJG 12-3 to the question of how it could happen.