Furthermore, Rosenberg was limited by the fact that two Reich Commissioners, Losse and Koch, were appointed for the occupied Eastern territories. The higher SS and police chief was "personally and directly" subordinated to the Reich Commissioner, but, as Lammers has declared, in technical respects he could not receive any orders from Rosenberg or from the Reich Commissioner but only from Himmler. - Hammers said furthermore: Rosenberg always wished to pursue a moderate policy in the East, he was without any doubt against a "policy of extermination" and against a "policy of deportation", which was often advocated by other parties. He made efforts to rebuild agriculture through the agrarian law, to put order into the educational system, church affairs, the universities and schools. Rosenberg had great difficulties in succeeding, for the Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine before all others simply did not follow Rosenberg's orders. Rosenberg was for setting up a certain independence of the Eastern nations, he especially had at heart the cultural interests of the latter. The differences of opinion between Koch and Rosenberg filled volumes of files. Hitler called Rosenberg and Koch, and decided that the should meet each month in order to consult each other. The witness Lammers said quite rightly that for Rosenberg as the superior minister it was unendurable to have to come to an agreement in each case with his subordinate the Reich Commissioner. Subsequently it was shown that in spite of the meeting they came to no agreement, and finally it was Mr. Koch who was right in the eyes of the Fuehrer. As Lammers finally says, it was about the end of 1943 that Rosenberg was received for the last time by the Fuehrer, and before that time too he had always great difficulties in reaching the Fuehrer. There were no more Reich Cabinet sessions since 1937 already. The East became the ground for experiment. For this group, as is now quite clear today, it seemed hopeless to look for an understanding on the part of Rosenberg, for the development of the Reich as they wished it. Rosenberg had no idea of the extent of the fight put up against him. His argument with Reich Commissioner Koch, the exponent of Himmler and Bormann, is a proof of this ignorance, but it is also a complete proof of Rosenberg's integrity.
Commissioner of the Ukraine (1921-PS, Ro.11); his other instructions have unfortunately not been found. In this, Rosenberg requests the chiefs of the administration to preserve a decent attitude and views, he demands justice and human understanding for the population, which was always seen in Germany as the bearer of legal order; war brings terrible hardship, but every offense must be fairly examined and judged and must not be punished to excess; it is absolutely inadmissible that German agencies oppose the population with contemptuous speeches. One can only show one is the master by taking the right attitude and through one's actions, not by obtrusive behavior; our own attitude must bring others to respect the Germans; those chiefs of the administration, who have shown themselves unworthy of their task, who have misused the authority they were given end who by their pernicious behavior have become unworthy of our uniform, must be treated accordingly, summoned before a court or removed to Germany. in his memorandum of 16 March 1943 (192-PS, Ro.14). Koch writes: "It is st range, that not only a correct attitude must be taken with the Ukrainians, but that we must even be amiable to them end always ready to help." consciousness of the Ukrainian people and according to Rosenberg a high degree of cultural self-administration is desirable for the Ukraine, nations as big as the Ukrainian one is, cannot be kept in permanent dependence, their Eastern campaign is a political campaign and not an economic forage raid. Here Koch is speaking to Rosenberg in a cynical manner about the climax reached in the relations of his organization with Ukrainian emigration.
There are other decrees of Rosenberg's which are criticized by Koch. One of these is the decree of 18.6.1942 concerning the acquisition by Rosenberg of Ukrainian schoolbooks for a total of 2.3 millions Reich Marks to be charged to the budget of the Reich Commissariat without even previously getting in touch with Koch. 1 million primers, 1 million spelling charts, 200,000 arithmetic books, were to be provided at a time when there was not enough left for German schoolchildren.
Koch goes on saying: it is not necessary to point out repeatedly in the decrees issued by your Ministry and in long-distance remonstrances that any coercion in hiring laborers should be avoided and that the East Ministry even demands to be informed of any instance inwhich compulsion has been used. By a subsequent decree Koch is blamed to have caused the closing of vocational schools and that Rosenberg ordered the General Commissars to adopt another school policy, circumventing the Reich Commissar's authority. Gauleiter, the way to the Fuehrer would not be barred. praise and so much proof of absolute decency of his behavior and the farsighted and statesmanlike direction of his office as Chief of the East Administration: regarding the Reich Commissar Koch and the timber region of Zumand of 2 April 1943 (032-PS, regarding which Rosenberg gave exhaustive information as a witness. In this very matter Rosenberg displayed his conscientiousness so clearly. Transcript page 7930 and pages 8019-8021). d) Rosenberg and Bormann secution attached specific importance to it.
In July 1942, Bormann wrote a letter to Rosenberg. Rosenberg replied and a third party, Dr. Markull, an associate of Rosenberg in his Ministry, wrote a criticism of it. Transcript p. 7971). According to Dr. Markull's representation, the meaning of Bormann's letter, the original of which is not extant, contained the following points: the Slavs should work for us: if of no use for us, they ought to die; health provisions were superfluous; the fertility of the Slavs was undesirable, their education dangerous; it will do if they can count up to one hundred.
Every educated person is a potential enemy. We were leaving them their religion as an outlet. As sustenance they should receive only the barest necessities, we are the masters and we come first. only one reply by Rosenberg; feigned consent and feigned compliance. In the inner circle of the East Ministry there arose considerable apprehensions regarding this significant change in the attitude of their chidf, apprehensions which were expressed in Dr. Markull's memorandum of 5.9.1942. Rosenberg as a witness has stated and there cannot exist any doubt about it by reading that writing, impartially, that he agreed only for the sake of pacifying Hitler and Bormann. He wanted to insure himself against an attack from the Fuehrer Headquarters which he anticipated with certainty, because he supposedly did more for the Eastern population than for the German people, because he required more physicians than there were available for sick Germans etc. The memorandum of Markull is the truest possible reflection of Rosenberg's personality and influence asit shows the anxious subordinate trying to conjure the former spirit of his Minister, as he got to know and to love him in his work, against an alien phantom who seemed to have taken his place. policy of the Reich Commissar Koch, but not with the decrees of the Minister and the conception of at least 80 percent of the regional commissars and specialists counting on their Minister, according to which decrees the Eastern population should be treated decently and with understanding, that it is showing a surprisingly high capacity for culture, that their efficiency in work is good, but that we are about to dissipate a precious capital of gratitude, love and confidence. That the controversy between the Minister and the Reich Commissar was well known among the high authorities of the Reich and that it was no secret that the Ministry was unable to carry out its policies against the Reich Commissars, who considered the East Ministry as entirely superfluous. That the writings of Bormann would disavow the total policy of the Minister up to now and that one had the impression that Koch has been considered by Hitler as being right in his opposition to the Minister.
That since its foundation the Ministry had to complain about an ever increasing loss of power. The higher SS and Police officials refused to render to the General Commissar the normal honors such as reports etc. One jurisdiction of the East Minister after another was transferred to different highest Reich authorities, in the offices in Berlin it was openly said that the r emodelling of the Ministry into a mere Operations staff (Fuehrungsstab) was to be expected. On the other hand, the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, due to the personality of its leader enjoyed the exceptional respect of the public.
Dr. Markull implores the Minister to stand by his original ideas, that the unfortunate Master complex should be as much avoided as the opinion that the intelligentsia were alien to the masses.
The influence of spiritual forces should be taken into consideration. Germany must prove a "righteous judge", acknowledging the national and cultural rights of nations. Such has been the ideas of the Minister before and such they must remain. Rosenberg's attitude did not change in fact, as at that very time he was working on the Great School Order (Schulvererdnung). Later on he effected the reopening primarily of the medical faculties in colleges. And then it came to the conflict with the Fuehrer in May 1943. the Fuehrer (Doc. No. Ro. 14), because of the German Eastern policies and the political psychological treatment of Eastern nations in particular and had been opposed from the very start to his previously conceived plan of autonomy of the Eastern nations and of the cultural development of their capacities amid an all-European conception of a family of nations on the continent. Now he had made up his mind seeing a great statesmanlike program gone to pieces. was going on in his country was merely to accept memoranda from his colleagues in the Ministry or at best indulge in a futile paper war with people like Koch. what plans they wanted to carry out and he was powerless against their influence, being in addition totally unaware at that time of all police and army orders now presented here to the Tribunal. Kiev, Hitler apparently agreed. After Rosenberg had left and he was alone with Goering, Hitler said: "This follow has special worries. We have more important matters on our minds than universities in Kiev. (Transcript of 1-3-46, forenoon 1000-1300 hrs.). No episode can illustrate the theme better than all the documents: The theme, Rosenberg and reality in the East, and the other theme: Rosenberg as the alleged inspirator of Hitler. As Rosenberg did not receive any reply to the request for resignation, he tried-many times to talk to Hitler personally. It was all in vain.
On 11-12-45 Mr. Dodd said: "The system of hatred, barbarism and denial of personal rights, which the conspirators had elevated to the national philosophy of Germany, has followed the national-socialist matters when they overran Europe.
Foreign workers became the slaves of the master race, being deported and enslaved in millions." And on 8-2-1946 General Rudenko said "In the long line of ruthless crimes committed by the German fascist troops of occupation, the forcible deportation of peaceful citizens into slavery and bondage in Germany takes a particularly important place. For the inhuman and barbaris instructions, directives and orders of the Hitler government, whose purpose was the carrying out of the deportation of Soviet people into German slavery", he said, "Goering, Keitel, Rosenberg and Sauckel were particularly responsible. Rosenberg as Reich Minister for the occupied Eastern territory. I have already explained, too., that in the field of labor employment it was not Rosenberg, but Sauckel who, as General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labor, was the highest instance and the responsible person, by virtue of the Fuehrer's decree of 21-3-1942 (Doc. No. 580-PS). Thus Sauckel in his field was Rosenberg's superior.
He wrote on 10-3-1942 to Rosenberg (Doc. No. 017-PS): "The Fuehrer has drawn up new and most urgent armament programs which require, the speediest employment of 2 million additional foreign workers. For the execution of his decree of 21-3-1942 the Fuehrer has given me for my further tasks more authority, particularly empowering me to use my own judgement in taking all measures in the Reich and in the occupied Eastern territories in order to insure under any circumstances an organized employment of labor for the German armament industry." In his "Program for the Employment of Labor" of 24-4-1942 (Doc. No. 016-PS, USA 163) he emphasizes the regional employment offices are in charge of all technical and administrative matters of labor employment coming under the exclusive competence and responsibility of the General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of Labor. The defense of Sauckel is not my task. But may I point out that he also did not take over his great and difficult task with feeling of hatred and intentions of enslavement.
In his program for the employment of labor just mentioned he says for instance:
"Everything has to be avoided which, beyond the shortages and hardships caused by war conditions, would aggravate and even cause unnecessary sufferings to foreign male and female workers during their stay in Germany. It stands to reason to make their presence and their work in Germany, without any loss for ourselves, as bearable as possible. On that point Sauckel and Rosenberg shared the some opinion.
Neither is it my task to state and to prove that many hundred thousands of foreign workers have found their good fortune in Germany, that in fact numberless persons were better off here than in their fatherland, but I am only concerned with the bad conditions which have been charged to the defendant Rosenberg. I come now to the Central Agency for Nationals of the Eastern Territories. Several days ago, I read the affidavit of Dr. Albert Beil. Essentially it contains an authoritative statement of whatever can be said about that subject. Therefore, I should like to omit that subject, Central Agency for Nationals of the Eastern Territories, and ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. To refute the accusation that Rosenberg was active as protagonist of the system of hatred and barbarism, of denying human rights and of enslavement, I must add the following. Rosenberg received further unfavorable reports one being the report of the 7th of October 1942, about the had treatment of Ukrainian skilled workers. Abuses in recruiting and during transportation were pointed out : the workers were frequently dragged out of their beds at night and locked up in cellars until the time of their departure; threats and blows by the rural militia were a matter of course; food brought from home by the skilled workers was often taken from them by the militia; during transportation to Germany neglects and transgressions on the part of the escorting units occurred, etc. Rosenberg had no authority whatsoever to intervene in those matters, but he tried to do so in a letter of 21 December 1942 to Sauckel. Rosenberg first admits his fundamental accord with Sauckel, but after a few tactical and polite cliches, he complains seriously and urgently about the methods used in the employment of labor :"I must emphatically request for reasons of my responsibility for the occupied Eastern territories that any methods to supply the required continents be excluded, if I or my associates might be accused one day of tolerating them and for their consequences." Rosenberg further states that he empowered the Reich Commissar for the Ukrainian to make use, so far as required, of his soveriegn night by giving attention to the elimination of recruiting methods which were running counter to the interests of warfare and war economy in the occupied territories.
He, Rosenberg, and the Reich Commissars could not help being surprised that in numerous instances measures which should have been determined by civilian authorities were first communicated to him by the police or other offices. Without coordination of their mutual wished , he, Rosenberg, was unfortunately unable to accept the joint responsibility for consequence resulting from these reported conditions. In conclusion Rosenberg expressed the wish to put an early and to such conditions for the sake of their common interest Rosenberg also tried a personal consultation with Sauckel, and got Sauckel to promise that he would, do everything to bring about a fair solution of all these questions, in a conversation of 14 April 1942. It was beyond Rosenberg's power and authority to do more. His secret opponent, supported by higher authorities, was Reich Commissar Kech, who was indeed the chief culprit in the cruel recruiting and employment methods for Eastern workers and whose influence Rosenberg was unable to counteract. When the prosecutor Brudno on 9 January 1946 charges the defendant with protesting against these methods not for humanitarian reasons but for the sake of political expedience, I can only say that in my opinion one cannot simply maintain that the defendant Rosenberg is devoid of any human qualities without some sound reasons. As an example of the defendant's particular bestiality the so-called "Hay Action" has been repeatedly pointed out by the prosecution, in 031-PS. It concerned the intention of the army group "Center" to evacuate 40 to 50 thousand juveniles from the area of operation, as they represented a considerable burden to the area of operation and besides were in the majority without any parental supervision. Villages for children were to be established behind the front lines under native supervision. One of these village; had already proven its value. It was expected that through the Organization Todt, its being a particularly appropriate organization due to its technical and other possibilities, the juveniles would be introduced to German handicraft first as apprentices in order to employ them as skilled workers after two years training. At first Rosenberg, as the Reich Minister for the occupied territories of the Eastern, was against it, because he feared that the action might be considered as a deportation of children and on the other hand because the juveniles did not represent a considerable increase of military strength.
The chief of the political operational staff approached Rosenberg again that the army group "Center" attached particular importance to the fact that the children should reach the Reich not by the authority of the General Plenipotentiary for the employment of Labor, but through the agency of the Reich Minister for the East, as only then could they be assured a correct treatment. loyal conditions and wanted special regulations to be issued with regard to the taking care of these people, as regards mail service between them and their parents, etc. In the event of a possible re-occupation of the territory the East Ministry could then let the boys go back. To ether with their parents they would certainly form a positive element during the subsequent re-consturction of the territory. Finally as reason for the second request addressed to the Minister it was stated in addition that the boys, to be sure, would not essentially contribute to strengthening the military power of the enemy, but that the important factor in this case was the long-range weakening of the biological strength of the enemy; not only the Reichsfuehrer SS but also the Fuehrer had expressed themselves to this effect. Rosenberg finally gave his consent to this action. within the jurisdiction of Rosenberg's administration; he did not want to destroy foreign nationals even if biological weakening was given him as a reason, -a reason which he himself did not recognize. Instead he wanted to have the children educated and trained in order to bring them with their parents back to their homes later on. That is more or less the contrary of what de defendant is criminally charged with. Later on, late in summer 1943, Rosenberg visited the Junkers's plant in Dessau where approximately White Ruthenian children's camp. The clothing young workmen was irreprochable, they were industrious, enjoyed the best treatment and get along very well with the Germans. As Rosenberg was able to see for himself the young people were taught languages and mathematics by Russian teachers. The children were cared for in forest camps by White Ruthenian mothers and women teachers. The figure of 40 000, moreover, was never attained, in fact, barely half of it.
and to the disadvantage of the defendant, to considerations of humanity cannot be successful in my estimation. For it is exactly this example which compelled me to point out the following in particular : we were in the midst of a war which was being conducted with terrible intensity on both parts. Is not war in itself "monstrous bestiality"? The "weakening of the biological strength of nations" is truly a fitting expression for the goal and purbelligerent parties were aimed at. It is impossible to think that one should want to forget this in judging the actions of the defendants, and that one should hold the defendants responsible not only for unleashing the war but in addition for the fact that war in its very essence constitutes a great crime on the part of mankind both against itself and against the laws of life. was he who issued the inhuman and barbarian decrees which aimed at carrying out the deportation of Soviet people into German slavery. This brings me to discuss the question as to whether the compulsory labor decree of 19 December 1941 and Rosenberg's other decrees concerning compulsory labor for the inhabitants of the Eastern territories were contrary to International Law. tary occupation during the war. Through this "occupatio bellica" Germany realized a complete domination and had the same sovereignty as over her own territory. While according to previous conceptions of international law the occupying power could act arbitrarily without consideration of rights and law the recent developments in international law eliminated the principle of force and brought victory to the principles of humanity and culture. Therefore, the formerly unlimited might of the occupying power was modified to limited rights.
The Hague Rules of Land. Warfare stipulated in particular the legal duties of the occupying power. On the other hand, it is not ture either that the rules of land warfare set up only certain rights for the occupying powers. They merely set a balance to the intrisically unlimited right of the occupying power to exercise all powers deriving from territorial sovereignty over an occupied territory.
THE PRESIDENTS: Would that be a convenient time to break off ?
( The Tribunal adjourned until 10 July 1946 at 1000Hours) Official Transcript of the International
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will sit in closed session this afternoon and will not sit in open session after one o'clock.
DR. THOMA: High Tribunal, Mr. President: commitment of manpower, I should like to continue on page 33. national law: legal as long as they are not inopposition to an authenticated legal stipulated of the International Rules of Warfare. Supposition, therefore, would indicate that the occupying power is entitled to the full exercise of all powers deriving from territorial sovereignty over an occupied territory. According to the uniform opinion of experts on international law the occupying power acts by virtue of an original law of its own which is guaranteed and defined as to contents by international law only, in the interest of its own conduct of the was as well as for the protection of the civilian population in the occupied territory. (I refer to the Heyland Handbook on International Law). allegiance to the enemy sovereign but only to the occupying power; the will of the occupying power rules and decides in an occupied territory; the occupying power is the executor of its own will; its own interests alone are decisive for theexercise of its sovereign rights and it, therefore, is at liberty to act against theinterests of the enemy state (Heyland as above). right to conscript labor in the occupied territory is denied. It is stipulated, thereby, that labor services may be demanded from the inhabitants of the occupied territory; the employment must be limited to the re quirements of the occupation forces.
It must be adjusted to the available resources of the country and must be of such a nature as not to compel the population to participate in military operations against their own country.
In these stipulations I cannot discern any prohibition of labor, conscription in occupied territories; on the contrary, I consider that an approval of compulsory labor service can be deduced from them at once. The employment of such labor in war industry is undoubtedly in accordance with the requirements of the occupation forces and, in my estimation, it is equally beyond doubt that this constitutes no commitment to military operations. The rules of land warfare contain no stipulations as to whether labor service may be demanded only in the home country or whether the conscript may be transported into the native land of the occupying power for the purpose of rendering labor services there. Thus, the general principle holds good, that supposition speaks for the authority of theoccupying power to exercise to their full extent all powers deriving from territorial sovereignty. should tend to humanize war by limiting the rights of the belligerents and that more progress should be made in this sense one must consider, on the other hand, that the stern reality of war tends to lead in the opposite direction.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal would like to know whether it is your contention that the Hague Rules authorize the deportation of men, women or children to another country for the purpose of labor service.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I would like to speak about the interpretation of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare but I will merely deal with the question as to whether it is admissible that for the purpose of collaboration and for the requirements of tie occupying forces, whether it is admissible to transport inhabitants of the country for that purpose. I have stated the position here that laborers can also be transported into the native land of the occupying power. About children, of course, I have said nothing. As to Jews, I did not speak about that either. I only spoke about men able to work, who were required to work for the necessities of the occupying power and I said it was admissible -- I thought it was admissible that they be transported into thenative country of the occupying power.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to have any autho-
rities in international law which you have to cite for that proposition.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I shall mention some more quotations, more detailed quotations. I have already quoted in that regard. I quoted Heyland, "Handbook for International Law", which was published by Stier-Somlo, 1923, and I shall give more quotations.
THE PRESIDENT: will you tell no what language that book is in?
DR. THOMA: In German, Mr. president. That was the "Hand book on International Law", published by Stier-Somlo, 1923. war has developed into total war, a life and death struggle of annihilation, in which the very last physical and moral forces of the nation are mobilized and the loss of which, as is shown by the example of Germany, means unconditional surrender and total destruction of her existence as a state. this struggle of life and death should not have been granted the basic right of self-preservation recognized by international law? I refer to Strupp, "Handbook on International Law", published by Stier-Somlo, 1920, Part III, "Violations of International Law", pages 121 and following. was at stake; that is, it was an emergency which justified, the compulsory employment of labor, even if it had not been permissable according to international law. It is inherent in that anomaly called war that international law, as soon as the state of war has been proclaimed, is set aside in the interest of the objective of the war-- the overpowering of the enemy. See Strupp as above, page 172. Even through the development of civilization was accompanied by a progressive moderation of this conception, according to which everything goes in war until the enemy is destroyed, the rules of war-fare constitute even today a compromise between the demands of military necessity with their fundamental boundlessness and chastened humanitarian and civilized views.
One thing, at any rate, is certain: namely, that the existence of a genuine emergency may be pleaded, even under the stipulations of the Hague Rules of Land warfare. During the negotiations preceding the formulation of Article 46 of the Hague Rules, the following was stated literally and without opposition:
"The restrictions will affect the liberty of action of the beligerents in certain extreme emergencies". may be pleaded. It is a recognized international law that even an aggressor must not be denied the right of pleading a state of emergency in case his existence is directly threatened. Strupp, page 170. ministration, I should like to point put all that the defendant has said concerning accusations of the Soviet Prosecution, and in particular the reports of the Extraordinary State Commission and the Molotov Reports, during his testimony. Documents USSR 39, 41, 751, 89, and Transcript of 16 April 1946. I hope that the factual corrections made by the defendant will be recognized by the Tribunal.
No I come to a new subject. Contrary to the assumption of the Prosecution, Rosenburg was by no means the inspirer of Jewish persecution, anymore than he was one of the leaders and originators of the policy adopted by the Party and the German Reich as the Prosecution claims. Walsh, December 13 1945, Transcript page 1244. Rosenberg was certainly a convinced anti-semite, who expressed his conviction and the reasons for it both verbally and in writing. However, in his ease, anti-semitism was not the most outstanding of his acitivities. In his book "Blood and Honor", speeches and essays, 1919-1933, out of 64 speeches, for example, only one had a title referring to Jewry.
The s ame applies to the other two volumes of his speeches.
He felt his spiritual ancestors to be the mystic master Eckehart, Goethe, Lagarde, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain.
Anti-semitism was for him a negative momentum. His chief and most positive efforts were directed toward the publication of a now German intellectual attitude and a new German culture. Bec ause he found this endagered after 1918, he became an opponent of Jewry. Even such different personalities as von Papen, von Neurath, and Raeder now confess to their belief that the penetration of the Jewish element into the whole of public life was so great that a change had to be brought about. of Rosenberg's anti-Semitism was, above all, noble and intellectual. For example, at the Party Session of 1933 he spoke of a "chivalrous solution" of the Jewish question. We never heard Rosenberg use expressions like, "We must annihilate the Jews wherever we find them; we shall take measures that will lead to a sure success. We must cut out all feeling of sympathy". The Prosecution itself quotes the following as an expression of the program Rosenberg set up for himself:
"The Jewish question will find a decisive solution after all the Jews have been ousted as a matter of course from all official positions, and through the setting up of Ghettos". Walsh, Transcript 1236.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, I would like to interrupt. I believe that the Counsel is going beyond any permissable limits. the defendant is sitting in the lock and hearing his Counsel expressing his fascist sentiments. So far they have not been interrupted by the Court, but I think that it is absolutely inadmissable that the Defense Counsel should use this place to pro mote anti-human propaganda, otherwise lean not understand the contention of the lawyer that Rosenberg's belief in gathering dl Jews in ghettos was chivalrous. I feel that the lawyer is expressing his opinion, and I protest against the use of the International Military Tribunal for the spreading of antiSemitic propaganda. I ask the Tribunal to consider this objection of nine and to take appropriate action.
DR. THOMA: May it please the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't think it is necessary to trouble you. The Tribunal thinks that there may, of course, be differences of opinion as to the use of words in the course of your argument, but they see no reason for stopping you in the argument that you are presenting to the Tribunal.
DR. THOMA: Thank you. I should like to make one statement. In setting this up, I have tried to argue upon the statements of the prosecution and nothing else.
I would like to say one other thing. The words "chivalrous solution of the Jewish question" was not my expression; I just quoted that a s a statement made by Rosenberg a long time before he came into this court.
The prosecution quotes the following: "The Jewish question will find"--and so on; I have already read that. part in the boycotting of Jews in 1933, that he was not called upon to work out the laws against the Jews in 1933, 1934, 1935, and so on - expatriation, prohibition of marriages, withdrawal of the right to vote, expulsion from important positions and offices, and so on. Jews, not in the destruction of synagogues, nor in anti-Semitic demonstrations. Neither was he the instigator in the background, who sent out smaller people to commit certain actions or ordered them to do so. that took up Hitler's slogans and passed them on. For example, the motto, "The Jewish question will be solved only when the last Jew has left Germany and the European Continent." There was one slogan about the extermination of Jewry. weapons of propaganda. A Hitler speech without insults to his internal or external political opponents, or without threats of extermination was hardly imaginable. Everyone of Hitler's speeches was echoed a million times by Goebbels down to the last speaker of the party in a small country inn. The same sentences and words which Hitler had used were repeated,and not only in all the political speeches, but in the German press as well, in all the editorials and essays, until, weeks or months later, a new speech was given which brought about a new echo of a similar kind.
Rosenberg was no exception. He repeated all of Hitler's slogans just like the rest, that of the "solution of the Jewish question", and once also that of the "extermination of Jewry", and so forth. Apparently, like Hitler's other supporters, he gave little thought to the fact that in reality none of those words were clear, but that they had a sinister, double meaning and, though they may have meant real expulsion, they may also have meant the physical annihilation and murder of the Jews. made a reference to a speech of the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons, in 1933, in which speech it was stated that Prussian militarism had to be exterminated. He said that no German interpreted that literally; he believed no one interpreted it in such a way that it meant the German soldiers and the National Socialist had to be exterminated, every one of them. quite apart from the knowledge and will o f the majority of the leadership of the Party--that is, Bormann, Himmler, Eichmann, and so on--there was hatched and carried out, from 1941 onwards, a mass of crime which surpassed all human conceptions of reason and morality. The Jewish question was even further developed and brought to its so-called final solution. as the specially characteristic exponent of the Party and Reich Minister for the Occupied Territories, is also responsible for the murdering of Jews, and particularly for the murdering of Jews in the East. Or, must it be recognized and admitted that though he stands a hair's breadth from the abyss, it was, after all, nothing but external circumstances which led up to it all, and that these circumstances were outside his sphere of responsibility and guilt? aimed, either openly or in secret, at the physical extermination of the Jews. His reserve and moderation were certainly no mere tactics. The gradual slipping of anti-Semitism into crime took place without his knowledge or his will.