Was that looting, robbery, theft? Looting is the indiscriminate and wanton carrying off of objects in the situations of general distress and danger. Robbery is carrying off by force. Theft is the carrying off without force. In all cases the intent must exist to appropriate the object illegally for oneself or somebody else. What intent did Rosenberg have? He has never denied that he and his co-workers had hopes of the pictures remaining in Germany. Perhaps as compensation or as security for the peace negotiation but his intent was only directed at confiscating and safeguarding the objects and that has been proved. The question of what should be done with the confiscated items was left open until the and and no decision made on it. It is absolutely certain that Rosenberg did not have the intention of appropriating the things for himself or anybody else. If Rosenberg had been a plunderer of objects of art, he certainly made notations concerning dates and place of confiscation and names of the owners. As a precaution, however, I should like also to point out that because of the flight of their owners, the objects were ownerless and that the question of the lack of owner and the question of the legality of their acquisition by Rosenberg cannot be judged by normal circumstances but must be judged according to the extraordinary circumstances of the war. art were stolen at random I should like to reply to the statement that only Jewish possessions, and indeed as mentioned, ownerless objects were confiscated. Above all it is not true that state owned property was also touched. in carrying out a state order and finally I want to ask that the fact be not ignored that Rosenberg acted without any egotistical motives. Not a single picture passed into his private possession; he did not gain a single mark from this transaction which was worth millions, and after all, the entire lot of artistic and cultural property has been found again.
admits, "diverted some objects for his own purposes with the Fuehrer's approval. This disturbed Rosenberg because the Einsatzstab was in his name and declared that as a matter of principle he did not want to give anything even to the museum; that his task was purely one of registration and safeguarding. That the Fuehrer should have the final decision on those works of art. Rosenberg could not undertake anything against Goering but he ordered his deputy Robert Scholz at least to make an accurate inventory of what was given to Goering, and to have the latter sign a receipt which he did. And so, it most certainly cannot be proved that Rosenberg had the intention of illegally appropriating the objects of art for himself or for somebody else. Furthermore, Robert Scholz confirmed that Rosenberg also forbade all his assistants to acquire any objects of art or culture even by virtue of an official appraisal. (Document R-041.) gang of vandals broke into the European House of Art in order to plunder in a barbarous way. If one thinks of the tremendous work of drawing up and inventory, of cataloguing, restoration, and scientific appraisal, and if one finally bears in mind that all these treasures were most carefully stored away, and certainly came through the war better than would have been the case if the German authorities had not taken care of them. I believe that objectively speaking one can use any term but that of "vandalism."
PRESIDENT: I think this would be a good time to break off.
Rosenberg is also especially charged with looting furniture. He is alleged to have robbed 79,000 Jewish-owned apartments, among them 38,000 in Paris, of their contents, and to have taken the loot to Germany.
Unquestionably, these measures were taken for the benefit of air-raid victims; in the cities which had been destroyed by air-warfare new apartments were built for the homeless. be morally condemned, that the confiscation was limited to Jewish property. The essential question, however, is whether the confiscation was at all legal. In all my statements, I have avoided -- and I do not wish to do it at this point, either trying to excuse a war legal position with a state of military emergency, for as an expert international law states, "the state of emergency is the lever by means of which the entire body of martial law can be torn off its hinges." But in this case was not national and military necessity the ground for justification, did not air warfare bring "intense and general distress " to Germany ? One might object : "The distress could have been ended by unconditional surrender". In my opinion, however, by this reference to unconditional surrender, the abandonment by the Reich of its own existence and independence and its own vital interests, this ground of justification cannot be taken from the defendant. The appropriation of enemy private property took place in application of a right of requisitioning which was extented beyond the legal maxims of martial law and justified by the state of emergency. I venture to assert that his procedure of confiscating furniture, in view of the devastating effects of the air warfare against Germany, was not contradictory to "the customs among civilized peoples", "the laws of humanity", and "the demands of the public conscience" (Marten's clause in the preamble of the agreement concerning the laws and customs of land warfare; see Scholz in the aforementioned book, page 173). operation. conspirators of the Norway Operation and later in the same matter calls Rosenberg a "dealer in high treason". The opinion of the prosecution and also the supposition of the present Norwegian Government (Norwegian report of 3 October 1945, Document No.TC-56) are obviously that the Party's foreign office of which Rosenberg was the head, and Quisling, had plotted the war against Norway in a mutual conspiracy.
I believe that of all the charges against Rosenberg hitherto dealt with none has less foundation than this one. On the basis of the few documents which have been submitted to the court, in my opinion, the case could doubtless be cleared up in favor of the defendant.
There was a Party "foreign office" which had the task of informing foreign visitors about the National-Socialist movement, of referring any possible suggestions to the official offices, and otherwise of functioning as a central office of the Party for questions of foreign policy. The special interest, and I may perhaps say the special sympathy, of the leading men of the Party and the State, was directed at the Nordic countries; it was in this direction that the A.P.A. placed the main emphasis on the field of cultural policy. The already existing Nordische Gesellschaft (Nordic Society) was expanded, the birthdays of great Nordic scientists and artists were observed in Germany, a great Nordic music festival was held, etc. The relations first took on a really political note with the appearance of Quisling, whom Rosenberg had seen for the first time in 1933, and who then, in 1939, -i.e. six years later -- looked up Rosenberg again after the convention of the Nordic Society in Luebeck; the former spoke of the danger of European enganglements and expressed the fear that Norway was in danger of being drawn into them. He then feared above all a partitioning of his country in such a manner that the Soviet Union would occupy the northern part and England the southern part of Norway.
Quisling again appeared before Rosenberg in Berlin in December 1939. The latter arranged for a conference with the Fuehrer. Hitler declared that he would by far prefer to have Norway remain completely neutral and that he did not intend to extend the theater of war and involve more nations in the conflict, but he would know how to defend himself against a further isolation of and further threats against Germany. In order to counteract the increasing activity of enemy propaganda, Quisling was promised financial support of his movement, which was based on the Pan-Germanic idea. special military staff; Rosenberg was to deal with the political aspect and he appointed his assistant Scheidt to maintain liaison between him and Quisling. Hagelin, a Norwegian confidential agent of Quisling's, in January 1940, gave Rosenberg some more disturbing reports on the feared violation of Neutrality by the Norwegian government and Rosenberg passed them on to Hitler.
After the "Altmark" incident, Hagelin, who moved in Norwegian government circles, intensified his warnings.
The Allies had already begun to study the Norwegian seaports for disembarkation and transportation possibilities; in any case, the Norwegian government would be satisfied with protests on paper, and Quisling sent the message that any delay in undertaking a counteraction would mean an exceptional risk. Rosenberg again handed the reports immediately to Hitler. If he had not done so that would actually have been treason to his country. The German counter-blow followed on 9-4-1940 and Rosenberg learned about it from the radio and newspaper like any ordinary citiwen. After his above mentioned report, which he made in the line of duty, Rosenberg did not participate in either diplomatic or military preparations. forwarded information to Hitler and not an instigator, conspirator or traitor in the Norwegian case, I should like to refer to two documents. First, to Document No. C-65, Rosenberg's file note concerning Quisling's visit. Obviously it is the information on Quisling which had been requested by Hitler of Rosenberg. If Rosenberg had been on close terms with Quisling, he certainly would have wanted to inform Hitler about it. Rosenberg had only heard of a fantastic and impracticable plan of Quisling's for a coup d'etat (occupation of important central offices in Oslo by sudden action, supported by specially selected Norwegians who had been trained in Germany, then having the German fleet called in by a newly-formed Norwegian government). However, an earlier report of Quisling appeared less fantastic to Rosenberg; according to which names were given - officers of the Western powers travelled through Norway as consular officials, ascertained the depth of the water in ports of disembarkation, and made inquiries into the cross-sections and heights of railway tunnels.
the Norwegian matter. The second document is the report concerning "The Political Preparation of the Norway-Operation" (Document No. 004-PS, GB-1305), a report from Rosenberg to Hess of 17 June 1940. In this inter-departmental report also there is nothing which deviates from Rosenberg's own trustworthy statement and which would let him appear as an instigator of war and a person guilty of high treason. concerning Norway. Thus, what criminal act did Rosenberg commit? was it criminal that he tried "to gain influence in Norway" (TC-56) or that with his knowledge subsidies were given to Quisling by the Foreign Office? Finally, I should also like to point out that later on, after the operation had succeeded, Rosenberg in no way was entrusted with on office or function with regard to Norway; that even the appointment of a Reich Commissioner for Norway was carried out without consulting him. Rumanian minister Goga. Rather I do not wish to read it but I would ask the High Tribunal to consider it as having been reported on. the orders for religious persecutions and induced others to participate in these persecutions. However, not a single order of that kind is known. There were presented only writings of Hermann, partly to Rosenberg, partly to others, from which no charges against Rosenberg can be drawn. On the contrary, Rosenberg was repeatedly reproached as once, when in the presence of Hitler, he praised a book by Reichsbishop Mueller (Doc.No.100-PS); another time, when Rosenberg gave Reichsbishop Mueller instruction to work out directives for thoughts regarding religious instruction in schools (Doc.No.098-PS); once again when Rosenberg promoted a strictly Christian piece of writing by General von Rabenau.
As a witness Rosenberg declared himself (Protocol p. 1874) that he always declined propaganda advocating the withdrawal from the Church and never called for state and police measures against his clerical and scientific opponents, and particularly that he never used the police for suppressing those who were opponents of his book, "Myth of the 20th Century."
In December 1941 he had issued, as Reich Minister for the occupied Eastern territories, an edict for church toleration (Doc. No.1517-PS); with arrests, the deportation of priests, and persecution of the Church Rosenberg had nothing to do. He had no part either in the negotiations with the Vatican over the Concordat or in the assignment of the Protestant Reich Bishop; but neither did he take any part in measures which were hostile to the Church, and which were later carried out by the police. He never participated in any other administrative or legislative anti-clerical measures to construe from what Rosenberg thought and said about religious and philosophical matters, that he conspired towards a political suppression of religion. The only document (130-PS) pointing in this direction was withdrawn by the Prosecution itself, before I saw myself obliged to draw attention to it as a pamphlet drawn up against Rosenberg. His book "The Myth of the 20th Century" which is allegedly written for the reshaping of confessions in the spirit of a German Christianity, is moreover chiefly addressed to those who have already broken with the Church.
"No consciously responsible German", says Rosenberg on one occasion in it, "should suggest withdrawal from the Churches to those, who are still faithful members of them" (Doc.No.Ro.7, Doc. Book I, p.122). "May science never have the power to dethrone true religion" (See the same page 125). His writings are not addressed to the faithful church-goers of today in order to hinder them in the course of their spiritual life, but to those who have already discarded their faith." (Doc.No.Ro. 7, Doc. Book I, p.125). establish norms in metaphysical matters which deny immortality etc. Having been assigned to supervise ideological education he said explicitly in his Berlin speech of 22February, 1934:
"No national-socialist is allowed to engage in religious discussions while wearing the uniform of his movement", and he declared at the same time that all well-disposed persons should strive for a pacification of the entire political and spiritual life in Germany (Ro. 7a, Doc.
Book page 130). That in this respect, too, things developed on different lines is not due to will or influence of Rosenberg. question of the 1000 year-old problem of relations between the clerical and so-called worldly powers. The struggle of emperors, kings and popes in the middle ages; the French revolution with the shooting of priests; Bismarck's clerical controversy; the secular legislation of the French republic under Combos: all these were things, which from the standpoint of the Church are persecutions, but from the standpoint of states and nations are termed necessary measures.
Mr. President, may I make a brief statement by way of explanation. I wanted to say that I have concluded this topic, that I do not wish to concern myself with it any further. power and consolidating that power. Uniformity of thinking has played an important part in the program of the conspiracy. The formation of the Wehrmacht has only been possible in conjunction with the ideological education of the nation and party; so says the Prosecution (Brudno, on 9-1-1946. And continuing its attacks against Rosenberg, the Prosecution continues: Rosenberg's ideas formed thefoundation of the national-socialist movement. Rosenberg's contribution in formulating and spreading the national-socialist ideology gave foundation to the conspiracy by shaping its philosophical technique.
I think that one will have to take care, in judging Rosenberg's case, not to yield to certain primitive ways of thinking and become a victim of them. First of all an exaggeration of the conception of ideology and the imprecise use of that conception. At best it was a political philosophy, which went hand in hand with Hitler's political measures and which Hitler himself preached in his book "Mein Kampf", but it was not an ideology in an all-embracing sense. It is true that national-socialism endeavored to create a spiritual philosophy and world ideology of its own, but ithad not reached that stage yet. Rosenberg's book "The Myth of the 20th Century" is an attempt in that direction, being a personal confession, without any suggestion of political measures.
Therefore, his philosophy cannot have formed the ideological basis of national-socialism. Besides this there is a total lack of proof that a straight spiritual line, a clear spiritual causal connection exists between the conceptions of Rosenberg and the alleged and actual crimes.
If one goes to the trouble of looking through the book "Myth of the 20th Century", one sees immediately that though there is some philosophizing in the nationalsocialist way, it would be, however, pure fiction to affirm that there is any dogmatic formulation of an aggressive program in this book or that it is a foundation for the activities of the responsible leaders of the German Reich in the World War.
unification and simplication: people were made uniform; thinking was made uniform; only one uniform type of German was left. Presumably there was also only one national-socialist way of thinking and only one nationalsocialist ideology. But in spite of this, as we see today, the leaders were frequently of different opinions in essential questions. I will recall the more questions of the policy in the East. this way of thinking,of observing everything through the spectacles of uniformity and of saying: One idea, one philosophy, one responsibility, one crime. Such a simplification apart from its primitive nature would surely be a great injustice toward the defendant Rosenberg. "German Christianity", the 2Heathenish Bloodmyth", pillorying Rosenberg's expression "the Nordic blood is the very mystery, which superseded and overpowered the old sacraments", one may close one's eyes for a moment and picture oneself at a session of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages where they are about to sentence Rosenberg as a heretic to the stake. Surely nothing can be farther from the Tribunal's mind, than to harbour thoughts of intolerance, as here in spite of all atempts by some of the prosecutors, to affirm that it is not idelogies but crimes which are being debated here.
In the defendant Rosenberg's case we are debating: whether by his teachings he did wilfully prepare and further a crime. The prosecuting authorities have brought forth arguments to prove this, but have not proved it, and I can prove the opposite merely by pointing out Rosenberg's activities in the East. Had he been the bearer and apostle of a criminal idea, he would have had an opportunity, such as no criminal has ever had yet in world history, to indulge in criminal activities. I have stated explicitly and specifically that in his case it was just the opposite. So when the bearer and apostle of an idea himself has the greatest of opportunities and yet behaves morally, then his teachings cannot be criminal and immoral either, and above all, he cannot be punished then as a criminal on the ground of his teachings.
What criminally degenerate persons practised as alleged national-socialism cannot be laid to the charge of Rosenberg. Moreover, Rosenberg's speeches in three tomes, which express what he taught during the course of 8 years, bear witness to the honorable nature of his endeavors.
Thus if we give up the false conception of uniformity: One party, one philosophy, one ideology, one crime, then in view of the indisputable fact that Rosenberg himself never pursued a policy of extermination,destruction and enslavement in the East, we shall have to admit that the facts of the terrible central executive orders and of Rosenberg's philosophy are not identical and on these grounds alone the conclusions of the prosecuting authority are invalid. are conditioned by themore casual play of materialistic forces. Whether Marx acknowledges the independent influence of man and ideas in history is at least doubtful. On the contrary, Rosenberg stresses emphatically the influence and the necessity of the highest ideas in the history of peoples. But Rosenberg does not overlook the fact that every event in history is the result of a totality of acting forces. The will, the passions and the intelligence of the people involved work together to form a historical process which cannot be calculated in human terms. It has already been pointed out, that just as little as Voltaire's and Rousseau's ideas can be recognized as the causes of the French revolution, and the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity be taken as the cause of the Jacobine terror, as little as one can say Mirabeau and Sieze had wanted or plotted such blood-thirstiness, just as little can one ascribe to Rosenberg as moral or even criminal guilt what became of National-Socialism during its development through the decades. In other words, I believe it is as unjust as it is unhistorical to ascribe today, in retrospect, the negative aspects of National-Socialism which were connected with the terrible collapse to a plan which had been desired from the beginning, a plan which also originated in Rosenberg's ideas.
Therefore, in considering Rosenberg's work the mistake of a standardization which does not correspond to reality is added to the further mistake of mechanization; there is neither a mechanical man nor mechanical history. And, finally, the construction of the indictment is also an absolutely negative one; it views the defendant from the standpoint of political polemics and is impressed by the excitement of people in these most excited times. I must briefly take exception to this distortion of the defendant's mental traits. of the preceding period which gave birth to the defendant's ideas are known to all of us only too well: the mental-psychic uprooting of man by the technical age, his hunger and thirst for a new spirit and a new soul; liberty was the slogan and a new beginning the impulse which directed the will of youth. Its longing and enthusiasm were aimed at nature. The thoughts and wishes of this generation were led into political paths by the contrast between rich and poor, which youth considered unjust and which youth sought to bridge through Socialism and the fellowship of the people. In Germany the development on political lines was further enhanced by the national misfortune of 1918/19 and the Treaty of Versailles, which was likewise felt to be unjust. The idea of a future building of German history through the union of nationalism and socialism, glowed unconsciously in the hearts of millions as the undisputed, tremendous success of National-Socialism proves. The psychic foundation was the will for self-preservation and love for one's fellow countrymen and for the people itself, a people which had already had to suffer so much torment and misery in history.
necessity after the intent based upon Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The word "Lebrasraum" was no principle of hate directed at other peoples, but a reference to the fact -- due to the hand of fate -- that for centuries the German people had been crowding against the frontiers and had never found sufficient outlet for its strength.
The will for self-preservation and love for one's own people together with the whole complex of National-Socialist ideas then developed in an inexplicable manner into a furious conflagration, the most primitive considerations of common sense were eliminated just as in a delirium; in complete delusion everything was put at stake and lost. Rosenberg may know that he is innocent of any human, personal guilt in this drama which was caused and committed by the guilt of others. time and time again, are whether he could have done more for what he thought and upheld as just and worthy, where he neglected essential things, where he fell she of requirements, what negative events, in so far as he had knowledge of then, he should have attended to with more effort. Can such questions which every person asks when he is crushed by disaster, be considered a evidence for his objective guilg? I do not think so. On 17 January 1946 (transcript p. 2765/66 the French chief prosecutor, Mr. de Menthon stated the following which I quote:
"We are rather facing systematic criminality which directly and necessarily derives from a monstrous doctrine with the full will of the leaders of NaziGermany. The crime against peace which was undertaken immediately is derived from the National-Socialist doctrine."
To refute this assertion I must briefly present this doctrine. I have classified the National-Socialist ideology -- in full accord with scientific opinions -- under the so-called new romanticism. This tendency of the time which was grounded in fate and the necessities of history had gone through the whole civilized world since the turn of the century as a reaction against rationalism and the technical age. It differs from the old romanticism in that it adopts the naturalistic and biological consideration of man and history.
the whole of reality. It does not glorify feeling and the intellect, but the innermost workings of man -- his heart, will, and faith. This philosophy receives its National-Socialist stamp through the emphasis which is placed upon the mysterious importance of peoples and races for all human experience and work. It is in the people, in the common possession of blood, history, and culture that we find the real roots of strength. Only by participating in the movements of a people and its strength does the individual serve himself and his generation.
Rosenberg's scientific contribution to the racial ideology consists in his description of the rise and fall of great historical figures, who were born of races and peoples who set up definite standards in all fields of language, custom, art, religion, philosophy, and polities. According to Rosenberg the efforts of the 20th century to establish a form for itself are a struggle for the independance of the human personality. In Rosenberg's opinion, then, essence is the consciousness of honor. The myth of national honor is at the same time the myth of blood and race; the race produces and supports the maximum value of honor. Therefore, the struggle for the maximum value of honor is also a spiritual struggle with other systems and their maximum values. Thus, intuition stands against intuition, will against will.
Rosenberg expresses this thought in the following manner in his "Myth", Introduction, pages 1 and 2: "History and the task of the future no longer means a struggle between classes, it will no longer be a struggle between church dogma and dogma, but the dispute between blood and blood, race and race, people and people. And this means: A struggle between psychic value and psychic value". Lemkin opines in "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe", page 81, where he ends the above quotation after the words "rade and race, people and people", but he believed in a struggle between psychic value and psychic value, in other words, spiritual controversy. National-Socialism that political considerations born of the intellect often gave way before the pathos of will and faith. In Rosenberg's case this danger did not appear so much. In making everything revolve around the "soil", i.e. the fatherland, and its history and peasantry as the life-growing forces from which spring the essence of a race, he remains in the sphere of life's realities.
Perhaps, unaware of it himself, he was, nevertheless, borne upwards by the current. political demands. After the Treaty of Versailles the political demands of Germany were aimed at recovering freedom and equality among the peoples for her great power which was everywhere hemmed in. This had been the objective of German statesmen even before Hitler. The other great powers had certain misgivings about recognizing Germany again as a great power. Rosenberg fought to do away with these misgivings. His weapon was his pen. The Tribunal allowed me to present in evidence an excerpt of Rosenberg's speeches and writings. I submitted it in my Document Book I, Volume 2. In view of the quantity of material and of my intention to submit only the most important matter, because of lack of time, I depend on the Court's being familiar with my document book.
In the first place I wish to call attention to the effects which these bo* had on German youth. I may recall the witness von Schirach's testimony. I repeat verbally: "At conventions of youth-leaders at which he spoke once a yea Rosenberg chiefly chose educational, character-building subjects. I remember he spoke for instance on loneliness and comradeship, personality and honor and so forth. At these conventions of leaders he did not deliver speeches against Jews. As far as I remember, he did not touch either on the confessional prob of youth, in any case to the best of my memory. Mostly I heard him talk on such subjects as I have just mentioned." power. Idleness, the root of all evil, had ceased and had been replaced by work, the fulfilment of duty, the aiming at ideals, patriotism and the will to ahead. It was a fatality here too, that through Hitler's policy these values were used in the wrong manner.
conspiracy against peace, of racial hatred, the elimination of human rights, of tyranny, a rule of horror, violence, and illegality, of a wild nationalism and militarism, of a German master race, I could already refute by pointing to the excerpts from the "Myth of the 20th Century" which the Prosecution itself has submitted as evidence for the truth of its assertions. In reply to this, in order to refute this assertion by the Prosecution, I want to point in particular to the following facts:
To prove Rosenberg's honest struggle for a peaceful living together of the people I wish to refer to his speech in Rome in November 1933 before the Royal Academy, which was printed in "Blood and Honor"; Document No. Ro. 7b, page 150. In his speech in Rome, Rosenberg pointed to the fateful significance of the four great powers and proclaimed -- I quote his words:
"Therefore he who strives in earnest to create a Europe which shall be an organic unit with a pronounced multiplicity of form and not merely a crude summation, must acknowledge the four great nationalisms as given to us by fate and must, therefore, seek to give fulfillment to the force radiating from their core. The destruction of one of these centers by any power would not result in a 'Europe' but would bring about chaos in which the other centers of culture would also have to perish. In reverse, it is only the triumph of the radiations in those directions where the four great forces do not come into conflict with each other which would result in the most dynamic force of creative thinking and organic peace, not an explosive, forced situation such as prevails today, but it would then guarantee the small nations more security than appears possible today in the struggle against elementary force". remained true. Unfortunately, he could only work for it through his word. No witness could confirm in this court room that Rosenberg had any influence on the actual foreign policy, whether it was directed by Neurath, Ribbentrop, Goering or Hitler himself. Neither in the Austrian, nor in the Czech, nor in the Polish nor in the Russian complex hashis name been mentioned in connection with the charge of participation in aggressive wars. Everywhere he was placed before accomplished facts. In the war against the Soviet-Union he received his orders only when the war against Russia had already been declared an acute possibility.
He did not stir up the Norwegian campaign, but passed on personal information in accordance with his duty.
Now, as regards Rosenberg's speeches and writings on the problems of general foreign politics he advocated the Anschluss of the Austrians who had been forcibly excluded from the Reich as a demand born of the right to selfdetermination which had been proclaimed by the Allies themselves. The revision of Versailles was a postulate of justice against a violation of the treaty of 11 November 1918. To advocate a German Wehrmacht was, in view of the nondisarmament of the other powers, a defense of the solemnly promised equality of rights. told Rosenberg -- it is not the affair of other nations to especially champion the living rights of the German people but it is the duty of the German nation itself. For this purpose it needed to establish a firm unity, and to overcome the social strife which made everything unsafe, and it needed a Wehrmacht, and these things all together, would only then make the Reich reacy for alliances again.
I shall now take up the race question. Rosenberg's opinions in regard to the race question were the result of racial research of international scientists. Rosenberg repeatedly asserts (I refer again to the opinions stated in Document Book I, Volume 2) that the purpose of his racial political demands is not contempt of a race, but respect for it. "The leading moral idea of an approach to world history based on the laws of heredity belongs to our times and to our generation, being in full accord with the true spirit of the modern eugenics movement in regard to patriotism, i.e. the upholding and expansion of the spiritually, morally, intellectually and physically best hereditary forces for our fatherland; only in such way can we preserve our institutions for all future times." These words are the leading idea of his demands, though their originator was not Rosenberg, but Henry Fairfield Osborn, Professor at Columbia University who wrote them about the work of his colleague in science, Madis Grand: "The Decline of a Great Race". This research led long before the existence of the Third Reich to eugenic legislation in other countries, in particular to the American immigration law of 26 May 1924 which was aimed at a strong reduction of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe while favoring those from the North and West of Europe.
to be taken up here. With this measure, too, Rosenberg did not have the slightest connection. of the German nation, indeed of the Aryan race. He would like to have his ideology considered in that light, above all his "Myth of the 20th Century". His preaching of the significance of race in history did not call -- I remark it again -- for race contempt, but for consideration and respect of the race and demanded the acknowledgment of the racial idea only of the German people, and not of other nations.
He considered the Aryan nations as the leading ones in history. And in doing so he somewhat underestimated the value of other races, as Semitic ones, he, in his praise of Aryan races did not think of the German nation alone, but of the European nations in general. I point out his speech in Rome of November 1932. fact that anti-Judaism is not an invention of National Socialism. For thousands of years the Jewish question has been the minority problem of the world. It has an irrational character which humanly cannot be understood. Rosenberg was a convinced anti-Semite, who in writing and speech gave expression to his convictions and their cause. I have already mentioned that even such different personalities as von Papen, von Neurath, Raeder still are of the opinion that the predominance of the Jewish element in the entire public life had reached such proportions that a change was bound to come. The concrete result of that predominance and the fact that the Jews in Germany when attacked knew how to repay in kind, sharpened the anti-Semitic fight before the accession to power. on the national feelings at that time, but the Tribunal ruled my application out as irrelevant; as these writings were not introduced as evidence I cannot speak about them. It is, however, an injustice to Rosenberg to assert that blind hatred of the Jewish race had driven him into that controversy.
He had before his eyes concrete facts of the seditious activities of Jews. law for aliens would be realized.
It is true that Goebbels at that time called for a day's boycotting of Jewish stores.
Rosenberg, however, declared in has speech of 28 Jun 1932, on the anniversary of the Vers ailles Treaty, in the assembly hall of the Reichstag in the Kroll Opera House, that is was no longer necessary that in the capital of the Reich 74% of all lawyers should be Jews and that 80 to 90 percent of the physicians in Berlin hospitals should be Jewish; about 30 percent of Jewish lawyers in Berlin would amply do. In his speech on the Partietag in September 1933, Rosenberg stated in addition, and I quote: "In the most chivalrous way, the German Government has excluded from the percentage stipulations those Jews who have fought for Germany at the front or who have lost a son or a father in the war". (Document Book I, p. 153a). In his speech at the Kroll Opera House, Rosenberg Gave the reason for this measure, saying that an entire nation should not be discriminated against, but that it was necessary for our younger German generation, who for years had to starve or beg, to now be able to obtain bread and work too.. want the "extermination" of Judaism, but advocated as the nearest goal the political expatriation of Jews, i.e. by placing them under a law and protection for aliens. In addition, he granted to the Jews a percentage access to non-political professions which still by far exceeded the actual percentage of Jews in the German population. Of course, his final goal was the total emigration of the Jews from Aryan nations. He had no understanding and appreciation of what great a loss to the Aryan nations themselves such an emigration would be in cultural, economic and political respects. But one must admit that he meant that such emigration would prove useful for the Jews themselves, first, because they would be free from anti-Semitic attacks, and then because in their own settlement they might live unhampered according to their own ways.