Another idea of the regulation is also hardly imaginable, because after all it was intended to accept these female domestic workers in particular into the families, and to give them the opportunity to remain in Germany. They had been selected as girls who were considered particularly dependable, who had reported voluntarily for domestic work. In accordance to the general practice the order was amended by a subsequent decree (in Document Sauckel No.26) simultaneously with the rescinding of all remaining limitations. within the field of German Labor Security-Legislation. In this case it deals with children who, contrary to the decrees of the defendant Sauckel, had come to Germany with their parents in an unregulated manner. it is also practiced for German children. In this respect it is pointed out, that during the war, the school children in Germany from their 10th year upward could be utilized for work, according to the decree of the Reich Youth Leader of 11 April 1942 (Document Sauckel No. 67a) A summarizing discussion by Dr. Blumensaat in the complete Document Sauckel No. 39 gives the best information about the whole complex of wages and working-hours, as it was finally regulat by law.
the defendant Sauckel as an excuse, if he know and tolerated those things which, according to the Prosecution's assertion, branded the transportation and the life in the camps and factories. It is his duty to superintend, even there where he is not directly responsible Such a sphere of activity, which consisting in the accommodation and feeding of the workers was the responsibility of the works. same regulations as for the camps for German workers were applied, by virtue of decrees of the competent Reich Minister of Labor SELDI (Document Sauckel Nos.
42, 43 and 44). It is indisputable that the accommodation suffered from war exigencies, in particular from the effects of air warfare.
The abuses, however, were eliminated as far as possible. The condition of the foreign workers was not different here from that of the German civil population. The food supply suffered from blockade and want of communications. The established rations, contrary to the notorious statements on the feeding of the Russians laid down according to the schedule of 24. November 1941 in Document USSR - 177, amounted to 2540 calories for the Soviet prisoners of war. A further schedule has been submitted with the Affidavit of the witness HAHN as Exhibit Sauckel No. 11. According to this the ration In the Krupp works amounted to 2.156 calories for the Eastern normal worker, 2.615 calories for the heavy workers, and supervision ensured their careful distribution. The Reich Food Ministry was responsible for the supply of food. Strong accusations have been brought in by the Prosecution with regard to both points. These, however, are only possible when the existing regulations have not been observed. It is quite likely the mistakes have been made in this large sphere of activity In the course of years, but the general picture is not only composed of mistakes, whereon a judgment cannot be based. The actual conditions have not been clarified in this procedure to the extent that one could say the abuses were so general and obvious that the defendant Sauckel must and did know them.
Contrary to the uncertain statements of the witness Dr. Jaog is the affidavit of the witness HAHN which refutes them to a large extent. The affidavits of the witnesses Dr. Scharrmann and Dr. Voss (Exhibit Sauckel No. 17 and 18) confirm that no serious abuses existed in their spheres of activity.
In addition to the obligation of the Works Managers, the German Labor Front had to care for the foreign workers (Document Sauckel 15.)
Its field of activity was amongst other things transportation and the supervision of medical care, as well as general care. The extensive activity which this very large organization developed, has not been described in these proceedings. The basic principles of the German Labor Front can be seen from Document Sauckel No.27, which is a regulation of the German Labor Front regarding the status of foreign workers in the plants. The aim is emphasized as follows: Maintenance of the willingness to work by observing conditions of contracts, absolutely fair treatment and comprehensive care and control. transportation according to Regulation No. 4 (Document Sauckel No. 15). SAUCKEL instructions are contained therein. This task includes transportation to their place of work. The witnesses Timm and Stothfang and Hildebrandt have testified about this field of activity and did not report anything about bad conditions.
The descriptions in the Molotov-Report (USSR-51) cannot refer to transporta which was carried out under coordinated cirection, but only to so-called "wild" convoys. The same applies to convoys, the destination of which according to the indictment, were the concentration camps. The great extent to which the defendant SAUCKEL has occupied himself from the very beginning with transportati conditions, is particularly shown by Document 2241-PS submitted by the Prosecut It contains a decree where conscientious directives for the prevention of the utilization of unsuitable trains are given. of the return transport of workers. These had been brought into the Reich before SAUCKEL's time in violation of his basic principles. This was a matter of a single incident, and the necessary orders were issued immediately. The return journey of sick persons in conditions which did not permit them to travel in convoys was prohibited, and Bad Frankonhausen was placed at their disposal. This was followed by the order regarding the accompanying of such transports by male and female assistants of the Red Cross (Document Sauckel No,99). worked under the collaboration of the Association of Panel Doctors, has not feailed, in spite of the greatest difficulties. Rather the great result has been established that no epidemics and serious diseases broke out.
camps of the Krupp firm, can only have arisen from the unusual chain of circumstances. They cannot prove generally bad conditions, of which these conditions could be typical. Another Document, RF-91, has also been presented, i.e. the medical report of Dr. Fevier of the French Delegation of the German Labor Front, which was composed after the beginning of the invasion on 15 June 1944. Besides faults which it is intended to correct, the report also points out good things. It speaks with particular acknowledgement of leaders of youth-camps, of the systematic X-Ray examinations, and of the support given by the district administrations, and similar things. A real overall picture of conditions could only be obtained by the study of the medical reports of the Health Offices of the German Labor Front existing everywhere. importance here in that a distant onlooker like himself could not have a clear picture of bad conditions. The sanctioning of such bad conditions would have stood in gross contrast to the actions and declarations of Sauckel. The defendant Sauckel did not acquiesce if a Gauleiter perhaps saids: "if somebody has to freeze, then first of all the Russians". He intervened here, and he stood out against it publicly in his official Handbook of the Commitment of Labor (Document Sauckel No. 19). The defendant Sauckel also tried to improve the food outside of his competence. This has been confirmed by several witnesses, amongst others the witness Goetz (Exhibit Sauckel No. 10). It is also shown by the record of the Central Planning Board (Document R-134, Page 1783). The defendant Sauckel did not let matters go on anyhow, but he established this own personal staff, whose members travelled around the camps and corrected had conditions on the spot. He also attempted so obtain clothing, and let factories work to a large extent for supplying the Eastern workers. All Witnesses who have been heard regarding this problem have again and again unanimously confirmed the benevolent basic attitude of the defendant Sauckel. always advocate good treatment, I do not wish to enumerate the documents in detail, and only emphasize the "Manifesto of the Commitment of Labor, Document Sauckel No. 84, in which he refers to his binding basic principles, and demands that these be recalled constantly and with emphasis.
I also refer to the speeche to the Presidents of the District Employment Offices of 24 August 1943 (Document Sauckel No. 86) and of 17 January 1944 (Document Sauckel No. 88). The defendant SAUCKEL finally obtained, that even Himmler, Goebbels and Bormann acknowledged his ideas as correct. This is shown by document 205-PS of 5 May 1943. This is a memorandum regarding the general basic principles for the treatment of foreign workers. There the basic principles of a regulated commitment of labor are accepted.
of workers as if they were slaves with this? It will be necessary to examine closely whether the cases referred to involve real abus affecting workers in the process of normal mobilization, or abuses involving the deportation of prisoners and prisoners' work. Then one should investigate exaggerations and delays which can be explained by human weakness and peculiarities. In my opinion no ad quote clarification of incidents has so far been obtained. Press reports already began to appear, which are bound to strengthen doubts as to the traditional concept of how foreign workers live. numerous offices for checking and inspection, relative to the question of laborers. They did not report to the offices of the defendant Sauckel conditions of particular abuse. Perhaps the fact that offices were so numerous point to a weakness: it is quite possible that each Governmental Department kept silent about whatever mistakes originated under its own jurisdiction, rather than permitted their coming to the attention of the defendant Sauckel, because as a rule the controlling agencies were of a higher standing than that of the defendant Sauckel. This should particularly be considered with regard to rotations between the most important agency, the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Labor Front), under the leadership of Reich Loader Dr. Ley, and Gauleiter Sauckel. agreement on the creation of "central inspection offices charged with the care and control of foreign labor", it appears to be a carefully set-up "screen" against the defendant Sauckel. The document was devised by Dr. Ley and signed on 2 June 1943, then submitt to the defendant Sauckel for signature. He did not approve and announce it until 20 September 1943. For that very reason it is quite likely that Dr. Ley did not wish to invite criticism. On the other hand, there is also little likelihood that the abuses were general and manifested themselves openly. Otherwise it would obviously have become known to the defendant Sauckel through his own control agencies.
April 1942 appointed the Gauleiters as "Commissioners for the Mobilization of Labor", impressing upon them as their foremost duty the supervision needed for enforcement of his orders. This becomes apparent from Sauckel document No. 8, figure 5; the same holds true for document 633 PS of 14 March 1943. Several Gauleiter were examined by the Tribunal as witnesses, and they have confirmed that the supervision was carried out as ordered and that Sauckel checked it through members of his staff. No abuses were reported.
After due consideration of things, whom should one believe? Are we concerned here with exaggerated laments or do findings of a contrary nature deserve credit? There is no testimony by the French who, according to document UK 78/3, IIIrd study, were taken to the real slave centers; There is no testimony by the Russians who, according to document USSR 51, were sold for 10 to 15 Reichsmark. namely the fact that workers were always confirmed by competent witnesses - and that when the collapse came no rising occurred in which the workers would have given vent to their natural wrath against the slave owners. juridically. All this, however, must appear to be juridical trifle where a higher responsibility is concerned. ficant Works' Managers take the blame, but that the moral responsibility must go to the highest Reich Government offices; of their own volition, they should have introduced corrections on a larger scale to cope with difficulties inherent in the circumstances of that time. This might be in order for offices which had the power and the means of alleviation. The defendant Sauckel and his small personal staff had merely been incorporated in a Ministry already in existence and he did not have such means at his disposal. His authority consisted of a narrowly circumscribed power to give directives on the mobilization of labor, and he has used it untiringly The Works Managers of the armament industry were formed into an independent administration, and outwardly separated from so-called bureaucrats.
The duty of self-preservation corresponds to this administrative independence. Consequently, if the case arose that something should be done to improve the safety of foreign workers, of their situation in armaments works, it would have been the duty of such establishments and of the Armaments Ministry under whose supervision they operated to deal with the matter. It was not the duty of the office of the defendant Sauckel to intervene in these matters, as they were under the Armaments Ministry. This is clear evident from document 4003 PS with decree of 22 June 1944. This is borne out by the most intimate personal relation between the Armaments Minister and Hitler which made the former the most influential man in the economic sphere. If greater responsibility were to exist for mistakes made in the factories, such responsibility can be placed only where there is knowledge of such conditions and power to correct them. to the indictment; namely, whether the position of the General Commissioner for Labor Commitment is determined by Article 7 or Article 8, i.e. whether the defendant Sauckel was an independent government official or whether he had to carry out orders. The recruitment of labor took place from time to time upon Hitler's special order, as part of the general program, and the subsequent distribution alone was left to Sauckel. This is also confirmed by the fact that defendant Sauckel always refers to Hitler's "Order and Commands", as in the Manifest of the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment (GBA) (Document Sauckel No. 83) and others. From this also derives the fact that defendant Sauckel from time to time specially reports execution of the orders, as well as the beginning and end of his official trips, (Document 556 PS of 10 January 44 and 28 July 43). nomination decree, the defendant Sauckel was immediately subordinate to the Four Year Plan and incorporated into the Reich Ministry for Labor which had been preserved with its State secretaries.
Only two departments were placed at his disposal. If the kind of responsibility is to be determined, it can be only within the limits of article 8 of the Charter. Herewith I conclude my exposition regarding the special sphere of activity of labor commitment.
over and beyond labor commitment. Particular isolated acts are, however, not charged against him as active agent. A closer characterisation of the accusation has been effected in the course of the proceedings only in regard to the concentration camps. In this connection, however, it has been proved by a sworn affidavit of witness Walkenhorst (Exhibit No.23) and a statement in lieu of oath of witness Dieter Sauckel (Exhibit No.9) that no order for the evacuation of the Buchenwald camp upon the approach of Americantroops was given. Knowledge and approval of conditions at the camp cannot be deduced from two visits of the camp before 1939, as the excesses submitted by the Prosecution did not yet exist. Nor did the local proximity of the camp to the Gauleituna of the defendant Sauckel bring about any close connection with the SS staff, as it had its seat in Kassel and Magdeburg. Sauckel which resulted from his previous career, and which was irreconcileable with Himmler's point of view.
What part can defendant Sauckel have played in the conspiracy? He was Gauleiter in Thuringia and did not rise above the rest of the Gauleiters His activities and his aims can be deduced from his fighting speeches, which have been submitted as document Sauckel No. 95. These persistently show the fight for "Liberty and bread" and the desire for a real peace. authoritative for defendant Sauckel; the wishes contained therein required neither war nor the extermination of the Jews. The practical realization of the program alone could disclose the reality. For the convinced party member, however, the official explanation of the event was authoritative and it net with no doubts. Up to his nomination as the Plenipotentiary General for Labor Committment in March 1942, defendant Sauckel did not belong to the narrow circle of those who had access to Hitler's plans. He had to rely upon the press and the broadcasts like everybody else. He had no contact with the leading men. This is shown somewhat tragically by his action, so often laughed at, in boarding a submarine as an ordinary seaman for a raid into enemy waters. That is not the way to participate in conspiracies.
in the circle of those in the know. It is understandable if the extreme men avoided him owing to his well known opinions. Also he was not initiated into the secret of people who at the same time washed to be both Hitler's friends and murderers, and he was not advised by the group of people who were Hitler's enemies, but who kept their truisms secret with a novel kind of courage. Faithful to the end, defendant Sauckel cannot to this day understand what has happened. Must he, like aheretic, recant his error in order to find grace? He lacks the contact with reality which would make understanding possible. or a bad cause? Nothing is either good or bad,but thinking makes it so. One thin,g however, is always and under circumstances good, and that is good intentions. This good intention was shown by the Defendant Sauckel. Therefore, I ask that he be acquitted.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Dr. Exner for Defendant Jodl.
DR. EXNER (Counsel for defendant Jodl): Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal, in this unique trial the discovery of the truth is faced with unique difficulties. At a time when the wounds of the war are still bleeding, when the excitement of the events of the last few years is still felt, at a time when the archives of one side are still shut, a just verdict is t be given with dispassionate neutrality. Material for the trial has been spread out before us which covers a quarter of a century of world history and events from the four corners of the globe. simultaneously. That makes it terribly difficult to keep one's eye clear for the guilt and the responsibility of each individual, for inhumanities of an almost unimaginable vastness have come to light here, and the danger exists that the deep shadow which falls on some of the defendants may also darken the others. Some of them appear, I fear, in a different light because of the company in which they are here than they would if they were alone on the defendants' bench. making joint accusations, mixing legal and moral reproaches. They said that all of the defendants had enriched themselves from the occupied territories, that there was not one who did not shout, "Die, Judah," and so forth. No attempt to prove this in the case of each individual was made, but the statement alone creates an inimical atmosphere to all of them? make the clearing up of the question of individual guilt more difficult is the fact that the defendants Keitel and Jodl are treated as inseparable twins one common plea against them by the British Prosecutor, one common trial bri by the French Prosecution, and finally the Russian Prosecution spoke very little about the individual defendants but, rather, heaped reproach after reproach upon all of the defendants. server to clear up the question of individual responsibility. Indeed, the Indictment goes still further. It stretches beyond these 22 defendants and affects the fate of millions -- this through the prosecution of the organizations, which, taken in conjunction with Law Number 10, has as its result that one can be punished for the guilt of other persons.
form of summary treatment of the defendants. The Prosecution is bringing in the conception of a conspiracy to reach the result again that persons can be made individually responsible for something wrong that others did. I must go into this point in greater detail, as it concerns my client as well.
It is actually clear, I think, from the previous speakers' statements that a conspiracy to commit crimes against the peace, the laws of war and of humanity didnot in fact exist. Therefore, I shall show only one thing: If such a conspiracy did actually exist, Jodl, at least, did not belong to it.
The Prosecution has admitted that Jodl's participation in the conspiracy before 1933 could not be proved. In fact, anyone whose attitude toward the whole National Socialist movement was so mistrustful and who spoke with such skepticism about its seizure of power did not conspire to help Hitler into the saddle. But the Prosecution seems to think that Jodl joined the alleged conspiracy in the period before 1939. Actually, his attitude toward Hitler was now a lawfully loyal one, for it was Jold's respected Field Marshal von Hindenberg who had called Hitler into the government, and the German people had confirmed this decision with more than 90 per cent of its votes.
Added to this was the fact that in Jodl's eyes -- and not alone in Jodl's eyes -- Hitler's authority was bound to rise powerfully in view of his marvelous successes at home and abroad, successes which now followed one aft another in quick succession, but personally Jodl remained without any connection with Hitler. He did not participate in any of the big meetings at which Hitler developed his program. Hitler's book, Mein Kampf -- the Bible o National Socialism -- Jodl had read only parts of. Jodl remained just an unpolitical man, quite in accordance with his personal inclinations which lay far from Party politics and in accordance with the traditions of the old family of officers from which he sprang.
Inwardly of liberal leanings, he had little sympathy for National Socialism; outwardly he was forbidden to belong to the Party, and he was without all rights to vote and all political activity. was the instrument of cohesion between the defendants, then one asks in vain what cohesion actually existed between Jodl,and, let us say, Sauckel, or between Jodl and Streicher. Of all the defendants, except the officers, the only one he knew before the war was Frick, from one or two official conferences in the Ministry of the Interior. He kept out of the NSDAP, and his attitude towards its organizations was even, in some sense, inimical. His greatest worry during these years, as later right to the end, was the danger of Party influence in the armed forces. into a subsidiary Wehrmacht, to prevent the handing over of the Customs Frontier Guards to Himmler, and he notes triumphantly in his diary that after the withdrawal of Colonel General von Fritsch, Hitler did not, as was feared, make General von Reichenhau, who had Party ties, commander in chief of the army but the unpolitical General von Brauchitsch, and so forth. behaved in the opposite manner on each of these points. spirators -- not on 5 November 1937 -- Hitler's testament remained unknown to him -- nor at Obersalzburg in February 1938, nor at the meetings on 23 May 1939, nor of 22 August 1939.
No wonder. Jodl was after all at that time still much too small a man to be brought into occasions which were of such decisive importance to the state. People do not conspire with lieutenant colonels or colonels on the General Staff. They are simply told what to do, and that settles the matter as far as they are concerned:
have belonged to no conspiracy to wage aggressive war is his absence of ten months' duration just before the beginning of the war. Jodl had left the OKW in October 1938 and was sent to Vienna as artillery commander. At that time there was in his mind so little probability of war that, before leaving Berlin, he drafted on his own initiative a deployment in all directions. In this he moved the mass of the German forces to the center of the Reich because he could not see in any direction definite opponents against whom a deployment plan would have to be prepared. German transcript, page 10,856. spirator for aggressive wars drew up a purely defensive General Staff job, and, although he know definitely that in case of war he would have to return to Berlin, this possibility seemed so distant that he transferred to Vienna, together with all of his furniture.
had the Mountain Division at Reichenhall promised him for 1 October 1939. Lastly, as late as July he procured shipping tickets for a sea trip planned to last several weeks and which would have begun in September. up to the time he was called to Berlin shortly before the outbreak of the war, Jodl had no official or private connections with the OKW. The only letter he got from them at that time was the one which promised him his transfer to Reichenhall on 1 October. conspirators were discussing and working out the Polish plan, Jodl was out of all contact for ten months with the authoritative persons and knew no more of what was happening than one of his second lieutenants. worthwhile to Keitel to introduce Jodl to him, although Jodl was called upon in the event of war to carry out the alleged common aggresive plan as strategic commander to the supreme commander. had been a member of the conspiracy to launch the war.
Mr. President. I have reached the end of a paragraph, and this perhaps might be an opportune more to recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 19 July 1946 at 1000 hours.)
DR. EXNER: (Counsel for defendant Jodl) Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal: page 7 in the middle of the page. Jodl, in any event, up until the year 1939, was net a member of a conspiracy and could not have been -- correction, page 9. 1939. in the place indicated for him in carrying out a war plan can never be considered a conspirator. He does, in fact, have a plan in common with his superior, but he had not adopted it willingly, nor has he concluded an agreement, but, within the normal order of service, he simply does whatthe post he occupies demands.
Jodl can be considered a typical example of this. He did not go to Berlin on his free decision. It had already been laid down long before that he had to enter the Fuehrer's staff in case of war. The arrangements for the current mobilization year laid this down. This mobilization year ended on the 30 September 1939; for the following year General von Sodenstern was already designated as Chief of the Wehrmacht Operational Staff. Therefore, if the war had broken out six weeks later, Jodl would have entered the war as commander of his mountain division. He would then, in all probability, not be on this defendants' bench today. One sees that his whole activity in the war was fixed by a ruling which was independent of his will and had been laid down in advancelong before. This fact is, in my opinion, in itself already striking proof that he did not participate in a conspiracy to wage wars of aggression.
war hadalready been laid down for the 25 of August. For reasons unknown to him it was then postponed another six days.. The plan for the Polish campaign lay ready. He did not need to conspire to produce it. If a conspiracy against Poland existed at that time, the co-conspirators were quite somewhere else, as we now know as a result of the secret German-Russian treaty.
Jodl was not introduced to the Fuehrer until the 3 September 1939, i.e., only after the war had begun, at a time when what had to be decided had already been decided. One must actually add, close to his physically only. He wasnever really close to him. Now, too, he did not learn Hitler's plans and intentions, and was only let into them as the occasion arose, to the extent that his work absolutely demanded. Jodl never became Hitler's confidant and never had cordial relations with him. It remained a purely official relationship--and often enough one of conflict.
In other ways, too, Jodl had remained a stranger to the party. There is no idea of his having sought contact in Vienna, for instance, with the party leaders there, although this would have been natural enough. only when they visited the Fuehrer's Headquarters from time to time. With the exception of one officers, he continued to have no relations with them. The party clique on the headquarters he hated and considered it an unpleasant foreign body in the military framework. He never ceased to fight against party influence in the Armed Forces.
He still did not participate in party functions. He did not participate in Reich party rallies, apart from the fact that he once watched the Wehrmacht's exhibition there, having been oredered to officially. He avoided every one of the Munich anniversaries on the 9 November. in spite of all this, Jold identified himself with the party and its efforts, and that he was, after all, not a soldier but a politician and that he was an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler's as well.
Gauleiter speech, is not the manuscript of this speech out a collection of materials put together by his staff, on the basis of which Jodl then drafted his manuscript.
Over and above this, the speech was made extemporaneously. Not a single word ofthis document proves that Jodl really spoke it.
Also the occasion ofthe speech must be taken into account. After four hard years of war, after the breaking off of Italy which had just taken place before the fresh, terrific burden which Hitler planned to impose on the population as the extreme effort, - at this critical moment everything depended on the people's will to continue remaining intact. For this reason, the party tried to get expert information upon the war situation so as to be able to buey up the sinking courage again. For this task the Fuehrer earmarked General Jodl, no doubt the only competent person. Some people would have welcomedthis opportunity to make themselves popular with the Party leaders, but Jodl accepted the task against his will. The title of the lecture is "The military situation at the beginning of the fifth year of war." Its contents are purely objective description of the war situation on the various fronts and of how this situation was created. The beginning and the end giv e at least according to the document before us, a paen of praise to the Fuehrer from which the Prosecution draws doubtful conclusions. When a lecturer has first and foremost to win the confidence of his listeners, these consisting of Party leaders, and when the task is to spread confidence in the supreme military leadership, then such rhetorical phrases are something quite understandable.
Besided, Jodl does not deny that he sincerely admired some of the Fuehrer's qualities and talents. But he was never his confidant or his fellow-conspirator and he remained in the OKW the non-political man he always was.
Jodl was therefore not a member of a conspiracy. No concept of a conspiracy can help to makehim responsible for actions which he did not himself commit as a guilty man.
reproached. with certain crimes against the peace, against the laws of war and against humanity, which crimes are specified in the Charter and for which the personal criminal responsibility of the guilty individual was laid down. If we disregard for the time being the crimes against humanity, which cone under a special heading, there are two preliminary conditions under which the individual punishment of the defendants can take place: co-guilty in some respect. The meaning of this whole trial and the meaning of the Charter after all lies in the fact that the force of the rules of international law is to be strengthened by penal sanctions. If, therefore, some special kind of Violation of international law is committed, net only the responsibility of the particular country which violated the law will come in as heretofore, but in addition guilty individuals are also to be punished for it in future. Therefore: There can be no punishment without a breach of international law. individuals in the case of all trenches of international law, but only for those which are explicitly named in the Charter. Article 6 (a) specifics the crimes against peace, paragraph 6 (b) crimes against the laws and usages of war. Other actions, oven if they are contrary to International Law, do not belong here. taken those two points into account right from the beginning, because as is to be shown, there is a tendency to accuse the defendants beyond these limits of actions contrary to international law which are net specified in the Charter; but this is not all: they are to be called to account also for deeds which are not at all contrary to law, but which can at most be considered as unethical Angle-American trial brief and add to it what was brought up,against Jodl by the two other Prosecutors.