Germany recognizes the independance of Austria in this agreement and ceases the economic war. The price for that, however, is a series of measur which give the National Socialists in Austria a new boost. In order to extend the small platform of his government and in order to bring about a real satisfaction, Chancellor Dr. Schuschnigg declares to invite also the so-called Nationals to cooperate. Among these men is also the defendant, who then becomes Austrian State councillor in May 1937. The idea of the Auschluss constituted his political program as already mentioned above. He never tried to hide this fact. He also comes from the ranks of the National opposition, a factor which must not be overlooked. The Anschluss also brought him nearer to National Socialism and it seems immaterial to engage in long investigations, at what time he actually became a formal member of the Party. Among the documents confiscated at his arrest, there was in any case also his membership card with the number 7 million. It is known, however that in Austria the so-called old fighters were given a membership number below 6,500,000. When the new State Councillor then paid his first visit at his assumption of office to the Fuehrer deputy Hess, the latter is very polite but cool and he regrets that Seyss-Inqua was not an old fighter. The task of Dr. Seyss-Inquart is to supervise the execution of the July agreement and to act as a meditator between the Austrian Government on one hand, the national circles on the other hand, and the Reich. This task has been a thorny and ungratifying one. The patriotic circles, namely could not forget the terror of the National Socialists, during the Dolfuss period. The National Socialists, whose leader was Captain Leopold by that time, were not satisfied with the methods of the national representative Seyss-Inquart with the Government. There are constantly differences of opinion between these two men, which go so far that Seyss-Inquart wants to give up his mission to bring about an agreement. I refer in this connection for the sake of brevity to documents 44(letter of State Secretary Keppler to General Bodenschatz), 45 (Goering's telgram to Keppler) and 46 (USA 704) of my document book. There occur continuous violations of the July agreement, and the Austrian Police find the "coup d'etat plan, known as Tavs plan, which strives for a change of Goverment by violence. Minister Guido Zernatt has declared the defendant had remained aloof of all these endeavoors. (Doc. 47 of my document book). Then came the coference of 12 February 1938 at the Obersalzberg.
The course of this conference is well known. That the defendant discussed things on the evening before this conference not only with Zernatto, the representative and intimate friend of the Chancellor in the government, but also with the national leaders becomes understandable if one considers again and again the at all times openly declared role as mediator by the defendant. The latter had to know also the claim of the opposition, if at the conference of the two statesmen at Berchtesgaden a clarification of the differences of opinion was to be accomplished. The defendant cannot be charged with playing a double game within the framework of a conspiracy because the National Socialist Party tried to exploit the Knowledge of the situation to their profit, and that in sending out Muehlmann was quicker than the unsuspecting Chancellor Schuschnigg. There, too, it must be referred to Zernatto, who died in excile and who declares that he was under the certain impression, that Seyss-Inquart had not yet knowledge of the agreements concluded at the Obersalzberg. On the basis of this agreement Seyss-Inqu was appointed Minister of Interior and Security. He goes in that capacity to Berlin in order to pay a State visit to the Chief of State of the German Reich and in order to present to him on that occasion his political program for the relationship of the two States, which is known from the File Notes(Exhibit no. submitted to the Tribunal. The testimony of the defendant as witness of this conference appears completely believable. Hitler had at that time obviously not yet decided to carry out the Anchluss. It must at this point be referred to the testimony of the defendant Gearing, who testified the following on 14 March, when examined as a witness: "I was not present in Berchtesgaden; I did also not agree with this agreement, because I have always been against every fixation which again extends this state of suspension". Through the agreement of Berchtgaden the activity and propaganda of the Nazis in Austria had been permitted to a certain extent. The 2000 party members, released from prison on the basis of the amnesty and the members at least a part of whom had returned from the Reich, were especially active in the federal states to an increased extent, for a rapid increase of the Party and used Hitler's Reichstag speech of the 20 February particularly as a signal for hostile demonstrations against the State for the purpose of acceeding to governmental power in the shortest time. Not only Schuschnigg but the great mass of the working class now realized the danger ous character of the situation.
The menacing peril cause part differences to be forgotten, and negotiations between Schuschnigg and the Socialist Labor Leaders and the Christian trade unions seemed to provide an insurance for the defeat of the imminent assault of Nazism, by the constitution of a common defensive front of all democratic forces.
Prompt action was necessary and Schusnigg proclaimed his plebiscite. The whole country awake from its lethargy. Workers and peasants were called up to defend their country and the electrical preparations carried out under the leadership of Zernatto, in the short time available, in the factories and in the very remotest mountain valleys. It was clear that this attempt of Chancellor Schuschnigg to swing the helm around and alter the course at the last moment could not fail to elicit the resistance not only of the National Socialists in Austria, but also of those in Germany. Hitler raved and Mussolini had unfortunately only too good a reason in warning Schuschnigg, before the election, with the hint that it would be a bomb which would explode in his own hand.
And now, let us turn back to the defendant. He was not only a Government member, he was the trustee of the national opposition and the guarantor for Berchtesgaden before the Reich. honor with reference to the election and not having kept it, that is not correct* Reference is made, I understand to speech held by Gauleiter Rainer on 11 March 1942 before the Garinthian Party members. On page 12 of this document, it is disclosed that Zernatto's lady secretary member of the NSDAP and betrayed the plebicite plans to her co-members as soon as she learned them. Rainer says we already knew the whole plan at 11.30 p.m. that same evening.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess now.
(A recess was taken.)
DR. STEINBAUER: The protest formulated by Seyss-Inquart in the name of the Nationals to the Chancellor against the plebicite was indeed entirely justified juridically. Beside the fact that there could be no security at such short notice for a proper vote, the vote itself was not constitutionally legitimate Article 65 of the Austrian constitution of 1 May 1934 specifies exactly under what circumstances the nation can be called upon to vote. Dr. Schuschnigg, there fore, supports his proclomation of the election upon Art. 93 of the constitution which Article merely says generally:
The Federal Chancellor sets down the directives of policy." The execution of the election was incumbent upon the National Front, i.e. the political organizations. The subsquent developments are well-known, particularly the events of 11 March 1938. In this respect, the main charge, that of conspiracy is, I take it, that Seyss-Inquart has induced the entry of the German troops by his telegram about alleged unrest. We come across this historical lie, which has brought the defendant the name of "Judas of Austria", in most relations of the Anschluss.
We find it, for instance, in Rephael Lemkin's "Axis Rule in occupied Europe" (page 109). We find it again especially in the opening speech of the American Chief Prosecutor Jackson, although it is incontostably proved by the submittal of Goering's telephone conversations (2949-PS) in relation with Goering's testimony that this telegram was never sent and was dictated, what is more, to a third party, at a time when the German troops had already received the order to cross the frontier. Consequently, these telephone conversations by Goering represent a historical document of the greatest importance.
Rainer's Carinthian speech and his testimony as a witness before the Tribunal also contradict the prosecution as regards Seyss-Inquart's contribution to the seizure of power. According to this document, (4005-PS) it was Globotschnick who made an abusive use of the Federal Chancellory's telephone to alarm the Federal States. Appointed Federal Chancellor by virtue of Schuschnigg's withdrawal under duress, the defendant discusses the constitution of the cabinet, invites the ministers to assume their functions, and takes the retiring government chief home in his own car. Glaise-Horstenau, under what circumstances the law of annexation came into being, then it can indeed be said that Zernatto was right when he wrote that Austria was conquered, in his opinion, even against Seyss-Inquart and his government. I refer to Exhibit No. 63. Whoever, therefore, dispassionately surveys the whole set of events of March 1938 relative to the Anschluss, and examines particularly the part played by the defendant, can only come to the conclusion that one cannot really speak of a carefully elaborated "Conspiracy" of the minutely conccentrated perpetration of a crime. Where Austria is concerned, however, the Englishman Geyde is right when he says the curtain fell on the "Tragedy of Austria" with the invasion by the troops. It was to rise again soon on a new play: "The Martydom of Austria.".
On 15 March 1938, Adolf Hitler came to Vienna. We have seen in this Courtroom the film record of his reception. With emotion, the defendant addressed him as follow: "What centuries of German History have striven for for what untold millions of the best Germans have bled and died, the ultimate aim of ardent struggles, the ultimate solace of bitter hours, has materialized today.
The 'Ostmark' is back with the homeland. The Reich has resuscitated, the German racial Empire is established." With this, SeyssInquart had defined the political aim which was, and remained, the guiding star of his actions. paganda machine into full swing. Rallies were held in close succession. Festivals were celebrated. There was not a house in the whole country which was not beflagged. The leader of the socialist workers said: "Ivote yes" and the Bishops made exhortations for the accomplishment of a national duty: "Render unto God what belongs to God and unto the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor". Both were to be mistaken. For with Goebbels came Himmler and his Gestapo and SS. Already, on the night of 12th March, began & large arrest operation in Vienna. It included the members of the former military associations as well as prominent leaders of the socialist syndicates, Jews who were active in political or public life, Communists and Monarchists, priests and Free-Masons, and even the leaders of the Boy Scouts and of the Austrian Youth organizations. In Vienna alone, 76,000 arrests were made. On 2 April 1938, the first Dachau convey already set out from the West Station with 165 leading officials, including the present Federal Chancellor Figl, Education Minister Hurde and Minister of Justice Dr. (eroe. The second convey followed on 21 May, the third at the end of May, and so it went on. Punctually, every 8 days, conveys went off to Dachau, Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen. On May 10, 1946, the National Tribunal in Vienna sentenced to death Anton Brunner, who caused 49,000 people, mostly Jews, to be sent to the extermination camps in Theresienstadt, Auschwitz, Minsk and Rig.
And what of the defendant? He was given the cold shoulder and relegated to a corner. The victor of the Saar electoral contest, Joseph Buerckel, was instated as Reich Commissioner for the Reunion of Austria with the Reich, and armed with dictatorial power. The powers of the defendant scarcely exceeded those of a higher president in the Reich, i.e. those of an administrative authority on the intermediary level.
Indeed, immediately above him was Buerckel who, under the pretext of the annexation, interfered with everything and alid claim to everything, particularly as regards matters concerning the Churches and Youth, as is evidenced by Documents 67, 70, and 91. The defendant himself opposed Buerckel's methods. Indeed, he raised objections to Hitler himself against Buerckel's action in Graz on 8 April 1938. and from the documents submitted by the defense. But Buerckel, whom Churchill described as the "Governor of Vienna" in his book "Stop by Step", remained the stronger and the embarrassing censor. Seyss-Inquart was moved away to South Poland as a Provincial Commissioner. This treatment at the hands of his alleged fellow-conspirators shows only too clearly that Seyss-Inquart was actuated by his enthusiasm for the Anschluss and cannot have been a conspirator. He was not a leader, he was led, or, what in my opinion is more accurate, perversely led. He was even perhaps a docile tool in the hands of the big two. Hitler and Goering, but it was solely for his political ideals, the Anschluss, without any intention of a war of aggression. Anschluss. It was partly a repercussion of the rearmament. But what took place was not the Anschluss as the Anschluss enthusiasts in Austria had visualized it, especially as the war procided a motice and a pretext to level down and repress every dissenting or critical opinion, to the most ruthless extent. There was much distress and many *---*; 6,000 were executed in Austria. In the Vienna judicial district alone, 1200 men died by the guillotine, 800 of them just for their anti-Nazo opinion. In the last days of the war, Vienna's most beautiful edifices fell in ruins and St. Stephan's Cathedral, one of the most august monuments of German Gothic, went up in flames.
So, the promise that Hitler had made on 15 March 1938 wad fulfilled: "The pearl has the setting, which her beauty deserves." The idea of union, that is to say the wish to bring about the national unification of a nation, was not a crime; criminal, however, was the introduction of a system that has presumably blocked its realisation forever.
The defendant certainly did not wish that. briefly proceed, from the point of view of the defendant Seyss-Inquart, to examine the question as to what there is to say against my client from the legal respect. For the clarification of his legal responsibility I will review his behavior in the following short review.
First in his political activity:
1.) After the agreement of 11 July 1936, the Federal Chancellor Dr. Schuschnigg took the defendant Seyss-Inquart as a representative of the national opposition as collaborater, thus not as a political follower as for example the witness Guide Schmidt.
2.) Seyss-Inquart has always declared -- for the first time to Dr. Delfuss in July 1934 -- that the national opposition consisted only of National-Socialists who obey solely Hitler's will, in any case will never act against Hitler's will.
3.) Seyss-Inquart declared he was a National-Socialist; he thus always represented the interests of the Austrian National-Socialists. This is not confirmed alone by the witness Skubl but referred to by the authorities previously quoted by me.
4.) To avoid any military or international conflict Seyss-Inquart pursued the following aim: Participation, for theAustrian National-Socialists independently of the Reich National Socialist Party, with closest collaboration between Austria and Germany.
5.) Seyss-Inquart declared that this aim could only be attained if Hitler agreed to and directed the Austrian National Socialists expressly towards this policy.
6.) The culminating point was Seyss-Inquart's efforts during his interview with Hitler on 17 February 1938, although, so to say, Minister by the grace of Hitler, he represented his Austrian program.
Herein lies Seyss-Inquart's mistake. He thought Hitler and Berlin would establish a policy, i.e. as Bismarck said, exploit the art of possibility.
Berlin, however, did not wish to establish a policy. In the face of this fact Seyss-Inquart's policy fell to pieces on 11 March.
Is this mistake the same lines, and Dr. Schuschnigg, knowing his program, kept him employed?
In view of the defendant's basic attitude until March 1938, de
7.) These is so trace to be found of any Nationa-Socialist influence an the Austrian Executive.
The witness Skubl confirmed this with unsurpassed clearness.
Seyss-Inquart forbade the police to take any political position, (Document 51); he forbade National-Socialist demonstrations, (Document 59);
he avoided such occasions (Document 59); he demanded legality of the Austrian Nazis (Document 52).
8.) On 11 March 1938 Seyss-Inquart fulfilled his duties as liaison officer in virtue of the Berchtesgaden agreement.
With Glaise-Horstenau he gave Dr. Schuschnigg, in the forenoon of 11 March, a quite candid state ment of the facts?
He pointed out particularly threatening National-Socialist demonstrations, and the possibility of a German invasion.
In the afternoon he delivered Goering's demands to Schuschnigg and the latter's answers to Goering.
9.) After Dr. Schuschnigg's offer to resign, Seyss-Inquart retired. He complied in no way with Goering's demand to obtain the transfer of the Federal Chancellorship or to seize power.
The ultimatums, with the throats of inva This appears from President Miklas' statements (3697-PS) and from the witness 10.)
Only after Dr. Schuschnigg's farewell speech did Seyss-Inquart publicly demand the maintainance of order.
He does not designate himself as of Security, as was confirmed by the witness Schmidt.
He took the order not to make any resistance to the German troops from Dr. Schuschnigg's farewell 11.)
Seyss-Inquart tried as long as possible to preserve Austria's independence and that by telephone conversations with Goering, Doc. 58; for the reasons that he requested Guido Schmidt to join his Ministry as Foreign Minister, as confirmed by witness Schmidt: according to the statements of witness Skubl; by refusing the demanded telegram Doc. 58; by the request to Hitler not to invade, as confirmed by Goering; by the request to Hitler also to let Austrian troops march into the Reich.
12.) On 13.3.38 the Anschluss Law was proclaimed in conformity with Article III of the Austrian Constitution of 1.5.1934. The psychological situation of Syess-Inquart was the same as that of all Austrians, who, on April 10th, had by secret ballots voted Yes for the Anschluss, by 4,381,070 votes against some 15,000, No. Among other things Seyss-Inquart is reproached that: promote the seizure, incorporation and control of Austria by Nazi conspirators. ing of the prosecution, he has taken part in the political plans and preparations of the Nazi conspiracots for wars of aggression and wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances. To l. Concerning the first named accusation, I refer to above summary and can limit myself to the following short statements: As a political aim, the annexation of Austria to the German Reich is nowhere punishable, and the defendant had no other aim. The Prosecution oversteps here -- as also on other points -- the limits of the Charter. To 2. Concerning the second accusation that co-defendant Seyss-Inquart has participated in a conspiracy against peace, this is to be gauged by Paragraph 6, Part 2 a of the Charter. It is said there, among other things, that planning in common, preparation or execution of war of aggression or war by the violation of international treaties, is punishable as a breach of peace. Austria really comes under the application of this provision in spite of the fact that therewas no war. Much can be said in favor of the fact that the outbreak of a war is the proviso for culpability for breach of the peace within meaning of the said provision.
provision which goes so unreasonably far as even to consider an abandoned war plan or the possible planning of an eventually bloodless war as punishable as an accomplished crime. produced therefore that my client has over imagine that a war night arise between Austria and any other Power because of the Anschluss or as a result thereof. On the contrary, his decision to occupy himself actively with politics, after the drama of 25 July 1934, was dictated by the effort not to let the Anschluss question be the cause of international complications. On that point he must have been far from imaging that Hitler and his entourage ha viewed such a consequence as possible. The consequences of the Austrian enterprise proved him right. The German troops were greeted on their march into Austria with flowers and cheers. 1938 against the Anschluss. But this was only a very mild and platonic protest. A military support of Schuschnigg did not result; in the first place the League of Nations which was the guarantor of Austria's independence, was not invoked. had discussed the new situation with its friends of the Geneva Entente and that the unanimous opinion had been that a debate in Geneva would lead to no satisfactory result. Foreign Office it took note thereof without protest, and the Austrian representative at the League of Nations, Pfluegl, received his passport. The Hague Arbitrative Court has struck its Austrian member, Professor Verdross of Vienna, from its register of judges. The diplomatic agencies were withdrawn or transformed into Consulates in the German Reich. occupation and annexation of this small country a State treaty concerning a second small State was concluded in Munich on September 29th, 1938 with the alleged aggressor.
memory of the great politician and statesman Politis. I also wish to call him to mind. Shortly before his untimely death he wrote in his book "Larmorale internationale" (International Ethics) the following: "Qui menace les petites nations menace l'humanite toute entiere!" attention to this sentence. see fit to apply against the annexation of Austria. doctrine has penetrated into the science of international law and diplomatic language. It is the principle according to which the nations of the world refuse to recognize forcibly obtained territorial acquisitions. This principle has at least penetrated *---* legal consciousness of present times as deeply as the prohibition of wars of aggression, which is one of the main pillars upon which the Nuernberg trials rest.
declaration of the Council of the League of Nations of February 16, 1932, in which the Stimson doctrine, devoted into a principle, found the following expression:
"No trespassing into the territorial integrity and no infringement of the political independence of a member of the League of Nations committed against Article 10 of the Charter of the League of Nations could be recognized is legally valid by the member nations." tion of Austria into Germany without feeling compelled to concern themselves with the Stimson *---*ne. for breach of the peace in violation of the treaties. Germany is supposed to have violated three treaties. First the German-Austrian agreement of July 11th, 1932, secondly. Article 88 of the Treaty of Saint-German, lastly, Article 80 of the Treaty of Versailles. Here also It must be pointed out that all the nations concerned have not only put up whit the violations of treaties, but moreover sanctioned them tacitly by their attitude. Herein lies atleast a renunciation of international law, and the powers concerned have thereby deprived themselves of any right to an ulterior reaction because of treaty violations, which would be in contradicting to any fairness. a violation of this provision cannot to begin with be charged against the German Government and therefore againstSeyss-Inquart as alleged co-conspirator, because Germany was not bound by this contract which she had not signed and which for her represented a "res inter alies acta". "res inter alies acta" for any other Power than Germany and Austria; here Austria alone could have raised the objection of breach of treaty. In this connection attention is called to the fact that the reconstituted Austria is not among the signatories of the London Agreement, of August 8th 1945. Therefore the four founder States of the International Military Tribunal are not justified to vindicating Austrian interest at these trials. temptation to discuss the question of the legal validity of this provision, in particular I will not raise the point of what significance the contradiction of this Article with the so-called 14 points of President Wilson may have from a legal point of view.
Austrian affair, I cannot suppress a thought of general import: of the 19th and 20th centuries, fought itself through amidst much trouble, much confusion and many makeshifts and realized its aims more and more, is the right of self-determination of nations. anchored itself into the legal conceptions of international relations of our century to such a great extent, that one is forcibly led to include it among the general principles of international law, a thought that particularly appeals to democratic ways of thinking. But as a general principle of international law, it would then become the standard criterion of judgment, besides the Charter, the customary international law and thirdly the treaty rights, for the Nurnberg International Military Tribunal, which at any rate must find a similar basis for other questions. And further it would become, like all other generally accepted principles of law, of imperative character and have precedence in particular over international treaty laws. thought for their existence, Such grace has been denied the Austrians after the First World War. Despite the fact that the people in Austria as well as in Germany unanimously strove for union, Austria was forced to eke out an existence as an artificial, unnatural State structure, able neither to live nor to die. How bitter sound the words of the Encyclical "Ube arcano" of December 23, 1932; "We hoped for peace; but it did not bring salvation; we hoped for healing but terror came; we hoped for the hour of recovery; but only confusion came; we hoped for light, but only darkness came." this the wish of the overwhelming majority of their citizens, and this time success came.
has no other significance than the successful integration of a mighty prin-
ciple of international order, of the right of "self-determination of nations. This dynamism carried away artificial and unnatural treaty stipulations.
Who can speak here of guilt? question of Poland very little. For during his short stay he was not in evidence at all to the Poles, but was mainly concerned with the organization problems of the building up of the German administrative apparatus. In this matter it is sufficient for me to refer to the results of the handling of evidence. an honorary rank never stood under Himmler's commanding and disciplinary power, nor itself possessed such power in the SS. As regards his position as minister without portfolio, the importance of this function within the scope of the organizations will be discussed in the chapter "Reich Government Therefore, without going more deeply into this interlude, I hasten to the second scene of this legal netter - the Netherlands.
breeches, with her red brick buildings, her large herds of cattle in green meadows and her immense varicolored tulip-fields. I know her as the country and de Grotius the great teacher of international law, that struggled for her liberty in gory fights against Philipp II of Spain and produced the great naval hero de Royter who won one of the most famous naval battles in history on 21 August 1673. However, in this trial here we learned that of all the occupied countries, the Netherlands offered the most united and thougest political as well as increasingly effective active resistance; we also learned that throughout these years these people never abandoned the hope that the moment of liberty would surely return some day.
The motto of the province of Zealand: "Luctor et emergo", "I struggle and do not go under " had become the rallying word of the whole country. civil administration. Whatever ha may have thought and planned, it is tragedy that he came as the representative of Adolf Hitler and of a system hated the owrld over. Hundreds of laws, orders and decrees repeatedly bore his signature and though they may have been ever so fully correct legally, in the eyes of the people they still remained measures of the enemy, and SeyssInquart, their oppressor. My client did not force himself into this office. He had rather requested permission to go to the front as a soldier. Adolf Hitler refused this. Seyss-Inquart also never contested his responsibility and gave himself up voluntarily after the collapse. In case the legal opinion of the defense concerning the superior command is not shared by the court, even in regard to paragraph 8 of the charter, the total organization of the Reich on the one hand and the attitude of the Dutch people on the ether must be taken into consideration in passing judgment on his administrative activity. The way in which Seyss-Inquart on principle came to terms with himself on his conflicting tasks, namely to represent the interests of the Reich on the one hand, and yet to take care of the population within the meaning of the Hague Convention on the other, is revealed by his attitude in this respect as follows :
Ahuna be guided by the following legal conceptions : traordinary extension of economic war, the expansion of the war into "total" and "indivisiole war", the genesis of the conception of total blockade, partly made international law -- as it was in effect in the years 1899 and 1907 at the genesis of the Hague Convention-- meaningless from the viewpoint of the clausula rebus sic stantibus, and partly because of new necessities and given conditions it proved to be absolutely incomplete and useless.
Only a few remnants from olden times Were still valid in the second world war. bings of residential quarters made possible by the colossal development of explosives and the technique of flying and which found no fustification whatever according to previous law,. If they can be justified at all, it is possible only out of a concept of total war. the war as an object last but not least under the influence of the Anglo-American concept of war. occupied regions during this development have become the war potential of the occupying force within the limits imposed by humanity. law that requisitioning these forces must be necessary for the purpose of war and thirdly this requisitioning must ex aequo et bone be reasonable. bids treatment of individual areas separately. It will no longer do to requisition the personal and economic forces of a definite area only for its necessities, as it is still prescribed by the Hague Convention for Land Warfare. Henceforth these forces must be at the disposal of the whole sphere of action of a belligerent country as oneunit, on the other hand they benefit from belonging to the whole. and traffic moreover causes the attitude towards another problem of warfare, namely, the so-called Partisans, to be faced by new and most grave tasks Ahuna tion definitely assumed inconceivable proportions in the second World War and developed into an enormous danger for the fighting troops which at most can be compared with the Guerilla war of attrition against Napoleon I in Spain, The old international law by no means made sufficient provisions to parry this danger.
As a matter of fact the prevailing principle when fishting the Partisans must be the security of the fighting troops at any price. the right and the duty to take the severest suppressive and preventive measures within the limits of reasonable expectation and humanity. My client discharger the duties of his office in accordance with these guiding rinciples, with the fixed motion that he was thereby complying with his duty according to the directives of the legal subject of international law, i.e., of the supreme Reich Leadership. Any thought of acting illegally or even of committing punishable acts was far from his mind. That has nothing to do with the applicability in this case of the principle that ignorance of the law excuses no one, for here no national penal law is concerned but international law, and it is not a question on the other hand of a legal error, but of a subjective conception of duty which may have gone astray here and there but was always credulous. the defendant in accordance with this basic exposition, it must be pointed out that the National Socialist administration, as everywhere in occupied territories but particularly in Germany proper, revealed an ever greater and more penetrating, superorganization and at the same time an extremely tight centralization in Berlin. Consequently there were the following authorities in the Netherlands.
1.) The Reich Commissariat (Civil administration and Protection of Reich Interests.)
2.) The Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht and the various Commanders
3.) The Police concerning which I shall speak later.
4.) Four Year Plan - Goering
5.) Special Purpose Staff-Rosenberg
6.) General Labor Commitment-Sauckel
7.) Armament Ministry-Speer, and
8.) last but not least, the NSDAP with its offices and organizations. bound to obey absolutely the instructions of these central agencies, and he was not permitted to intervene in their measures. The record of history to be written will perhaps throw light on the question as to how great was the skill of the defendant to prevent some of them or at least how he toned them down. As regards the Dutch population, its attitude, as already mentioned, was completely hostile and the forces of the resistance movement, organized, equipped and directed through the Dutch Government in London, grew from one year to antoher. The defendant's actions should be considered against this background to reach a fair judgment. schedule of the French prosecutor. through introduction of the Reich commissiariat with its 4 general commissiariats : annulment of civic liberties ; introduction of the leadership principle, and dissolution of legislative bodies and political parties. These measures cannot constitute a breach of international law. Inasmuch as Germany which is likewise one of the signatory powers of the IVth Hague Convention of 1907, based itself on the laws governing land warfare, and notwithstanding the lack of the all-embracing participation clause after entry into the war by the Soveit Union, the validity of the laws governing land-warfare with due consideration for restrictions referred to in the beginning of the above statements must be accepted for the Netherlands as well. Its fundamental elements do not seem broken. Asa result of the complete occupation of the countr the flight of the Queen and of the Ministers from the country, the highest governing power in civil affairs passed from the Crown and the Parliament to the occupying power, and with it to the Reich Commissioner. Through the unconditional capitulation of 10 May 1940, General Winkelmann, vested with special powers and left behind in the country, renounced his authority in every respect.
Furthermore, it is the accepted rule for the occupying power to regulate the administration as it is demanded by its requirements, -under exclusion of the right to take any stop apt to deprive the country in advance of the final clarification of its fate. A specific recognition to that effect through the Highest Court of Holland took place according to the decision of 12 January 1942 submitted to me. The division of authority between the Reich Commissioner and the Commander of the Wehrmacht, as provided by the Fuehrer decree, is a matter pertaining to the internal segregation of jurisdiction applying to the occupying power. This has been specifically recognized by the British Manual of Military law (CH XIV Amendment 12 of 1936). The fact that the S ate Parliament was suspended, the activity of the State Council restricted to preparation of opinions in disputes on administrative matters and that, finally, parliamentary parties were dissolved, is likewise no violation of International law because during the period of occupation the occupying power itself decides how far the need for legislative measures and for amendment of the legislation of the country exists.