As a rule, about 50 parties entered the contest for the 150 seats in the Dutch Parliament at every election. Due to the fact that the contesting parties not only were in accord in their antagonism toward the occupying power but frequently were active in the various resistance movements, their suspension and subsequent dissolution -which was only decreed on 5 July 1941- was the good right of the occupying power, all the more so as the country was on the direct path which the coming developments of the war were bound to follow and since an invasion was very likely. This made a rigid concentration in the administrative apparatus, under exclusion of all parliamentary obstructions and the potentialities which they held for enemy propaganda, imperative. If it is pointed out that this, on the other hand, encouraged the NSB, it might be answered in brief that the Reich Commissioner consistently refused the formation of a governent by this party. The fact that parties which were already in existence in the country or were to be newly formed, the ideology of which was firendly to the occupying power, were encouraged by the latter, is also not outlawed by international law. Inasmuch as no official administrative powers were vested in the NSB and since political organizations had no influence on the administration, it is also immaterial that in the year 1943 this party announced itself as the represnetative of the political will of the Dutch Nation. It always ha been and still continues to be the practice up to this day that occupying powers encourage and assist political parties frien dly to them.
The charge of Germanization is unjustified. By reason of its descent, the Dutch people always were considered to be Germanic and it is therefore not feasible to make Germans of them. A perusal of Dutch history shows us that fo centuries the Dutch people always belonged to the Federation of the German Rej and he who roves through the country can still see in Groningen's caot-of-arms the German Reich Eagle, as well as Amsterdam's coat of arms carrying the emblem of the German imperial crown since 1489. The first and the last Salic Emperors, Konrad II and Heinrich V, died in Utrecht. It is but natural that in view of the blockade against the sea and the colonies, the occupying powers desired to direct the country towards Central Europe and it never was intended certainly not by the Reich Commissioner, to cut out the national traits and th independence of the Dutch.
It was perfectly justified for the defendant to declare in his speech of 9 November 1943, in Utrecht, (document book 102), among other things :
"We ourselves would cease, to the Europeans should we fail in our mission to maintain and to promote this rich luxuriance of characteristic and bloddbound cultures of the European people." pressure in the interest of Holland's entry into the war. There did not exi a ban against enlisting volunteers of Dutch nationality in the German Wehrmac Article 45 of the law on landwarfare merely forbids compulsory recruiting for war activity against the own fatherland. This did not make obsolete the decrees of the Dutch criminal law (referred to by the Prosecution) applicable to the person who takes up arms voluntarily, a decree which was strengthened during the war by Royal edict. The same holds true as regards regulations on citizenship for these volunteers and marriage to German nationals. Inasmuch as these orders of the Reich Commissioner could have legal value only within the limits of the German Reich, the interpretation of law that they do not constitute abuse of soveriegnty in the sense applied by the Prosecution can be maintained in good conscience. what a press had to be silenced which notoriously placed itself in opposition to the occupying powers goes without saying. removal of intellectual life as a result of the closing of universities and the demand for a declaration of loyalty remains within the framework of the convention governing Land Warfare, Article 45 an oath of allegiance, According to the wording of the declaration it is merely demanded to abstain from any action directed against the German Reich or its army. Inasmuch however, as the population of the occupied country is bound to obey the occupying power governing the State, this statement, which does not make an active demand, cannot be considered a violation of international law. tained, despite an attitude of pronounced rejection, even animosity ; especially one refrained from interference in the field of the judiciary. The only reproach in this direction is the dismissal of the President of the Court of Justice at Leeuvarden.
The defendant expressly declared to assume responsibility for this case, and he has the perfect right to do so. The occupying power can interfere in the field of the judiciary only when the purpose of the occupation is in jeopardy If a judge refuses administration of justice -even though the cause for his complaint was eliminated, as was the case in this instance- then the occupying power has the right to remove from office the judge concerned. initiated a series of acts of terror. In the course of the presentation of evidence on this point, we have heard what collective punishment was about. Kammergerichtsrat Rudolf Fritsch and President Joppich, further proved by their testimony that the defendant was extremely conscientious in the application of the right to grant pardon and that he restricted the infliction of capital punishment as much as possible. And as regards Police summary courts the defendant and the witness Wimmer have proved that this was a procedure applied in a few single cases only, headed by an official of the judiciary the respective defendant having the right to use the services of a defense counsel freely appointed of Dutch nationality and that, furthermore, this procedure found application for two weeks only. Even at this time we still emergency purposes used by powers of occupation. Prosecution is the question of hostages, which I must therefore discuss in detail. Dr. Nelte has already discussed its juridical aspect in general, and I refer to his statements. In RF 879 the prosecution has now chosen two particular cases. The so-called hostage-shooting at Rotterdam and the one after the attempt against the senior Leader of the SS and of the Police, Already in the course of his first interrogation by the plaintiff, the defendant referred to the first case of the Wehrmacht's demand for 25 to 50 hostages. The witness Wimmer confirmed that these hostages had been demanded by the Weh rmacht that through the defendant's influence this number was finally reduced to five and that the Senior SS and Police Leader was entrusted with the shooting. the relation between the Wehrmacht and the Police, is regulated by the decree dated 18 May 1940 Reich Law Gazette No. 1, page 778, k376 PS in paragraphs 2 - 3. tion but not the testimony of General Christiansen.
In the course of an interrogation the defendant did not take the oath. The record proves that :
a) The order was issued by the Wehrmacht on account of grave cases of sabotage and was analogous with the so-called "Law governing hostages" in Belgium and France.
b) The arrest of the hostages then carried out by the German Police on the order of the Commander of the Wehrmacht in Holland. "An order is an orde
c) The German High Command or Command West persists in the execution of the orders notwithstanding all representations.
d) Execution by the police.
e) Proclamation I made in the Juridical Department of the Headquarters of the Wehrmacht in Holland. ding the test in the event of his using the arguments of General Christiansen for his justification ? quences of all attempt directed in March 1945 against the senior SS and Police leader, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Rauter, the highest Police officer in Holland, who was directly subordinated to Himmler. Remembering the consequen ces of the murder of the tyrant Heydrich by the Czec Patriots in 1942, we can well imagine Himmler in 1945, at the height of his power, avenging the plot against one of his nearest and most important lieutenants. It is likewise understandable that the defendant, as head of the administration ordered deterrent measures to be taken in the sense of general prevention after an attack had been made on one of his general Commissioners. He, knowever, did not demand any hostages but only the consummation of duridically closed criminal cases, No. RF 879 proves the truth of these assertions of the witnesses Schoengarth, Lagos, Kolitz and Gerbig, that only men sentenced to death and not 200 but 127 were shot, partly possibly before the originally fixed date of execution.
This also is confirmed by the Criminal commissioner Munt in D II of the report of the Dutch Government, and likewise Dr. Friedrich Wimmer, who was interrogated, by the Court. In this case it is not at all the question of hostages in the original sense, but the justified execution of saboteurs, pilferers, etc., from the viewpoint of the occupation, which was called the shooting of hostages in order, to terrify the population. The fact that the defendant achieved the cutting down of the number of 500 real hostages originally demanded by Himmler to 117 orders of execution can certainly not be a reason for calling him responsible for Himmler's cruelties. as Commissioner of the Reich, had agreed in, directed and supported the trans fer of an enormous number of Dutchmen to Germany. The principal question of the employment of foreign workers has already been widely discussed by other defense counsels. May I be allowed to add a few remarks to this count of the indictment. According to my information received from the statistical Department, 300,000 to 500,000 men out of a population of 9 millions were out of work, a chronic situation in the economic life of the Netherlands, which was more or less rightfully considered one of the richest countires of Europe. At the time of the Reich Commissioner taking over governmental power he considered it his duty to deal with unemployment in the interests of order and peace.
It was evident that this could not be achieved according to liberal principles, the more so that even in countries adhering to the liberal economic order, the demands of the war period were directed unilaterally, as necessitated by war conditions.
Until 1943 the labor commitment was effect according to the voluntary principle. The defendant himself explained that a certain compulsion was used. He had found great understanding in Minister Speer in particular for his plan of enabling the workers to be used in their home country by transferring German undertakings from the Riech to Holland. up by Labor offices, but not by compulsion. As certified by Lammers, the Reich Commissioner refused in 1944 the commitment of 250,000 workers who had been requested by the Reich. The man hunting project of the autumn of 1944, i.e. the mobilizing of the entire able bodied population, was, as contested by witnesses Hirschfeld, Schwebel and Wimmer, a drive by the Wehrmacht, for which the defendant cannot be considered responsible. On the contrary, the fact must be expressly insisted upon that the Reich Commissioner diminished the hardship of these measures by the issue of 1,000,000 postponment certificates, and by urging a regulated transportation possibility as well as the mobilization of workers initiated by him, whereby it should not be overlooked that the steady growth of the opposition movement rightly caused uneasiness to the Wehrmacht, considering the grave danger for the occupation forces by the accumulation of people in the southwestern provinces. defendant was subject to the orders of the central administration within the framework of the Four Year Plan, that but for such orders and demands he would never have sent workers to the Reich, and that he strongly opposed it as far as its execution was not in conformity with the laws of humanity.
As to the next point of the Prosecution, the so-called economic looting of the country, it has likewise to be referred to the first basic interpretations.
The confiscation of raw materials was carried out in the first day of the occupation within the framework of the Four Year Plan, with the collaboration of the Dutch authorities, who thus had the opportunity of diminishing unnecessary hardship. It is evident that the defendant would have preferred to keep the stocks within the compass of his own administration. The defendant insisted in every single case of requisition on proper compensation basis, and prevented the transfer of institutions, as for instance the Margarine factory Dotrecht or the Leyden Icc. works. As, under pressure of the Reich Commissioner, Goering promised that the Dutch people should not be treated worse than German citizens, it would appear according to a not too narrow interpretation, Article 53 of the Hague Concention of Rules of Land War fare had therefore in this point been carried out by the defendant. macht Commander in Holland, dated 9 October 1944 (RF 132), and of Lieutenant Haupt (3002 PS, 196 USA) prove that the confiscations were in the first instance the work of the Wehrmacht. position arises particularly from the fact that Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart is still here, notwithstanding that he has almost resigned. This merely shows that the defendant always diminished or opposed any cases of hardship in this sphere to the best of his ability. The removal of stocks of raw material and rolling stock in the course of a total war after the Invasion, and in view of the approaching enemy, is equally justified within the framework of International law. re-establishment of Dutch economy in Europe. Before the war, according to official statistics, 39% of the gainfully employed population were engaged in trade and industry, 23% in commerce and traffic, and 20% in agriculture.
By being out office from the rest of the world, the shipping industry was completely shut down and merely as an example it way be stated that 60% of the trade passing through Rotterdam-harbor consisted of German goods. The highly developed agriculture was a pronounced luxury cultivation, and dependent on articial fertilisers from South America and concentrated fodder from Canada. We have learnt from the testimony of Dr. Hirschfled, how relatively well Dutch agriculture and particularly the world famous cattle bredding have survivied the war. The was only possible through understandning colloaboration of the Reich Commissioner and the local administration offices, and through their support by the defendant. of Europe, which during the war was almost exclusively governed by Germany and her allies, offered without a doubt great possibilities of disposal for Netherlands trade and industry. It was therefore natural that also in a financial respect an assimilation of the economy to conditions in the German Reich or respectively to the European economic area, had to take place. A regulation of the financial economy was already necessary in view of the price policy. It would exceed the limits Of these trials to state more details here. defendant did not have any influence on the amount of the occupation costs, and did not even have any possibility of examining then; only the civilian budget was settled by the Reich Commissioner with the concent of the Reich and under the supervision of the Reich Treasury. In agreement with the Dutch agencies, civilian requirements were set at 3 million Guilders per month, which was not exceeded. On the contrary, at the end of 1943, a saving of 60 million Guilder resulted which remained in the Netherlands.
was justified by the uniform price policy and could only have an effect favorable to the Netherlands. The relationship between Marks and Guilders was also determined by mutual agreement. A difference took place for the first time when the blocking of foreign exchange was rescinded. Here the views of the previous Dutch Chief, General Secretary Trip and these of the General Commandant Fischback differed. The defendant, who after all was not a finance man, submitted this important question to the central Reich authorities for their decision, and the defendant Goering has expressly stated during the presentation of evidence that he decided in favor of Dr. Fischboeck's opinion against the opinion of Reich Minister for Economy Funk. The defendant therefore cannot be charged with any criminal responsibility, not even that of a culpa in oligendo, if in the place of General Secretary Trip, who had resigned, he now appointed Rest van Toningen, who as former Commissioner of the League of Nations surely was an excellent finance expert. always considered the Clearing debts as true debts. In the Netherlands Government report it is pointed out, that the financial demands of the Reich reached approximately the same total in all occupied western territories and that only the methods differed. The method employed in the Netherlands would have brought the result, if the conclusion of the war had been successful to Germany, that the Netherlands would have had a real demand in the amount of 41 and 1/2 Billion Guilders against the Reich. The whole question therefore does not belong into a criminal trial, but into the peace negotiations. Furthermore, exact books were kept about everything, and so it may only be noted, that the conductors of the Netherlands Tramway Associations always marked down nicely and properly when a member of the *---* used the tramway with free ticket.
is concerned, as well as the looting of the royal property, it must be referred, for brevity's sake, to the results of the presentation of evidence which proved beyond doubt that the defendant particularly attempted to safe-guard the world famous public art treasures and that he reduced arbitrary acts of the Reich Offices, if such occurred, to a minimum. conduct of war, as for instance, art treausres, libraries, etc., is concerned, the defendant did not participate in it. He acquired the few pictures which he bought for Vienna, on the open market. With trespect to the royal property he issued such instructions that this confiscation of property remained only a demonstration. This is also evidence from the Dutch governmental report. The repeatedly mentioned library Resentaliana did not reach the Reich, as the defendant stopped the transport which had been carried out against his will, at Groningen. The case Arnhein seems likewise cleared up by the witnesses Dr. Hirschfeld and Vimmer, and the report of the field economic detachment. (Doc. 81). the economic problems. Before I deal with this main subject, I must absolutely talk about the position of the police in the Netherlands. The Prosecution wants to prove that the police, and namely also the German police, particularly the Security Police, was subordinated to the defendant. Contrary to this attempt, is the fact that in all the signatory powers, with the exception of the Soviets, the police is actually a part of the civil, particularly the domestic administration. The situation in Germany was like this: de facto and not do jure. Himmler was independent, even more powerful than any other Minister, although he was nominally State Secretary of the Interior.
Disciplines and centrally directed SS was subordinate to him in his capacity as Reichsfuhrer.
The defendant Keitel testified on 5 April 1946, that since the outbreak of war, the SS became more and more an independent power factor in the Reich.
Jo and his assist an had not been in formed of Himmler's full powers, and Himmler and Heydrich had usurped the jurisdiction over life and death in the occupied countries through the frequently mentioned Fuhrer Order.
What was the situation now in the Netherlands? German police was not part of the Reich Commissioner's organization, not was it subordinated to it. For it says in the decree:
"The German Police is at the Reich Commissioners disposal" which would not be necessary, if it were part of the Reich Commissioner's office . ernmental power the civil sphere, the police is not included in it. agencies in decree No.4, and that in such a way that the Dutch could clearly see what concerned them, without being affected by the differences of the Reich authorities. As regards the police, i.e. the German and Dutch Police, a second General Commissioner, as such, is appointed for Security affairs, (Senior SS and Police Officer). According to Article 5 of this decree the Seniors and Police Officer has under his command:
a) the German Police and the Waffen SS (this appointed by the Fuhrer on Himmler's reco being consulted), Rauter presented himself to the Reich Commissioner as being already appointed, end in the opinion of the Production as well, the Reich Commissioner would never have been able to appoint the Commander of the Waffen SS.
b) The Dutch police (this fact is essential, since component ).The Dutch witness, Dr. Hirschfeld who was general secretary throughout the period of occupation, expressly confirmed that Rauter was directly subordinate to Himmler and that the apparent unity of the police and administration, according to the decree, did not exist in reality.
On page 21 of his book "Axis rule in occupied Europe", Raphael Lemkin defines the task of the police as being the liquidation of politically undesirable persons and Jews, just as the main responsibility for the seizure and deportation of labor for labor commitment in occupied countries was charged to the police.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?
(The Tribunal adjourned until 22 July 1940, 1000 hours)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that the British Prosecution will answer on behalf of all the Prosecutors with reference to the documents for translation of the organization of the SS and the Political Loaders, so shall we deal with these first ?
Mr. GRIFFITH JONES: My Lord, I am myself dealin with the documents for the Political Loaders, and my friend, Mr. Ellyn-Jones, is dealing with those for the SS. for the political Leaders first.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Mr. GRIFFITH JONES: My Lord, I have spoken to Dr. Servatius, who represents the Political Leaders Corps, and we have agreed on the documents which ho should submit in his final book. I have had lists printed, which show the documents which we have a reed. 250 documents, some of considerable length. We have agreed from those that a total of 90-odd documents should be included in the final book, and of those 90 we have only the passages, certain passages in them, to be translate I have a copy of the document books which have been marked, the passages which we agree, and the remainder, of course, would be excluded.
THE PRESIDENT: What length will the document book be ? Can you tell a all ?
MR. GRIFFITH JONES: Except that there will be about -- nearly 100 exhibits, but they Will be quite short, the majority of them. The longest, I think, is of two pages, an the remainin documents are just short extracts, perhaps a paragraph or two paragraphs.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. GRIFFITH JONES: Perhpas I might say this : Dr. Servatius had included in these books a number of affidavits which we have excluded because we understood the Tribunal desired affidavits to be heard before the Commissioners. He had also included a number of quotations from Mein Kampf. These if the Tribunal agree, we have excluded because we thought that the Tribunal had their own copy of Mein Kampf and it would save work in the translating and printing departments. and Dr. Servatius, I think, quite agrees that what we have put down now in Column A will meet his purpose. this morning , there are certain amendments to this list which he desires to make. He desires to include in Column A documents 68, 69, 50 and 162, which at the moment are excluded.
My Lord, perhaps it would be conveninet if Dr. Servatius and myself discussed the matter further, and perhaps you would entrust us to come to some arrangement about the inclusion or exclusion of these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
Mr. GRIFFITH JONES: I do not knew whether Dr. Servatius wishes to say anything.
DR. SERVATIUS: (Counsel for Political Leadership Corps) Mr. President, I an agreeable to this arrangement; and these minor questions which still require clearing up shall certainly be cleared up by myself in collaboration with the Prosecutor. The books will probably then be reduced from six to two In other words, there will be two document bocks left.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Elwyn Jones ?
MR. ELWYN JONES: I f Your Lordship pleases, with regard to the SS documents, Dr. Pelckmann and the representatives of the prosecution have reached an agreement as to 99 of the documents. It has been agreed that 22 should be excluded. With regard to the others, some are to be included in to to and as to the others only extracts are to be included.
As to documents 31 and 32, Dr. Pelckmann indicated that he was reconsider ring his application with regard to these two documents, and it may therefore, be possible that Dr. Pelckmann, will have some observations to make to the Tribunal with regard to them. defense have not been able to reach an agreement. Dr. Pelckmann insists that those documents are necessary for his case, and it might, therefore, be convenient for me to indicate to the Tribunal the prosecution's objections with regard to these six documents. before the first meeting of the Reichstag, after the Nazi seizure of power, by the Social Democrat leader Wells. This extract states that Wells'party favored the plea for national equality and denied Germany's war guilt. I submit, on behalf of the prosecution, that that extract is wholly cumulative There is an abundance of evidence of that kind before the Tribunal already. It is in any event, I submit, not relevant to the SS case.
THE PRESIDENT: Germany's war guilt, at what time ?
MR. ELWYN JONES: With regard to the war before the last one.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. ELWYN JONES: I finally suggest that if that document is admitted by the Tribunal, then it would be proper in the interests of historical truth, for the extract to be continued to include thy severe criticism of the Nazi Party made by Mr. Wells. cher Beobachter giving a quotation from William Randolph Hearst's alleged statement to the defendant Rosenberg on the 3rd of September, 1934, to this effec when that distinguished gentleman was in German three years ago there was the greatest disorder threr; to day, the 3rd of September, 1934, under Hitler's leadership, Germany is a country of order.
what even Himmler has described as the appalling murders of the 30th of June 1934. and finally, is of no probative value whatsoever. cher Beobachter purporting to be an American athlete's impressions of a journey through Europe in 1934, He states that he is satisfied with what he saw in Germany. Again, I submit that that is cumulative, irrelevant to the SS case, and of no probative value. an extract from a book by an author alleged to be an American, which was significantly published in Germany in 1935. It is a long extract dealing with concentration camps. It describes a visit by the author to Oranienburg concnetration camp, in which he refers to the modern sanitary installations there bedrooms which are apparently as good as these of the American army; the prisoners apparently ate exactly the same dinners as the camp commandants and the SS guards. The author says that they had three rich meals every day, naturally without luxury, and he goes on in that vein. I do submit that that extract is of no probative value whatsoever. be the result of certain experiments carried out by American scientists with : vaccine said to be immunizing.
Number 102 is an extract from a book, "Am American Doctor's Odyssy", referring to further experiments with agents said to be immunisinz and to other experiments in connection with the beri-beri- disease. facts set out in these extracts, but I submit that even if they were true the; have only a tu quoque relevancy, and I submit should not be included in the documents for the SS organization.
have reached an agreement and there is no more to say, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to hear Dr. Pelckmann.
DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. President, I have to occupy myself with those vario documents which have just been objected to by the prosecution. First of all, I refer to document 31 and document 32. demanded that students should enter the SA and the SS. This is a question which affects the SA. In the first place, the SA have not yet completed their collection of documents. I think these documents are going to be submitted by the SA, and I shall therefore put them aside for the moment. Let us first come to document number 69. jective truth is contained in them, or whether they contain objectively the truth. They are merely submitted in order to point out how the readers had to be of the impression that true facts were being represented, and these facts were decisive for the formation of an opinion on the part of the German people as well as, of course, the members of the SS who were integral parts of the German nation, just as they were vital for the formation of an opinion on the part of a Party member or a non-Party member. I believe that matters will have to be looked at from a different point of view in this connection than in connection with the individual defendants. The attitude adopted abroad cannot be relevant with reference to individual defendants because the prosecution are charging, with reference to a major portion of the defendants, that it will have to be taken for ranted that the majority of the defendants deceive foreign countries. fects the SS members also -- what had been thought and done abroad must be decisive with reference to the formation of an opinion as to whether the Nazi regime had been criminal or not. That is a general point of view which I think applies to all these documents.
Social Democrat member of Parliament, Wells. It is merely to show that this Social Democrat deputy himself, after the seizure of power by Hitler, did agree with Hitler in that onepoint, namely, that the Treaty of Versailles should be fought against. Objectively, therefore, I am not saying anything about the justification or non-justification of the Treaty of Versailles I am merely trying to show what the masses of the people were thinking and what the followers of Hitler were thinking -- Hitler, who had just come into power -- in particular the point that even a Social Democrat agreed to the Party program at that time. cularly for the SS, because they, just as much as all the other Germans, would be an instrument for the formation of opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that the document says that the Treaty of Versailles should be fought against by war, or should be attempted to be changed by negotiations ?
Dr. PELCKMANN: No, it does not by any means mean that the Versailles Treaty should be fought against by war. cher Beobachter. publishing house, who, as far as I am informed, had considerable influence in America. That statement was made, as the prosecutor emphasizes quite rightly a few months after the blood purge of the 30th of June, 1934, that is, in September of 1934. That is to say, he states that he had been to Germany three years before and had found the greatest chaos, and that when he visited Germany under Hitler's leadership he found perfect order. objective facts ; I am stating, that we are facing something here which was said by someone coming from abroad, who, was of importance in the publishing field, and who speaks about conditions in Germany. That is, we are here concerned with something that was spread abroad and which was brought to the notice of the German people by means of the considerable National Socialist propaganda machine.
Therefore the German people, and with them the masses of the members of the SS could not assume anything other than that this publisher was confirming, their true, honest belief of the time, namely, that here there was order and something was achieved toward peace.
The second statement in Document 86 is something along similar lines. We have a report of the 27th of September headed, "America is participating in the Olympic Games. An American leader has investigated the question very carefully whether the American nation ought to participate in the Olympic Games, and he then made a report in America in which he made statements about his experiences in Germany. He new expresses himself as being very much in favor of American participation in the Olympic Games." which America would participate in the games. public opinion, which also applies to the masses of the SS members, meaning that a country which was absolutely positive in its attitude towards the new Germany was announcing its agreement to the trend. I beg you not to forget that we are here particularly concerned with various years and various periods during the discussions before this High Tribunal about the principle questions against the organization. It has been pointed out that various periods would be of importance. You must be aware of the fact that, particularly since the SS after 1933 was increasing its membership number rapidly, it must have been very important that countries abroad, particularly during the years after the seizure of power, would render testimony of one sort or another the purpose of which, I submit, was to indicate its agreement to the trend. expected; but that, of course, was necessary because the principle line of the defense of the organization has not yet been discussed before this High Tribunal.
Then we come to Document No. 96. Here again it is a voice from America. The American journalists, of course, are not in a position to investigate what qualities American journalism might depict; but again the objective importance is that it is the voice of an American journalist whose comments were published by a well-known German publisher in a bock which had a tremendous number of sales. This American journalist is describing, only on the pages which I am quoting, among other things the conditions in Germany, and among them the conditions in concentration camps.