examination individual cases of sterilization. The suggestions I made to have the letters written by Seyss-Inquart to Himmler procured as evidence show the following fact, in conjunction with the statement of the defendant. Konze, Seyss-Inquart never reported through any sort of official channels to Himmler about the Jewish question. of the Jews in the Netherlands any further, and he referred in this connection to the measures which had been carried out in the meantime against the Jews and which exceeded the measures in the Reich, pointing out on this occasion the cases of sterilization. women and stated to the Christian churches that no coercion must be exercised. As a matter of fact, no further cases occurred after a short period. sible insofar as he did not take stand against it immediately, without being certain, however, to be able to prevent the act. The reasons for the attitude of the defendant becomes evident from the letter which was requested as evidence. It was the worry that the situation of the Jews could be made worse and the supposition that these Jews would be spared further attention from the police in the future. defendant, they were issued only as measures against enemy foreigners for reasons which the defendant mentioned in his speech of 21 March 1941 in Amsterdam. Whatever happened beyond that took place on the express order of the Reich Central Agencies, especially Heydrich, and that primarily through organs of these Reich Central Agency themselves. Reich Commissioner, in accordance with the planned extermination and weakening policy toward the, occupied countr , had deliberately neglected the food supply of the Dutch, which had finally resulted in a starvation-catastrophe.
witnesses Dr. Hirschfeld and von der Wense, as well as by those of the defendant himself. The whole food supply machine remained from the very beginning under Dutch direction in the interests of the population, although it was known to the Reich Commissioner, that it was just in this field that loading cells of the resistance movement had established themselves. The feed supply in the Netherlands was not assuredly not worse than in Germany, from where in particular bread-grains were supplied. As late as the year 1944, the food value consisted of 1800 calories, before that 2500 calories, to which there were still additions of the utmost variety. knapsack-traffic of the Wehrmacht which was mentioned in the cross-examination, through intervention with the Reich Food Administration, even if it was only in the year 1943. as for example by furthering the N.O. Polders, by countering the extremely great demands of the Reich is confirmed by the witness von der Wense. agriculture until September 1944 is the exclusive achievement of the defendant From autumn 1944 on, the situation in the field of feed supplies deteriorated considerably. The country for a large part had become a war zone after the invasion, and the transportation routes had been smashed through innumerable air attacks. This had the result that a difficult food situation was caused, particularly in the West of Holland, where millions of people were compressed into a small area in three major cities. Considering the small number of occupation troops, it would have been a giant blunder in itself to drive these crowded masses intentionally to desperate resistance through starvation. broke out, caused by the London government-in-exile, which was counting on a favourable conclusion of the battle near Arnheim and a German collapse in the very near future, then viewed from the standpoint of international law, this was an emergency in which the country had placed itself toward the occupant. It was natural that the Wehrmacht occupied all available shipping space in order to secure their food supplies for their own defense.
der Wense and Dr. Hirschfeld and state here as the most important fact that the witness Dr. Hirschfeld testified that the Reich Commissioner gave an order for rescinding the blocking of shipping traffic in 16 October 1944. He had been able to count on the fact that the blockade of four weeks, which was not planned as a reprisal measure, would not cause any damage because sufficient food-stocks were on hand or could be sent into Holland in the months of November and December. He actually effected the rescrinding of the embarge at an earlier time, the establishment of a special transport organization an the importing of food stocks from the northeastern provinces by means of German transportation. and night attacks of enemy planes, sabotage of the resistance movement and last of all a great shortage of coal hampered the supply action, the emergency caused by the strike still cannot be in anyway charged against the defendant as a criminal offense. the entire period of occupation until the middle of 1944, the population steadily increased and that general living conditions under wartime considerations did not suffer a considerable deterioration at all. the defendant cared for the importing of food stocks on German transport trains and also furnished them for children, from German Wehrmacht stocks. He demanded supporting actions on the churches and of the Red Cross, although the Geneva insigne was repeatedly misused by the resistance movement. The Crown Prince of Sweden, as President of the Swedish Red Cross, expressed his special gratefulness to the Reich Commissioner. The Reich Commissioner finally contacted the Dutch government-in-exile through its trustees and in this manner initiated the conclusion of an agreement with the Allied Supreme Command, whereby the subsistence of Holland was secured and the occupation was effectively brought to an end. resistance. The German occupational troops in the Netherlands would certainly have been able to do this, although this would have caused the destruction of the country and its population.
floods and destruction caused by the occupying power. If the Prosecution had not brought up this point, then I as defense counsel would have discussed this matter before the Tribunal, because this matter especially gives the defendant the opportunity of appearing in another light, very favorable for him. In referring to the testimony of the witnesses Winner, Schwebel and Dr. Hirschfeld and General von Kleffel, I should like to state the following briefly: It should be known to the Tribunal that 40% of the total land level in the Netherlands lies below sea level. In the course of hard work for centuries, soil was wrested from the sea again and again and changed into fertile farming land. Powerful dikes protect the land; locks and pumping installations regulate the entry of water and water traffic in the interior of the country. The constant struggle against storms and water have turned the Dutchman into a proud and freedom-loving character "God has created the earth; we have made our land ourselves," says a Dutch proverb. Commissioner, contrary to the expectations of many persons, did not take the way into the Reich from Groningen, but returned to The Hague in order to carry his responsibility until the end. He feared that the collapsing Reich might reach a policy of catastrophe which would lead to destruction in an exposed country like Holland where 271 people live in one square kilometer. idea in many heads. Goebbels, after all, has declared braggingly that if they must go, they would slam the door with such a bang that the whole world would hear it. The Reich Commissioner warned against such ideas. The "Scorched earth" order actually came, and it would have meant the destruction of all technical facilities, including dams and lock facilities in Holland and of two-thirds of the country. In unison with minister Speer and Doenitz all this was prevented.
General van Kleffel and been acknowledged by the Chief of Staff of the American Army, Bedell Smith. by Schwebel. The defense counsel of General Christiansen informed me that besides the technical troops of the Wehrmacht which carried out detonations and floodings justified by the war situation, men sent by Himmler also appeared in order to carry out destructions behind the back of the Wehrmacht All this was prevented by the intervention of theReich Commissioner, who has conscious of his responsibility, and the country was saved to a great extent from destruction which could never again have been repaired. Zuidersee, the largest water structure which has over been constructed, which bears no name whatsoever, only the proverb: "A nation that lives builds on its future." Regardless of how the Trials may end, perhaps some day the time will come when the brief words will be added under this proverbs:
"Saved from destruction by Seyss-Inquart."
conspiracy. I ask you, however: Is a man who, in the middle of a struggle for life and death of his nation isplaced at the head of the administration of an enemy country and has tried again and again to prevent or decrease attempted excesses, a creature who could accordingly be described as a ruthless and arbitrary despot and war criminal? expressing some general thoughts on the trials. I esteem France and her old culture, and I have considered it an honor to be allowed as an attorney to cross swords with Frenchmen in these proceedings. I have listened to a speech of the French Chief Prosecutor Francois de Menthon with deep attention and inner sympathy. However it cannot remain undisputed. De Menthon has described Germany as the eternal enemy of France and alone demanded the most severe penalty, death, against all defendants without exception. He thereby places one of the weaknesses of these trials into the foreground, namely, that it will always remain the trial of the victors over the vanquished. One is reminded too strongly of the Gaul Brennus, who, which is vae victus throws the sword onto the uneven scale. Menthon with this presentation unintentionally obstructs the road to a lasting peace. and the source of all crimes, says Menthon; National Socialism is based on racial theory, a product of German mentality. But Menthon rightly explains that National Socialism is the farthest point of a doctrinaire development. There are no direct transitions in History but all is rooted inpreceding ideas and undercurrents. The events of the 20th Century can only find their explanation in the explanation in the developments of the preceding century. The final periods of the 19th century are under the influence of exaggerated Nationalism, and in connection therewith it is important to confirm that it was not Germans, but French who first established the racial theory.
Count Gobineau in his essay sur L'inegalite des races humaines (Essay concerning the inequality of the Human Races)" and George Sorel in his "Reflexion sur la violence (Reflections on Violence."
M. Menthon cites at the end of his statement "La morale internationale" (International Ethics) the work by Politis which I have also mentioned. Politis describes this exaggerated Nationalism being a real international disease, deriving from the 19th century. He in particular mentions the case of the Frenchman Maurice Barres. He sees in the sentence: "Que la patrie et elle tort, il faut lui donner raison"(my country right or wrong), the negation of all ethical laws.
I wash to refer to another Frenchman in contrast with M. Menthon; he is an unknown professor of history. The Gestapo, the German, and the French police are pursuing him; he frequently changes appearance and name. He is everywhere, we find him in the Massive Centrale, in the Auvergne-District, in the mountains near Grenoble, on the coast at Bordeaux, and in Paris. Wherever he appears army trains are derailed, ammunition depots are blown up, and vitally important industrial plants are shut down. He always remembers the words of De Gaulle: "Our country is in mortal danger, join us, everybody; fight for France!" The name of this man is Georges Bidault. The first thing he did after the enemy had been driven out of the country was to visit severely wounded soldiers in the hospitals. But he does not only go to the French, he also visits the German casualties in their wards, saysing to them: "Comrades, I wish you speedy recovery and a happy return to your homes." These words of the man who today is leading France indicate to us the path towards peace in honest and free collaboration of people and nations.
Hitler wished to create a new Europe; through his own methods, he failed in his efforts. Germany is beaten down to defenslessness, her towns are destroyed, her economic life annihilated. France, one of the oldest countries of Christendom, the country which at the end of the 18th century revealed the rights of men, has therefore today the particular mission and responsibilit of saving the culture of the Occident. the life of all countries, must be eliminated. All this in short and common to the trial.
Into your hands, my very esteemed judges, I trustfully put the fate of my client.
I very well know that you will consider all the facts Which speak for Seyss-Inquart. have done so often during the long months of this Trial, and from the imperial castle, now destroyed, look down on the German countryside. Out of the ruins of the old town rise, hardly damaged, the monuments of the Painter Albrecht Duerer and the Geographer Martin Behaim. They are the prophets of German Art and Science. May those two names be symbols for the future, and, like a pillar of fire, load theGerman people from the dark misery to the luminous heights of a lasting peace.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn for a few minutes.
(A recess was taken).
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Dr. Bergold for the defendant Bormann.
DR. BERGOLD: Your Lordship, Your Honors: In the case of the defendant Martin Bormann, with whose defense I have been commissioned by the Tribunal, is an unusual one. At the time when the National-Socialist Reich was still shining the defendant lived in the shadow, he dept on being a shadow at this trial and is, in all probability, today, too, among the shadows as the dead were called in ancient times. He is the only one of the defendants who is not present and against whom Article 12 of the Charter is applied. It seems as though history wanted to preserve the continuity of the genii loci and to see in the very town of Nuernberg a discussion of the problem of whether and in how far the greatest probability for a defendant's having lost his life will be an obstacle to a trial in absentia of such a man. For in Nuernberg an adage has come down from the Middle Ages to our times which says the Nuernberg people would not hang anybody lost he be apprehended first. where the question of whether a trial of an absentee can be carried out, was discussed in an excellent manner.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears to the Tribunal that you are now about to argue first of all that the Tribunal has no right to try the defendant Bormann in his absence, and secondly that if it has the right it is not advisable. Both those points were considered on the 17th of November, 1945, and were decided on the 22nd of November, 1945, after you had been appointed; and both were decided in favor of trying Bormann in his absence. That is to say that the Tribunal has the power under Article 12 of the Charter and that it was in the interests of justice in the circumstances to conduct a hearing in his absence.
Dr. BERGOLD: Yes, that is true. I know of this decision. I should only like to ask whether the point of view was given in the course of the procedure that the Tribunal might change this decision. I assume that this decision can be revised by the Tribunal itself. I am making this statement in order to show that the trial here has brought out the points of view which --
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, surely this is an inappropriate moment at which to advance this argument when we have already conducted the trial of Bormann. We have given you over a long period the opportunity to make application for a reconsideration of this decision.
Are you not hearing what 1 say?
DR. BERGOLD: I did not understand the last sentence entirely.
THE PRESIDENT: I said that to make such an application now is far too late. You have had all these months since November in which you could have made such application for a reconsideration of the decision of the Tribunal, But instead of making it, you proceeded with the defense of the defendant Bormann.
Possibly you have your disk wrongly set. Would you look at the disk and see whether it is all right?
DR. BERGOLD: The translation is poor. I can hear, but the translation of your statement into German is not clear enough.
THE PRESIDENT: I shall speak very slowly. What I said was that if you wished the Tribunal to reconsider the decision of the 22nd of November, 1945, you should have made application earlier. Instead of that, you want on to appear as the representative, of Bormann, and the Tribunal decided to hear the case against Bormann. Therefore, they are not prepared to listen to this argument for the reconsideration of their decision now. has no objection to this document's being filed, or to the filing of these pages of your speech. But the Tribunal does not propose to reconsider its decision.
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, one piece of evidence that turned up only at the end of my case, the testimony of the witness Kempka, in my opinion, made the probability of the death, of Bormann so evident that only from this point of view can the question of a reconsideration be brought up. It was when the witness Kempka was questioned at the end of his testimony, and I assumed -
THE PRESIDENT: All I was saying was that from Page 1 to Page 21 July M LJG 10-3 10 the Tribunal will not hear that read.
The question of whether Bormann is dead or not is a question with which you deal later in your argument, and the Tribunal will hear you upon that. But from Page 1 to Page 10, the argument does not deal with the death of the defendant.
If you will begin at Page 10, with the words, "I cannot" -it is the last paragraph on Page 10 -- the Tribunal will hear you.
DR. BERGOLD: I shall submit to the decision of the Tribunal.
Gentlemen of the High Tribunal:
I cannot and will not criticize the Charter. I wish merely to establish the feet that the Charter has created an unheard of novelty in the loyal history of all times and countries, the High Tribunal should carefully consider whether at the present stage of the proceedings it will enforce the right, granted by Article 12 of the Charter, to prosecute in absentia. Since a revision of the sentence is no longer possible, the proceedings in my opinion should be carried out only if by a corresponding application of the fine and clear principles of Russian law it is first proved that the defendant Martin Bormann is wilfully evading the court and secondly that the circumstances are not in any respect subject to the slightest doubt.
As the Charter does not stipulate more clearly when and under what conditions the Tribunal is to enforce its right, the latter must make a law for itself.
Owing to the incontestable nature of the sentence, the Tribunal's responsibility in this particular case is a heavy one. My opinion that the sentence is final, is also shared by the high Tribunal, as in the last phrase of the public charge against the defendant Bormann it is stated explicitly, that should the defendant be found guilty, the sentence will be applied without any further procedure as soon as he is apprehended. wilfully keeping away from justice. I think that as revealed by the examination of the witness Kempka it is even highly probable that the defendant Bormann is already dead. Witness Kempka has stated that, on the night of 1st to 2nd of May 1945, together with State Secretary Naumann as first, the defendant Bormann as second, the Standartenfuehrer Dr. Stumpfecker as third, and himself as the fourth in that order, he had tried to flee through the Russian lines by keeping close to theleft hand side of an advancing tank. Bormann was walking close to the middle of the tank, so the witness had the impression that Bormann's hand was holding on to the tank. That action seemed to the witness necessary in order to keep pace with the rolling tank. That tank, having passed anti-tank obstacles and having advanced some 30-40 meters beyond was blown up into the air, presumably by a direct hit of an anti-tank grenade. immediate vicinity of the tank just where Bormann walked, a darting flame burst forth from the exploding tank, knocking down Bormann and State Secretory Naumann walking immediately ahead of him. Thus Bormann found himself in the centre of the explosion which was so violent that the witness is convinced that Bormann must have died under such circumstances without a doubt. It cannot be maintained that Owing to the fact that the witness had escaped the violence of the explosion Bormann also must have been saved. It should be noted that Kempka was running behind the tank on the left hand side and thus was at a distance of some 4 meters from the explosion proper.
Furthermore, he had additional protection in the person of Dr. Stumpfecker, running in front of him, whose body was thrown against him by the explosion, serving as cover. Kempka has testified that Bormann was wearing the uniform and the rank insignia of an SS-Obergruppenfuehrer at that time. certainly have been wounded so seriously that it would have been impossible for him to escape. Unquestionably he would have fallen into the hands of the USSR troops who, according to the affidavit of the witnessKrueger, had already been quite close to the Reich Chancellery and had occupied it already on 2 May 1945 owing to the fact that the defenders had fled. With the loyalty the USSR is showing in these proceedings, she would have transferred Bormann to the High Tribunal for trial. the first of which, namely that the wounded Bormann fell into the hands of the USSR, has been proved not to be true; then only the second possibility can have happened, namely that Bormann lost his life. I am therefore of the opinion that I have proved with sufficient likelihood that Bormann is dead. is established with absolute certainty a man is to be supposed alive. This is a supposition which I, the defense counsel, would have to refute. A legal assumption of aperson being alive has existed in all countries of the world but only in the field of private law, and only for the purpose of regulating conditions pertaining to inheritance or matrimonial property laws. However, a legal assumption of a person being alive has only very seldom been stipulated, e.g. in Common Law and in the Prussian Law and even there it is contested. but instead only admits the declaration that a person is missing in the eyes of the law. Common Law neither provides a declaration as to the death of a person nor a special one as to a person being alive. Russian law permits already after a short period of time a declaration as to a person being missing in the eyes of the law, and this may be followed by the declaration of the person's death. But even in these stipulations no assumption can be found as to the person being alive.
fact that in the field of criminal law there exists no assumption as to a person being alive in any country. If, however, criminal law does not recognize such an assumption as to a person being alive, it is not my duty either to refute such an assumption as to a person being alive. It must be enough when such circumstances are proved by the defense as lead one through a reasonable evaluation of the usual course of life -- as I have already shown -- to conclude that a defendant is dead. defendant Bormann was proved with sufficient probability; in fact with such great probability that the proceedings would accordingly have to be suspended entirely and forever since the charter does not recognize a trial of dead persons. If there were such a thing as the trial of a culprit after his death the prosecution, according to all logic and reason, would have had to indict the real heads of National-Socialism. defendant Bormann is intentionally evading the trial as long as the possibility exists that the defendant is dead. It is correct that the Charter does not recognize such an assumption for the procedure against a defendant who cannot be found. However, the Charter is rather tacitunr on this subject and I have already stated that I am convinced that the High Tribunal should examine very carefully whether it should exercise its right in this special case of the defendant Bormann. Considering the finality of the verdict it seems to me fair and just in the case of Bormann to consider at least the general legal principle of all civilized countries by which a defendant must be guaranteed a hearing even if only after his arrest. Thus by suspending the proceedings one would avoid creating accomplished facts as long as it is still possible that Bormann's absence can be excused. section, expressly refers the Tribunal to the interests of justice which it should consider in examining the question of whether it intends to try in absentia cases other than where the defendant cannot be found. These interests of justice are not unilateral and are not directed against the defendant exclusively. True justice is always universal. In all laws of the world it demands that as far as possible in the eyes of justice the interests of the defendant shall be protected as well.
In the case of the defendant Krupp's illness, the Tribunal already exercised its right not to try a person in absentia. Even if this case cannot quite be compared with that of the defendant Bormann the decision should be considered in the present instance , too. testimony of the witness Kemka, one can by no means consider the fact as proved that the defendant Bormann deliberately stays away from the Tribunal, because however the matter is viewed, one cannot ignore the possibility that -- even if he had been saved and had not fallen into the hands of the Allies -- he may have been injured permanently and to such a degree that neither physically nor mentally he is in a position to surrender to the Tribunal. It is for this very reason that after thorough consideration I believe that in the interests of true justice the Tribunal should suspend proceedings against the defendant Bormann. principle which was formulated by the Russian law, namely that proceedings shall as a rule be permitted only if the circumstances of the case are no longer subject to any doubts.
The defendant Bormann is absent. He has not even been able to defend himself against the charges made against him. He has not been able to give me any information and I have not been able to find any witnesses who would have sufficient knowledge of the matter and who would be able to disclose to me any exonerating evidence concerning the accusations made.
Now as ever in the course of these long proceedings, Bormann's person and activity remained in that obscurity in which owing to his character the defendant already kept himself during his lifetime. The charges which many co-defendants have made against him, perhaps for very special reasons, and obviously in order to further their own defense and exonerate themselves, cannot for reasons of fairness, be taken as the basis of a judicial decision. The prosecution has already stated quite frequently through its representatives that the defendants would endeavour to throw the main blame upon dead or absent men for the acts which are subject to the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Some of my colleagues have followed these tactics of the defendants in their defense speeches.
Perhaps it was right to do all this. I cannot judge the matter.
Besides, I have no authority to form such a judgment. men if he had been present. Perhaps he would have been able to show that his entire activity was not the case for the happenings which the indictment deals with; furthermore, that he did not have the influence which is imputed to him as the secretary of the Fuehrer and the Party. chancellories, just like to the princely valets in the times of absolutism, has always been ascribed considerable influence upon their superiors, as it is in the nature of things that through the hands of such secretary must pass everything which can only be handled officially. But what in a modern State can evad the Moloch of bureaucracy? no case contain a definite indication that in the incriminating events and measures Bormann personally had effective and outstanding influence on the action and measures of the third Reich, of the NSDAP, and even of Hitler himself and of how strong that influence had become. official compilation "Instructions, Directives and Announcements of the Party Chancellery", page 228, presented as Bormann Exhibit No. 11 in my book of documents, it is stated that the party chancellery was an agency of Hitler, which he used to direct the party. Expressly emphasized is the fact that since 12 May 1941 Hitler had again taken over the full and exclusive direction of the party. The head of the party chancellery, at that time Bormann, had been charged to inform Hitler continually about the work situation at that time in the party, and to let him know of all circumstances which were important for the taking of decisions in party affairs. This had to be done according to Hitler's fundamental directives, and the determination of the latter, especially as regards their political aspect, the supreme chiefof the party had reserved for himself. matters concerning the home policy of the Reich leadership, and through this channel were sent up to Hitler all suggestions and information coning from below. whilst directives coning from Hitler were passed down byit to the lower levels.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours) (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 22 July 1946)
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, I shall continue on page 19 in the center of the page. ly influenced at the top, but it is equally correct to say that a man in such a chancellery can play a purely formal rule as the head of a liaison agency if at the top there is a dictatorial autocrat who cannot be influenced, and the chief of the chancellery has no special ambition nor any special abilities have shown which of the two alternatives is more likely. It is obvious that seen from lower levels the head of the chancellery would appear influential even in the case of the second alternative because everything went through his hands, and because any blame for subordinates passed through his agency, and because all mistakes, which arose in the country with the other officials were reported there. These officials and subordinates, however high a rank they may have held, and even though in part they may have feared the chief of the party chancellery, -perhaps indeed only for reasons due to their personality or mistakes,- these are not the right people to enlighten us as to which of the tw alternatives described is the proper one. As long as does not appear and is not heard personally, the true part he played remains obscure. Nobody, even the High Tribunal, could ever pass a reliable sentence The whole case remains dubious. It remains dubious even in the individual points. I would like to demonstrate this by just a few examples.
My esteemed colleague of the defense, Dr. Thoma, has stated that Bormann prevented the defendant Rosenberg from following his policy. For this he referred to the memorandum of Dr. Markulls, submitted as R-36. But this document is nothing other than a comment on an unknown unproduced Bormann document.
Markulis declares expressis verbis, that he translated Bormann's formulations into the language of a simple member of the German civil service, and presented them more pointedly.
So, only Bormann could enlighten us in this case, and tell us whether he wished his writing to be understood in this way, or whether Markulls twisted the meaning and sense of Bormann's writing, so that only Bormann could disclos whether this writing, like almost all the Bormann documents submitted, did not simply transmit the utterance of a Reich leader or of Hitler. So this case, too, seems altogether doubtful. An explanation can hardly be expected. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that almost all the documents which the rposecution has gathered together in its document-book are in general mere reproductions and publications of a Hitler decree or a Hitler instruction. Bormann transmitted these instructions to the subordinate agencies with an accompanying letter, in order to inform the agencies concerned. This is an activity which like office work has to be done even in the most terrible tyrany and in they most reprehensible despotism, -how much more so in a modern state structure like the National Socialist Reich. Some man has to forward all the instructions and orders to the subordinate agencies; that is a purely formal activity. It could be done as well by a plain office boy as by a brilliant Reich-Leader. the famous document 057-PS, can only be considered as a transmission of a Hitle directive and opinion-, from such a method of transmission nobody can draw the conclusion that the forwarding party had an influence on the decrees, orders and decisions. It is possible, but its certainty has not been proved,. entirely clarified. Because if in the transmission of an order, according to chancellery routine, one could see any offense whereby one would even come to condemn the women who wrote such orders on the typewriter, the verdict of justice must judge different, the importance and severity of the punishment for such clerical work on orders, from that which should fall upon a man whose collaboration was a decisive factor in causing such orders and decisions, and who, by his influence and advice, led the chief of the state to deliver them. All this is not clear in Bormann's case, and remains dubious. The empty word of the co-defendants, whose motives can never be entirely unveiled, saying tha Bormann exercised great, even diabolic influence is no proof.
ding to the decree Of 29 May 1941, 2099-PS and to the decree of 24 January 1942 2100-PS, arranged for an exchange of correspondence between the individual Reichslieters and forwarded their desires and suggestions. As an example I mention documents 056-PS, 072-PS, 061-PS, 205-PS and 656-PS. Nobody can derive with certainty from these activities as a go-between, which were necessary from the standpoint of adminitrative work, the extent and true nature of Bormann's influence.
Further documents show that Bormann very often served as a mere stenographer, and took the necessary notes during Hitler's discussions with some of the defendants. This is proved by document L-221 concerning the annexation of the "Eastern Territories" and the Russian document USSR-172. But in any case such documents do not make clear whether and how he influenced during such meetings in such sessions the policy and the measures of the Third Reich. According to all rules, a stenographer has no influence at all. He only fulfills an automatic activity.
I would not like to be misunderstood in this. Far be it from me to dispute the fact that Bormann occupied quite an important position in the leadership of the Third Reich. But no clear view has emerged during this trial as to the real weight Bormann could throw into the scales or to what extent his importance was increased and inflated by the bad conscience of third parties, and finally of what his influence actually consisted. Statements of the other defendants, which were made for their own defense, do not constitute relevant evidence. At any rate, the document book of the prosecution contains almost exclusively documents like those I have just examined closely. Accurately speaking, Bormann only did what was legal in Germany. This is revealed in the documents I submitted, e.g. Bormann-Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, in which he repeatedly pointed out to party offices, that any illegal action against Jews was not permitted.
It is characteristic for Bormann's case that not even measures against Jews could be proved against him. He never did more than forward such instructions and bring them to the notice or publish them, as it was prescribed by the law and as it followed from his clerical position as party secretary. Even the great conference of 12 November 1938, which was held under the chairmanship of Mr. Goering and from which emanated a series of law against the Jews, is only connected with Bormanns' personality insofar as Bormann forwarded to Mr. Goering Hitler's instruction ordering that such a conference be held. In any case it has not been made clear at all what influence Bormann himself had on these questions. But how can a just Tribunal determine the extent of an appropriate punishment. for the part played, if the participation of the individual defendant in the offense is not clearly established?