prisoners from concentration camps were employed in the economic sector controlled by him. The defendant admitted this. A penal responsibility because of this fact does not, however, stand the test of a legal verification. The employment of convicts for work of an economic nature has always been a practice in Germany. It could be carried out in various ways, partly by employment within the conviction prison itself, partly outside. Owing to the lack of labor due to the aggravation of the economic war, it was necessary to draw upon the labor available in the concentration camps. trouble the offices subordinate to the Reich Minister Himmler took to use the reserves of labor contained in the concentration camps for the construction of their own SS plants, and the defendant Speer has supplied information during his hearing before the Court on 20/21 June regarding the efforts of Himmler tending towards building up a separate armament industry of his own, and subordinate to him only; which would have had the result that any control over the production of arms in these intended SS plants would have become impossible, so that the SS could have provided themselves with weapons without the Army or any other offices being able to control them. The defendant Speer successfully fought against this. It was agreed that Himmler would release a part of the inmates of the concentration camps to be employed in the armament industry. Hereby the inmates of the concentration camps gained an improvement of their situation, since in the first place they obtained the higher food rations provided for workmen or for these doing long shifts or heavy work, as has been attested by witness Ricke; moreover, they left the large concentration camps, and were no more under SS control during working hours, but in the plants they were subject to the control of foremen and skilled workmen appointed by the plants. camps were erected near the plants or working places where they were employed, and these were not accessible to the control of the plant managers nor to the control of the offices of the defendant Speer, but stood exclusively under the control of the offices in charge of the administration of the concentration camps. For the conditions prevailing in such camps neither the plant manager nor the offices of the defendant Speer can be held responsible if abuses occurred there.
In General, as attested by the letter of the department chief Schieber of 7 May 1944 to the defendant Speer (doc. book II, page 88), the inmates preferred work in such plants to an occupation given by the administration of the concentration camp itself. And Schieber quite clearly states in his letter that for these reasons more room should be given to the employment of concentration camp inmates in order to improve their lot. But he further states that the number of concentration camp inmates employed in the armament industry amounted to 36,000 and that this figure was decreasing. Against this the defendant's assertion at his interrogation that the total number of concentration camp workers employed in the armament industry amounted to 1% of the total number of workmen employed in the whole armament industry, is calculated too high.
Of 49 million workmen engaged in the final processing of armaments, the figure of 36,000 represents only 7 per thousand.
The number of concentration camp inmates employed in the armament industry represents a very small part of the total labor employed in the final processing of armaments, that is of the total labor employed in the plants manufacturing finished products. is, that the employment of such prisoners in the armament industry had resulted in an increased demand for ouch labor and that this increased demand was satisfied by the sending into concentration camps of persons who under normal conditions would never have come there. The opinion that the fact of the employment of prisoners from concentration camps in the armament industry led to an increase in the number of concentration camps inmates is disproved by the already mentioned letter of Scheiber (Ex. No.6, page 88) and by his testimony. Also submitted is Ex. No. 37, doc 51. According to this, the employment of concentration camp inmated in the armament industry occurred for the first time in the autumn of 1943, and the number of prisoners employed there reached its peak with the mximum figure of 36,000 in Mar oh 1944 and from that time on act only did not increase, but on the contrary decreased. The conclusions of the Prosecution in no way bear examination. Not even the proof has been brought forward that Speer had attempted to have people sent to the concentration camps. Germany people were afraid of being sent to a concentration camp. This dread, in the population, of concentration camps was quite justified, for it depended only on the judgement of the police authorities, led by Himmler, whether a person was sent to a concentration camp or not. further, because there was no legal authority which might have made it possible to check the charges resulting in transfer to a concentration camp, and finally, and this is the main reason, becuase it lay entirely within the discretion of the concentration camp authorities to decide for how long one was to be sent to a concentration camp. centration camp inmates in industry after he had obtained knowledge of conditions prevailing in the Mauthausen camp from a visit he made there.
That this was not the case is proved by the evidence of the defendant on this point. As it was only a hurried visit, the purpose of which was merely to instruct the camp administration to desist from tasks, undertaken in defiance of the prohibition which served purely peacetime purposes and instead of this to place labor at the disposal of the armament industry, the defendant Speer could only obtainaa superficial impression of the living consitions in the camp. Up to this point, his evidence may be referred to. has been made to the fact that during such visits to concentration campss by personalities of high standing, the camps were shown from the best side only, and that any signs of atrocities to were carefully removed so that the visitor should not get a bad impression of the camp (cf. statement of witness Blaha on 1 January 1946). proach of the Prosecution, which asserts that Speer had approved of the use of Hungarian Jews as labor for the construction of the bomb-proof airplane factores orderd by Hitler. In respect to this, reference must be made to the evidence of the witness Milch and that of the witness Franck. Milch stated that Speer, who was ill at the time, strongly opposed these constructions, but that Hitler, who demanded the undertaking of the work, gave the commission directly to Dorsch, the loader of the Organization Todt, to carry then out. So that the controversy between Hitler and Speer should not become known to outsiders, Dorsch officially remained subordinate to Speer, but in this matter he had to deal directly with Hitler alone, and was immediately subordinate to him. In his evidence Milch further stated that these building intentions were never actually carried out. I have submitted Hitler's order to Speer of 21 April 1944 as Ex. No. 34, page in my document book. This order clearly shows that Hitler shows Dorsch as being directly responsible to him, since the appointment of Speer, who was given the duty of adjusting these building tasks to the building plans under him, was of a purely formal nature. The evidence given by Field Marshal Milch is thus confirmed by this letter.
To support the opinion of the Prosecution that the defendant Speer had contributed to sending people concentration camps, a statement is quoted which was made by Speer at a sitting of the Central Planning Board of 10 October 1942, on the question of shirkers.
In this connection, one must look at the evidence of the defendant Speer in the witness box, in which he declared that upon this statement no steps to step this eveil were taken either by the Central Planning Board nor by himself with the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment. Effectively nothing was done about it. It was only in November 1943 that Sauckel issued a decree against shirkers. The term "shirker" is applied to these workers, who, in order to evade the fulfillment of their working obligations, simulate illness or stay away from work under the pretext of reasons that do not stand the test or even without any reason, at all. neglect even this question. Efforts were made in every imaginable way to undermine the willingness to work of the working people. By dropping leaflets and through other channels of information, advice was given to the workers as to how they could report sick; what means they were to use in order to succeed in fiegning illness at medical laminations; they were invited to work slowly etc. At first this propaganda succeeded only in isolated cases. As, however, such isolated cases very easily have unfaboorable influence on the working discipline of the personnel as a whole, the defendant Speer discussed the possibility of police intervention. Speer did notk however, take any intiative of any kind which would have led to practical action on the part of the police. It was not until a year later that a decree was issued by the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment, first making it an obligation for the employer to use disciplinary penalties; in particularly grave cases, the trustees of production could ask for court punishment. Based on this decree sentences could be pronounced providing for transfer to a worker's training camp for a term of 56 days. Only in exceptionally grave cases of infractions of the working law did the decree of the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment provide for transfer to a concentration camp.
It must be here mentioned that this decree was applicable both to national and foreign workers in the same way, for in no case were national workers to be treated differently.
In the cross-examination of defendant Sauckel. the French Prosecution produced the document about a sitting of Sauckel's labor authorities at the Wartburg. At this sitting Dr. Sturm, the specialist on questions of labor law at the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment, gave a lecture on the punishment of workmen, and it was therby established that only an infinitisimal percentage of workers had to be sentenced to penal punishment. ward no proof for the assertion that, as a consequence of Saukel's decree, concerning shirkers, the concentration camps had been filled up; so that conclusive proof is lacking that Sauckel, or respectively, the defendant Speer, contributed by any measures they took to the filling of concentration camps. (P.49 in my document book, USA Ex. 179), Speer pointed out that the escaped prisoners of war who were apprehended by the police had to be brought straight back to their work. From this remark we see the basic attitude of the defendant Speer, who did not want to see the escaped prisoners of war thrown into concentration camps but demanded that they be immediately incorporated into industry. So far the Prosecution has not been able to bring forward any proof that will stand the test for the assertion that Speer had the concentration camps filled in order to obtain labor from then.
Mr. President, perhaps now I may go into the question which you asked no at the beginning of my plea as to how I interpret paragraph 6-A of the Statute in regard to the defendant Speer, especially in regard to the terminology: "The waging of a war of aggression." I should like to say the following: The Charter, under 6-A, Cites, among other punishable actions, the execution of a war of aggression. As for the definition of a war of aggression, I need say nothing here. Professor Jarries has already done that in detail. Here it is only the term "the execution of a war of aggression" that is in question. My point of view is that a war of aggression can be waged only by the person in command. All others are only led, which makes a considerable difference in their participation in the war.
a war of aggression can not be applied. I should like to point out the following as well: In a session on about the 28th of February or the 1st of March, one of the judges told Justice Jackson that the prosecution had represented the point of view that the charge of a war of aggression was concluded with its outbreak. I can only share this opinion. the activities of the defendant Speer during the last phases of the war from June 1944. I can, therefore, confine myself to proving now in regard to this detailed chronological description that the entire testimony of Speer is covered almost in its entirety by testimonies of other witnesses and by documents. The written depositions of witnesses, which I refrained from reading before the court, run along entirely the same lines, although the witnesses came from different camps and expressed themselves in a completely unbaised manner. Hitler on the situation of his armament production, aid pointed out vigorously at the same time that the war would be lost if such decline of production were allowed to continue. This is proved by the memorandums of Speer to Hitler submitted as Speer Exhibit Nos. 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. As stated by the witness General Guderian, Chief of the General Staff of the army, (compare Question 6, page 179 of my document book Speer) Hitler defined, since the end of January 1945, any such information as high treason and subjected it to corresponding punishment. Nevertheless, as it appears also from the deposition of Guderian, (Question 9, page 179, v. Poser, question 22, page 11), Speer stated clearly time and again to Hitler as well as to Guderian his opinion about the prospects of the war. situation of the war. Notwithstanding this, Speer informed, after the severest orders of destruction had been issued by Hitler, the Gauleiters and the Commander-in-Chief of various army groups that the war was lost and thus achieved that Hitler's policy of destruction was at least partly prevented.
This is evident from the testimonies of witnesses Huppfauer, Kempf and von Poser.
Hitler declared to Speer on 29.3.45 that the latter would have to take the consequences customary in such cases, if he continued to declare that the war was lost. This conversation is contained in the testimony of the witness Kempf. In spite of it Speer travelled already 2 days afterwards to SeyssInquart (on 1 April 1945) in order to explain also to him that the war was lost. The witness Seyss-Inquart and the witness Schwebel Interrogation 11 June 1946, and interrogation 14 June 1946, page 11482 of the German minutes stated here unanimously that this conversation with Speer of 1 April 45 occasioned the conferences of Seyss-Inquart with the Chief of the General Staff of General Eisenhower, General Smith. This led finally to the handing over of undestroyed Holland to the Allies. On 24 April 1945 Speer flew once again to Berlin which was already besieged in order to persuade Hitler that this sensless battle should be given up, as is evident from the testimony of the witness Poser. In his last will Hitler dismissed Speer on 29 April 45. obliged to confirm to the defendant Speer during his cross-examination, that he evidently was the only man who told Hitler the whole truth. destructions of industries took place in Poland, the Balkans, Czechoslovakia, France, Belgium, Holland were destroyed during the German retreat. the destruction of the industries of these countries ordered by Hitler, partly even through a false interpretation of existing orders. That Speer was convinced as early as in summer 1944 that these destructions should be prevented in the general European interest, is evident from the testimony of the witness von Poser. It would have been easy, by relevant execution of the orders, to cripple completely the industries of high standing of Central Europe and of the occupied Western European countries for 2-3 years and with it the entire industrial production and civilized life of these peoples, in fact to make rebuilding by own force quite impossible for years to come June of this year, that the prepared destruction of only 14 points in Holland would have absolutely destroyed the basis of existence of this country.
The destruction of all power plants in these countries would have produced a similar effect as in 1941 the destruction by the Soviets of 2 - 3 power plants in the Donetz territory had shown. It was not until 1943 that production there could start again. Similar and still further reaching consequences had to be expected from the carrying out of Hitler's orders on the European continent. gave the authorization to undertake no destructions, as is confirmed by the witnesses von Poser, Kempf, Schieber, Kehrl, Rohland, Seyss-Inquart, Hirschfold and by Speer document 16. Kehrl for the Balkans, Schieber for UpperItaly; Rohland for Luxemburg and Lorraine; Kempf for the Balkans, Czechoslovakia, Polish-Upper-Silesia, France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg; SeyssInquart for Holland, 11 June 1946, Hirschfeld for Holland; Poser for France, Belgium, Czecho-Slovakia, Upper-Italy, Hungary, the Balkans, Poland. successor to Hitler, he submitted to him orders prohibiting any destruction in the still occupied territories of Norway, Czecho-Slovakia and Holland, as well as Wehrwolf activities, as is shown in the testimony of the witnesses von Poser and Kempf. for industries in the occupied territories, he had to accomplish this task at his own responsibility and through his agencies within the borders of the socalled Greater German Reich. He had to keep especially busy in this connection in order to obstruct the total destruction of all real values which was obstinately demanded by Hitler. Information on this will for destruction on the part of Hitler and many of his Gauleiters is furnished in the testimonies of witnesses Guderian, Rohland, Hupfauer, von Poser, Stahl and Kempf. Hitler of 29 March 45 submitted as Speer Exhibit No. 24, in which Speer repeat again Hitler's remarks during the conversation on 18 March 1945. This document shows clearly that Hitler had made up his mind to destroy completely the foundations of the life of the German people.
This document should be especially rich in information about Hitler's time for any future historian. In connection therewith follows the evidence of the General Colonel Guderian who certifies that in February 1945 Hitler 1. confused his inevitable fate with that of the German people.
2. wished by all methods to continue this senseless fight 3. ordered the reckless destruction of all things of real value.
That is Guderian on page 177, and page 179 of my document book. At the same time the demolition and evacuation orders of Hitler and Bormann which were issued the day after the conference with Speer and are of impressive clearness, have been submitted to the Tribunal as documents under Speer Exhibit No. 25 - 28. inevitably lost --was determined to undertake everything in order to maintain the most urgent vital necessities for the German people, as can be confirmed by the witness Rohland. increasing urgency to his collaborators as the witnesses Kempf, von Power and Stahl can certify for the months of July and August 1944 and the witnesses Stahl, Kempf, von Poser Rohland and Hupfauer for the critical period from February 1945 onwards. Numerous orders of Sneer, dealing with the preservation of Industrial plants issued between Spetember 1944 until the end of March 1945 can be submitted to the Tribunal without any gaps. They were at first partly issued without Hitler's authorisation, but until February 1945, by a clever use of Hitler's hope that these territories could be reconquered, were in part subsequently approved by him. as Speer's numerous memoranda regarding the war situation prove that he without sharing it profited by Hitler's illusion in order to prevent these demolitions. such argumentation. The introduction to his demolition orders of 19.3.45 on the contrary, show that he considered it necessary to oppose actively such argumentation.
In false orders as these of 30 March 1945 (Speer Exhibit 29 page 81 Document Book) to all industrial plants, as well as these of 4 April 1945 for all sluices and dams, Speer gave instructions -- contradictory to the intentions of the orders submitted by Hitler -- not to undertake any industrial demolitions. This likewise is corroborated by the witnesses Kempf, Poser and Rohland. industrial plants and of other objects of value was transferred from Speer to the Gauleiters. the danger zones he arranged for the sabotage of these orders. As for instance by clever planning he withdrew the stocks of explosives from the possession of the Gauleiters -- which was stated by the witnesses von Poser, Kempt and Rohland, and gave orders that the so-called industrial explosives should no longer be produced, as is proved by the statement of the witness Kempt, the chief of the Office for Raw Products of Speers Ministry.
It seems important that Speer had urgently drawn Hitler's attention to the consequences which the demolitions would have for the German people, as is shown in Speer's submitted memorandum dated 15 March 1945 (Speer Exhibit 23). In this Speer, for example, has established that by the planned demolition of industrial plants and bridges, in the Ruhr for instance, the reconstruction of Germany by her own forces after this war would be made impossible.
It is without doubt mainly to Speer's credit that the industrial reconstruction of Western and Central Europe can progress already today, and that in France, Belgium and Holland according to their latest reports, production has already reached the level of the peace-time production of 1938 Speer was the Minister responsible for the means of production, i.e. the factories and their installations.
Thus he sat in the transmission center through which Hitler's intentions for the carrying out of these demolitions must necessarily pass. We have noticed in this trial how in an authoritative system such centers are in the position to carry out on a big scale the order of the head of the State.
It was a fortunate coincidence that at this decisive period a clear-thinking man like Speer directed this office where from the industrial demolition must be directed. But with, increasing intensification Speer took measures beyond his sphere of action, in order to case the transition for the German people and at the saem time to shorten the war. Speer thus tried to prevent the destruction of bridges. Every German knows that up to the last days of the war and to the farthest corner of the German Reich, bridges were destroyed in a senseless way.
Nevertheless his efforts were doubtless only a partial success. The numerous conferences, which Speer hold in this connection with military commanders are testified to by the witnesses Kempf and Lieutenant Colonel von Poser. This witness was Speer's liaison officer with the army, and accompanied him on all trips to the front.
These conferences were only partially successful. Finally in the middle of March 1945 the Chief of the General Staff of the Army Generaloberst Guderian and Speer tried on the latter's proposal to obtain Hitler's agreement to alter his demolition orders regarding bridges, as is confirmed by the witness Generaloberst Guderian, but without success. foreseen, Speer finally issued on 6 April 1945 6 orders in the name of General Winter of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht which should arrange for the sparing of the bridges of important railway lines in the Reich and in the entire Ruhr territory. These unauthorized orders were confirmed by the statements of the witnesses von Poser and Kemp. the guarantee of sufficient food supplies for the German people and the spring preparations for the harvest of 1945 in particular were endangered, Speer allowed the requests for armament and production, which were in his jurisdiction to be superseded and gave priority to the interests of food supply. merely in order to relieve the transition period after the occupation by the allied troops is proved by the statements of the witnesses Hupfauer, Kehrl, Rohland, von Poser, Riecke, Secretary of State in the Ministry of Food, Milch, Kempf and Seyss-Inquart. When Speer believed that renewed apprehensions that Hitler induced by his close collaborators in Party circles would use poison gas in the fall of 1944 and then in the spring of 1945 were justified, he opposed this determinedly as it is proved in his cross examination by the U.S. prosecutor Justice Jackson and by the testimony of the witness Brandt. Speer's statement, that out of this apprehension he had shut down the German poison gas production as early as November 1944 was confirmed by the witness Schieber, Speer at the same time established that the military authorities unanimously opposed such a plan. the planning of a conspiracy, to bring the war quickly to an end.
had planned other forced measures. Chief Justice Jackson likewise has established in the course of Speer's cross examination, that the prosecution know of further plans, which were to be executed under Speer's leadership.
Speer's political attitude, apart from all these activities, is illuminated by 2 facts:
1.) In Speer's memorandum addressed to Hitler, submitted as Exhibit 1, the defendant establishes that Bormann and Goebbels marked him estranged from the Party and hostile to it, and that a continued collaboration would be impossible, should he and his collaborators be judged by Party-political measures.
2.) In their Government list of 20 July 1944 the Putschists quoted Speer as Armament Minister and as the only Minister of the Hitlerite System, as the witnesses Ohlendorf, Kemt, and Stahl stated. considered an honest and unpolitical export in Germany and abroad? Is not merely the fact, that he, as one of the closest collaborators of Hitler, was chosen for this post, a further proof for the high respect which the opposition thus paid him? Speer case itself. When the defendant took over the office of Minister at the ago of 36, his country was in a life and death struggle. He could not evade the task with which he had been charged. He devoted his entire energy to the solution of the task, which seemed almost unsolvable. The successes which he obtained there did not cloud his view to the actual condition of things. Too late he realized that Hitler was not thinking of his people, but only of himself. In his book "Mein Kampf" Hitler wrote that the government of a people always had to remain conscious of the fact that it could not plunge the people into disaster. Its duty was rather to resign at the right time, so that the people could continue to live. Naturally, such principles were valid to Hitler only for governments in which he had no part.
For himself, however, he was of the point of view that if the German people should lose this war, they would have proved themselves the weaker ones and would no longer have any right to live. In contrast to this brutal egoism, Speer had preserved the feeling tint he was the servant of his people his nation. Without consideration for his person and without consideration for his safety, Speer acted as he considered it his duty towards his people to act. Speer had to betray Hitler, in order to remain faithful to his people. Nobody will be able to withhold his respect from the tragedy which lies in this fate.
THE PRESIDENT: I now call on Doctor von Luedinghausen, for the defendant, von Neurath.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: Your Lordship, your Honors. "Never before has war impressed me as quite so abominable": year 1799, after the victorious capture of Jaffa - where he had ordered the shooting of 2,000 captured Turks. This statement by one of the men most outstanding in the conduct of war, stood for unqualified condemnation, not merely of war as such, but also of all means for the conduct of war consider as unavoidable and permitted at that time. The perception which this word reflects and its ethical condemnation of war were not uttered in vain. As early as the middle of the last century, morally and ethically high-minded personalities made efforts tending to ameliorate and eliminate, some at least, of the horrors of war. The founding of the Red Cross in Geneva was the first result of such endeavors, casting its luminous light afar, the first fruits of Napoleon's word. But I dare to say, this world is so to speak also the actual hour which gave birth to this present trial. It, too, was caused and dictated by the aspiration, not only to circumscribe war as regards the manner in which it is waged, the independence of selection of means and actions, but beyond that to find means and, ways to eliminate war as a political measure, altogether from the relations of the peoples. It strives for the sane high goal, to create an International Law to govern all peoples of all States, as they live alongside and together, raid to which all States and peoples who wish to rank as civilised States will submit, and by which they will be forced to abide in the same manner as the individual national of a State must abide by the law his State has established for the common existence of its people.
And if you, your Honors, and if the entire world will learn to understand how infinitely painful it is for us Germans that it is just our State and our people who have furnished cause for the creation of such International Law by a war in which we were engaged, yet my client, the defendant von Neurath and I could not help but welcome the attempt inherent in this trial, because the highest effort during the entire official activity of my client, from his first day in office to the last, was the endeavor to avoid war and to serve peace. And I do not hesitate to emphasize this, although it is because of an entirely new principle of law that my client is facing this Court. Because for the first time in history the idea is to be carried into practice according to which this or these statesmen of a nation are to be held personally responsible and be punished for the wars of aggression caused by them, and the inhumane and cruel means therein applied. This thought, which this High Court is about to carry into practice as a principle of law, is absolutely novel in the history of international Law. out if the present overt Trial and the Charter on which it is based is to be more than a single procedure, worked out and intended for this one case in other words for this war just ended; - if it arose not merely from the thought of vengeance because of harm and damage done to the victorious nations and is intended to atone for them, but if it really was brought forth by the will and the decision to eliminate war in itself for good, through the stipulation of the personal responsibility of the statesmen of the nations, then this constitutes a deed which the sincere conviction of every peace loving person will welcome.
It furthermore contains two elements apparently suited to revolutionize all that was hertofore known in this world for handling and directing the foreign policy of States, and to raise it onto a now and undoubtedly higher ethical basis. statesman and his rating before history -- which has been so since the speech made famous by Pericles and since Plato's State doctrines, making it the foremost, I would almost say the only postulate -- to exert every endeavor to obtain for his people, for the State under his stewardship, the highest possible level of existence, of maintenance, and improvement of its standard of living, of its position among nations, irrespective of the means it might require. Every nation on earth includes in its history statesmen who, seen in this light, are being extolled and honored as shining examples, and who went down in history as such merely because they were successful, and without testing whether the means used by them to obtain success were in harmony or not with the ethical principles, not only of the Christian but of all highranking moral philosophies. To this maxim the Charter of this High Tribunal opposes a new maxim in that it stipulates that every war of aggression places culpability on the person responsible for the war, without regard for the question of success or failure in the war. However, this means nothing else but subjection to the moral law -- which rejects application of force of any kind as a means of policy -- of every state stewardship, even the most successful and the most victorious. the subjection of every State stewardship to the test and judgment by all other civilized States in the world. On that principle the Charter established by this High Tribunal would call for the testing and possible judgment of all immerpolitical neasures which, in retrospect, might be seen as actions of preparation for this war. To discuss consequences resulting from this would lead too far; this must rather be left to discussion by scholars of State Law and to further developments, and I wish therefore to confine myself to pointing to one consequence only, the consequence that the statesmen involved in the war of aggression -- will be subject to such judgment of a future International World Court and with it liable to punishment, even in the event of that war of aggression ending in victory.
Perhaps this is the main point, reflecting the highest ethics of the stipulations and principles established in the Charter. client or I entertain doubts that the framers of this Charter failed to be equally and fully aware of those consequences. But the fact that this new tenet of International Law is to find application for the first time in the World Forum and by the Allied Governments not through a power dictate but through a Court-procedure equipped with all reservations for objectiveness and impartiality, wherein my client and I see proof of the fact that this Court-procedure was born and is being motivated by the ideal aspiration of mankind to free it from the scourge of war. important issue in this trial, as based on the Charter, manely that -- in sharp contrast to the principles of law of all democratic States, of every democratic-liberal principle of law -- it proposes to pass judgment on and inflict punishment for actions for which at the time they were committed there undeniably did not exist a law or a precedence governing them, my client and I nevertheless are confident, because of our conviction that this High Tribunal will not base the establishment of its verdict on individual and incoherently united actions, on single bare facts, but that it will scrutinize and examine with particular care the motives and aspirations which moved each individual defendant. If then you, Your Honors, will establish as I am convinced you will, that from the first to the last day of his official activityas Reich Foreign Minister or as Reich Protector, -- my client was moved by one desire only, all his deeds and actions governed by one aspiration, to prevent a war and its cruelties, to maintain peace, and that the very reason for his remaining in office was to prevent through his influence war and its inhumanity, and that he did not withdraw from his post until he was forced to conclude that all his efforts were vain, and that the will and determination of the highest ruler of the State, Hitler, to war, were more powerful than he, -- in that case the fact of his membership and continuance of office in the Reich Government until that moment cannot Possibly be construed as approval, much less as assistance and co-partnership in the planning, preparing, or waging of war, thereby placing upon him joint-responsibility for the war, or even for cruelties and atrocities committed during its course.
By reasons of the very fact of the application, in International Law and in Democratic States -- an application made for the first time in this trial -of the legal doctrine that an action already committed cm subsequently be made punishable by law, results in the imperative demand that the question of the subjective guilt of the defendant -- in other words the consciousness, not only of the amorality and the presumed criminality of the deed in question -but also the intent to commit the deed or at least to offer active assistance despite such awareness, -- be examined and answered before a verdict is arrived at. Disregard of this postulate would not only rob this trial of its high ethical importance, but would open wide the door and gate to arbitrariness, making such Court procedure appear before the world, not as a real Court within its truest and profoundest meaning, but making it a powerdictate wearing the robe of justice. great as has never before been placed on the shoulders of any Court in the world. Carrying out the will and the vision of the father of this trial, President Roosevelt who too early passed from this world, it is your task, Your Honors, to lay the first corner stone for the temple of peace of the nations of the earth. You are to build the foundation for the attainment of the ideal he envisaged, perpetual peace. On your judgment coming generations are to continue to build. You are to give the directives, according to which those who come after us must continue to aspire to this high goal. It is not a precedent you are to establish, not an individual case you are to judge and to punish the guilty men according to your judgment; but you are to lay down the fundamental principles of a new International Law which is to govern the world in the future. This alone, this task assigned to you, establishes the the meaning of this Tribunal, its justification and its high ethical inspiration, to which we yeild.