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.
At the same time, however, this also includes the recognition that the verdict to be established by you in regard to these defendants is not a verdict in the ordinary meaning of the word; it is not merely a judge's sentence pronounced on behalf of individual defendants and their deeds, but it is the new fundamental law itself, the source from which all future Courts are to raw in accordance with which your verdict is to be established. the Charter according to their principle, and to establish in practice and for all time to come, the rules and principles of the Charter. The responsibility which you thereby assume before history gives you two questions to answer, which answer is all the more complicated, because the legal concept of conspiracy incorporate in the Charter and forming the legal foundation of the indictment is a concept foreign not only to the majority of peoples, especially the European peoples, but also because in one or the other country it owes its existence to its previous application to the combat against common crimes and offenses against the legal provisions governing domestic affairs and those alone. The postulate necessarily follows that the modus of interpretation and application of this legal concept in International Law com and must never be the same as employed in the fight against common bands of gangsters, guilty of a breach of the social order of a particular country and of the laws promulgated for its protection. The latter ordinarily involves individuals of a more or less amoral disposition, who act for reasons of selfishness, lust for money or other unethical instincts, placing themselves outside the existing social order. In the last analysis, however, and particularly when wars of aggression are involved, International Law does not deal with individual statesmen but much rather with whole peoples. The age of absolutism where the will of the ruler determined alone the destiny and acts of a peoplehas definitely passed. In this ago. It may be said that no avowed dictator no omnipotent despot who can rule without or against the will, or at least the tacit approval of the nation, at least its majority, is conceivable.
And so -- it is necessary to make this known once to the world -- unvisible behind the defendants, there sits also in the prisoners' dock our poor, beaten and tortured German people, because it placed upon a pedestal and selected as leader a man who led it to its doom. From this follows of necessity the inescapable demand that, contrary to the concept of a conspiracy applied in regard to ordinary criminals, application of the concept of conspiracy applied in International Law must firstly proceed by investigating and examining how it came about -- how it could come about -- that a people ranking high intellectually, a people who gave so much to the world in terms of gifts of culture and of mind as the German people did -- that it could ahil a man such as Hitler, following him into the bloodiest of all wars, giving him its last and best.
Not until you, your Honors, have incorporated this in the field of your considerations and examined this question, rail you be able to establish a just verdict in regard to the individual defendants themselves, with due consideration for their dissimilarity a judgment which will stand the test of history. Because of such reasoning and not merely by reason of my right as defense counsel of the defendant Freiherr von Neurath, but also because of my duty as a German, I deemed it necessary to explain in mere outline the fact of Nazi domination which the world outside of Germany cannot grasp; to make you visualize how it happened as a result of the effects of the Versailles Treaty and finally, because of the manner of its application, how it was bound to happen, true to historical necessity. of the Tribunal, I must refrain from reading that part of my final pleading, and express my definite hope that the Tribunal will go to the trouble of subsequently reading it itself and that it will consider its arguments when establishing its verdict. I now continue with page 44 of my final pleading, and should first of all like to give you a brief description of the personality and of the thoughts and feelings of that man who is today before you as prisoner
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Luedinghausen, probably that would be a convenient time to break off.
(A recess was taken.) Wuerttemberg so many faithful high government officials, the defendant von Neurath grew up with a simple and strict education in a parental home filled not only with a real Christian spirit and true love for mankind, but also with a flourishing, devoted love for his German people and Fatherland. From his tenderest age and during his entire life his thoughts and actions had implanted in him the desire and will, the holy duty, to place all his powers, all his ability, all his gifts and capacities at the service of the welfare of his people; to subordinate and even sacrifice all his personal interests to this. But, and this must certainly be emphasized in this place, aside from this aspiration there was alive in him and waven into his being to an equally strong extent a deep religious feeling, love of the truth and love of manking that made him from the beginning adverse to the use of any fem of violence, not only in his private life, in his relations with his fellow-men, but which ruled rather to the same extent his entire official activity, even after the Treaty of Versailles.
His acts bore the stamp of this feeling and it became the law governing his official dealings as representative of the Reich in other countries, as well as Foreign Minister and lastly as Reich Protector of Moravia and Bohemia. demeanor, so understandable in a man of his origin and education, but also primarily through the love of peace and sincerity which permeated all his actions as a diplomat and statesman he won the unlimited and sincere respect and sympathy of all people he came into contact with the world over, even of his political opponents. As unequivocal proof of this fact, the truth of which, your Honors, may be confirmed, by your own diplomats, it will suffice to refer to the fact that, as you know from the sworn affidavit of my client, no less persons than King George V and King Edward VIII of England received the defendant in private audiences upon the occasions of his presence in London in 1933 and 1935, that the British Government in the summer of 1937 and again in 1938, when he was no longer Foreign Minister, invited him to visit England for political discussions, and lastly that on his 65th birthday on 2 February 1938 the entire diplomatic corps called on him to congratulate him and to express through the then dean, Nensignore Orsenige, its thanks and its appreciation for the reasonable and understanding manner in which he always discharged all his duties. Do you, your Honors, credit your own diplomats and statesmen with so little knowledge of human nature, so little experience and knowledge of the world that in the course of the defendant's 6 years activity they would not have found out, if the assertion of the Prosecution were true, that Herr von Neurath had knowingly lot himself and his good reputation be used as a covering shield by the Nazis, and that all his statements and assurances as Foreign minister were mere camouflage, that is to say, a deliberate deceiving of the whole world?
old and experienced democracies as England, America, France, as well as the Vatican, had delegated to the then very important post of Ambassador in Berlin their cleverest and most experienced diplomats. And I am tempted to assume that the Prosecution possibly did not realize quite clearly what a dubious compliment it paid to its own diplomats by its assertion about the defendant, while it produces in proof of said assertion only the highly fantastic report of the American Consul Messersmith. I am moreover unshakably convinced that you, your Honors, based on the very reason of your long judicial experience, have far too much knowledge of human nature not to see at first glance that my client by his entire personality is absolutely incapable of such a perfidious and lying way of acting lot alone capable of play-acting to such an extent that for six long years he could have fooled the ablest and most experienced diplomats in the entire world.
A man who for 60 years has led an honorable and absolutely decent life, like the defendant, would never in the world at the end of such a life had lent himself for such a disavowal aid negation of all that he had so far held highest. That would be contrary to anybody's persons experience.
And on the same level stands the Prosecution's assertion that the defendant von Neurath, by joining and remaining in Hitler's cabinet serves as a fifth columnist in the conservative circles of Germany, for the express purpose of winning them over to National Socialism. This slandering of the defendant, which moreover was brought forward without any attempt at justification, is contradicted by the sworn statements of all witnesses and the affidavits submitted, which unanimously tend to prove that the resignation of the defendant from the office of foreign minister was viewed in just these circles with the greatest dismay and concern, because these circles considered that this withdrawal of the defendant from the government was in itself a sign that from then on his pronounced peace policy world be replaced by another, more belligerent, tendency in foreign policy, which was quite rightly considered as a national calamity. For, like everybody else, they shared the conviction of Reich President von Hindenberg, that von Neurath was the exponent of the peaceful foreign policy of the Reich and the guarantee for a consistent continuation of this peace policy, and was against any possible, undesired aggressive experiments by Hitler and the Nazi party and that the defendant should remain in the Cabinet as foreign Minister when Hitler was called to the Reich Chancellery. the witnesses heard, as well as by the carbon copy submitted by me of the letter of the witness Dr. Keepke of 2 June 1932 to Ambassador Ruemelin, Doc. book I, No. 8, and the affidavit of Baroness Ritter, document book I No. 3. But the latter proves also at the same time how unwillingly and after how long a struggle the defendant finally decided to accept this call and therefore supports the defendants own sworn statement that he only decided to so after the Reich President, whom he so highly venerated, appealed to his love of country and reminded him of the promise he had made two years before not to leave him, the Reich President, in the lurch whenever he needed him.
ness and inaccuracy of the further assertion of the Prosecution, also submit to without proof, that the defendant had used his single position, his reputation his connections and his influence to lift Hitler and the Nazi Party into the saddle, and to help them to secure supreme power in the Reich, therefore I hardly need to refer again to the statements of the defendant Goering and other witnesses, particularly Dr. Koepke, from which it appears beyond doubt that at the time there were absolutely no relations between Hitler and the Nazis and the defendant, and therefore even less could the defendant have taken any part in the negotiations which took place before Hitler's call to the chancellorship. and his promise not to leave Reich I resident von Hindenburg in the lurch in this time, of need -- these were the only reasons which moved this man to leave the post of Ambassador in London he had come to, like so much, to assume at that critical and fateful hour the heavy charge of Foreign Minister of the Reich, and the task assigned him as such by the President of the Reich to continue the guidance of the foreign policy of the Reich in peaceful ways, even eventually against the will of Hitler. this heavy task at all times, even after the death of Reich President von Hindenburg, with all his strength and with the pledging of the full force of his personality, up to the time he was of reed to admit that this task was beyond his strength, that Hitler no longer let himself be influenced by him, but had decided to pursue a line of foreign policy along which the defendant, owing to his inmost convictions and his personal point of view, could not follow.
Commanders of the various branches of the Wehrmacht, the defendant von Neurath remained at his post, in the most faithful performance of his promise to the Reich President von Hindenburg, even after the death of the latter. Out of this faithfulness to the dead Reich President, he has assumed the odium in many cases concerning Hitler's home politics of having been compelled as a member of the Reich Cabinet, to allow in silence things to take place which were contrary to his own convictions, did not agree with his views and where in direct contradiction to them. It was not in his power to prevent them. So he was forced to be satisfied with trying as far as was possible to mitigate their effects and consequences, as you could see from the Affidavit of Provincial Bishop Dr. Wurm, document book I, No. 1, and the statements of the other witnesses heard in this connection. cuse to lay down his office of Minister, but that through his remaining in office he had corsciously approved and abetted, is entirely irrelevant. The first law governing his action was the carrying out of the duty assigned him by President von Hindenburg, to secure the continuance of the Reich peaceful foreign policy. He would have considered himself false to his word if he had resigned his post of Foreign Minister before this was accomplished or before there was no possibility of its accomplishment. What person thinking objectively could bring himself to reproach him regarding this or even, as does the Prosecution, identify him with the Nazis. he did not refuse, as did the Minister Eltz von Ruebenach, his nomination to the rank of Honorany Gruppenfuehrer of the SS in September 1937 and the presentation by Hitler of the Party Badge in gold at the Cabinet Session of 30 January 1937, which facts are made a reproach by the Prosecution into a reproof and a proof of his alleged National-Socialist sentiments. For as the statement of the defendant Goering concerning the latter, such a refusal by the defendant von Neurath, as was the case with Eltz von Ruebenach,w ould have been resented by Hitler as an act of rudeness which would without any hesitation have been answered by to immediate dismissal of the defendant.
he was still in a position to carry out to the full extent the task assigned him by the President of the Reich -- to be the guarantor of peace in the foreign policy of the Reich, because he was fully justified in his conviction that his influence over Hitler was still strength enough to ensure his agree with the peace policy he was then fostering. not a question of actual membership of the SS and the Party, out in the fir. case it was only a matter of uniform, on external vanity of Hitler in regard to the men of his retinue during the impending visit from Mussolini; and secondly that it was a matter of a visible recognition for the services rendered by the defendant as Foreign Minister, which at the same time implied a proof of the unlimited agreement of Hitler with the peaceful foreign policy followed by the defendant; in other words, an entirely normal awarding of decorations as is practiced in every State. because at that time they did not yet exist in the Third Reich. That the defendant in both cases nevertheless expressed at once that under no circums tances did he wish to prove his entry or admission into the SS or the Part, by accepting, this investiture intended by Hitler as a mark of honor has been prove by the Affidavit of the defendant.
Moreover, he never took the oath required to become a member of the SS; he never exercised even the slighted activity in the SS and wore the SS uniform only twice in his life at Hitler's explicit request.
This has also been confirmed by his Affidavit. Both cases actually concerned a personal sacrifice of the defendant to the promise which he had given to Hindenburg. Socialist conviction, the defendant's agreement with Hitler's ideas and his entire governmental system from both these events, it is altogether off the track. tion's assertion even less. For this Order was not conferred on him as well as on the defendant Ribbentrop as a personal distinctions for services rendered, but it was merely valid for the position of the Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs and for that of the Reich Protector as such; this was done in order to give to Order, which was intended to be conferred on foreign personalities only, a special significance in the eyes of people abroad, which is even shown by the fact that it had to be returned when he left. nesses examined in this connection, unequivocally resulted in the fact that the defendant's attitude towards the National Socialist system and its maxims were negative from the beginning to the end, and that therefore certain Party circles continually bore him ill-will and opposed him. For these circles knew quite well that the defendant von Neurath, as is proved by his own statement and by those of the witnesses Dr. Koepcke and Dr. Diekhoff, energetically and successfully opposed to the last day, all attempts to introduce members of the Party as officials into the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and in so doing open it up to Nazi influences; and that in spite of various intrigues he could not be dissuaded from definite peace policy. The defendant also took upon his own shoulders this enmity and these intrigues from his inviolable sense of responsibility and his patriotism, endeavouring only to steer German Foreign policy into these channels, which were alone the right ones according to his convictions, formed by long years of most successful diplomatic activity.