When the representative of the Soviet Pro secution asked Speer:
which of the persons close to Hitler he had criti cized and in what connection, the defendant asnwered:
"I shall not tell you".convinced Nazi himself, and belonged to this close environment.
As to the so-called "serious dissesions", they began as Speer admitted, when it became clear to him that Germany had lost the war.
Speer's letters to Hitler are dated March 1945.
At that time Speer could, without great rist, depict Germany's hopeless condition.
It was apparent to everyone and was no longer a subject of discuccion.
And it was not by accident Doc. def. help. V.Ip.76-80 played by him in the crimes committed by Hitler's gang.
Constantine von Neurath's part in the consolidation of the Nazi I will recall the official evaluation of Neurath's activity, as February 1943:
USSR-485. "The departure from the Geneva disarmament conference on since the coining to power of the Nazi regime.
In these, always be connection with them."
Trans. In his capacity of Reich protector of Bohemia and Moravia, ven.s. Neurath was to the Nazi conspirators, those so-called "firm 5.6.46. and reliable hands", of which General Frederici wrote in p.75 his memorandum, and which were to turn the Czechoslovak 63-PS. republic into an "indissoluble part of Germany". In order "new order", the nature of which is now known to all and were committed by the police and Gestapo, upon Himmler's direct order, and that he knew nothing of them.
It is regarding the "most important events in the Protectorate, pertaining to the Security Police". He stated also that Gestapo, and that he did indeed do so; whilst, as far as USSR-494.
the SD was concerned, his rights were still more vast Tras. I wish also to recall to your memory, paragraphs 11, 13 even.s. and 14 of the order issued on 1 September 1939 by the Reich 25.6.45. Defense Council which prove that the Reichsfuhrer SS and pp. 78079. Chief of the German Police carried out administrative measures in Bohemia and Moravia with the knowledge of the Reich Protector, and that the German Security Police organs in the Protectorate were obliged to inform the Reich Protector, as well as the offices subordinated to him and keep them aware of all major events.
SD Fuhrer and Plenipotentiary of the Security Police to the post of political case reported in his cabinet; if we recall the testimony of Richard Wienert, the former Premier of Bohemia and Moravia under Neirath, which has been read before the Court, to the effect that the Gestapo carried out arrests on orders of the Reich Protector, we can hardly have any doubt but that Neurath gave his sanction to the mass arrests, cummary executions and other inhuman acts, committed by the Gestapo and police in Czechoslovakia. were shot without trial, whilst over a thousand were hurled into concentration camps and all the Czech high schools and universities were closed for three years.
Neurath said that he heard of these acts of terror post factum. But we have submitted to the Tribunal a report on the shooting and arrests of the students, which bears Neurath's signature. Neurath then seeks another loop-hole: he declares that Frank signed this report in his, Neurath's name and to be more convincing he even adds, that later he heard from an official that Frank often misused his name in documents. Are Neurath's statements to be credited? One has only to analyze briefly the actual facts, in order to answer this question in the negative.
Neurath says that Frank misused his name. What did Neurath do in answer to this? Did he demand Frank's resignation or his punishment for fraud? No. Did he, perhaps, report this forgery officially, to somebody? Neither. On the contrary, he continued to collaborate with Frank as before.
Neurath says that he heard of Frank's misuses from an official. who is that official? What is his name? Why wasn't any application made to call him to the witness stand, or, at least, to secure his written testimony? This is simply because nobody spoke to Neurath of Frank having forged his signature on the documents, and nobody could have done so for there was no forgery.
But on the contrary, the Tribunal has evidence which con-
ectly participated in these bloody events: USSR-60 During his interrogation on 26 November 1945, Karl Frank testified:
"This document was dated 17 November 1939 and was signed of numerous students to the concentration camps."
USSR-494 I quote Karl Frank's second testimony on this matter, dated 7 March 1946:
"By countersigning the official reports which in formed von Neurath, sanctioned this action.
I informed von Neu signed the rport.
Had he not agreed and had he demanded in to his opinion".In August 1939, in connection with the "special decree" by hich he proclaimed Bohemia and Moravia to be an "in tegral part of the Greater German Reich", Neurath issued a so called "warning". Therein he stipulated that "not be responsible for all acts of sabotage". Thereby he esUSSR-490 tablished the principle of collective responsibility and introduced the hostages system.
The events of 17 Novem Starting from 1 September 1939, some 8,000 Czechs were arrested as hostages in Bohemia and Moravia.
The major ity were sent to concentration camps; many were executed, or died of hunger and toture.
On this subject you have Neurath's so-called "warning".cupnats acting in accordance with Neurath's "warning", Czechslovak population in August 1939.
He has on his other ringleader's of the criminal Nazi regime.
The criminal activity of Fritzsche, who was Goebbels' closest In "Mein Kampf", Hitler describes the very special part He writes:
"The problem of the ressurection of German might can be defined not as to 'How we will make weapons' but 'How we will create the spirit which will make our people capable of bearing weapons'. If this spirit in way, and each of them will lead to weapons". (Quote from pages 365-366 of "Mein Kampf", 64th ed.
1933).
claimed:
"Propaganda helped us to come to power" "Propaganda will help us to keep power" "Propaganda will help us to conquer the world".best informed persons in Nazi Germany.
Besides, he enjoyed Goebbels' particular confidence.
the German press. And ever since 1942 and until the defeat SSR 472 This was testified to, in detail, by witnesses such as SSR 4-71 former Field marshal Ferdinand Schoerner and former vice The defendant Fritzsche's broadcasts, taken down by especially the case when Nazi Germany's acts of aggression For did not Hitler himself write in "Mein Kampf" that, page 302:
USA 276 With, the help of an able and continuous application life can be pictured as heaven."
this dirty work. In his declaration to the Tribunal, on 3465-PS with the acts of aggression against Austria, the Sudetenkand, USA 614 Bohemia and Moravia, Poland and Jugoslavia.
occupation of Norway by Germany. He declared:
"Nobody was wounded, not one house was destroyed, life and work continued unhindered as before."
Norwegian Government states:
"The German attack against Norway on the 9 April 1940, causing destruction.
Over 40 thousand houses were damaged or destroyed and about 1000 civilians were killed."
British passenger steamer "Athenia".
occasion of Nazi Germany's feloneous attack upon the Soviet he was called on the 22 June 1941, at 5 a.m. to a press conference hold by Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop.
As 1039 PS USA 146 Territories of propaganda measure's in the East.
knowledge of the Nazi government's criminal orders, of which he heard for the first time here, in Court.
And Tribunal a lie.
He was compelled to admit that he had early as 1942.
And yet he continued thereafter to remain USSR 496 without honour or conscience; men, who hurled the world in order to achieve their criminal designs; cheap demagogues cious ideas; henchmen, who murdered millions of innocent instrument of their crimes.
30 July M LJG 4-3 for nor rulers of fascist Germany. In the lock, before this Court, they have suddenly become meek end humble. Some of them, even, actually condemned Hitler.. But they blame Hitler, not for the launching of a war, not for the extermination of peoples and the plundering of states; th e only thing they cannot forgive him is Defeat. Together with Hitler, they were ready to exterminate millions of human beings, to enslave the elite of mankind in order to achieve their criminal aim of world domination.
But History judged otherwise; victory did not follow upon the steps of Crime. Victory came to the freedomloving nations. Truth triumphed, and we are proud to say that the justice which is noted out by the International Military Tribunal will be the justice of the right cause of peace-loving nations. the concepts of civilization and humaneness, democracy and humaneness, peace and humaneness - are inseparable. But we, the defenders of civilization, democracy and peace considerate of the murderers and indifferent to their victims. Counsel for Kaltenbrunner also spoke here of love for one's fellow-men. Connected with Kaltenbrunner's name and actions, all mention of love for one's follow man sounds like blasphemy. Speaking here on behalf of the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I consider all the charges against the defendants as fully proven. inspires the peoples who consented to the greatest sacrifice in order to save the world, freedom, and culture, in memory 30 July M LJG 4-5 of the millions of innocent human doings slaughtered by a gangs of murderers, who are now before the Court of a progressive mankind - In the name of the happiness and the peaceful labor of future generations, I appeal to the Tribunal to sentence all the defendants, without exception, to the supreme penalty.
such a verdict will be greeted with satisfaction by all of progressive mankind.
THE PRESIDENT: Now we will deal with the applications for witnesses and documents by the Counsel for the SA.
MR. BARRINGTON: May it please the Tribunal, there were initially seven witnesses applied for for the SA: four for the General SA: two for the Stahlhelm, and one (Riding Corps) for the SA Reiter Corps/. Since then there has been an eighth application for a witness for the Stahlhelm which, I understand, is to be a substitution for the other two for the Stahlhelm.
That would reduce the total number of witnesses applied for for the SA to six. heard by the Commission, but the one recently applied for, by the name of Gruss, has not yet been heard by the Commission, and if the Tribunal approve of that witness, it would involve his being heard by the Comission new. tion of the Commission before them when they are deciding this. In the circumstances, the Prosecution only desire to say that they have no objection to these applications.
THE PRESIDENT: That means no objection to any of them?
MR. BARRINGTON: No objection to any of them, on the understanding, My Lord, that Gruss is applied for in substitution for the other two Stahlhelm witnesses, Waldenfels and Hauffe.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Boehm.
DR. BOEHM: I have applied to hear as witnesses for the SA the witnesses Juettner, Bock, Klaehn, Schaeffer, von der Borch, and, first of all, the witnesses Waldenfels and Hauffe. to bring another witness to Nuremberg; that was the witness Gruss. questioned before the Commission so that he, can also be heard before the Tribunal later. Grass could only be called a few days ago, because my application to hear him had already been made in the month of May, and one had to look for him for about two months. He is an important witness for the Stahlhelm and the SA, and on account of his functions in the Stahlhelm he knows essential elements of conditions throughout Germany, particularly for the period after 1935. But since I can only make the application to near the witness here after he had been heard before the Commission, I request that this witness be heard by the Commission first. And still I should maintain my request for the witness Waldenfels, so that the situation will be the following, that for the SA not six but seven witnesses should be heard, as had been suggested originally.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what would be the names? What will be the names?
DR. BOEHM: Juettner, Bock, Klaehn, Schaeffer, von der Borch, Waldenfels, and Gruss.
But I should like to ask, Mr. President, since I do not know the extent of the statements of the witness Grass, to be permitted to choose between the two witnesses Grass and Hauffe. Therefore after the witness Gruss has been heard by the Commission I should like to be permitted to make the decision whether, besides the witness Waldenfels, I want the witness Hauffe or the witness Gruss to be called before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you wish to say, Dr. Boehm?
DR. BOEHM: In connection with the witnesses, yes, Mr. President, but I should like to speak in connection with the document book for the SA, if I may be permitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Barrington, do you wish to say anything more about the application which Dr. Boehm now has, which is for seven, and not for six?
MR. BARRINGTON: Well, the Prosecution are of the opinion that one witness for the Stahlhelm would be enough, but your Lordship will, of course, have the Commission's recommendation on that. They will have been heard. On the question of the choice between Gruss and Hauffe after Gruss has been heard, there would be no objection to that, of course.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, may I say that the Stahlhelm within the oil was about one-fourth of the members of the SA. There were about one million people who had transferred from the Stahlhelm into the SA. And I believe that their interests, since there are so many of them, need two witnesses before this Court.
THE RESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that matter. Now will you deal with the dockets ?
MR. BARRINGTON: Would it be convenient to your Lordship if I started on the documents?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. BARRINGTON: Agreement has been reached, on the document books with the exception of one group of five documents, to which the Prosecution object. that among the other documents which were agreed to be excluded there were a considerable number of photographs of members of the SA Reiter Corps in civilian clothes. The great majority of those photographs were excluded. A few have been included. But I just want to say this, that those photographs were intended to show that the object of the Reiter Corps was purely that of sporting activities. Of course the Prosecution admit that the object of the Reiter Corps included sporting activities, although naturally -the Prosecution say that wasnot their only object. quite briefly. I have prepared a short summary, which I think the Tribunal have at the back of that sheaf of papers.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. BARRINGTON: These five documents are all extracts from writings by English liters and publicists during the period, I think from 1936 to 1939, and they all represent, in my submission, the unofficial opinions and arguments of these writers. Your Lordship can see roughly what they are about.
The first one, SA 236 is by MR. Dawson in "The Nineteenth Century", to the effect that Hitler's policy to the statesmen of Europe is to peace and not war, and that Hitler has saved Germany from chaos and collapse, that he does the same to Europe by his peace proposals.
And then SA 237 by Dr. A. J. McDonald from the book "Why I believe in Hitler's Germany re the Third Reich" says, "Perhaps the best guarantee for the stability of Hitler's regime is his own moral purity and that which he has imposed on Germany. He has tackled the problem of youth", and so on.
SA 242 is an extract from "Das Archiv" quoting Professor Cornell Evans and Professor Dawson again. "Hitler's withdrawal from Locarno and the occupation of the Rhineland was a good things". "Hitler's peace proposals are very valuable." "The Versailles Treaty was unjust", and so forth.
And SA 246, another extract from "The Nineteenth Century and illustrates "Germans marching into parts of their own country", and maintains that this is justified.
And SA 247, an extract from a book by A. P. Lorry, "The Case for Germany", which says, "The complaint that Germany applies force is wrong, and the attack on Austria cannot be called an attack." they clearly don't prove any direct evidence of facts, but are purely conclusions of fact, and as such they prejudge the issues which are for the Tribunal to decide. that these writings led the SA to believe that the Nazi regime was a things to be admired or waswell thought of abroad, I only- need to say two things: first, these were unofficial writings; secondly, there is no evidence to short that they were even read by the SA. There is no evidence in any case that they influenced the SA at all, if they were read. That is all I can say.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Boehm?
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, originally I did not intend to discuss the contents to such an extent as representative of the Prosecution has done it now, so that I should not be accused of trying to make National Socialist propaganda. But we are confronted here with short quotations from the English and American literature which will not bring a bout any difficulty for translation, and I did not intend to read anything from them here in court. Neither do I intend to read the contents of these documents during my presentation of evidence, but I only wanted, to have the opportunity to refer to them during my final argument.
These quotations have appeared in German newspapers. They also appeared in encyclopedias and in "Das Archiv". Thus they could be read by the German public, and they were known. It is not sc that these excerpts were only translated now, and could not have been known before to anybody in Germany. They appeared in the "Voelkischer Beobachter" and in "Das Archiv" and every German could read them and acquaint himself with them. people who made those statements in their own country, these statements have been important for the Germans because the authors were men who made statements in loading foreign countries on German problems, and. I would regret very much if the Court could not decide that I may be permitted to enter them into my document bock. They present very little work for translation. They are not extensive and there are no obstacles connected with them.
THE PRESIDENT: Have all the documents been translated?
DR. BOEHM: I don't think they have been translated. A considerable number were requested.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they very long?
DR. BOEHM: These five are not very long.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't mean the five. I mean the other things.
MR. BARRINGTON: They vary, but for the most part they are short extracts.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, in my document book only a few documents have been translated entirely, only excerpts to which I intend to refer during my presentation of evidence and during my final argument.
Therefore the translation of the entire document book will create very little work, and these documents which I ask to be permitted to have translated certainly will not create any difficulties.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything further you wish to say, Dr. Boehm?
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, unfortunately I have to make another application, which I would rather not have made, but conditions and circumstances are such that it has to be put in. I request that the witnesses Fuss, Lucke, Wallenhoefer, Alvensleben, Dr. Geier, and Dr. Meder should still be heard before the Commission. For these witnesses I have already made application; the witness Fuss on the 25th of April; for the witness Lucke, on the 7th of May; for the witness Wallenhoefer, on the 21st of May' for the witness Alvensleben, on the 20th of May; for the witness Dr. Geier, on the 25th of April; and for the witness Dr. Meder, on the 25th of April of this year.
These witnesses-are important witnesses. To give only one example, the questioning of the witnesses Fuss and Lucke would mean a rebuttal of one of the most important documents in this trial. That is document 1721, in which the Brigadefuehrer is accused, that the Brigadefuehrer, the Chief of the Brigade, had reported to the Gruppenfuehrer about thirty-eight synagogues which had been burned. not speak now, and the questioning of whom Col. Neave has promised me, have not yet arrived. I believe I heard yesterday that possibly Dr. Geier has already arrived a few days ago. The subjects are important, and the length of time for the questioning before the Commission will be very short. These witnesses. whom I have repeatedly-requested. I cannot forego. These witnesses must be heard and I believe that they can be brought here in time so that it would be possible to hear them during the presentation of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: How many is it you are asking for?
DR. BOEHM: In addition, seven witnesses which are to be heard by the Commission -- six witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: How many have you already had heard before the Commission?
I am told it is sixteen; is that right?
DR. BOEHM: Sixteen. I could not give the exact number right now, MR. President, but of course I am in a position to find out at once.
THE PRESIDENT: And how many have been brought to Nuremberg for the purpose of being questioned by you?
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, the witnesses that have been brought to Nuremberg to be heard here were primarily the wrong witnesses. A number of witnesses had to come twice or three times until we got the right one, as for instance the witness Fuss.
THE PRESIDENT: I asked how many.
DR. BOEHM: Altogether, of all witnesses, or also witnesses who have come only to give an affidavit, or just the witnesses who were heard by the Commission? Which ones?
THE PRESIDENT: How many witnesses have been brought? How many persons have been brought to Nuremberg for the purpose of being questioned?
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I believe there is a matter which has to be cleared up. Witnesses have been brought here in order to be questioned by the Commission or the Court. But witnesses have also been brought here for the purpose merely to give an affidavit, merely to make an affidavit about any particular subject that appeared important and relevant, witnesses who could not be heard before the Commission or the Tribunal. These witnesses have been sent back after they had given an affidavit, signed an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you how many. How many? Can't you answer?
DR. BOEHM: I would like to know whether the question is designed to mean the people who have been heard by the Commission, or all the witnesses that came here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, out of the people who have come here, some of them have been examined before the commission and others have made affida vits, and possibly there may be others who have done neither. I want to know how many in all.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, certainly. That may have been sixteen. I could not give the exact figure because I did not question all of them. I would like to find out and tell you exactly after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
( A Recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: I will deal first with the documents.
30 July M LJG 6-1 The documents to which no objection has been made will be translated and will be admitted subject to objections as to their admissibility. The documents to which objections have already been made, namely SA 236, 237, 242, 2 46, and 247, are all rejected and will not be translated. following witnesses, the following witnesses which have been examined before the commissions may be examined before the Tribunal: The witness Schaeffer, the witness Juettner, spelled J-U-E-T-T-N-E-R, either the witness Bock or the witness Klaehn according as counsel for the SA decides; and one out of the three witnesses, Waldenfels, Hauffe, and Gruss, is to be examined before the Tribunal. be given by affidavit.
With reference to the other six witnesses for whom 30 July M LJG 7-1 application has been made, every effort is being made to trace then and if they arrive within a week from today, that is to say, on or before Tuesday of next week, they will be heard before the Commission.
That is all.
DR. BOEHM (Counsel for S.A. ) : Mr. President, may I make a brief explanation? The Court has just approved the witnesses Waldenfels, Hauffe, and Gruss to be examined before the Commission
THE PRESIDENT: No, the witnesses Waldenfels, Hauffe and Gruss have already been examined before the Commission, have they not?
DR. BOEHM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What I said was that one out of the three witnesses -- Waldenfels, Hauffe and Gruss -- after Gruss has been examined before the Commission. One out of the three, so that in all you will have four witnesses -- Schaeffer, Juettner, one out of Bock and Klaehn, and one out of Waldenfels, Hauffe and Gruss, making four. And you will have Von Der Borch on affidavit.
DR. BOEHM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Barrington, with reference to the Reich Cabinet, I see there is one witness that has not yet been granted as a witness, and that is the witness Schlegelberger, who has not yet appeared before the Commission. Yes, Dr. Kempner?
DR. KEMPNER: Schlegelberger appeared before the Commission yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection....
DR. KEMPNER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Then are there any other witnesses for the Reich Cabinet?
DR. KEMPNER: Not that I know of.
THE PRESIDENT: It would perhaps save time if we granted him now and ask for the documents. Are there any documents for the Reich Cabinet?