22 Aug A LJG 16-1 Saslaw
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I should like to ask you to lend me your ear but a moment longer. In my presentation of documents, I avoided quoting from my document books but since this morning, the prosecution referred to SA document 156 which is a directive of the schools for higher learning in Munich and put in juxtaposition to another directive given out by the Hochschulamt in Cologne. I should like to refer to the fact that Figure 3 of both of these directives, the same directive of the 7th of February 1934 is mentioned and that when these two documents are put in juxtaposition, it says in each case "For all members of the German student body service in the SA has been made obligatory." In order to make this understandable, on the thing that the prosecution believed to be a contradiction, I believe that when it comes to the directives issued by the schools in Cologne, I should like to quote -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the true interpretation. We quite understand that on the one hand you are contending that the service in the SA was compulsory and the prosecution are contending the opposite and they are putting in this other document which they say supports their view. It isn't necessary to have an argument about it at this stage.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, I wanted to add out four more words, four words to be added to the last sentence under Figure 3, "or not to study." Then the prosecutor stated today that document 91----
THE PRESIDENT: Are you saying that there is some misprint in the document or what?
DR. BOEHM: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you are simply arguing on the interpretation of the words and I have told you that the Tribunal will consider the interpretation and decide the interpretation for itself.
DR. BOEHM: Very well, Mr. President, but may I mention the next document of which the prosecution has asserted that I submit 22 Aug A LJG 16-2 Saslaw ted it only because of the last paragraph and that is not correct.
The next document, General SA 91, was not submitted by me because of the last paragraph but rather because of the first paragraph. That is the attitude as defined by an Oberlandesgerichtrat in Braunschweig.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. We understand that you rely on the first paragraph and not on the last paragraph.
DR. BOEHM: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you very much.
DR. PELCKMANN: Your Lordship, may it please the Tribunal. Yesterday, on behalf of the SS which I represent, I submitted a condensation of 136,213 affidavits. This compilation I ask not to be confused with a statistical figure of which I said towards the conclusion of the session yesterday afternoon and made the statement that I would submit it without commenting on it. Everything that I mentioned about the testimony and the attitude taken by SA men refers only to the one hundred thirty-six thousand affidavits which contain their own wording and which are actual affidavits. The statistical matter which I mentioned toward the and of yesterday's session, this statistical material is based on a questionnaire and is not to be confused with these 136,000 affidavits which I used. This questionnaire, however; was not asked for my me; this questionnaire and the replies made in answer to it, were not evaluated by me. I merely submitted a statistical report so that all the material which I had received should be disposed of. To get rid of it, this questionnaire is, as I have said, not asked for by me, and the interrogatory mentioned by Erhardt was not asked for by me. It is well known to the high Tribunal that the defense has changed its position internally.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we quite understand that it was not quite asked for by you. We accept that.
DR. PELCKMANN: But I should like to clarify matters absolute. by starting that the assertion made by Mr. Erhardt does not refer to those 136,000 affidavits but rather to the answering of a 22 Aug A LJG 16-3 Saslaw questionnaire.
The statistical matters which I only announced with three words yesterday and which may be found with the General Secretary, I should like to withdraw as a piece of evidence expressly. I do not put any value on this statistical material.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, you are going to make a speech in a few days. Isn't that a matter with which you will deal then? You will have the opportunity of criticizing Erhardt's affidavit. This isn't the time to do it.
DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. President, I believe it is my duty to deal with this affidavit which has been submitted by the prosecution even though the presentation of evidence has been concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Pelckmann, I just told you that it is not your duty and you will be able to deal with it when you make your speech and therefore the Tribunal doesn't desire to hear any more about it.
DR. PELCKMANN: In order to reply to this affidavit, in order to present evidence to the contrary, I should like to have two witnesses from this camp summoned before the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to make an application, you must make it in writing. Now, Dr. Servatius.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I ask to make two application on behalf of the Soviet Prosecution. The first one is concerned with the discussion of the appendix of the morning session of April 23, 1946, and of the evening session of April 19th, 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: April what?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: April 23, Mr. President; the morning session, afternoon session and the evening session. The discussion about the appendix to the report of the government of the Polish Republic. I speak about the instruction of the Department of Propaganda in Poland. The witness Buehler declared that he doubted the authenticity of this document and based himself on certain expressions which seemed to him not quite German but alien to the spirit of the German language. By investigating this episode, it appears that the witness had not the German original 22 Aug A LJG 16-4 Saslaw but the appendix which had been translated from German into Polish and them from Polish into English and then from English back into German which, of course, caused a certain chronological mix up.
As for as I was informed, Dr. Seidl knows this document and has not opposed against excluding this thought from the minutes because it was caused by the defects of translation. All the necessary documents concerning the application of this have been before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not certain but I thought we had already dealt with that point, in view of Dr. Seidl withdrawing his objection to that document end perhaps you can find that out afterwards whether we have already dealt with it. There was certainly a document presented to us from Dr. Seidl in which he said, that having checked up on the particular document with which he was dealing, that he was now convinced that it was right.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. As far as I know, Dr. Seidl does not object against striking out this part from the record because the mix up has been caused by a fractious translation.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that your application is to strike out Buehler's evidence?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: On the part concerning this document.
THE PRESIDENT: We Will consider your application, Colonel Smirnov.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: The second application consists of the following -- In the report of the Polish Government submitted to the tribunal, in many cases there are not figures of the losses suffered by Poland us a result of the war. This was caused by the fact that at the time when the report was made, these losses had not been calculated and I would like to ask the Tribunal to admit an official memorandum of the Presidium of the ministers in Poland, which contains all the figures, the couple to figures of the losses suffered by Poland during the second World War. The text of this document has been translated into all four languages;
22 Aug A LJG 16-5 Saslaw that is to say, into English, Russian, French and German. That is my second application to the Tribunal. I have no more applications to make, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you suggesting that this is evidence in rebuttal?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: No, Mr. President, it was caused by the inexact translation. This is a document complementing the Polish report, complementing the report of the Polish government, by exact figures of the losses suffered by Poland during the war. It contains data on the military losses of Poland during the second World War in manpower and in material losses. That is a document which doesn't contest anything but complementing the after documents, giving more precise data.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel precise, the document is dated the 29th of January 1946, and now you are being asked to offer this document in evidence at the end of August 1946, at the very end of this trial.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, this document was given to the Soviet Delegation very late and we needed some time for the translation of this document into four languages and you received it very late.
THE PRESIDENT: I wasn't suggesting that you were in any way to blame, Colonel Smirnov. The Tribunal thinks that this document can't be put in at this late stage, the document which appears to have been made a long time ago and though it may have been received by you recently, it isn't proper that it should be admitted at this stage.
I submit this document, Mr. President, exclusively for the reason that I consider that the data contained in this document gives an exact image of the looses suffered by the Polish Republic, and that was the reason why I submitted this application to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That may very well be, Colonel Smirnov, but the reason the Tribunal rejects it, it is submitted at such a late stage where it is impossible for the Tribunal to go into the facts which are alleged in it or give the defendants an opportunity of contradicting it. We will consider the other matters you have drawn our attention to.
DR. NELTE: Defense counsel Nelte. Mr. President, since Dr. Servatius, my colleague, is about to give his final plea, I believe I may assume that the presentation of evidence against the organizations are to be considered concluded. Now, I shall like to ask the High Tribunal when the actual time will come for the taking care of these applications for evidence which still have to be taken care of, things which are still outstanding. This, of course, is to the individual defendants who, in the course of the proceeding against the organizations, have put forth applications for affidavits or applications of affidavits. Can this be done in this moment, or, Mr. President, when shall it be done?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal understands that you have got some evidence which you have already applied for, which you want to offer. You have it all ready, is that right?
DR. NELTE: Yes, Mr. President, I have already submitted these applications. This application was submitted to the High Tribunal on the 9th of August. In my case, we are concerned with the matter as to just when the three affidavits of mine can be introduced here.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the evidence now?
DR. NELTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Nelte, to think that you might offer these affidavits now unless they are objected to by the Prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: There is no objection as far as I know. There is certainly none from Mr. Dodd and myself. I haven't heard from any of my colleagues, but I haven't heard of any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: You may offer them now. With reference to the other defendants, they will --
DR. DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I beg your pardon, there is no objection from either one.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the other defendants, counsel will understand that if they have any fresh evidence arising out of the evidence offered by the counsel for the organizations, they must offer that evidence during the course of the speeches for the organizations or immediately at the end of the speeches for the organizations; and that after that has been done, no further evidence can be offered. We will take the offering of your evidence now.
DR. NELTE: These affidavits, however, have not been translated since I only asked to have them translated after I had checked with the prosecution and got their approval. May I submit -
THE PRESIDENT: You are suggesting that we postpone hearing the affidavits until we get the translations?
DR. NELTE: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter on behalf of the Defendant Von Schirach. Mr. President, I still have to submit two interrogatories which were granted me by the High Tribunal, and which have been received in the meantime by me, which I have submitted in due course. One is an Interrogatory with the number 137, Document Book Von Schirach 137, an interrogatory by a certain Guenther Kauffmann who was active in the staff of the defendant von Schirach with the Hitler Youth. This interrogatory in the main deals with the attitude taken by von Schirach to the question of war, his attitude to foreign policy, has attitude dealing with the treatment of Eastern peoples, and his attitude in the Jewish question, and finally, his attitude with reference to propaganda abroad. This interrogatory shall have the number 137 in the document book von Schirach.
The next interrogatory shall receive the number 138, von Schirach. It is a Russian interrogatory deposed by witness Ida Vasseaux, I repeat, Ida Vasseaux, who, in the meantime, has been interrogated once more from this interrogatory. I shall use only two sentences to be found on pages 4 and 5 which I have marked in red in the margin. This interrogatory I referred to shall receive the number von Schirach 138.
on the 11th of July, 1946. I submitted to the High Tribunal the original of a newspaper "Rhein Neckar Zeitung" of the 6th of July, 1946, together with a supplementary document for the purpose of proving that in the matter of Schirach that the witness Lauterbacher, who was heard before the court, in the meantime has been adjudged free by an English High Court, in the matter where a certain Mr. Kremer had been accused that the inmates of a penitentiary at Hammen had been decreased by him. This newspaper in the original was submitted on the 11th of July 1946. It shall have the Exhibit number von Schirach 130, I repeat, 138.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, that matter has been raised so many times for Mr. von Schirach that I would like to make the record clear. The time that I used that paper that was in our hands for the purpose of cross examining the witness Lauterbacher, the Tribunal ruled that the matter should not be submitted, or would not be accepted in evidence, and so it never has become evidence before this Tribunal. I pressed for it at the time, I am frank to say, but the Tribunal very briefly, as the later events revealed, refused to have it submitted in evidence. If Dr. Sauter takes pleasure in talking about it once in a while, I have no objection to it, but it doesn't help this court very much, and it doesn't seen to do very much good to constantly bring it up.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, this newspaper article which I submitted on the 11th of July bears the date of the 6th of July, 1946, 6th day of the Seventh month of the year. That is a period of time after the witness Lauterbacher was interrogated. Therefore, when Lauterbacher was examined, of course, this material could not have been taken into account, but, however, as far as the judging of the witness Lauterbacher is concerned, it might be important to the High Tribunal to remember that just Mr. Dodd at that time was the one who confronted Lauterbacher with this matter of the penitentiary at Hammen. Lauterbacher disputed this under oath, but the witness, by the name of Kremer, asserted to it his affidavit. This witness Kremer has been sentenced in the meantime, but the witness Lauterbacher has been set free. And I believe that this fact is of special importance to the High Tribunal when we consider the credibility, the reliability of the witness Lauterbacher.
MR. DODD: I will withdraw my objection. If Dr. Sauter wants to prove that he wasn't hangman, I have no objection to it. I don't suppose it is very important. I won't object to it if he wants to put it in that he wasn't poisoning some people and hung somebody. Von Schirach rejected the document. Now, Dr. Sauter wants to prove that he wasn't anyway. I don't suppose we should object to it.
THE PRESIDENT: He just wants to show that Lauterbacher was freed by some -
MR. DODD: He was freed of the charge I raised against him here. Dr. Sauter is not content with that, he wants to prove it over again. He wants to prove that he wasn't a hangman and not a poisoner. We won't object to that.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, of course, I do not wish, to prove that Mr. Lauterbacher is not a hangman, and up until now, the Prosecution has not in all seriousness been able to contend that. What I want to prove is merely that the witness produced by the Prosecution is Dr. Kremer, that he was the one who had no credibility, and that he did not tell the truth, and that in the meantime this has been determined by an English curt, this question of credibility on one hand, and by Dr. Kremer in his affidavit on the other hand of the witness Lauterbacher who was heard here. That to me would seen to be important.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you want to put in? A newspaper article
DR. SAUTER: The newspaper has the name --I have already submitted it -"Rhein Necker Zeitung", R-h-e-i-n N-e-c-k-a-r- Z-e-i-t-u-n-g, of the 6th of July 1946. I submitted this to the High Tribunal on the 11th of July 1916 in due order. Mr. President, I think that will be all I should like to ask as far as evidence is concerned. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider it. Now, Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the English translation which has been completed this morning, and it is quite possible that they are ready now. I am not certain on that point. I have the German text before me, and I gave a copy to the interpreter.
Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution has proposed to declare the "Corps of the Political Leaders" as criminal.
Of what is this collective group of persons being accused? against the church as well as the dissolution of the trade unions; the incitement for the lynching of flyers who had made emergency Landings, the mistreating of foreigners; the arrest of political opponents and methods of their surveillance and being spied upon. to be determined. The accusation is to this effect, that the "Carps of Political leaders" have collectively committed the deeds mentioned for the unleashing of a war of aggression or that they had banded together in order to commit the crimes of war which have been mentioned. do not concern themselves with these motives or which as individual deeds do not belong to the common plan of the conspiracy are not included in this accusation.
The major crimes such as the extermination of the Jews and the killing of political opponents in concentration camps are not crimes against humanity in the sense of the Charter, and the miner measures of spying for election frauds are insignificant in themselves in this proceeding, provided that they were not carried out with the aim of being crimes against international law, crimes against peace, and war crimes as set down in Article 6 of the Charter. meeting any contradiction. In order to support this opinion, I should like to refer to the Supplementary Berlin Agreement to the Charter of 6 November 1945. Here we are concerned with an agreement of the four signatory powers to the Charter, the sole point of the agreement being the changing of a semicolon to a comma. Through this agreement, we have the correction of the text of Article 6 (c), which had been separated into two parts by the semicolon in the English and French texts. The result had been that crimes against humanity could have been prosecuted without being related to crimes against peace or war crimes which are under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. without a connection to war does not now apply after Article 6(c) has been drawn up in accordance with the Russian text. the Tribunal. tried to establish the connection of crimes against peace with the war crimes by proving a conspiracy in connection with all of their allegations. Leaders? circle of individuals which is to be declared criminal as an organization or as a group. Here the charge is made against the Corps of Political Leaders, according to National Socialist terminology. organization did not exist. It was prohibited through a directive from the Deputy of the Fuehrer in the Party, Hess, on 27 July 1935 -- Document Number PL 12 -- which expressly prohibited the designation chosen, "Political Organization", for the some circle of individuals.
The reason given there for was that there could not exist within the Party any special organization. exist within every party as leading and executive organs. because of their titles, must be defined as political leaders. It is not a group which united, for one could not eater the circle of political leading of one's own accord, but only through an act of sovereignty, through an appointment which took place without any effort on the part of the appointee. The situation in law is comparable to that of every official who through his appointment enters the circle of his colleagues.
How is it that this circle is being narrowed down as a special group? which was connected with it; in addition, we have the oath, but this was nothing special, for all officials and soldiers had to take if in the same way. Leaders, however, are completely varied according to their kind and significance. There were political leaders who were active in associations like the German Labor Front and the National Socialist Peoples' Welfare Association, and who in the practical administrative work were the uniforms for decorative reasons only. These are the members of the various affiliated associations who deliberately are not included in the charges of the Prosecution. apparatus. These were the Hoheitstraeger, the functionaries, and the members of the Political Staffs, who are characterized as top leaders or main leaders by the Prosecution. that under the Corps of Political Leaders they mean only those individuals. They are enumerated from the Reichsleiter to the Blockleiter.
insofar as they were active in the political staffs which grouped themselves around the Hoheitstraeger, the functionaries. group, in that we have a connection through the relationship of subordination, discipline and business matters. to be about 600,000, according to the number of offices existing in the year 1939. As the document used as basis -- Document 2958-IS -- shows, the offices in the staffs are not included. The figures show in addition to the Hoheitstraeger, the functionaries, including the Cell and Block Leaders, there were still about 475,000 of these offices which were filled by political leaders. In this way, the number of political leaders in the political staffs for the year 1939 is increased to perhaps 1,000,000. turnover of personnel in the period of twelve years, the figure is increased one and a half times; that is, to about two and a half million. In this connection, the fact is taken into account that the number of offices was only half that number. about one and one half million remains. who were not appointed Political Leaders und those who during the war were changed on an honorary basis with the activity of political leaders in subordinate positions; above all, they were the Cell and Block Leaders during the war. According to the testimony given by witnesses, their number may be estimated at 600,000. If, Like the Prosecution, you include these individuals in the circle of political leaders, then the entire figure of the individuals involved rise to 2.1 million. This figure rises still more because there were other office holders in the political staffs who were not appointed political leaders. tricted to political leaders, a part of the people in the political staffs are not included. They were these who were not appointed political leaders even though they head office.
place subsequently without detriment to those so involved, since the possibility of an application for a legal hearing was not given them in the first publication by the Tribunal. fined is to be declared criminal, the admissibility under international law of the charges must be discussed. collective punishment of the population is admissible only when the population is considered jointly guilty for individual deeds. This is an exceptional regulations which serves solely for the protection of the occupying power. reasons. You may not punish a group just because the guilt for a war is imputed to its members, or because you hold them responsible for moral resistance. You can not arrest all political commissars or Jews and sen tence them because of their political attitude. This prohibition of the Hague Rules on Land Warfare is based on the penal, individual principle of democracy, which has not lost its prestige. Charter has made Article 50 of the Hague Rules on Land Warfare invalid-that has to be examined officially. whether the participation in guilt of the group can be considered proved. How such a proof is to be produced neither the Hague Rules of Land Warfare nor the Charter indicate.
We can follow two principles: either that of justice or that of expediency. sentencing of a group is to be rejected, "even if there is only one just man among them." The principle of expediency admits the possibility of the document ones being included, but one prefers to punish the guiltless rather than to let the guilty ones go unprosecuted. only to punish the guilty ones and not to set a trap for the guiltless ones or to catch them, too, in one not.
request itself to characterize the group as criminal rests on speculations of expediency. This apparent contradiction can be solved only by requesting the verdict of the Court as a means of procedure to answer an emergency. people were incorporated. However, in subsequent proceedings they should have all the right to make objections, as Justice Jackson has stated. stipulating the procedure for the taking of evidence, expressed itself in a sense which might make possible a determination for the decision itself. The final influence in regard to the later individual proceedings, however, has not taken place. The decision of the Tribunal in this regard must depend essentially on the results which its verdict will have. is of the utmost importance. It appears from the text of the law that more membership in an organization or a group which has been declared criminal will necessitate punishment. If that were the case, the inclusion of the guiltless ones in the present proceedings would constitute a severe break with the guilt principle which forms the basis of modern penal law. Charter. Through its Article 10 declares the objection that an organization was not criminal as inadmissible, it admits to anyone the objection that he was not acquainted with the criminal character. contemplated only in the case of participation in the criminal activity. The informed press and the radio have expressed themselves in the Some vein. the group which are decisive for its judgement. The position of the Tribunal can be learned from its ruling of 13 march 1946. The essential factor is the participation in the conspiracy. This presupposes the formation of a group for the commitment of an act which has been declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter.
Such a formation, however, in the case of every conspiracy is based on the concrete knowledge of the contemplated crime. obviousness or the comprehensive information available to the political leaders. as general tendencies. The criminal excesses emerging from there were not known.
The following is important in this connection: The thing that matters is not the obviousness of facts but the obviousness of motives. As far as we are not concerned with genuine war crimes, the motive of the aggressive war must be known; the acts must be recognizable as the first stage of an aggressive war. Only by that can the participation in the criminal conspiracy be carried out. the people concerned on the basis of the doctrine of National Socialism. There, it is claimed, the aims were given which of necessity led to aggressive warfare. Therefore, the building up of the Party and the soliciting of members, as well as the seizure of power, become criminal, based on the active of aggressive war.
unagressive war or for the commitment of war crimes.
Is such a conclusion correct? "Mein Kampf". opponents, but it had not been objected against by any foreign sources. In 1924 the high Inter-Allied Rhineland Commission in Coblentz had approved of it for the Rhineland and later the League of nations had done likewise for Dantzig. The Party was permitted including its philosophy as expressed in the book "Mein Kampf". Besides it was generally known that Hitler had declared that his book was out of date in many points. and it is also true that a war which aims something which infringes on the property of someone else, must include the attack on such property.
But the slogans "Lebensraum" (Living Space) and "Los von Versailles" (Off with Versailles) were not bound to lead to aggressive war, just as little as the slogan "Workers of all countries unite" must lead to aggressive war. There is the method of negotiations by appeals to reason. Just as in the interior of a state strike, uprisings, and revolutions may be justified for workers in their struggle for existence, so in the life of nations it may happen that war will ensue. But the normal way is that of negotiations. If it weren't so every member of an opposition party could be prosecuted for high treason. obviously transgressing the technical concept of opening the hostilities has been doubted in the earlier part of the proceedings by many of the main defendants and with many important reasons. other states took it without condemning the principle which supposedly as a "law of life" is the basis of the aggressive war. The archives of the world remain closed.
an aggressive war, but rather whether the political leaders knew of it and whether this was obvious to them. aggressive intentions, because to every political leader Hitler's offer to disarm down to the last machine gun must have been impressive, and also this repeated declaration that the misfortune of other peoples could not bring good fortune to the own people, but rather that the welfare of all should be the basis of international life. Impressive must have been the naval agreement with Great Britain, the declarations given Franco of not having the intention to raise further territorial claims, the Munich Pact, and finally the Treaty of Friendship with the Soviet Union. Particularly the latter caused a wave of rejoicing because it seemed to be about peace with that adversary which had been there to fare called the worst enemy. Just that treaty at the same time proved how impossible it is to derive from the book "Mein Kampf" any directives for the actual practice. concerned, the outstanding factor is Hitler's repeated declaration that the "Buendnisfaehigkeit" (ability to conclude agreements) could be established only by the equality of armaments. The extent of the rearmament was not recognizable an relation to the strength of the adversary and Hitler himself had declared it to be fully that a small state should challenge all the world.
The cornerstone of all political leaders' conviction that no war was planned, however, was the fact stressed again and again that Hitler himself had been a soldier on the battlefront of the First world war. Therefore, it was not to be expected that he should bring about the suffering of a new war. directed exclusively to the political leaders he literally stated:
"During these long years we had me other prayer than 'Lord, give to our people domestic peace and give it and maintain external peace! In our generation we had so much of fighting that it is understandable when we long for peace.
... We desire to plan the future of the children of our people, we wish to work for the future to safeguard not only their future live but to make them easier too. Behind us is so difficult a fate that we have only one request that we can address to the merciful and benevolent providence spare from our children that we had to suffer: We desire nothing but peace and tranquillity for our work." leaders are hit by the indictment. policy of peace. For all those who fought for Socialism and who believed in the realization of peace plans, the fact that Hitler himself had been a worker was standing in the foreground. The elimination of unemployment appeared as the greatest accomplishment of peace; a success which was convincing for everyone who regained employment. It was not Hitler's demonic magic which brought seven millions of unemployed and the some number of partially employed people with their families to his ranks, but the fact that he gave them again work and bread, that was the thing that conquered the masses. the more existence and that his social standing was raised. when war broke out the universal old-age insurance system, a big social undertaking was in the process of being built up. To the political leaders that did not look like aggressive war. of the occurrences and their motives; it is the system of secrecy. secrecy. I would like to stress another point of view which aided in a peculiar manner that system of secrecy; it is the confidence which Hitler enjoyed. which he had accumulated by the elimination of that unemployment which had brought the people to the brink of ruin. One had to add to that the success in the field of foreign policy which had been recognized by foreign powers, too.
emphasizing that tradition. These are both factors which have much influence on the people. foreign policy which the French prosecutor has called "naivite". This frankness established domestically the conviction that Hitler would not instigate anything secretly. That picture was rounded out for the millions of followers by the facade of respectability and dignity which was kept up by that circle around Hitler from which one could have expected first criticism and warning. gain knowledge of the aggressive intentions. the plans had been given seems to be untenable on the basis of the evidence submitted during this trial. That assumption of the prosecution presumably rests on the original theory that it was a part of the normal business routine to inform all Hoheitstraeger while it has been established by now that only a very small circle was initiated.
The situation is different in regard to the war crimes. Here the thing that matters is not the proof of the motives of known happenings, but the knowledge of the facts themselves. It is certain that the war crimes due to their abominable motives were kept secret as a matter of course. The Tribunal has learned in the course of the taking of evidence of the circle of silence which was drawn around the most horrible atrocities. Other war crimes which have been made part of the indictment are individual cases which were not publicly known. In connection with the individual points we shall dwell on these accusations. basis of the Charter cannot be considered crimes. seizure of power, and the maintenance of power. These are facts that have not been denied, as a general rule. The creation of a dictatorial state and the prohibition of other Parties is a home policy measure which every state may take according to its judgment.