A. I gave my statement. No note was written on it in my presence.
Q. Was any advantage premised to you for making this report ?
A. No, you know that.
Q. I do not know. That is why I asked you.
A. No.
Q. Was there, at any time, in the German Army Medical Service, fear that the Soviet Union might use bacteria as a means of combat ?
A. Not in the Army Medical Inspectorate, but in the General Staff. In 1942, the General Staff inquired of the Army Medical Inspectorate whether the use of bacteria, as a weapon, might be expected by the enemy in the East. I, myself, wrote the answer. On the basis of intelligence reports, and the reports of the army doctors from the eastern front, and from the epidemic situation of our troops, we could give a negative answer to this fear. That was in 1942. The answer was prepared by me and signed by General Handloser. In 1939, a similar statement, which was worked out more or less to the same effect, was signed by the General Physician, Dr. Waltman.
Q. In 1943, after Stalingrad, an order for the preparation of this bacteriological warfare against Russia was issued. Do you know who issued the order to prepare this warfare. I ask you, do you know who issued this order ? It is a clear question. I ask you to answer it equally clearly.
A. It was not said at the conference who issued it.
Q. You do not know who issued the order ?
A. No.
Q. Then, you do not know or do you know the exact contents of the order ?
A. No. I did not receive any written order. The Chief of Staff of the General Wehrmacht Office said that the Reichsmarshal had been entrusted by the Fuehrer with the powers and so forth, to carry out all the preparations.
Q. And what you said about it is hearsay. You do not know it yourself ?
A. It was said officially at the conference. Of course it is not hearsay At an official conference, we who were assembled there were told that.
Q. When you were told that at this conference, what was your capacity ?
A. I was a representative of the Army Medical Inspectorate.
Q. when this suggestion was made known, what did you do, you yourself ?
A. I pointed out that bacteria were an unreliable and dangerous weapon. I did nothing else.
Q. You were an expert. Since 1942 you had been a professor ?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said nothing else ?
A. No, nothing else.
Q. Why did you not say anything else ?
A. Because we were facing a 'fait accompli'.
Q. You were told it was only to be discussed ?
A. We were told it was not to be discussed. We were told, "This situation has been decided. This decision has been made".
Q. But it was an accomplished face only if this bacteria were actually used. The preparations were merely to begin. A strong objection by a professor in his high position might have had some effect, it might have changed this ?
A. According to our experience, nothing could be done against such a decision. I pointed out that it was a dangerous and unreliable weapon.
Q. You could have stood up and made some strong protest ?
A. It would have been better if I had done it.
Q. That is enough on that point. The working group was to meet once a month in the rooms of the General Wehrmacht Office in Berlin. Do you know how many meetings took place ?
A. No. I cannot say.
Q. Do you know when the last meeting was ?
A. I cannot say that either.
Q. Were any meetings held ?
A. Yes. Meetings were held.
Q. Do you know whether there are records of these meetings ?
A. I assume so, certainly. Professor Klieve from time to time informed me
Q. Did you yourself, belong to this working group ?
A. No.
Q. When and in what way did Professor Blome receive powers from Goering to carry out the immediate practical tasks of the preparation ?
A. Immediately after this conference, perhaps even on the same day or previously for at the conference, Blome was mentioned, although it was said he was just proposed. However, two years later, I was told Blome was appointed.
Q. And how do you know that ?
A. From my direct superior. Generalarzt Schmidtbruecken.
Q. At what time did the spraying experiments from airplanes take place ?
A. I cannot say;
Q. What do you know about these experiments ?
A. The following: Bacterial emulsions were pathogenic bacterial which could be easily found when sprayed from planes on an experimental field close to the Institute at Posen.
Q. Did you, yourself, see such experiments ?
A. No.
Q. How do you know that these experiments took place ?
A. Klieve spoke to me about these spraying experiments and said to me that first a dye had been taken which had more or less the same specific weight as a bacterial emulsion, in order to test the dye, and then experiment with bacteria.
Q. Did Klieve see these experiments himself ?
A. I believe so.
Q. You cannot say for sure ?
A. I would not like to swear to it, but it is very very probably.
Q. You say that at this conference in July 1943, that a colonel was acting for Fieldmarshall Keitel and General Reinecke ?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know that ?
A. I personally reported to General Handloser, and Handloser expressed his opinion about the matter to me. It was an extremely dangerous matter for us doctors if it actually came about, if a plague epidemic came into existence. The plague epidemic would not stop at the border, but it would come over to our side. We had to bear a very great responsibility.
Q. You have deviated a little. We will come back to this point. I wanted to know whether you can give any facts to prove that the High Command of the Army was informed ?
A. No. I cannot.
Q. It is a pure assumption, then ?
A. Yes. But it is quite obvious -
Q. Whether it is obvious or not, I want to know whether you know of any facts ?
A. No, I cannot give any facts.
Q. To whom was Professor Handloser subordinate ?
A. He had a triple relationship. He was Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical System, and in that capacity, he was under Fieldmarshal Keitel of the OKW. He was Army Medical Inspector; in this capacity, he was under the command of the Replacement Army under Generaloberst Fromm, and later Himmler and Jeuttner.
Q. You were also questioned about the reasons why this bacteriological warfare was not carried out. What reasons did you learn of positively ?
A. The head of the Institute at Posen, Professor Blome reported this to me when he visited me. He expressed his plight.
Q. Do you, yourself, know whether a military Command Authority gave the positive order that this bacteriological warfare was not only to be prepared but was also to be carried out ?
A. No, I did not see that order.
Q. Then this was merely preparation -
A. Preparation of bacteriological warfare was what I said.
Q. As a high-placed General, did you, yourself, speak about this bacteriological warfare ?
A. No.
Q. Do you know from your own knowledge whether any high-placed General knew of these intentions ? I am asking you whether you know it ?
A. I was not there when a General was informed about it.
Q. Then you do not knew.
A. No.
Q. Do you know how far apart the enemy troops and cur troops were ?
A. What differed a great deal.
Q. What was the normal distance ?
A. I am not a front soldier. I would not lime to speak on a subject of which I know nothing.
from our own troops. Would you, as a doctor, consider the employment of plague bacteria safe and not dangerous for our own troops? of plage bacteria always dangerous. ally existed. Would that not have meant an enormous danger for our troops?
A Not only for the troops, for the whole German people; the refugees were moving from east to west. The plague would have spread with immense speed.
THE PRESIDENT: It is useless to ask the same question over again. The witness has already said so. BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q May that not have been one of the reasons why this warfare was not used?
AAccording to the statements which Mr. Blome, the head of the institute and deputy of the Reichsmarshal, made to me, no. He was, with all his energy, trying to cultivate his cultures somewhere else.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, may I ask for the recess now and ask a few more questions of the witness later?
THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal thinks you should finish now. BY DR. LATERNSER: prisoners of war were shot because an epidemic had broken out among them. You say that this was a labour camp of the Waffen SS.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
Q This incident was reported to you?
Q Did you report it to your superior?
A Yes/
Q What was done? Grawitz, and through these official channels the affair was reported to the office which was the supervisory agency for this camp.
Q Do you know whetherrany juridicial steps were taken?
A I do not know of the proceedings of the SS courts; I do not know.
Q Then you write on Page 7: Especially terrible treatment was given to the Russian prisoners of war by the High command of the Wehrmacht, . Then you write that the Russian prisoners of war were given inadequate food. immediately after the capture in the reception camps behind the front or in prison camps in Germany? camps. There, even with the best intentions, the state which has taken the prisoners is not always able to care for them as would be necessary. I am speaking of a later period when the prisoners had been for works in the hands of the Germans and I am speaking of camps which were in the Baltic countries. They were not taken to Germany. The Russian prisoners were brought to Germany only later. The conditions in these camps were extremely poor.
Q Were these poor conditions due to bad intentions?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal did not allow the statement to be put in and you are now cross examining upon a subject which is totally distin*--* from the subjects upon which the witness has given evidence.
DR. LATERNSER: These statements are in the written declaration of the witness
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you must have heard that we did not allow the written statement to be put in as evidence. We asked that the witness should be examined orally and he was examined orally and the written statement is not yet in evidence BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q I have one more question, Witness. Your objections against this bacteriological warfare, did you ever write them down?
Q When did you make this statement?
A In '42, -
Q Now, that is enough. The conference took place in July, '43. Did you express your opinion on this point in writing afterwards?
Q Did your superior, after you reported to him, write down his objections?
A Not that I know of. General Handloser was in the headquarters and I in Berlin. He came once a week or once every two weeks, we reported to him, and then he went back to the headquarters.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken.) Take 7. Ninabuck.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we continue I will deal with three applications. First of all, the application, of Dr. Kaufmann of the 20th of August, 1946. It appears originally to have been dated the 15th of August. That application will be granted, and an affidavit by the witness Panzinger may be put in evidence, provided it is put in evidence before the end of the trial.
With reference to the application by Dr. Pelckmann dated originally the 22nd of August, 1946, the applications is denied.
The two applications by Dr. Dix dated the 20th and the 21st of august, both applications are denied.
Now, is there any further cross examination on behalf of the Defense?
Does the Soviet desire to reexamine?
COLONEL POKROVSKY: The questioning on the part of the Soviet Prosecution has been exhausted, Mr. President. We have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may retire.
****************
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Pelckmann.
DR. PELCKMANN: First, I should like to make reference to two points. In the letter of the 23rd of August I had announced that my plea cannot be translated. Secondly, I should like to recall to the attention of the Tribunal that the-
THE PRESIDENT: Sixty pages of it have already been translated, I understand.
26 Aug M LJG 8-1 Blakley
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes. The French translation, however, has not been made yet; and furthermore I beg to point out to the Tribunal that concerning the answers to the questionnaire which I have sent to the witness Rauschnigg, these answers have not been received yet. 27th of February, 1933, the German Reichstag was consumed by fire, the Nazis willed that out of those flames the thousand years of the Third Reich should be born. When, a little more than twelve years later, all of Germany was drowned in an ocean of flames, that Reich vanished into rubble and ruins.
Both of those historic events were followed by trials. Their meaning was and is to determine those responsible for those two crimes of human history.
The Germans Supreme Court did not solve that task. It is true that it acquitted with remarkable braveness, as Mr. Jackson has stated, the indicted Communists, but it failed to determine and certainly to sentence those who were really guilty, who hired the unfortunate tool, van der Lubbe, and who performed the deed with him. Thus, under the impact of public opinion, the truth has been muzzled and has been concealed by the Nazi Government. Formal justice has been satisfied. The culprit had been sentenced, but that Divine power, Truth, and the deepest human insight -- they remained hidden. They alone would have been able to open the eyes of the German people at that time and had the power to hold it back from the abyss. task of passing judgment. Whose guilt was that world conflagration? Who was responsible for the destruction of foreign lands and finally for the infernal downfall of our German Fatherland? and again there exists the danger that this Court too should pass merely a formal verdict, naming guilty ones -- but that the deepest and last truth should remain hidden by the power of psychosis which, in accordance with the law of psychology and psycho-analysis, would be the natural consequence of the many 26 Aug M LJG 8-2 Blakley years of struggle between the Hitler regime and the free peoples of the world.
Germany and all the world, from an abyss deeper and more horrible than anything experienced before?
This trial is a criminal trial. It is truly the greatest as far as the number of defendants and people concerned, and above all, the most important which ever was recorded by legal history, Therefore, it followed that Anglo Saxon legal principle which governed the Charter, which was reaffirmed during the public proceedings, that the prosecution had to collect and to present only those factors which could discriminate, never those that could excuse the accused. Effectively, the prosecution is supported by the mass psychosis to which all the witnesses of the greatest "cause celebre" of world history are subject, for reasons which international scientists, particularly le Bon, have given in detail. Openly and cheerfully I confess that in the course of the defense which I conducted, I did not use the corresponding principle of painting black on white. I too was endangered by the possible mass suggestion exerted by those hundreds of thousands of voices which reached me from the internment camps, and I was tempted to defend at any price, -- losing by that, that basis of facts, as they actually were. This result shows already the dangerous reaction brought about by such a mass accusation and its political consequences. painting the high Tribunal would have been betrayed in its search for the real truth. I did not see my task in doing so, although the principles of the charter would have given me the right of doing so. In such a trial, concerned with the very basis of humanity, with the demonstration of innocence and guilt, with the fate of the German people and the future of the world, it cannot be left to the cleverness of methods in the contradicting use of 26 Aug M LJG 8-3 Blakley prosecution and defense to expect the Tribunal to decide that the truth might be situated in between.
It could not be the task of the defense to gain tactical successes by emphasizing the one and suppressing the other complex - nay, incorruptibly we have to find clarity, - 'Clarte', as demanded by the fanatic seeker for truth, Henry Barbusse. That is the rule in accordance with which I selected my witnesses - I particularly remind you of Reinecke and Morgen, the evidence of whom I shall evaluate later. the historic truth. ful German medieval proverb, "Those things that happened cannot be reversed." occurred based on the impossibility to reverse it, - there is even a deeper sense in it:
Past events do not stand nor tolerate a retrospective study; that means no deed can correctly be grasped and understood if speculated upon ex post. No, one has to look at it as it offered itself to the contemporaries at the time of its performance, from the beginning to the end. end the person who accomplished it as well as the psychological situation at the time of its performance. The judges must familiarize themselves most thoroughly with the personality of the perpetrator to judge the extent of his guilt.
This is equally true for this trial. Nations judge another nation; the family of peoples judges one people which has brought deep suffering to the world, a state which has committed crimes against humanity. In the organizations there have been indicted huge units, large sectors of the German people have been put on the dock, and therefore it seems necessary that the judges of these millions of people acquaint themselves most thoroughly with the lives, the knowledge, the hopes and beliefs of these masses at the very moment when the ideas and accomplishments of National Socialism were effective and its criminal excesses were beginning.
Hence, the judges of the four largest, and for the decision of this world war most important nation as of all the world, will have to make the attempt to decide - just as in the case before any normal jury - "How did it come that the deed was performed? In what situation did the defendants find themselves at that time? Which speculations and sentiments did drive them to commit the act? Did they have at all the intention of doing anything illegal? Is it possible that they themselves were deceived? Were they at all able to recognize the illegal nature of their doing and if they learned of it only gradually-- were they in a position to adjust their action in accordance with that insight?" It is extremely difficult even for the judge in a normal trial to free himself from the ex post reflection and to evaluate correctly the circumstances of the deed, the milieu of the deed, and the personality of the one who performed it. How exorbitant are the demands for justice put before the judge when he has to judge people who have transgresses just again his, the judge's family. Every nation contributing to this jury has suffered tremendous damages by the crimes of the Nazi regime for which millions of members of the organizations have to account now. But in accordance with the statements made by Justice Jackson in his opening speech, I venture to hope that you, High Tribunal, will succeed in performing this titanic undertaking to be free of feelings of revenge and rather to seek justice and nothing but justice. Will you, as non-Germans, who have not personally lived through the unique historic phenomena of a mass-psychosis and a tyranny of continental extent,-- Can you be able at all to grasp and to explain to yourself how something of that kind could happen? Can ported by them that is, the masses,-- nay, not even known by them?
The Charter rightly stated that the Tribunal acted accordingly; that it could not be the task of this court to ascertain which inner causes had led to this war, with or without justification. The decisive question is only: Was it an aggressive war? Nevertheless, even in the case of the individual defendants, proof was admitted as to how the historic development physchologically conducted them since the first World War to this now murder of nations.
With even far greater justification one has to demand that in the case of establishing the guilt and the crime of the organizations just in their very beginnings, one should exam the historical background, the political total situation in and around German. The masses have no clear thoughts or sentiments. They are moved by dark emotion emanations of a phenomenon which the scientists have called "mass-soul". It is formed by the pictures and promises offered by their leaders. stressed how gigantic their guilt and the consequences of their acts could become just by the clever use of the masses, by seducing the very sould of the people, by the glistening magic of slogans and the promise of an utopian development. I not those very words give the host proof for the fact that the masses of member desired only the goo and the non-criminal? were identical with the program of the NSDAP. Not only before this Tribunal one has discussed the question whether that program and the means ans methods of it realization were criminal. This problem concerned the public, the authorities of the German Republic, and the best heads and hearts of our people throughout mar years before 1933. Were it motives of a criminal nature when the masses follow our politicians, who did not promise them easy plundering expeditions at home and abroad, but rather work and bread, when they rallied them to national unity as contrasted to the pellmell of a parliamentary system scorned by forty-one parti*---* a democracy which killed itself by weakness and half measures? It is the German people's deep tragedy that it could not sublimate its insight, that it came late when the fortunes of the world were distributed by strengthen' and improving its recognized position in the world of intellect and applied sciences. The German is a romantic - particularly in the field of politics. This romanticism circles around vague concepts of fate and deem and the dream of and power in the "Holy Roman Empire of Germans" of a thousand years ago. This belief in destiny has been supported by an absolutely incorrect discription of German history for more than a hundred years and therefore one needed only a skillful sorcerer who again sent millions of German youth into death and destruction by suppressing the real facts.
more important than those taught foreign countries which did not yet matter. Due to the fault of all large political parties and their armies, so well as the weakness of the republican administration, the inner political life had changed to an ever-increasing degree into a real state of war in the streets. Nevertheless, the secret parliamentary elections were carried through without terror or deceit. Through these elections the citizen could observe a steady increase of strength of the extreme parties of the Bight and of the Left. He could not consider it a crime to join the extreme party of the Right, the NSDAP, or its SS, who in contrast to the SA, which ruled the streets, mainly was concerned with the protection of the speakers during the fraternal warfare carried on among the political adversaries of those days. the problem was discussed, whether the NSDAP and its formations planned any undertakings which had the character of high treason, or which aimed at the revolutionary change of the government. In 1923, in the early days of the party, Hitler had attempted a coup d'etat which had failed. Now, since, many years, he advocated "legality". When In September 1930, three young officers of the 100,000 men army were indicted before the German Supreme Court for treasonable activities by having planned nationalsocialist cells in the army, Hitler as a witness testified under oath that his revolution was one of the spirit and that he aimed to seize power by legal means. This news went through all papers in bold lines and in that manner, it entered both the heads of the enemies and the followers of Hitler. Dr. Kempner, then Oberrogierungsrat in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior, new a member of the American Prosecution, was one of the few who considered that oath perjury. He submitted to his Ministry a detailed report, concluding that the NSDAP was guilty of high treason.
But even that seeker of truth had to admit in this description of the situation as it existed then (Volume XIII, No. 2, June, 1945, "Research Studies of the State College of Washington", Page 120) that oven high ministerial officials of the German Republic did not consider Hitler a liar at that time, 1930. That was hew Hitler's clever propaganda influenced such critical, hostile circles. Should one be surprised that the masses of the SS put their trust in him. Incidentally, there were only a few thousand of them. Yes, matters went even farther. When Dr. Kempner accused the Nazi Party in 1930, the highest state attorney with the supreme court decided in August, 1932, that there existed no reason to prosecute or dissolve it. (Compare Kempner's study, Page 133) What were the results caused by such opinions voiced by the highest authorities of the republic as far as them asses were concerned? They were expressed by ever-increasing election returns for the Nazis. importance for the inner attitude of those thousands who joined the SS just after January 30, 1933--that Hitler actually did not break his oath. Although it is quite true that Dr. Kempner's prophesies in regard to the further development were correct in general -- this one recognized only much later -- he was at the very beginning mistaken with his predictions The Nazi Party actually remained a legal one, it seized power not by a coup d'etat, but Hitler was asked to form a cabinet by Hindenburg in accordance with parliamentary rules. refused believing the pessimist, Dr. Kempner? Is it not likely that they believed that they had been right? Was it not that their conscience was quieted? After all, that man Hitler was not as bad as people had said. Now, after he had entered the government he would become a moderate -as every opposition after gaining power. And was it not true, too, that the great mass of Hitler's followers was proud that they had seized power by peaceful means after an election fight of almost American proportions?
Considering that period of time one question inevitably arises: was the mass of Hitler's followers, or the mass of SS-men at that time able to recognize that that point of the Party Program which probably was the clearest one, anti-Semitism, contained a criminal element?
Anti-Semitism is not a new phenomenon; it is also, if one studies its intellectual bases, nothing typically German. In my opinion it is based on the feeling of inferiority of the average man, on his lack of self-trust caused by the Jews' superiority in certain intellectual fields. Equally it is true that the refutation of anti-Semitism by all civilized nations and individuals is nothing new; it culminated in the Pope's statement, "The one who discriminates between Jews and other human beings does not believe in God and is in conflice with the Divine Commands." But the enigma which we cannot pass by when discussing the question of criminality is that there exists at all a Jewish problem which is not based on religious differences, but on race. Yes, the enigma is that there still exists a race problem which leads continuously to conflicts in our modern world which has grown so small. Isn't it puzzling that the Polish Cardinal Hlond, who went through all the horrors of the Nazi regime, only a few weeks ago tried to justify to some extent Polish anti-Semitism by referring to the leading role played by Jews in the Polish government? Isn't it puzzling that even today, after the horrible experiences of the Hitler regime the Arabs act against the Jews in their traditional homeland, Palestine, and particularly against their influx and that acts of violence should result from that opposition? The situation is similar in Europe. Race problems, not only anti-Semitism, still exist in all other corners of the globe.
only in granting equal rights to all races. Some progressive nations have made anti-Semitism a criminal offense. But was it criminal when the society, the state under *---* those mad illusions, at that time tried solution. prohibiting the mixture of races and their influencing public life? Again much has to be explained on the basis of events of these days. The peer exam*--* given by a few Jewish immigrants from Eastern European countries, as the notorious swindlers Barmat and Kutisker, stood in opposition to that of the Great German Jew and the unforgotten statesman, Walter Rathenau, who long ago had issued to his brethern a call to their moral consciousness. This situation offered the basis for a collective mood, for a mass psychosis against the Jews, supported by the external economic calamities as it reoccurs always in the course of great Political and social upheavals, and as it threatens just in the cause of this present trial to create again a new collective injustice against certain categories of people.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, I do not want to interrupt you, but you will not lose sight of the fact that you are only going to be allowed half a day for the speech, and I observe that it is said to occupy 100 pages, and I only interrupt you at the present stage to point out to you that the matters which you are dealing with now are matters of a general nature and to which our attention has been drawn throughout the course of this trial, and it may be in your interest to shorten this part of your speech rather than other parts of it. That's the only reason why I interrupted you now.
DR. PELCKMANN: Yes, Your Lordship, I have already considered abbreviating the speech. could not have appeared as a crime because it appeared that its application guaranteed by the state would be carried out without hate and personal revenge. To some extent it was merely the transfer of the American legal resolutions concerning immigration quotas to the European scone. Hitler's most trusted confidant, Rauschning, reveals in his book, "Hitler Speaks", page 91, that his inner-most intention was hate; the masses could not as certain that.
Concealed remained that hate which emerged from the feeling of inferiority of the one who recognized the superiority of the penetrating intellect over dark impulses. The SS-men learned of anti-Semitism only as the other side of race eugenics which was emphasized. By a skillful use of the historic emotions difficult to understand for the non-European and which were connected with the terms "Ordensprinzip", "Maennerbuende", and "Sippengemeinschaft" -- I refer to documents SS Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the twisted romanticism in modern clothe to be found there -- Hitler endeavored to create in the SS a group of men which by attitude and self-discipline represented an "elite" for purposes of most intensive breeding of the own people. This tendency, though very remote to modern Europeans, or cosmopolitians, yet might hardly he called criminal -- I am referring to occasional questions asked by the High Tribunal -- and it did exclude automatically an anti-Semitic tendency of the nature of the "Stuermer" or even of the brand of the less vulgar SA.
It is significant indeed that the indictment has not charged the SS with one single case of brutality towards Jews before 1933. The so-called "Leithefte", the monthly publication of the SS, and the evidence given before the Commission by witness Schwalm concerning the training of the SS clarify the reserved position of the SS toward the Jewish question. Later it was reaffirmed by the non-participation by the SS in the anti-Jewish pogroms of 1933 which I described in other connection. I shall also demonstrate how the atrocities committed during the war against Jews and the mass killings were in conflict with the original tendency of the SS and how they were made possible by direct secret orders of Hitler and Himmler through criminal individuals and groups and how they were kept secret as far as masses of SS members is concerned. as a matter of course, I would like to pick out only the elimination of the Wersailles Treaty, and the demand for living space because these two could be decisive for the later supposed preparation of an aggressive war. The prosecution stated with not a single word how at so early a stage the mass of SS members could assume that those demands were criminal, that means that they should be accomplished by an aggressive war. of his SS men by his legal assumption of power but how he acquired the trust of such new men who never had followed him on a criminal read. May I respectfully request the High Tribunal to read the evidence which State Secretary Grauert made before the Commission to learn how a man with the best intentions entered the Hitler administration and the SS, and how he left it not before 1936 when he as an experienced legal administrator realized that the suspension of the historic principle of the separation of powers was bound to corrupt the state basically.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you spell that name you mentioned?
DR. PELCKMANN: G-R-A-U-E-R-T, Grauert.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. PELCKMANN: That thing which he as an expert realized - only in 1936 - remained hidden to the masses. For that reason please read the summary of approximately 136,000 affidavits which show why the membership of the General SS increased from 50,000 on 30 January 1933 to approximately 300,000 within a few months.
Hitler's great gamble for power, and with it the tremendous betrayal of the German people, only begins - as paradox as it may sound - after the so-called seizure of power. After one month of triumph over the Chancellory, and this parliamentary revolution in the course of which, no doubt, excesses and crimes have occurred with which the mass cannot be incriminated under premeditated planning. The pro-requisite is being created for the final elimination of all opponents; the burning of the German Reichstag. The prosecution does not assert that the German people, the members of the organizations, the SS men, know or even assumed that this arson was decided among the rank of the Nazis and was carried through by the Brown Shirts by using the tool of van der Lubbe. Such an assertion would, of course, be absurd. 1933, filled the ranks of the SS and formed four-fifths of their strength, one must recall the Reichstag speech of Hitler of the 17th of March 1933. A large part of the opposition was eliminated after the fire by prohibiting the Communist Party and arresting many of their members which was approved by the enraged population because of their alleged participation in the arson involving high treason. Law upholding all parliamentary formalities, the Social Democratic members of the Reichstag asserted that this Law was undermining the security of justice. mad devilry when Hitler answered the following in reply: "I really must say that had we not possessed an understanding of justice, then we would not be sitting here and you would not be sitting there ---Gentlemen, it would not have been necessary for us to embark on this election, nor would it have been necessary to call in the Reichstag."