Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal_ Nuremburg_ 14 November 1945-1 October 1946_ Volume 02 Various 1155 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Trial of the Major War
Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal,
Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 02
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of
the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will
have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using
this eBook.

Title: Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military
Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946,
Volume 02

Author: Various

Release date: April 28, 2016 [eBook #51882]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/51882

Credits: Produced by Larry Harrison, Cindy Beyer and the online
Project Gutenberg team at
http://www.pgdpcanada.net with images provided by The
Internet Archives-US

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIAL OF THE
MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL
MILITARY TRIBUNAL, NUREMBURG, 14 NOVEMBER 1945-1
OCTOBER 1946, VOLUME 02 ***

TRIAL
OF

THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS
BEFORE

THE INTERNATIONAL
MILITARY TRIBUNAL
NUREMBERG
14 NOVEMBER 1945-1 OCTOBER 1946

P U B L I S H E D AT N U R E M B E R G , G E R M A N Y
1947

This volume is published in accordance with the
direction of the International Military Tribunal by
the Secretariat of the Tribunal, under the jurisdiction
of the Allied Control Authority for Germany.

VOLUME II

OFFICIAL TEXT
IN THE

ENGLISH LANGUAGE

PROCEEDINGS

14 November 1945-30 November 1945

CONTENTS

Preliminary Hearing, Wednesday, 14 November 1945 1

Preliminary Hearing, Thursday, 15 November 1945 18

Preliminary Hearing, Saturday, 17 November 1945 26

First Day, Tuesday, 20 November 1945,
Morning Session 29
Afternoon Session 57

Second Day, Wednesday, 21 November 1945,
Morning Session 95
Afternoon Session 118

Third Day, Thursday, 22 November 1945,
Morning Session 156
Afternoon Session 178

Fourth Day, Friday, 23 November 1945,
Morning Session 203
Afternoon Session 226

Fifth Day, Monday, 26 November 1945,
Morning Session 254
Afternoon Session 277

Sixth Day, Tuesday, 27 November 1945,
Morning Session 302
Afternoon Session 323

Seventh Day, Wednesday, 28 November 1945,
Morning Session 348
Afternoon Session 375

Eighth Day, Thursday, 29 November 1945,
Morning Session 394
Afternoon Session 417

Ninth Day, Friday, 30 November 1945,
Morning Session 435
Afternoon Session 456

PRELIMINARY HEARING
Wednesday, 14 November 1945

THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Lawrence): Is Counsel for Gustav
Krupp von Bohlen in Court?
DR. THEODOR KLEFISCH (Counsel for Defendant Krupp von
Bohlen): Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to make your motion now?
DR. KLEFISCH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you make your motion?
DR. KLEFISCH: Mr. President, gentlemen: As defense counsel for
Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, I repeat the request which has already been
made in writing, to suspend the proceedings against this defendant, at any
rate, not to carry out the Trial against this defendant. I leave it to this High
Court to decide whether it should suspend proceedings against Krupp for
the time being or altogether.
According to the opinion of the specialists, who were appointed by this
Court for the investigation of the illness of Krupp, Krupp von Bohlen und
Halbach is not able, on account of his serious illness, to appear at this Trial
without danger to his life. Their opinion is that he is suffering from an
organic disturbance of the brain and that mental decline makes the
defendant incapable of reacting normally to his surroundings.
From that it follows that Krupp is not capable of informing his defense.
Furthermore, the report states that the deterioration of his physical and
mental powers has already been going on for several years and that since
Krupp was involved in an auto accident on 4 December 1944, he can only
speak a few disconnected words now and again, and during the last two

months has not even been able to recognize his relatives and friends. On the
basis of these facts one can only establish that Krupp has no knowledge of
the serving of the Indictment of 19 October. Thus he does not know that he
is accused and why.
The question now arises whether, in spite of this permanent inability to
appear for trial, in spite of this inability to inform his defense, and in spite
of his not knowing of the Indictment and its contents, Krupp can be tried in
absentia. Article 12 of the Charter gives the right to the Tribunal to take
proceedings against people who are absent, under two conditions: First, if
the accused cannot be found; second, if the Tribunal, for other reasons,
thinks it is necessary in the interests of justice, to try him in absentia. Since
the first condition, impossibility of finding the defendant, is immediately
eliminated, it must be examined whether the second condition can be
applied, that is, whether it is necessary, in the interests of justice, to try
Krupp.
The Defense is of the opinion that justice does not demand a trial
against Krupp in absentia, that this would even be contrary to justice. I
want to quote the following reasons: The decision on this question must
come from the concept of justice in the sense of Article 12 of the Charter.
We must take into account here that the 12th Article is purely a regulation
concerning procedure. The question arises, however, whether the Trial
against Krupp in his absence would be a just procedure. In my opinion, a
just procedure is only then given if it is, as a whole or in its particular
regulations, fashioned in such a way that an equitable judgment is
guaranteed. That is a judgment whereby the convicted defendant will be
punished accordingly and the innocent exonerated from guilt and
punishment.
Is it possible that a just judgment can be guaranteed if a defendant is
tried in absentia, who through no fault of his own, cannot appear and
defend himself, who cannot inform his defense counsel, and who does not
even know that he is accused and for what reason? To ask this question is to
deny it. Even the regulations of the Charter concerning the rights of the
defendant in the preliminary procedure and in the main Trial, oblige us to
answer this question with “no”.
The following regulations are applicable here:
According to Article 16 (a), the accused shall receive a copy of the
Indictment before the Trial.

According to Article 16 (b), the defendant in the preliminary procedure,
and in the main Trial, has the right to declare his own position in the face of
each accusation.
According to Article 16 (c), a preliminary interrogation of the defendant
should take place.
According to Article 16 (d), the defendant shall decide whether he
wishes to defend himself or to have somebody else defend him.
According to Article 16 (e), the defendant has the right to submit
evidence himself and to cross-examine each witness.
The Defendant Krupp could not make use of any of these rights.
According to Article 24 the same also applies to the special rights,
which have been accorded the defendants for the main Trial: The defendant
should declare his position in the main Trial, that is, whether he pleads
guilty or not.
In my opinion, this is a declaration which is extremely significant for
the course of the Trial and of the decision, and the defendant can only do
this in persona. I do not know whether it is admissible that Defense Counsel
may make this declaration of “guilty” or “not guilty” for the defendant, and
even if this were admissible, Defense Counsel would not be able to make
this declaration because he had no opportunity to come to any
understanding with the defendant.
Finally, the accused, who is not present, cannot exercise his right of a
final plea.
The Charter, which has decreed so many and such decisive regulations
for the rights of the defendant, thereby recognizes that the personal exercise
of these rights which were granted to the accused is an important source of
knowledge for the finding of an equitable judgment, and that a trial against
such a defendant, who is incapable of exercising these rights through no
fault of his own, cannot be recognized as a just procedure in the sense of
Article 12.
I should like to go further, however, by saying that the procedure in
absentia against Krupp, would be contrary to justice, not only according to
the provisions of the Charter but also according to the generally recognized
principles of the law of procedure of civilized states.
So far as I am informed, no law of procedure of a continental state
permits a court procedure against somebody who is absent, mentally
deranged, and completely incapable of arguing his case. According to the

German Law of Procedure, the trial must be postponed in such a case
(Paragraph 205 of the German Code of Criminal Law). If prohibiting the
trial of a defendant, who is incapable of being tried, is a generally
recognized principle of procedure (principe général de droit reconnu par
des nations civilisées) in the sense of Paragraph 38 (c) of the Statute of the
International Court in The Hague, then a tribunal upon which the attention
of the whole world is, and the attention of future generations will be
directed, cannot ignore this prohibition.
The foreign press, which in the last days and weeks has repeatedly been
concerned with the law of the Charter, almost unanimously stresses that the
formal penal procedure must not deviate from the customs and regulations
of a fair trial, as is customary in civilized countries; but it does not object,
as far as the penal code is concerned, to a departure from the principles
recognized heretofore, because justice and high political considerations
demand the establishment of a new international criminal code with
retroactive effect in order to be able to punish war criminals.
I wish to add another point here, which may be important for the
decision on the question discussed. This High Court would naturally not be
able to acquire an impression of the personality of Krupp, an impression
which in such an extraordinarily significant trial is a valuable means of
perception, which cannot be underestimated for the judgment of the
incriminating evidence. If, in the Charter, trial in absentia is permitted on
principle against defendants who cannot be located, then corresponding
laws of procedure of all states, and even of the German Code of Criminal
Procedure agree to that.
A defendant who has escaped is absolutely different from a defendant
who cannot argue his case, because in contrast to the latter, he has the
possibility of appearing in court and thus, of defending himself. If he
deliberately avoids this possibility, then he arbitrarily makes himself
responsible for the disadvantages and dangers entailed by his absence. In
this case, naturally, there would be no question of an unjust trial.
The view has been expressed in recent days and weeks that world
opinion demands a trial against the Defendant Krupp under all
circumstances, and even in absentia, because Krupp is the owner of the
greatest German armament works and also one of the principal war
criminals. So far as this demand of world opinion is based on the
assumption that Krupp is one of the principal war criminals, it must be

replied that this accusation is as yet only a thesis of the Prosecution, which
must first be proved in the Trial.
The essential thing, however, in my opinion, is that it is not important
whether world opinion or, perhaps, to use an expression forged in the Nazi
work-shop, “the healthy instincts of the people,” or even political
considerations play a part in the decision of this question, but that the
question (Article 12) must be decided uniquely from the point of view of
whether justice demands the trial against Krupp. I do not want to deny that
the cries of justice may be the same as the cries echoing world opinion.
However, the demands of world opinion and the demands of justice may be
in contradiction to each other.
In the present case, however, a contradiction between the demands of
world opinion for a trial against Krupp in absentia and the demands of
justice exists because, as I just related, it would violate the recognized
principles of the legal procedures of all states and especially Article 12 of
the Charter, to try a mentally deranged man who cannot defend himself in a
trial in which everything is at stake for the defendant,—his honor, his
existence, and above all, the question of whether he belongs to the accursed
circle of the arch-war criminals who brought such frightful misery to
humanity and to their own Fatherland. I do not even wish, however, to put
the disadvantages and dangers for the man and the interests of the defendant
into the foreground. Much more significant are the dangers and
disadvantages of such an unusual procedure for basic justice, because the
procedure against such a defendant, who is unfit for trial due to his total
inability to conduct his defense properly, cannot guarantee a just and right
decision. This danger for basic justice, must, in my opinion, be avoided by a
court of such unequalled world historical importance, which has assumed
the noble and holy task, by punishment of the war criminals, of preventing
the repetition of such a horrible war as the second World War and of
opening the gates to permanent peace for all peoples of the earth.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, do you oppose the motion?
MR. JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief of Counsel for the
United States): Appearing in opposition to this motion, I should, perhaps,
first file with the Tribunal my commission from President Truman to
represent the United States in this proceeding. I will exhibit the original
commission and hand a photostat to the Secretary.

I also speak in opposition to this motion on behalf of the Soviet Union
and with the concurrence of the French Delegation which is present. I fully
appreciate the difficulties which have been presented to this Tribunal in a
very loyal fashion by the distinguished representative of the German legal
profession who has appeared to protect the interests of Krupp, and nothing
that I say in opposing this motion is to imply any criticism of Counsel for
Krupp who is endeavoring to protect the interest of his client, as it is his
duty to do, but he has a client whose interests are very clear.
We represent three nations of the earth, one of which has been invaded
three times with Krupp armaments, one of which has suffered in this war in
the East as no people have ever suffered under the impact of war, and one
of which has twice crossed the Atlantic to put at rest controversies insofar
as its contribution could do so, which were stirred by German militarism.
The channel by which this Tribunal is to interpret the Charter in reference to
this matter is the interest of justice, and it cannot ignore the interests that are
engaged in the Prosecution any more than it should ignore the interests of
Krupp.
Of course, trial in absentia has great disadvantages. It would not comply
with the constitutional standard for citizens of the United States in
prosecutions conducted in our country. It presents grave difficulties to
counsel under the circumstances of this case. Yet, in framing the Charter,
we had to take into account that all manner of avoidances of trial would be
in the interests of the defendants, and therefore, the Charter authorized trial
in absentia when in the interests of justice, leaving this broad generality as
the only guide to the Court’s discretion.
I do not suggest that Counsel has overstated his difficulties, but the
Court should not overlook the fact that of all the defendants at this Bar,
Krupp is unquestionably in the best position, from the point of view of
resources and assistance, to be defended. The sources of evidence are not
secret. The great Krupp organization is the source of most of the evidence
that we have against him and would be the source of any justification.
When all has been said that can be said, trial in absentia still remains a
difficult and an unsatisfactory method of trial, but the question is whether it
is so unsatisfactory that the interests of these nations in arraigning before
your Bar the armament and munitions industry through its most eminent
and persistent representative should be defeated. In a written answer, with
which I assume the members of the Tribunal are familiar, the United States

has set forth the history of the background of the Defendant Krupp, which
indicates the nature of the public interest that pleads for a hearing in this
case.
I will not repeat what is contained beyond summarizing that for over
130 years the Krupp enterprise has flourished by furnishing the German
military machine its implements of war. During the interval between the
two world wars, the present defendant, Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach,
was the responsible manager, and during that time his son, his eldest son,
Alfried, was initiated into the business in the expectation that he would
carry on this tradition. The activities were not confined to filling orders by
the Government. The activities included the active participation in the
incitement to war, the active breaking up through Germany’s withdrawal of
a disarmament conference and the League of Nations; the active political
campaigning in support of the Nazi program of aggression in its entirety.
It was not without profit to the Krupp enterprises, and we have recited
the spectacular rise of its profits through aiding to prepare Germany for
aggressive war. So outstanding were these services that this enterprise was
made an exception to the nationalization policy and was perpetuated by
Nazi decrees as a family enterprise in the hands of the eldest son, Alfried.
Now it seems to us that in a trial in which we seek to establish the
principle juridically, as it has been established by treaties, conventions, and
international custom, that the incitement of an aggressive war is a crime, it
would be unbelievable that the enterprise which I have outlined to you
should be omitted from consideration.
Three of the prosecuting nations ask the permission of this Tribunal
immediately to file an amendment to the Indictment, which will add the
name of Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach at each point in the
Indictment after the name of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen, and that the
Tribunal make immediate service of the Indictment on son Alfried, now
reported to be in the hands of the British Army of the Rhine.
I have to face the problem whether this will cause delay. All of the
nations at your Bar deplore delay. None deplore it more than I, who have
long been active in this task, but if the task in which we are engaged is
worth doing at all, it is worth doing well; and I do not see how we can
justify the placing of our convenience or a response to an uninformed
demand for haste ahead of doing this task thoroughly. I know there is
impatience to be on with the trial, but I venture to say that very few

litigations in the United States involving one plaintiff and one defendant
under local transactions in a regularly established court come to trial in 8
months after the event, and 8 months ago the German Army was in
possession of this room and in possession of the evidence that we have now.
So we make no apology for the time that has been taken in getting together
a case which covers a continent, a decade of time, and the affairs of most of
the nations of the earth.
We do not think the addition of Alfried Krupp need delay this Trial by
the usual allowance of time to the defendant. The work already done on
behalf of Krupp von Bohlen would no doubt be available to Alfried. The
organization Krupp is the source of the documents and of most of the
evidence on which the Defense will depend. If this request of the United
States of America, the Soviet Union, and the French Republic is granted,
and Alfried Krupp is joined, we would then have no Objection to the
dismissal, which is the real substance of the motion, of the elder Krupp,
whose condition doubtless precludes his being brought to trial in person.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, may I draw your attention to
Page 5 of the written statement of the United States? At the bottom of Page
5 you say, “the prosecutors representing the Soviet Union, the French
Republic, and the United Kingdom unanimously oppose inclusion of
Alfried Krupp”, and then you go on to say on the fourth line of Page 6,
“immediately upon service of the Indictment, learning the serious condition
of Krupp, the United States again called a meeting of prosecutors and
proposed an amendment to include Alfried Krupp. Again the proposal of the
United States was defeated by a vote of three to one.” Are you now telling
the Tribunal that there has been another meeting at which the prosecutors
have reversed their two previous decisions?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your Honor, I understand the French
Delegation has filed a statement with the Secretary of the Tribunal, which
joins in the position of the United States. I have just been called, on behalf
of the Soviet Prosecutor, General Rudenko, who is now in Moscow, to
advise us that the Soviet Delegation now joins, and I was this morning
authorized to speak in their behalf. Both those delegations desire to reduce,
as, of course, do we, any possible delay to a minimum.
I may say that the disagreement at the outset over the inclusion of
Alfried was due not to any difference of opinion as to whether this industry
should be represented in this Trial, but it was not understood that the

condition of the elder Krupp was such as would preclude his trial. It was
believed that it was. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, forgive my interrupting you,
but the words that I have just read show that the condition of Krupp was
comprehended at the time. The words are: “Immediately upon service of the
Indictment, learning of the serious condition of Krupp, the United States
again called a meeting of Prosecutors, and again the proposal of the United
States was defeated by a vote of three to one.”
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your Honor is referring to the meeting
which was held after the Indictment had been served. I am referring to the
original framing of the Indictment, so we are speaking of two different
points of time.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: It was felt that it would be very difficult to
manage a trial which included too many defendants, and that inasmuch as
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen was in, it was unnecessary to have others. When
the Indictment was served, the information came to us of his condition, and
we called the meeting. It was not then anticipated with certainty that the
Trial could not proceed. His condition was then, we knew, serious, but the
extent of it was not known to us as definitely as it is now; and it was felt by
the other three prosecuting nations at that time that it would not be
necessary to make this substitution.
In the light of what has now happened, both the Soviet Union and the
French Republic join in the position of the United States.
THE PRESIDENT: Then may I ask you how long [a] delay you suggest
should be given, if your motion for the addition of Alfried Krupp were
granted?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Of course I hesitate to say what might be
reasonable from the point of view of the defendants, but it would seem to
me that in the first place, he might be willing to step into his father’s place
without delay; but in any case that the delay should not postpone the
commencement of this trial beyond the 2d day of December, which I think
is Monday, which would enable him, it seems to me, with the work that has
been done, to prepare adequately, and would enable us to serve
immediately. If permission is granted, we can immediately make the
service; and, of course, they have already had full information of the
charges, and access to the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Is he not entitled under the Charter and the rules of
procedure to 30 days from the service of the Indictment upon him?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think the Charter makes no such
requirement, and I understand that the rules of the Court are within the
control of the Court itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you suggest that he should be given less time
than the other defendants?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have no hesitation in sponsoring that
suggestion, for the reason that the work that has already been done
presumably would be available to him; and as I have suggested, of all the
defendants, the Krupp family is in the best position to defend, from the
point of view of resources, from the point of view of the reach of their
organization; and, I am sure you will agree, they are not at all handicapped
in the ability of counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: I have one last question to put to you: Can it be in
the interest of justice to find a man guilty, who, owing to illness, is unable
to make his defense properly?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Assuming the hypothesis that Your Honor
states, I should have no hesitation in saying that it would not be in the
interests of justice to find a man guilty who cannot properly be defended. I
do not think it follows that the character of charges that we have made in
this case against Krupp, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen, cannot be properly tried
in absentia. That is an arguable question; but it can be assumed that all of
the acts which we charge him with are either documentary, or they were
public acts. We are not charging him with the sort of thing for which one
resorts to private sources. The one serious thing that seems to me, is that he
would not be able to take the stand himself in his defense, and I am not
altogether sure that he would want to do that, even if he were present.
THE PRESIDENT: But you have stated, have you not, and you would
agree, that according to the Municipal Law of the United States of America,
a man in the physical and mental condition of Krupp could not be tried.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that would be true in most of the
jurisdictions.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Mr. Attorney General.
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS (Chief Prosecutor for the United
Kingdom): May it please you, Mr. President: The matters which I desire to

submit to the Tribunal can be shortly stated, and first amongst them I should
say this: There is no kind of difference of principle between myself and my
colleagues, representing the other three prosecution Powers, none
whatsoever. Our difference is as to method and as to procedure. In the view
of the British Government, this Trial has been enough delayed, and matters
ought now to proceed without further postponement.
Before I say anything in regard to the application which is before the
Tribunal, on behalf of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen, may I say just one word
about our position in regard to industrialists generally. Representing, as I
do, the present British Government, it may be safely assumed by the
Tribunal that I am certainly not less anxious than the representatives of any
other state the part played by industrialists in the preparation and conduct of
the war should be fully exposed to the Tribunal and to the world. That will
be done, and that will be done in the course of this Trial, whether Gustav
Krupp von Bohlen or Alfried Krupp are parties to the proceedings or not.
The defendants who are at present before the Tribunal, are indicted for
conspiring not only with each other, but with divers other persons; and if it
should be the decision of the Tribunal that Gustav Krupp von Bohlen
should be dismissed from the present proceedings, the evidence as to the
part which he, his firm, his associates, and other industrialists played in the
preparation and conduct of the war, would still be given to this Tribunal, as
forming part of the general conspiracy in which these defendants were
involved with divers other persons, not now before the Court.
Now, then, in regard to the application which is before the Court on
behalf of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen, the matter is, as it seems to me,
entirely one for the Tribunal; and I would only wish to say this about it: It is
an application which, in my submission, must be treated on its own merits.
This is a court of justice, not a game in which you can play a substitute, if
one member of a team falls sick. If this defendant is unfit to stand his trial
before this Tribunal, and whether he is fit or unfit is a matter for the
Tribunal, he will be none the less unfit because the Tribunal decides not to
join some other person, not at present a party to the proceedings.
There is provision under the Charter for trial in absentia. I do not wish
to add anything which has been said in regard to that aspect of the matter by
my friend, Mr. Justice Jackson, but I ask the Tribunal to deal with the
application, made on behalf of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen, quite
independently of any considerations as to the joinder of some other person,

considerations which, in my submission, are relevant to that application.
There is, however, before the Tribunal, an independent application to permit
the joinder of a new defendant at this late state. I think I should perhaps say
this: That as you, Mr. President, pointed out, at the last meeting of the Chief
Prosecutors, at which this possibility was discussed, not for the first time,
the representatives of the Provisional Government of France and of the
Soviet Government were, like ourselves, as representing the British
Government, opposed to the addition of any defendant involving any delay
in the commencement of these proceedings. I take no technical point upon
that at all. I am content that you should deal with the matter now, as if the
Chief Prosecutors had had a further meeting, and as a committee, in the way
that they are required to act under the Charter, had by majority decided to
make this application. I mention the matter only to explain the position in
which I find myself, as the representative of the British Government, in
regard to it. At the last meeting of Chief Prosecutors, there was agreement
with the British view. The representatives of the other two States, as they
were quite entitled to do, have since that meeting come to a different
conclusion. Well, now, Sir, so far as that application is concerned, I would
say only this: The case against the existing defendants, whether Gustav
Krupp von Bohlen is included amongst them or not, can be fully established
without the joinder of any additional person, whoever he might be. The
general part played by the industrialists can be fully established without the
joinder of any particular industrialist, whoever he might be. That case will
indeed be developed, and will be made clear in the course of this Trial. That
is not to say that Alfried Krupp should not be brought to justice. There is
provision under the Charter for the holding of further trials, and it may be
according to the result of the present proceedings, that hereafter other
proceedings ought to be taken, possibly against Alfried Krupp, possibly
against other industrialists, possibly against other people as well. At present,
we are concerned with the existing defendants. For our part, the case
against them has been ready for some time, and it can be shortly and
succinctly stated; and in my submission to the Tribunal, the interests of
justice demand, and world opinion expects, that these men should be put
upon their defense without further delay.
And I respectfully remind the Tribunal of what was said at the opening
session in Berlin by General Nikitchenko, in these terms:

“The individual defendants in custody will be notified that they
must be ready for trial within 30 days after the service of the
Indictment upon them. Promptly thereafter, the Tribunal shall fix
and announce the date of the Trial in Nuremberg, to take place not
less than 30 days after the service of the Indictment; and the
defendants shall be advised of such date as soon as it is fixed.”
And then these words:
“It must be understood that the Tribunal, which is directed by the
Charter to secure an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by
the charges will not permit any delay, either in the preparation of
the defense, or of the Trial.”
Of course, if it happened that Alfried Krupp were prepared to step into
his father’s shoes in this matter, without any delay in the proceedings, the
British Prosecutors would welcome that procedure, but if his joinder
involves any further delay in the Trial of the existing defendants, we are
opposed to it.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you: Do you agree that according to the
Municipal Law of Great Britain, in the same way that I understood it to be
the law of the United States of America, a man in the mental and physical
condition of Gustav Krupp could not be tried?
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: I do, Sir. I take the same view, if I may
say so, with respect, as Mr. Justice Jackson took upon the question you
addressed to him.
THE PRESIDENT: And in such circumstances, the prosecution against
him would not be dismissed, but he would be detained during the pleasure
of the sovereign power concerned.
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: That is one question that I wanted to put to you.
Do you then suggest that, in the present circumstances, Gustav Krupp
ought to be tried in his absence, in view of the medical reports that we have
before us?
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: Well, it is a matter which is entirely in
the discretion of the Tribunal, and which I do not wish to press in any way;
but as the evidence involving his firm will in any event be laid before the
Tribunal, it might be convenient that he should be represented by counsel,

and that the Tribunal, in arriving at its decision, should take account, as it
necessarily would, of his then condition.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any precedent for such a course as that, to
hold that he could not be tried and found guilty or not guilty and yet to
retain counsel to appear for him before the Tribunal?
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: No, Sir, I was not suggesting that he
should not be treated as being an existing defendant before the Tribunal and
held guilty or not. I was dealing with the subsequent course which the
Tribunal might adopt in regard to him if they held him guilty of some or all
of these offenses.
THE PRESIDENT: But I thought you agreed that according to, at any
rate, Municipal Law, a man in his physical condition ought not be tried.
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: I am not agreed that according to
English Municipal Law he could not be tried.
THE PRESIDENT: And that law is based upon the interests of justice?
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: Mr. President, I cannot dispute that, but
our law of course contains no provision at all for trial in absentia. Express
provision is made for such trials in the Charter constituting this Tribunal,
provided that the Tribunal considers it in the interests of justice.
THE PRESIDENT: What exactly is it you are suggesting to us, that he
should be tried in absence or that he should not be tried in absence?
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: Mr. President, we have suggested that
advantage should be taken of the provision for trial in absentia, but as I said
at the beginning, it is, as it appears to me, entirely a matter for the discretion
of the Tribunal, not one in which I wish to press any particular view.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Chief Prosecutor for the Soviet Union
desire to speak? You were authorized, I think, Mr. Justice Jackson, to speak
on behalf of the Chief Prosecutor of the Soviet Union.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I was authorized to state that they take the
same position as the United States. I don’t know that in answering their
questions I would have always given the answers that they would have
given. I understand, for example, that they do try cases in absentia, and I
think their position on that would be somewhat different from the position I
have given.
THE PRESIDENT: This question I asked you, of course, was directed
solely to the Municipal Law of the United States. Does the Chief Prosecutor
of the Soviet Union wish to address the Tribunal?

COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the
U.S.S.R.): No.
THE PRESIDENT: Then does the Chief Prosecutor for the French
Republic wish to address the Tribunal?
M. CHARLES DUBOST (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French
Republic): It would be easy to justify the position taken today by the French
Delegation by merely reminding oneself that on numerous occasions the
French Delegation has advocated the immediate preparation of a second
trial in order that it might be possible to proceed with it as soon as the first
trial was completed. We could in this way have prosecuted the German
industrialists without any interruption. This point of view has never been
adopted. We have rallied to the point of view of the United States as being
the most expedient and most susceptible of giving complete satisfaction to
French interests. We are anxious that Krupp the son should be tried. There
are serious charges against him, and no one could possibly understand that
there should be no representative in this trial of the greatest German
industrial enterprise, as being one of the principal guilty parties in this war.
We should have preferred that a second trial be made against the
industrialists, but since this second trial is not to take place, we consider the
presence of Alfried Krupp to be absolutely necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the position, which you take up if the
substitution of Alfried Krupp would necessarily lead to delay?
M. DUBOST: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, but I believe you have
in your hand a second note which I submitted this morning to the Court
after having received a telephone call from Paris.
THE PRESIDENT: I have in my hand a document of 13 November
1945, signed by you, I think.
M. DUBOST: That is right. There is, however, a supplementary note,
which I submitted this morning, according to which I adopt the same
viewpoint as that expressed by Mr. Justice Jackson. I was in fact able to
find out between the document of last night and that of this morning the
consequences that would be brought about. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the best course would be to read this
document which has now been put before us.
M. DUBOST: “We consider that the trial of Krupp’s father is not
possible at the present time. The trial of a dying old man who is
unable to attend is out of the question. We are anxious that

Krupp’s son should be prosecuted for there are very serious
charges against him. We had asked up to this point that he should
be prosecuted without any delay in the trial, but for reasons of
expediency which led us to adopt this point of view, this has
ceased to be a pressing problem since the Soviet Delegation has
adopted the point of view of Mr. Justice Jackson. Consequently
we no longer raise any objection, and we likewise have come to
this point of view.”
THE PRESIDENT: Does what you say now mean that you wish Alfried
Krupp to be substituted notwithstanding the fact that it must cause delay?
M. DUBOST: Yes, that’s right.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you suggesting on behalf of France that Gustav
should be tried in his absence or not?
M. DUBOST: No, no, not that, no.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Volchkov): What does the French prosecutor and
the French Republic offer so far as Gustav Krupp is concerned?
M. DUBOST: As to Krupp, the father, we consider it is not possible to
prosecute him because of the state of his health; he will not be able to
appear before the Court. He will not be able to defend himself. He will not
be able to tell us about his acts. It is necessary to drop his case or to
postpone the Trial to a time when he shall be cured, unless before that he
appears before the judgment of God. We also believe, since we cannot
obtain a second trial against the industrialists, that it is necessary to
substitute Krupp, the son, against whom serious charges exist, for Krupp,
the father, who cannot be tried.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you agree or disagree with the Attorney General
for Great Britain that in the course of the Trial, whether Gustav Krupp or
Alfried Krupp are included as defendants, the evidence against the
industrialists of Germany must be exposed?
M. DUBOST: We have been anxious, Mr. President, that a second trial
should be prepared immediately to follow the first trial in which the
question of the industrialists would be thoroughly examined. Since it is not
possible to have a second trial, we are anxious that one of the
representatives of the Krupp firm, who is personally responsible and against
whom there are charges, shall be called upon to appear before this Tribunal
to defend himself against the charges that we shall bring against the Krupp
firm, and in a more general manner also against the industrialists who were

associated with the Krupp firm and who participated in the conspiracy
which is presented in the Indictment, who supported the seizure of power
by the Nazis, supported the Nazi Government and propaganda, financed the
Nazis and finally helped the rearmament of Germany in order that it might
continue its war of aggression.
THE PRESIDENT: Forgive me. I don’t think you have answered the
question which I put to you. Do you agree with the Attorney General that
whether Gustav Krupp or Alfried Krupp are or are not defendants in this
Trial, the evidence against the German industrialists will necessarily be
thoroughly exposed in the course of bringing forward the evidence of the
conspiracy charged?
M. DUBOST: I agree that it is possible to bring the proof of a
conspiracy without this or that member of the Krupp family being brought
before the Court, but it will only be fragmentary proof and evidence,
because there are personal responsibilities which go beyond the general
responsibilities of the authors of the conspiracy, and these personal
responsibilities are particularly attributable to Krupp the son and Krupp the
father.
THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): You said just now that it was your
opinion that the name of Krupp the son should be substituted for that of
Krupp the father? Do you really mean the word “substitute”? Did you use
this word intentionally or do you not rather wish to say that it was your
opinion that there should be an amendment to the Indictment and that we
should apply a supplement to the Indictment? Do you consider that you can
propose to the Court to substitute one name for another in the Indictment or
do you suggest on the contrary a supplement be added to the Indictment?
M. DUBOST: I have thought for a long time that it was necessary to
propose an amendment to the Indictment. It is still my opinion, but it is not
legally possible to modify the Indictment by a supplement.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Does counsel for the Defendant Gustav
Krupp wish to address the Tribunal again?
DR. KLEFISCH: I deduce from the explanation of the Prosecution that
the principal objection against our point of view is that it would not be in
accordance with justice if the Trial were to be carried out in absence of
Krupp senior. When, in representing the opposite point of view, it is pointed
out that the public opinion of the entire world demands the trial against the
defendant, Mr. Krupp, then the main reason offered is that Krupp senior is

to be regarded as one of the principal war criminals. I have already pointed
out that this reasoning would be an anticipation of the final judgment of the
Court. It is my opinion, that this is not the place and the time to discuss
these questions and I wish to limit myself to what I already said before:
Namely, that all that has been said in this direction is for the moment only a
thesis of the Prosecution, which, in the course of the Trial, will be
confronted with an antithesis of the Defense, so that then the High Court
can arrive at a synthesis of this thesis and antithesis and make a fair
judgment.
One more point regarding this question:
It has also been pointed out that Krupp senior, could be tried in absentia
for the reason that the entire evidence regarding the question of guilt has
already been presented and was no secret. In view of the facts this is not
correct.
So far we have seen only a part of the evidence, that is, that which is
contained in the bundle of documents. But may I point out that from the
firm of Krupp and the private quarters of the Krupp family, the entire
written material which consisted of whole truck-loads was confiscated, and
we did not see any of this material. Thus, the defense is difficult to
undertake, since, due to the confiscation of this entire material, only the
Defendant Krupp senior would be in a position to describe at least to a
certain extent the documents necessary for his defense, so that they could be
submitted in the regular form of application for evidence to this High Court.
As far as the question of an additional indictment against the son,
Alfried Krupp, is concerned I wish to state first of all that I have not
officially been charged with the defense of this defendant. I suppose,
however, that I will be charged with the defense and that is why, with the
permission of the Court, I wish to say a few words here about this motion,
perhaps as a representative without commission. I do not know whether it is
possible, that is, legally possible, subsequently to put Mr. Alfried Krupp on
the list of the principal war criminals. However, even if I were to let this
legal possibility open to discussion, I should like to call attention to the
following:
In view of the changed situation, it seems to me to be a bit strange, to
say the least, if Alfried Krupp were to be put on the list as a principal war
criminal now, not because he was marked as one from the beginning, but
because his father cannot be tried. I see in that a certain game played by the

representative of the United States which cannot be sanctioned by the Court
in my opinion.
In addition, I wish to make the following brief remark:
In case a supplementary indictment should be made against Alfried
Krupp, and if I were definitely charged with his defense, my conscience
would oblige me to request that the period of 30 days between the serving
of the Indictment and the main Trial as provided in Rule 2 (a), would have
to be kept under all circumstances.
Finally, I should like to point out the following:
In conclusion, I should like to emphasize that, so far as I am informed,
the circumstances and facts regarding the person of Alfried Krupp are
basically different from the circumstances concerning the person of the
present defendant, Krupp senior. In the documents that have been put at our
disposal so far, and which are bound in one volume, I have hardly found a
single word about any complicity or participation of Alfried Krupp in the
crimes with which Krupp senior is charged. I should also like to emphasize
that, as has already been discussed, Alfried Krupp became the owner of the
Krupp firm, I believe, only in November 1943 and that previously, from
1937 to 1943, he was merely director of one department of the entire
concern, but in this capacity he did not have the slightest influence on the
management of the firm, nor did he have anything to do with orders for the
production and delivery of war materials.
For the reasons stated, I believe I am justified in expressing the wish to
refrain from introducing Alfried Krupp into this Trial of the principal war
criminals.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now and announce its
decision on this application later.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 15 November 1945 at 1000 hours.]

PRELIMINARY HEARING
Thursday, 15 November 1945
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has invited the Defense Counsel to be
present here today as it desires that they shall thoroughly understand the
course which the Tribunal proposes the proceedings at trial should take.
The Tribunal is aware that the procedure provided for by the Charter is
in some respects different from the procedure to which Defense Counsel are
accustomed. They therefore desire that Defense Counsel should be under no
misapprehension as to course which must be followed.
Article 24 of the Charter provides for the reading of the Indictment in
Court, but in view of its length, and the fact that its contents are now
probably well known, it may be that Defense Counsel will not think it
necessary that it should be read in full.
The opening of cases for the Prosecution will necessarily take a long
time, and during that time Defense Counsel will have an opportunity to
complete their preparations for defense.
When witnesses for the Prosecution are called, it must be understood
that it is the function of Counsel for the Defense to cross-examine the
witnesses, and that it is not the intention of the Tribunal to cross-examine
the witnesses themselves.
The Tribunal will not call upon the Defense Counsel to state what
evidence they wish to submit until the case for the Prosecution has been
closed.
As Defense Counsel already know, the General Secretary of the
Tribunal makes every effort to obtain such evidence, both witnesses and
documents, as the Defense wish to adduce and the Tribunal approves.
The General Secretary is providing, and will provide, lodging, food, and
transportation for Defense Counsel and witnesses while in Nuremberg. And
though the living conditions provided may not be all that can be desired,
Defense Counsel will understand that there are great difficulties in the
present circumstances and efforts will be made to meet any reasonable
request.
Defense Counsel have been provided with a Document Room and an
Information Center where documents translated into German are available
for the Defense, subject to the necessary security regulations. It is important

that Defense Counsel should notify the General Secretary as long as
possible, and at least 3 weeks in ordinary cases, in advance, of witnesses or
documents they require.
The services which Defense Counsel are performing are important
public services for the interests of justice, and they will have the protection
of the Tribunal in the performance of their duties.
In order that the Trial should proceed with due expedition, it would
seem desirable that Defense Counsel should settle among themselves the
order in which they wish to cross-examine the Prosecution witnesses and
propose to present their defenses, and that they should communicate their
wishes in this regard to the General Secretary.
I hope that what I have said will be of assistance to Defense Counsel in
the preparation of their defenses. If there are any questions in connection
with what I have said which they wish to ask, I will endeavor to answer
them.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): Mr.
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you come to the desk please, if you wish to
speak. Will you state your name and for whom you appear here?
DR. THOMA: Dr. Thoma, defense counsel for the Defendant
Rosenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. THOMA: I should like to ask whether the Defense will
immediately get copies of the interrogation of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Copies of the Indictment? Those have been served
upon each defendant. Do I understand that you want further copies for the
use of defendants’ counsel?
DR. THOMA: May I put my question more precisely? I presume that all
the statements of the defendants are to be taken down in shorthand, and I
would like to ask whether these will then be translated into German and
given to the Defense Counsel as soon as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: If you mean a transcript of the evidence which is
given before the Tribunal, that will be taken down, and if it is given in a
language other than German it will be translated into German and copies
furnished to defendants’ counsel. If it is in German it will be furnished to
them in German.
DR. THOMA: Will we get copies of the interrogation of all witnesses?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes; that is what I meant by a transcript of the
evidence given before the Tribunal. That will be a copy, in German, of the
evidence of each witness.
DR. THOMA: Thank you.
DR. RUDOLPH DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Your Lordship,
gentlemen of the Tribunal, my colleagues of the Defense have entrusted me
with the honorable task of expressing our thanks for the words you have
addressed to the Defense Counsel. We members of the Defense consider
ourselves the associates of the Tribunal in reaching a just verdict and we
have full confidence in Your Lordship’s wise and experienced conduct of
the Trial proceedings.
Your Lordship may be convinced that in this spirit we shall participate
in the difficult task of reaching a just decision, in the case before the
Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume that there are no further questions at the
present stage which Counsel for the Defense wish to ask. They will
understand that if at any stage in the future they have inquiries which they
wish to make, they should address them to the General Secretary and they
will then be considered by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal will now adjourn until 2 o’clock, when the application on
behalf of the Defendant Streicher will be heard.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 1400 hours.]

THE PRESIDENT: I understand that there are some counsel for the
defendants present here today, who were not here yesterday and who may
not understand the use of these earphones and dials. Therefore, I explain to
them that Number 1 on the dial will enable them to hear the evidence in the
language in which it is given, Number 2 will be in English, Number 3 in
Russian, Number 4 in French, and Number 5 in German.
I will now read the judgment of the Tribunal in the matter of the
application of counsel for Gustav Krupp von Bohlen for postponement of
the proceedings against the defendant.
Counsel for Gustav Krupp von Bohlen has applied to the Tribunal for
postponement of the proceedings against this defendant on the ground that

his physical and mental condition are such that he is incapable of
understanding the proceedings against him and of presenting any defense
that he may have.
On November 5 the Tribunal appointed a medical commission
composed of the following physicians:
R. E. Tunbridge, Brigadier, O.B.E., M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.P., Consulting
Physician, British Army of the Rhine.
René Piedelièvre, M.D., Professor on the Faculty of Medicine of Paris;
Expert for the Tribunal.
Nicholas Kurshakov, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Medical Institute of
Moscow; Chief Internist, Commissariat of Public Health, Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics.
Eugene Sepp, M.D., Emeritus Professor of Neurology, Medical Institute
of Moscow; Member, Academy of Medical Science, Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics.
Eugene Krasnushkin, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry, Medical Institute
of Moscow.
Bertram Schaffner, Major, Medical Corps, Neuropsychiatrist, Army of
the United States.
The commission has reported to the Tribunal that it is unanimously of
the opinion that Gustav Krupp von Bohlen suffers from senile softening of
the brain; that his mental condition is such that he is incapable of
understanding court procedure and of understanding or cooperating in
interrogations; that his physical state is such that he cannot be moved
without endangering his life; and that his condition is unlikely to improve
but rather will deteriorate further.
The Tribunal accepts the findings of the medical commission, to which
exception is taken neither by the Prosecution nor by the Defense.
Article 12 of the Charter authorizes the trial of a defendant in absentia if
found by the Tribunal to be “necessary in the interests of justice.” It is
contended on behalf of the Chief Prosecutors that in the interest of justice,
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen should be tried in absentia, despite his physical
and mental condition.
It is the decision of the Tribunal that upon the facts presented the
interests of justice do not require that Gustav Krupp von Bohlen be tried in
absentia. The Charter of the Tribunal envisages a fair trial, in which the
Chief Prosecutors may present the evidence in support of an indictment and

the defendants may present such defense as they may believe themselves to
have. Where nature rather than flight or contumacy has rendered such a trial
impossible, it is not in accordance with justice that the case should proceed
in the absence of a defendant.
For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal orders that:
1. The application for postponement of the proceedings against Gustav
Krupp von Bohlen is granted.
2. The charges in the Indictment against Gustav Krupp von Bohlen shall
be retained upon the docket of the Tribunal for trial hereafter, if the physical
and mental condition of the defendant should permit.
Further questions raised by the Chief Prosecutors, including the
question of adding another name to the Indictment, will be considered later.
The Tribunal will now hear the application on behalf of the Defendant
Streicher.
Will the Counsel state his name?
DR. HANS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Your Honors, as
Counsel for the Defendant Julius Streicher, I took the liberty some time ago
of requesting a postponement in the opening date of the Trial, because the
time at my disposal for making preparations appeared to me insufficient, in
view of the importance of the case.
This morning, however, the President of the Court outlined the course
of the proceedings of the Trial and his explanations have made it quite clear
that the Defense will have adequate time at its disposal to continue
preparations for the case of each client even after the opening of the Trial.
Any objections on my part are thereby removed, and accordingly I
withdraw my application as unsubstantiated.
Your Honors, may I use this opportunity to make a suggestion with
regard to the case of the Defendant Streicher.
In view of the exceptional nature of the case and of the difficulties
facing the Defense in handling it, may I suggest that the Tribunal consider
whether a psychiatric examination of the Defendant Streicher would not be
proper. Defense Counsel should have at his disposal all the evidence on the
nature, personality, and motives of the defendant which appears necessary
to enable him to form a clear picture of his client.
And this, of course, is also true of the Tribunal.
In my own interests I consider it essential that such an examination be
authorized by the Tribunal. I emphasize particularly that this is not a formal

motion: “It is not a motion but a proposal.” [Note: These words were spoken
in English.] I deem it necessary as a precaution in my own interests, since
my client does not desire an examination of this sort, and is of the opinion
that he is mentally completely normal. I myself cannot determine that; it
must be decided by a psychiatrist.
I, therefore, ask the Tribunal to consider this proposal, and, if the
suggestion, under the circumstances, appears both requisite and necessary,
to choose and appoint a competent expert to conduct the examination.
That is what I wished to say before the opening of the proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. It appears to the Tribunal that such
suggestions as you have now made, ought to be in the form of a formal
motion or application and that it ought to be in writing and that if, as you
say, the Defendant Streicher does not wish it or is unwilling that such an
examination should be made, then your application ought to state in writing
that the Defendant Streicher refuses to sign the application.
If you wish to make such a motion you are at liberty to make it, in
writing.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I be allowed to say briefly that it is
precisely because the defendant does object to my submitting such an
application that I feel obliged to make this request here publicly, and inform
the Tribunal that I am bound by my client’s attitude and therefore not in a
position to submit this suggestion in writing. Without my client’s
permission I cannot make this suggestion in writing, and I am consequently
forced to convey it to the Tribunal verbally, since I myself consider it
necessary as a precaution in my own interest.
THE PRESIDENT: But you understand from what I say to you, that if
you wish to make this suggestion, you must make the motion in writing and
you can, on that writing, state that the Defendant Streicher is not prepared
to sign the application.
DR. MARX: Thank you, Mr. President, for your statement; I shall not
fail to act, as you suggest.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Chief Prosecutors wish to make any
statement?
COLONEL ROBERT G. STOREY (Executive Trial Counsel for the
United States): May it please the Court:
The position of Counsel for Defendant Streicher emphasizes a
suggestion made by the Prosecutors this morning, namely, that all motions

and all requests from Counsel be reduced to writing, prior to submission to
the Court and the suggestions, in writing, were filed with the General
Secretary since the meeting this morning.
While I am on my feet, if it may please the Court, may I make a brief
statement in connection with the efforts of the Prosecutors to furnish to the
Defense Counsel evidence and documents in which they may be interested,
if that meets with the approval of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COL. STOREY: With reference to Defendant Streicher’s second point
in his motion, namely, that the Prosecutors be required to furnish certain
documents, they are being furnished, and will be furnished in the future.
Secondly, with reference to the film on concentration camps, which he
requests be shown to Defense Counsel in advance of the time of presenting
the film, this request will also be complied with by the Prosecutors.
Also, for the information of the Defense Counsel, there has been
established in Room 54, in this Courthouse, what is known as the
Defendants’ Information Center, operated jointly by the four Chief
Prosecutors. In that room there has been deposited a list of documents upon
which the Prosecution relies. Secondly, if further documents are relied upon
by the prosecutors, lists will be furnished to Defense Counsel before they
are introduced into evidence or offered to the Court, and also, they will
have the opportunity to examine copies of those documents in their own
language.
May I also suggest that most Defense Counsel have availed themselves
of that privilege and those who had not, have been notified and they are
now, as of this date, all of them, making use of the facilities provided,
which include rooms for conferences, typewriters, when necessary, and
other assistance.
I want to make that statement for the information of the Defense
Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand the Soviet Chief Prosecutor wishes to
address the Tribunal.
COL. POKROVSKY: In connection with the evidence just submitted to
the Tribunal by Counsel representing the interests of Defendant Streicher, I
consider it my duty to inform the Tribunal that during the last interrogation
made by the Delegation of the Soviet Union, the Defendant Streicher, about
whom it is specifically said in the Indictment, Counts One and Four, that he

had incited to the persecution of the Jews, stated that he had been speaking
from a Zionist point of view.
This declaration or, more precisely, this testimony, immediately
produced certain doubts as to the mental stability of the defendant.
It is not the first time that persons, now standing their trial, have
attempted to delude us about their mental condition. I refer in particular to
the Defendant Hess. In the case of Hess the Tribunal, to my knowledge
already possesses. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. We are not hearing any application
with reference to Streicher’s sanity now, nor any application with reference
to Hess. We have simply informed Counsel for Streicher that if he wishes to
make an application in respect of his defendant’s sanity or mental condition,
he must make that application in writing. If he does make such an
application in writing you will have full opportunity of opposing the
application.
COL. POKROVSKY: What I have in mind is not to offer an opinion on
the deductions and the petition of the Defense, but to inform the Tribunal of
a fact which may cause much complication if we do not act on it
immediately. Seeing that the Tribunal has at its disposal a number of
competent medical personnel, it would appear to me most expedient that the
Tribunal should entrust these specialists with the examination of the
Defendant Streicher in order to establish definitely whether he is or is not in
full possession of his mental capacities.
If we do not do so now, the necessity may arise in the course of the Trial
and if the question of Streicher’s sanity arises after the beginning of the
Trial, then it may delay the proceedings and impede our work. If the
Tribunal deems my suggestion in order, we would, before the Trial starts,
have sufficient time to request from this commission of specialists a
statement on his mental condition.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. If I rightly understand what the Chief
Soviet Prosecutor says, it is this: That if any question of the sanity of the
Defendant Streicher arises it will be convenient that he should be examined
now at once whilst the medical officers of the Soviet Union are in
Nuremberg. If that is so, then if you think it is more convenient that
Streicher should be examined by doctors at the present moment on account
of the presence of the distinguished doctors from the Soviet Union being in

Nuremberg, you are at liberty to make a written motion to that effect to the
Tribunal at any time.
Do any of the other Chief Prosecutors wish to address the Tribunal?
(There was no response.)
Then the Tribunal will deal with the application of the Defendant
Streicher as follows:
His application for postponement, which is numbered 1 on his written
application, has been withdrawn. His other two applications, numbered 2
and 3, which are agreed to by the Chief Prosecutors, are granted.
The Tribunal will now adjourn.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 17 November 1945 at 1000 hours.]

PRELIMINARY HEARING
Saturday, 17 November 1945

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know whether the Chief
Prosecutors wish to make a statement with reference to the Defendant
Bormann.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the
United Kingdom): May it please the Tribunal, as the Tribunal are aware, the
Defendant Bormann was included in the Indictment, which was filed before
the Tribunal. There has been no change in the position with regard to the
Defendant Bormann; nor has any further information come to the notice of
the Chief Prosecutors. I think that the Tribunal are aware of the state of our
information when the Indictment was filed, but it might be as well, if the
Tribunal approves, if I explained what was the state of our information at
the time of the filing of the Indictment, which is also the state of our
information today.
There is evidence that Hitler and Bormann were together, with a number
of Nazi officials, in the Chancellery area in Berlin on 30 April 1945, and

were, at one stage on that day, together in Hitler’s underground air raid
shelter in the Chancellery gardens.
On 1 May Bormann and other Germans tried to break out of the
Chancellery area in a tank. They got as far as the river Spree and tried to
cross a bridge over it. A hand grenade was thrown into the tank by Russian
soldiers. Three members of the party who were with Bormann in this tank
have been interrogated. Two think that Bormann was killed, and the third
that he was wounded. The position is, therefore, that the Prosecution cannot
say that the matter is beyond probability that Bormann is dead. There is still
the clear possibility that he is alive.
In these circumstances I should submit that he comes within the exact
words of Article 12 of the Charter:
“The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings against a
person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of this Charter in
his absence, if he has not been found.”
In other words, it is not necessary to hold the man in these
circumstances. The Tribunal laid down in its Rules of Procedure in Rule 2
(b) the procedure applicable to this situation:
“Any individual Defendant not in custody shall be informed of
the Indictment against him and of his right to receive the
documents specified in sub-paragraph (a) above, by notice in such
form and manner as the Tribunal may prescribe.”
The Tribunal prescribed that notice to the Defendant Bormann should
be given in the following manner:
The notice should be read over the radio once a week for 4 weeks, the
first reading to be during the week of 22 October. It should also be
published in four separate issues of a newspaper circulated in the home city
of Martin Bormann.
The broadcast was given in the weeks after 22 October, as ordered, over
Radio Hamburg and Radio Langenberg, that is, Cologne. The Defendant
Bormann’s last place of residence was in Berlin. The notice was, therefore,
published in four Berlin papers: The Tägliche Rundschau, the Berliner
Zeitung, Der Berliner, and the Allgemeine Zeitung for the 4 weeks which
the Tribunal had ordered.

In my respectful submission, the Charter and Rules of Procedure have
been complied with. The Tribunal, therefore, has the right to take
proceedings in absentia under Article 12. It is, of course, a matter for the
Tribunal to decide whether it will exercise that right.
The Chief Prosecutors submit, however, that there is no change in the
position since they indicted Bormann and that, unless the Tribunal has any
different view, this is a proper case for trial in absentia.
I am authorized to make this statement not only on behalf of the British
Delegation, but on behalf of the United States and the French Republic. I
consulted my friend and colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, yesterday and he
had to take instructions on the matter, and I notice he is here today. I
haven’t had the opportunity of speaking to him this morning and no doubt
he will be able to tell the Tribunal any thing if he so desires.
I hope that that explains the basis of the matter to the Tribunal. If there
are any other facts, I should be only too happy to answer any point.
THE PRESIDENT: It is suggested to me that you should file with the
General Secretary proof of the publication to which you have referred.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With proof of the publication! If it
please My Lord, that will be done.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. Then I will ask the Chief
Prosecutor for the Soviet Union if he wishes to address the Tribunal.
COL. POKROVSKY: I thank the Tribunal for their wish to hear the
opinion of the Soviet Delegation. I shall avail myself of the privilege
granted by the Tribunal to express the complete concurrence of the Soviet
Delegation, and to inform you of the attitude adopted by my colleagues
where Bormann is concerned. We consider that the Tribunal has every
justification, under Article 12 of the Charter, to accept in evidence all the
material relative to Bormann’s case and to start proceedings against him in
his absence.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn for a short time and hopes
it will be able to give its decision shortly.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has decided that in pursuance of
Article 12 of the Charter, it will try the Defendant Bormann in his absence,

and it announces that Counsel will be appointed to defend the Defendant
Bormann.
The Tribunal will now adjourn.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 1500 hours.]

THE PRESIDENT: The motion to amend the indictment by adding the
name of Alfried Krupp has been considered by the Tribunal in all its aspects
and the application is rejected.
The Tribunal will now adjourn.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 20 November 1945 at 1000 hours.]

FIRST DAY
Tuesday, 20 November 1945

Morning Session
THE PRESIDENT: Before the defendants in this case are called upon to
make their pleas to the Indictment which has been lodged against them, and
in which they are charged with Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and
Crimes against Humanity, and with a Common Plan or Conspiracy to
commit those crimes, it is the wish of the Tribunal that I should make a very
brief statement on behalf of the Tribunal.
This International Military Tribunal has been established pursuant to the
Agreement of London, dated the 8th of August 1945, and the Charter of the
Tribunal as annexed thereto, and the purpose for which the Tribunal has
been established is stated in Article 1 of the Charter to be the just and
prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European
Axis.
The Signatories to the Agreement and Charter are the Government of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government
of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French
Republic, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The Committee of the Chief Prosecutors, appointed by the four
Signatories, have settled the final designation of the war criminals to be
tried by the Tribunal, and have approved the Indictment on which the
present defendants stand charged here today.
On Thursday, the 18th of October 1945, in Berlin, the Indictment was
lodged with the Tribunal and a copy of that Indictment in the German
language has been furnished to each defendant, and has been in his
possession for more than 30 days.
All the defendants are represented by counsel. In almost all cases the
counsel appearing for the defendants have been chosen by the defendants
themselves, but in cases where counsel could not be obtained the Tribunal
has itself selected suitable counsel agreeable to the defendant.
The Tribunal has heard with great satisfaction of the steps which have
been taken by the Chief Prosecutors to make available to defending counsel
the numerous documents upon which the Prosecution rely, with the aim of
giving to the defendants every possibility for a just defense.

The Trial which is now about to begin is unique in the history of the
jurisprudence of the world and it is of supreme importance to millions of
people all over the globe. For these reasons, there is laid upon everybody
who takes any part in this Trial a solemn responsibility to discharge their
duties without fear or favor, in accordance with the sacred principles of law
and justice.
The four Signatories having invoked the judicial process, it is the duty
of all concerned to see that the Trial in no way departs from those principles
and traditions which alone give justice its authority and the place it ought to
occupy in the affairs of all civilized states.
This Trial is a public Trial in the fullest sense of those words, and I
must, therefore, remind the public that the Tribunal will insist upon the
complete maintenance of order and decorum, and will take the strictest
measures to enforce it. It only remains for me to direct, in accordance with
the provisions of the Charter, that the Indictment shall now be read.
MR. SIDNEY S. ALDERMAN (Associate Trial Counsel for the United
States): May it please the Tribunal:

I. The United States of America, the French Republic, the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics by the undersigned, Robert H. Jackson, François de
Menthon, Hartley Shawcross, and R. A. Rudenko, duly appointed to
represent their respective governments in the investigation of the charges
against and the prosecution of the major war criminals, pursuant to the
Agreement of London dated 8 August 1945, and the Charter of this Tribunal
annexed thereto, hereby accuse as guilty, in the respects hereinafter set
forth, of Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity,
and of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit those Crimes, all as
defined in the Charter of the Tribunal, and accordingly name as defendants
in this cause and as indicted on the Counts hereinafter set out:
Hermann Wilhelm Göring, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop,
Robert Ley, Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans
Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Walter Funk, Hjalmar Schacht,
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, Karl Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur
von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Martin Bormann, Franz von
Papen, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Albert Speer, Constantin von Neurath and

Hans Fritzsche, individually and as members of any of the groups or
organizations next hereinafter named.

II. The following are named as groups or organizations (since dissolved)
which should be declared criminal by reason of their aims and the means
used for the accomplishment thereof, and in connection with the conviction
of such of the named defendants as were members thereof:
Die Reichsregierung (Reich Cabinet); das Korps der Politischen Leiter
der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei (Leadership Corps of
the Nazi Party); die Schutzstaffeln der Nationalsozialistischen
Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the “SS”) and including the
Sicherheitsdienst (commonly known as the “SD”); die Geheime
Staatspolizei (Secret State Police, commonly known as the “Gestapo”); die
Sturmabteilungen der NSDAP (commonly known as the “SA”); and the
General Staff and the High Command of the German Armed Forces. The
identity and membership of the groups or organizations referred to in the
foregoing titles are hereinafter in Appendix B more particularly defined.
COUNT ONE—THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY.
Reference: the Charter, Article 6, especially Article 6 (a).

III. Statement of the Offense.
All the defendants, with divers other persons, during a period of years
preceding 8 May 1945, participated as leaders, organizers, instigators, or
accomplices in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or
Conspiracy to commit, or which involved the commission of, Crimes
against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity, as defined in the
Charter of this Tribunal, and, in accordance with the provisions of the
Charter, are individually responsible for their own acts and for all acts
committed by any persons in the execution of such plan and conspiracy.
The Common Plan or Conspiracy embraced the commission of Crimes
against Peace, in that the defendants planned, prepared, initiated, and waged
wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international
treaties, agreements, or assurances. In the development and course of the
Common Plan or Conspiracy it came to embrace the commission of War
Crimes, in that it contemplated, and the defendants determined upon and
carried out, ruthless wars against countries and populations, in violation of
the rules and customs of war, including as typical and systematic means by

which the wars were prosecuted, murder, ill-treatment, deportation for slave
labor and for other purposes of civilian populations of occupied territories,
murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war and of persons on the High
Seas, the taking and killing of hostages, the plunder of public and private
property, the wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, and
devastation not justified by military necessity. The Common Plan or
Conspiracy contemplated and came to embrace as typical and systematic
means, and the defendants determined upon and committed, Crimes against
Humanity, both within Germany and within occupied territories, including
murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts
committed against civilian populations before and during the war, and
persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, in execution of the
plan for preparing and prosecuting aggressive or illegal wars, many of such
acts and persecutions being violations of the domestic laws of the countries
where perpetrated.

IV. Particulars of the Nature and Development of the Common Plan or
Conspiracy.
(A) The Nazi Party as the central core of the Common Plan or
Conspiracy.
In 1921 Adolf Hitler became the supreme leader or Führer of the
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German
Workers Party), also known as the Nazi Party, which had been founded in
Germany in 1920. He continued as such throughout the period covered by
this Indictment. The Nazi Party, together with certain of its subsidiary
organizations, became the instrument of cohesion among the defendants and
their co-conspirators and an instrument for the carrying out of the aims and
purposes of their conspiracy. Each defendant became a member of the Nazi
Party and of the conspiracy, with knowledge of their aims and purposes, or,
with such knowledge, became an accessory to their aims and purposes at
some stage of the development of the conspiracy.
(B) Common objectives and methods of conspiracy.
The aims and purposes of the Nazi Party and of the defendants and
divers other persons from time to time associated as leaders, members,
supporters, or adherents of the Nazi Party (hereinafter called collectively
the “Nazi conspirators”) were, or came to be, to accomplish the following
by any means deemed opportune, including unlawful means, and

contemplating ultimate resort to threat of force, force, and aggressive war:
(1) to abrogate and overthrow the Treaty of Versailles and its restrictions
upon the military armament and activity of Germany; (2) to acquire the
territories lost by Germany as the result of the World War of 1914-18 and
other territories in Europe asserted by the Nazi conspirators to be occupied
principally by so-called “racial Germans”; (3) to acquire still further
territories in continental Europe and elsewhere claimed by the Nazi
conspirators to be required by the “racial Germans” as “Lebensraum,” or
living space, all at the expense of neighboring and other countries. The aims
and purposes of the Nazi conspirators were not fixed or static, but evolved
and expanded as they acquired progressively greater power and became
able to make more effective application of threats of force and threats of
aggressive war. When their expanding aims and purposes became finally so
great as to provoke such strength of resistance as could be overthrown only
by armed force and aggressive war, and not simply by the opportunistic
methods theretofore used, such as fraud, deceit, threats, intimidation, fifth-
column activities, and propaganda, the Nazi conspirators deliberately
planned, determined upon and launched their aggressive wars and wars in
violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances by the phases
and steps hereinafter more particularly described.
(C) Doctrinal techniques of the Common Plan or Conspiracy.
To incite others to join in the Common Plan or Conspiracy, and as a
means of securing for the Nazi conspirators their highest degree of control
over the German community, they put forth, disseminated, and exploited
certain doctrines, among others, as follows:
1. That persons of so-called “German blood” (as specified by the Nazi
conspirators) were a “master race” and were accordingly entitled to
subjugate, dominate, or exterminate other “races” and peoples;
2. That the German people should be ruled under the Führerprinzip
(Leadership Principle) according to which power was to reside in a Führer
from whom sub-leaders were to derive authority in a hierarchical order,
each sub-leader to owe unconditional obedience to his immediate superior
but to be absolute in his own sphere of jurisdiction; and the power of the
leadership was to be unlimited, extending to all phases of public and private
life;
3. That war was a noble and necessary activity of Germans;

4. That the leadership of the Nazi Party, as the sole bearer of the
foregoing and other doctrines of the Nazi Party, was entitled to shape the
structure, policies, and practices of the German State and all related
institutions, to direct and supervise the activities of all individuals within
the State, and to destroy all opponents.
(D) The acquiring of totalitarian control of Germany: political.
1. First steps in acquisition of control of State machinery:
In order to accomplish their aims and purposes, the Nazi conspirators
prepared to seize totalitarian control over Germany to assure that no
effective resistance against them could arise within Germany itself. After
the failure of the Munich Putsch of 1923 aimed at the overthrow of the
Weimar Republic by direct action, the Nazi conspirators set out through the
Nazi Party to undermine and capture the German Government by “legal”
forms supported by terrorism. They created and utilized, as a Party
formation, Die Sturmabteilungen (SA), a semi-military, voluntary
organization of young men trained for and committed to the use of violence,
whose mission was to make the Party the master of the streets.
2. Control acquired:
On 30 January 1933 Hitler became Chancellor of the German Republic.
After the Reichstag fire of 28 February 1933, clauses of the Weimar
constitution guaranteeing personal liberty, freedom of speech, of the press,
of association, and assembly were suspended. The Nazi conspirators
secured the passage by the Reichstag of a “Law for the Protection of the
People and the Reich” giving Hitler and the members of his then cabinet
plenary powers of legislation. The Nazi conspirators retained such powers
after having changed the members of the cabinet. The conspirators caused
all political parties except the Nazi Party to be prohibited. They caused the
Nazi Party to be established as a para-governmental organization with
extensive and extraordinary privileges.
3. Consolidation of control:
Thus possessed of the machinery of the German State, the Nazi
conspirators set about the consolidation of their position of power within
Germany, the extermination of potential internal resistance, and the placing
of the German nation on a military footing,
(a) The Nazi conspirators reduced the Reichstag to a body of their own
nominees and curtailed the freedom of popular elections throughout the
country. They transformed the several states, provinces, and municipalities,

which had formerly exercised semi-autonomous powers, into hardly more
than administrative organs of the central Government. They united the
offices of the President and the Chancellor in the person of Hitler, instituted
a widespread purge of civil servants, and severely restricted the
independence of the judiciary and rendered it subservient to Nazi ends. The
conspirators greatly enlarged existing State and Party organizations,
established a network of new State and Party organizations, and “co-
ordinated” State agencies with the Nazi Party and its branches and affiliates,
with the result that German life was dominated by Nazi doctrine and
practice and progressively mobilized for the accomplishment of their aims.
(b) In order to make their rule secure from attack and to instill fear in
the hearts of the German people, the Nazi conspirators established and
extended a system of terror against opponents and supposed or suspected
opponents of the regime. They imprisoned such persons without judicial
process, holding them in “protective custody” and concentration camps, and
subjected them to persecution, degradation, despoilment, enslavement,
torture, and murder. These concentration camps were established early in
1933 under the direction of the Defendant Göring and expanded as a fixed
part of the terroristic policy and method of the conspirators and used by
them for the commission of the Crimes against Humanity hereinafter
alleged. Among the principal agencies utilized in the perpetration of these
crimes were the SS and the Gestapo, which, together with other favored
branches or agencies of the State and Party, were permitted to operate
without restraint of law.
(c) The Nazi conspirators conceived that, in addition to the suppression
of distinctively political opposition, it was necessary to suppress or
exterminate certain other movements or groups which they regarded as
obstacles to their retention of total control in Germany and to the aggressive
aims of the conspiracy abroad. Accordingly:
(1) The Nazi conspirators destroyed the free trade unions in Germany
by confiscating their funds and properties, persecuting their leaders,
prohibiting their activities, and supplanting them by an affiliated Party
organization. The Leadership Principle was introduced into industrial
relations, the entrepreneur becoming the leader and the workers becoming
his followers. Thus any potential resistance of the workers was frustrated
and the productive labor capacity of the German nation was brought under
the effective control of the conspirators.

(2) The Nazi conspirators, by promoting beliefs and practices
incompatible with Christian teaching, sought to subvert the influence of the
churches over the people and in particular over the youth of Germany. They
avowed their aim to eliminate the Christian churches in Germany and
sought to substitute therefore Nazi institutions and Nazi beliefs and pursued
a program of persecution of priests, clergy, and members of monastic orders
whom they deemed opposed to their purposes, and confiscated church
property.
(3) The persecution by the Nazi conspirators of pacifist groups,
including religious movements dedicated to pacifism, was particularly
relentless and cruel.
(d) Implementing their “master race” policy, the conspirators joined in a
program of relentless persecution of the Jews, designed to exterminate
them. Annihilation of the Jews became an official State policy, carried out
both by official action and by incitements to mob and individual violence.
The conspirators openly avowed their purpose. For example, the Defendant
Rosenberg stated: “Anti-Semitism is the unifying element of the
reconstruction of Germany.” On another occasion he also stated:
“Germany will regard the Jewish question as solved only after the
very last Jew has left the greater German living space. . . . Europe
will have its Jewish question solved only after the very last Jew
has left the continent.”
The Defendant Ley declared:
“We swear we are not going to abandon the struggle until the last
Jew in Europe has been exterminated and is actually dead. It is
not enough to isolate the Jewish enemy of mankind—the Jew has
got to be exterminated.”
On another occasion he also declared:
“The second German secret weapon is anti-Semitism, because if
it is consistently pursued by Germany, it will become a universal
problem which all nations will be forced to consider.”
The Defendant Streicher declared:
“The sun will not shine on the nations of the earth until the last
Jew is dead.”

These avowals and incitements were typical of the declarations of the
Nazi conspirators throughout the course of their conspiracy. The program of
action against the Jews included disfranchisement, stigmatization, denial of
civil liberties, subjecting their persons and property to violence,
deportation, enslavement, enforced labor, starvation, murder and mass
extermination. The extent to which the conspirators succeeded in their
purpose can only be estimated, but the annihilation was substantially
complete in many localities of Europe. Of the 9,600,000 Jews who lived in
the parts of Europe under Nazi domination, it is conservatively estimated
that 5,700,000 have disappeared, most of them deliberately put to death by
the Nazi conspirators. Only remnants of the Jewish population of Europe
remain.
(e) In order to make the German people amenable to their will, and to
prepare them psychologically for war, the Nazi conspirators reshaped the
educational system and particularly the education and training of the
German youth. The Leadership Principle was introduced into the schools,
and the Party and affiliated organizations were given wide supervisory
powers over education. The Nazi conspirators imposed a supervision of all
cultural activities, controlled the dissemination of information and the
expression of opinion within Germany as well as the movement of
intelligence of all kinds from and into Germany, and created a vast
propaganda machine.
(f) The Nazi conspirators placed a considerable number of their
dominated organizations on a progressively militarized footing with a view
to the rapid transformation and use of such organizations whenever
necessary as instruments of war.
(E) The acquiring of totalitarian control in Germany: economic; and the
economic planning and mobilization for aggressive war.
Having gained political power, the conspirators organized Germany’s
economy to give effect to their political aims.
1. In order to eliminate the possibility of resistance in the economic
sphere, they deprived labor of its rights of free industrial and political
association as particularized in paragraph (D) 3 (c) (1) herein.
2. They used organizations of German business as instruments of
economic mobilization for war.
3. They directed Germany’s economy towards preparation and
equipment of the military machine. To this end they directed finance,

capital investment, and foreign trade.
4. The Nazi conspirators, and in particular the industrialists among
them, embarked upon a huge re-armament program and set out to produce
and develop huge quantities of materials of war and to create a powerful
military potential.
5. With the object of carrying through the preparation for war the Nazi
conspirators set up a series of administrative agencies and authorities. For
example, in 1936 they established for this purpose the office of the Four
Year Plan with the Defendant Göring as Plenipotentiary, vesting it with
overriding control over Germany’s economy. Furthermore, on 28 August
1939, immediately before launching their aggression against Poland, they
appointed the Defendant Funk Plenipotentiary for Economics; and on 30
August 1939 they set up the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the
Reich to act as a War Cabinet.
(F) Utilization of Nazi control for foreign aggression.
1. Status of the conspiracy by the middle of 1933 and projected plans.
By the middle of the year 1933 the Nazi conspirators, having acquired
governmental control over Germany, were in a position to enter upon
further and more detailed planning with particular relationship to foreign
policy. Their plan was to re-arm and to reoccupy and fortify the Rhineland,
in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and other treaties, in order to acquire
military strength and political bargaining power to be used against other
nations.
2. The Nazi conspirators decided that for their purpose the Treaty of
Versailles must definitely be abrogated and specific plans were made by
them and put into operation by 7 March 1936, all of which opened the way
for the major aggressive steps to follow, as hereinafter set forth. In the
execution of this phase of the conspiracy the Nazi conspirators did the
following acts:
(a) They led Germany to enter upon a course of secret rearmament from
1933 to March 1935, including the training of military personnel and the
production of munitions of war, and the building of an air force.
(b) On 14 October 1933 they led Germany to leave the International
Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations.
(c) On 10 March 1935 the Defendant Göring announced that Germany
was building a military air force.

(d) On 16 March 1935 the Nazi conspirators promulgated a law for
universal military service, in which they stated the peace time strength of
the German Army would be fixed at 500,000 men.
(e) On 21 May 1935 they falsely announced to the world, with intent to
deceive and allay fears of aggressive intentions, that they would respect the
territorial limitations of the Versailles Treaty and comply with the Locarno
Pacts.
(f) On 7 March 1936 they reoccupied and fortified the Rhineland, in
violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Rhine Pact of Locarno of 16
October 1925, and falsely announced to the world that “we have no
territorial demands to make in Europe.”
3. Aggressive action against Austria and Czechoslovakia.
(a) The 1936-38 phase of the plan: planning for the assault on Austria
and Czechoslovakia.
The Nazi conspirators next entered upon the specific planning for the
acquisition of Austria and Czechoslovakia, realizing it would be necessary,
for military reasons, first to seize Austria before assaulting Czechoslovakia.
On 21 May 1935 in a speech to the Reichstag, Hitler stated that:
“Germany neither intends, nor wishes to interfere in the internal
affairs of Austria, to annex Austria or to conclude an Anschluss.”
On 1 May 1936, within 2 months after the re-occupation of the
Rhineland, Hitler stated:
“The lie goes forth again that Germany tomorrow or the day after
will fall upon Austria or Czechoslovakia.”
Thereafter, the Nazi conspirators caused a treaty to be entered into
between Austria and Germany on 11 July 1936, Article I of which stated
that:
“The German Government recognizes the full sovereignty of the
Federated State of Austria in the spirit of the pronouncements of
the German Führer and Chancellor of 21 May 1935.”
Meanwhile, plans for aggression in violation of that treaty were being
made. By the autumn of 1937 all noteworthy opposition within the Reich
had been crushed. Military preparation for the Austrian action was virtually
concluded. An influential group of the Nazi conspirators met with Hitler on

5 November 1937, to review the situation. It was reaffirmed that Nazi
Germany must have “Lebensraum” in Central Europe. It was recognized
that such conquest would probably meet resistance which would have to be
crushed by force and that their decision might lead to a general war, but this
prospect was discounted as a risk worth taking. There emerged from this
meeting three possible plans for the conquest of Austria and
Czechoslovakia. Which of the three was to be used was to depend upon the
developments in the political and military situation in Europe. It was
contemplated during this meeting that the conquest of Austria and
Czechoslovakia would, through compulsory emigration of 2 million persons
from Czechoslovakia and 1 million persons from Austria, provide
additional food to the Reich for 5 million to 6 million people, strengthen it
militarily by providing shorter and better frontiers, and make possible the
constituting of new armies up to about twelve divisions. Thus, the aim of
the plan against Austria and Czechoslovakia was conceived of not as an end
in itself but as a preparatory measure toward the next aggressive steps in the
Nazi conspiracy.
(b) The execution of the plan to invade Austria: November 1937 to
March 1938.
Hitler, on 8 February 1938, called Chancellor Schuschnigg to a
conference at Berchtesgaden. At the meeting of 12 February 1938, under
threat of invasion, Schuschnigg yielded a promise of amnesty to imprisoned
Nazis and appointment of Nazis to ministerial posts—meaning in Austria.
He agreed to remain silent until Hitler’s next speech in which Austria’s
independence was to be re-affirmed, but Hitler in that speech, instead of
affirming Austrian independence, declared himself protector of all
Germans. Meanwhile, subversive activities of Nazis in Austria increased.
Schuschnigg, on 9 March 1938, announced a plebiscite for the following
Sunday on the question of Austrian independence. On 11 March Hitler sent
an ultimatum, demanding that the plebiscite be called off or that Germany
would invade Austria. Later the same day a second ultimatum threatened
invasion unless Schuschnigg should resign in 3 hours. Schuschnigg
resigned. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart, who was appointed Chancellor,
immediately invited Hitler to send German troops into Austria to “preserve
order.” The invasion began on 12 March 1938. On 13 March Hitler by
proclamation assumed office as Chief of State of Austria and took

command of its armed forces. By a law of the same date Austria was
annexed to Germany.
(c) The execution of the plan to invade Czechoslovakia: April 1938 to
March 1939.
(1) Simultaneously with their annexation of Austria, the Nazi
conspirators gave false assurances to the Czechoslovak Government that
they would not attack that country. But within a month they met to plan
specific ways and means of attacking Czechoslovakia, and to revise, in the
light of the acquisition of Austria, the previous plans for aggression against
Czechoslovakia.
(2) On 21 April 1938 the Nazi conspirators met and prepared to launch
an attack on Czechoslovakia not later than 1 October 1938. They planned to
create an “incident” to “justify” the attack. They decided to launch a
military attack only after a period of diplomatic squabbling which, growing
more serious, would lead to an excuse for war, or, in the alternative, to
unleash a lightning attack as a result of an “incident” of their own creation.
Consideration was given to assassinating the German Ambassador at Prague
to create the requisite incident. From and after 21 April 1938, the Nazi
conspirators caused to be prepared detailed and precise military plans
designed to carry out such an attack at any opportune moment and
calculated to overthrow all Czech resistance within 4 days, thus presenting
the world with a fait accompli, and so forestalling outside resistance.
Throughout the months of May, June, July, August, and September, these
plans were made more specific and detailed, and by 3 September 1938 it
was decided that all troops were to be ready for action on 28 September
1938.
(3) Throughout this same period, the Nazi conspirators were agitating
the minorities question in Czechoslovakia, and particularly in the
Sudetenland, leading to a diplomatic crisis in August and September 1938.
After the Nazi conspirators threatened war, the United Kingdom and France
concluded a pact with Germany and Italy at Munich on 29 September 1938,
involving the cession of the Sudetenland by Czechoslovakia to Germany.
Czechoslovakia was required to acquiesce. On 1 October 1938 German
troops occupied the Sudetenland.
(4) On 15 March 1939, contrary to the provisions of the Munich Pact
itself, the Nazi conspirators caused the completion of their plan by seizing

and occupying the major part of Czechoslovakia, i.e. Bohemia and
Moravia, not ceded to Germany by the Munich Pact.
4. Formulation of the plan to attack Poland: preparation and initiation of
aggressive war: March 1939 to September 1939.
(a) With these aggressions successfully consummated, the conspirators
had obtained much desired resources and bases and were ready to undertake
further aggressions by means of war. Following the assurances to the world
of peaceful intentions, an influential group of the conspirators met on 23
May 1939 to consider the further implementation of their plan. The
situation was reviewed, and it was observed that “the past six years have
been put to good use and all measures have been taken in correct sequence
and in accordance with our aims,” that the national-political unity of the
Germans had been substantially achieved, and that further successes could
not be achieved without war and bloodshed. It was decided nevertheless
next to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity. It was admitted that
the questions concerning Danzig which they had agitated with Poland were
not true questions, but rather that the question was one of aggressive
expansion for food and “Lebensraum.” It was recognized that Poland would
fight if attacked and that a repetition of the Nazi success against
Czechoslovakia without war could not be expected. Accordingly, it was
determined that the problem was to isolate Poland and, if possible, prevent
a simultaneous conflict with the Western Powers. Nevertheless, it was
agreed that England was an enemy to their aspirations, and that war with
England and her ally France must eventually result, and therefore that in
that war every attempt must be made to overwhelm England with a
“Blitzkrieg”, or lightning war. It was thereupon determined immediately to
prepare detailed plans for an attack on Poland at the first suitable
opportunity and thereafter for an attack on England and France, together
with plans for the simultaneous occupation by armed force of air bases in
the Netherlands and Belgium.
(b) Accordingly, after having denounced the German-Polish Pact of
1934 on false grounds, the Nazi conspirators proceeded to stir up the
Danzig issue, to prepare frontier “incidents” to “justify” the attack, and to
make demands for the cession of Polish territory. Upon refusal by Poland to
yield, they caused German Armed Forces to invade Poland on 1 September
1939, thus precipitating war also with the United Kingdom and France.

5. Expansion of the war into a general war of aggression: planning and
execution of attacks on Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, and Greece: 1939 to April 1941.
Thus the aggressive war prepared for by the Nazi conspirators through
their attacks on Austria and Czechoslovakia was actively launched by their
attack on Poland, in violation of the terms of the Briand-Kellogg Pact,
1928. After the total defeat of Poland, in order to facilitate the carrying out
of their military operations against France and the United Kingdom, the
Nazi conspirators made active preparations for an extension of the war in
Europe. In accordance with these plans, they caused the German Armed
Forces to invade Denmark and Norway on 9 April 1940; Belgium, the
Netherlands, and Luxembourg on 10 May 1940; Yugoslavia and Greece on
6 April 1941. All these invasions had been specifically planned in advance.
6. German invasion on 22 June 1941 of the U.S.S.R. territory in
violation of the Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939.
On 22 June 1941 the Nazi conspirators deceitfully denounced the Non-
Aggression Pact between Germany and the U.S.S.R. and without any
declaration of war invaded Soviet territory, thereby beginning a war of
aggression against the U.S.S.R.
From the first day of launching their attack on Soviet territory the Nazi
conspirators, in accordance with their detailed plans, began to carry out the
destruction of cities, towns, and villages, the demolition of factories,
collective farms, electric stations, and railroads, the robbery and barbaric
devastation of the natural cultural institutions of the peoples of the
U.S.S.R., the devastation of museums, churches, historic monuments, the
mass deportation of the Soviet citizens for slave labor to Germany, as well
as the annihilation of old people, women, and children, especially
Bielorussians and Ukrainians. The extermination of Jews was committed
throughout the territory of the Soviet Union.
The above-mentioned criminal offenses were perpetrated by the German
troops in accordance with the orders of the Nazi Government and the
General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces.
7. Collaboration with Italy and Japan and aggressive war against the
United States: November 1936 to December 1941.
After the initiation of the Nazi wars of aggression the Nazi conspirators
brought about a German-Italian-Japanese 10-year military-economic
alliance signed at Berlin on 27 September 1940. This agreement,

representing a strengthening of the bonds among those three nations
established by the earlier but more limited pact of 25 November 1936,
stated: “The Governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan, considering it as a
condition precedent of any lasting peace that all nations of the world be
given each its own proper place, have decided to stand by and co-operate
with one another in regard of their efforts in Greater East Asia and regions
of Europe respectively wherein it is their prime purpose to establish and
maintain a new order of things calculated to promote the mutual prosperity
and welfare of the peoples concerned.” The Nazi conspirators conceived
that Japanese aggression would weaken and handicap those nations with
which they were at war, and those with whom they contemplated war.
Accordingly, the Nazi conspirators exhorted Japan to seek “a new order of
things.” Taking advantage of the wars of aggression then being waged by
the Nazi conspirators, Japan commenced an attack on 7 December 1941
against the United States of America at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines,
and against the British Commonwealth of Nations, French Indo-China, and
the Netherlands in the Southwest Pacific. Germany declared war against the
United States on 11 December 1941.
(G) War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity committed in the course
of executing the conspiracy for which the conspirators are responsible.
1. Beginning with the initiation of the aggressive war on 1 September
1939, and throughout its extension into wars involving almost the entire
world, the Nazi conspirators carried out their Common Plan or Conspiracy
to wage war in ruthless and complete disregard and violation of the laws
and customs of war. In the course of executing the Common Plan or
Conspiracy, there were committed the War Crimes detailed hereinafter in
Count Three of this Indictment.
2. Beginning with the initiation of their plan to seize and retain total
control of the German State, and thereafter throughout their utilization of
that control for foreign aggression, the Nazi conspirators carried out their
Common Plan or Conspiracy in ruthless and complete disregard and
violation of the laws of humanity. In the course of executing the Common
Plan or Conspiracy there were committed the Crimes against Humanity
detailed hereinafter in Count Four of this Indictment.
3. By reason of all the foregoing, the defendants with divers other
persons are guilty of a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment
of Crimes against Peace; of a conspiracy to commit Crimes against

Humanity in the course of preparation for war and in the course of
prosecution of war, and of a conspiracy to commit War Crimes not only
against the armed forces of their enemies but also against non-belligerent
civilian populations.
(H) Individual, group and organization responsibility for the offense
stated in Count One.
Reference is hereby made to Appendix A of this Indictment for a
statement of the responsibility of the individual defendants for the offense
set forth in this Count One of the Indictment. Reference is hereby made to
Appendix B of this Indictment for a statement of the responsibility of the
groups and organizations named herein as criminal groups and
organizations for the offenses set forth in this Count One of the Indictment.
If the Tribunal please, that ends Count One, which is America’s
responsibility. Great Britain will present Count Two.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordships please:

COUNT TWO—CRIMES AGAINST PEACE. Charter, Article 6 (a).

V. Statement of the Offense.
All the defendants with divers other persons, during a period of years
preceding 8 May 1945, participated in the planning, preparation, initiation,
and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of
international treaties, agreements, and assurances.

VI. Particulars of the Wars Planned, Prepared, Initiated, and Waged.
(A) The wars referred to in the statement of offense in this Count Two
of the Indictment and the dates of their initiation were the following:
against Poland, 1 September 1939; against the United Kingdom and France,
3 September 1939; against Denmark and Norway, 9 April 1940; against
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, 10 May 1940; against
Yugoslavia and Greece, 6 April 1941; against the U.S.S.R., 22 June 1941;
and against the United States of America, 11 December 1941.
(B) Reference is hereby made to Count One of the Indictment for the
allegations charging that these wars were wars of aggression on the part of
the defendants.
(C) Reference is hereby made to Appendix C annexed to this Indictment
for a statement of particulars of the charges of violations of international

treaties, agreements, and assurances caused by the defendants in the course
of planning, preparing, and initiating these wars.

VII. Individual, Group and Organization Responsibility for the Offense
Stated in Count Two.
Reference is hereby made to Appendix A of this Indictment for a
statement of the responsibility of the individual defendants for the offense
set forth in this Count Two of the Indictment. Reference is hereby made to
Appendix B of this Indictment for a statement of the responsibility of the
groups and organizations named herein as criminal groups and
organizations for the offense set forth in this Count Two of the Indictment.
That finishes, Mr. President, Count Two of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn for 15 minutes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, the reading
will be resumed by a representative of the French Republic.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that the Defendant Ernst
Kaltenbrunner is temporarily ill. The Trial will continue in his absence. I
call upon the Chief Prosecutor for the Provisional Government of the
French Republic.
M. PIERRE MOUNIER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French Republic):

COUNT THREE—WAR CRIMES. Charter, Article 6, especially 6 (b).

VIII. Statement of the Offense.
All the defendants committed War Crimes between 1 September 1939
and 8 May 1945, in Germany and in all those countries and territories
occupied by the German Armed Forces since 1 September 1939, and in
Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Italy, and on the High Seas.
All the defendants, acting in concert with others, formulated and
executed a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit War Crimes as defined
in Article 6 (b) of the Charter. This plan involved, among other things, the
practice of “total war” including methods of combat and of military
occupation in direct conflict with the laws and customs of war, and the

perpetration of crimes committed on the field of battle during encounters
with enemy armies, against prisoners of war, and in occupied territories
against the civilian population of such territories.
The said War Crimes were committed by the defendants and by other
persons for whose acts the defendants are responsible (under Article 6 of
the Charter) as such other persons when committing the said War Crimes
performed their acts in execution of a Common Plan and Conspiracy to
commit the said War Crimes, in the formulation and execution of which
plan and conspiracy all the defendants participated as leaders, organizers,
instigators, and accomplices.
These methods and crimes constituted violations of international
conventions, of internal penal laws, and of the general principles of criminal
law as derived from the criminal law of all civilized nations, and were
involved in and part of a systematic course of conduct.
(A) Murder and ill-treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied
territory and on the High Seas.
Throughout the period of their occupation of territories overrun by their
armed forces, the defendants, for the purpose of systematically terrorizing
the inhabitants, ill-treated civilians, imprisoned them without legal process,
tortured, and murdered them.
The murders and ill-treatment were carried out by divers means, such as
shooting, hanging, gassing, starvation, gross overcrowding, systematic
undernutrition, systematic imposition of labor tasks beyond the strength of
those ordered to carry them out, inadequate provision of surgical and
medical services, kickings, beatings, brutality and torture of all kinds,
including the use of hot irons and pulling out of fingernails and the
performance of experiments by means of operations and otherwise on living
human subjects. In some occupied territories the defendants interfered with
religious services, persecuted members of the clergy and monastic orders,
and expropriated church property. They conducted deliberate and
systematic genocide; viz., the extermination of racial and national groups,
against the civilian population of certain occupied territories in order to
destroy particular races and classes of people, and national, racial, or
religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies.
Civilians were systematically subjected to tortures of all kinds, with the
object of obtaining information.

Civilians of occupied countries were subjected systematically to
“protective arrests”, that is to say they were arrested and imprisoned
without any trial and any of the ordinary protections of the law, and they
were imprisoned under the most unhealthy and inhumane conditions.
In the concentration camps were many prisoners who were classified
“Nacht und Nebel”. These were entirely cut off from the world and were
allowed neither to receive nor to send letters. They disappeared without
trace and no announcement of their fate was ever made by the German
authorities.
Such crimes and ill-treatment are contrary to international conventions,
in particular to Article 46 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and
customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the
criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the
countries in which such crimes were committed, and to Article 6 (b) of the
Charter.
The following particulars and all the particulars appearing later in this
Count are set out herein by way of example only, are not exclusive of other
particular cases, and are stated without prejudice to the right of the
Prosecution to adduce evidence of other cases of murder and ill-treatment
of civilians.
1. In France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Italy,
and the Channel Islands, (hereinafter called the “Western Countries”), and
in that part of Germany which lies west of a line drawn due north and south
through the center of Berlin (hereinafter called “Western Germany”).
Such murder and ill-treatment took place in concentration camps and
similar establishments set up by the defendants, and particularly in the
concentration camps set up at Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Breendonck,
Grini, Natzweiler, Ravensbrück, Vught, and Amersfoort, and in numerous
cities, towns, and villages, including Oradour sur Glane, Trondheim, and
Oslo.
Crimes committed in France or against French citizens took the
following forms:
Arbitrary arrests were carried out under political or racial pretexts; they
were either individual or collective; notably in Paris (round-up of the 18th
Arrondissement by the Field Gendarmerie, round-up of the Jewish
population of the 11th Arrondissement in August 1941, round-up in July
1942); at Clermont-Ferrand (round-up of professors and students of the

University of Strasbourg, which had been evacuated to Clermont-Ferrand,
on 25 November 1943); at Lyons; at Marseilles (round-up of 40,000
persons in January 1943); at Grenoble (round-up of 24 December 1943); at
Cluny (round-up on 24 December 1943); at Figeac (round-up in May 1944);
at Saint Pol de Léon (round-up in July 1944); at Locminé (round-up on 3
July 1944); at Eysieux (round-up in May 1944); and at Meaux-Moussey
(round-up in September 1944). These arrests were followed by brutal
treatment and tortures carried out by the most diverse methods, such as
immersion in icy water, asphyxiation, torture of the limbs, and the use of
instruments of torture, such as the iron helmet and electric current, and
practiced in all the prisons of France, notably in Paris, Lyons, Marseilles,
Rennes, Metz, Clermont-Ferrand, Toulouse, Nice, Grenoble, Annecy, Arras,
Béthune, Lille, Loos, Valenciennes, Nancy, Troyes, and Caen, and in the
torture chambers fitted up at the Gestapo centers.
In the concentration camps, the health regime and the labor regime were
such that the rate of mortality (alleged to be from natural causes) attained
enormous proportions, for instance:
1. Out of a convoy of 250 French women deported from Compiègne to
Auschwitz in January 1943, 180 had died of exhaustion at the end of 4
months.
2. 143 Frenchmen died of exhaustion between 23 March and 6 May
1943 in Block 8 at Dachau.
3. 1,797 Frenchmen died of exhaustion between 21 November 1943 and
15 March 1945 in the block at Dora.
4. 465 Frenchmen died of general debility in November 1944 at Dora.
5. 22,761 deportees died of exhaustion at Buchenwald between 1
January 1943 and 15 April 1945.
6. 11,560 detainees died of exhaustion at Dachau Camp (most of them
in Block 30 reserved for the sick and the infirm) between 1 January and 15
April 1945.
7. 780 priests died of exhaustion at Mauthausen.
8. Out of 2,200 Frenchmen registered at Flossenburg Camp, 1,600 died
from supposedly natural causes.
Methods used for the work of extermination in concentration camps
were:
Bad treatment, pseudo-scientific experiments (sterilization of women at
Auschwitz and at Ravensbrück, study of the evolution of cancer of the

womb at Auschwitz, of typhus at Buchenwald, anatomical research at
Natzweiler, heart injections at Buchenwald, bone grafting and muscular
excisions at Ravensbrück, et cetera), and by gas chambers, gas wagons, and
crematory ovens. Of 228,000 French political and racial deportees in
concentration camps, only 28,000 survived.
In France also systematic extermination was practised, notably at Asq
on 1 April 1944, at Colpo on 22 July 1944, at Buzet sur Tarn on 6 July 1944
and on 17 August 1944, at Pluvignier on 8 July 1944, at Rennes on 8 June
1944, at Grenoble on 8 July 1944, at Saint Flour on 10 June 1944, at
Ruisnes on 10 June 1944, at Nimes, at Tulle, and at Nice, where, in July
1944, the victims of torture were exposed to the population, and at Oradour
sur Glane where the entire village population was shot or burned alive in
the church.
The many charnel pits give proof of anonymous massacres. Most
notable of these are the charnel pits of Paris (Cascade du Bois de
Boulogne), Lyons, Saint Genis-Laval, Besançon, Petit Saint Bernard,
Aulnat, Caen, Port Louis, Charleval, Fontainebleau, Bouconne, Gabaudet,
L’hermitage Lorges, Morlaas, Bordelongue, Signe.
In the course of a premeditated campaign of terrorism, initiated in
Denmark by the Germans in the latter part of 1943, 600 Danish subjects
were murdered and, in addition, throughout the German occupation of
Denmark large numbers of Danish subjects were subjected to torture and
ill-treatment of all sorts. In addition, approximately five hundred Danish
subjects were murdered, by torture and otherwise, in German prisons and
concentration camps.
In Belgium, between 1940 and 1944, torture by various means, but
identical in each place, was carried out at Brussels, Liége, Mons, Ghent,
Namur, Antwerp, Tournai, Arlon, Charleroi, and Dinant.
At Vught, in Holland, when the camp was evacuated, about four
hundred persons were shot.
In Luxembourg, during the German occupation, 500 persons were
murdered and, in addition, another 521 were illegally executed, by order of
such special tribunals as the so-called “Sondergericht”. Many more persons
in Luxembourg were subjected to torture and ill-treatment by the Gestapo.
At least 4,000 Luxembourg nationals were imprisoned during the period of
German occupation, and of these at least 400 were murdered.

Between March 1944 and April 1945, in Italy, at least 7,500 men,
women, and children, ranging in years from infancy to extreme old age
were murdered by the German soldiery at Civitella, in the Ardeatine Caves
in Rome, and at other places.
(B) Deportation, for slave labor and for other purposes, of the civilian
populations of and in occupied territories.
During the whole period of the occupation by Germany of both the
Western and the Eastern Countries, it was the policy of the German
Government and of the German High Command to deport able-bodied
citizens from such occupied countries to Germany and to other occupied
countries to force them to work on fortifications, in factories, and in other
tasks connected with the German war effort.
In pursuance of such policy there were mass deportations from all the
Western and Eastern Countries for such purposes during the whole period
of the occupation.
These deportations were contrary to the international conventions, in
particular to Article 46 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and
customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the
criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the
countries in which such crimes were committed, and to Article 6 (b) of the
Charter.
Particulars of deportations, by way of example only and without
prejudice to the production of evidence of other cases, are as follows:
1. From the Western Countries:
From France the following “deportations” of persons for political and
racial reasons took place—each of which consisted of from 1,500 to 2,500
deportees:
1940, 3 transports; 1941, 14 transports; 1942, 104 transports; 1943, 257
transports; 1944, 326 transports.
These deportees were subjected to the most barbarous conditions of
overcrowding; they were provided with wholly insufficient clothing and
were given little or no food for several days.
The conditions of transport were such that many deportees died in the
course of the voyage, for example:
In one of the wagons of the train which left Compiègne for
Buchenwald, on the 17th of September 1943, 80 men died out of 130.
On 4 June 1944, 484 bodies were taken out of a train at Sarrebourg.

In a train which left Compiègne on 2 July 1944 for Dachau, more than
600 dead were found on arrival, i.e. one-third of the total number.
In a train which left Compiègne on 16th of January 1944 for
Buchenwald, more than 100 persons were confined in each wagon, the dead
and the wounded being heaped in the last wagon during the voyage.
In April 1945, of 12,000 internees evacuated from Buchenwald 4,000
only were still alive when the marching column arrived near Regensburg.
During the German occupation of Denmark, 5,200 Danish subjects were
deported to Germany and there imprisoned in concentration camps and
other places.
In 1942 and thereafter, 6,000 nationals of Luxembourg were deported
from their country under deplorable conditions and many of them perished.
From Belgium, between 1940 and 1944, at least 190,000 civilians were
deported to Germany and used as slave labor. Such deportees were
subjected to ill-treatment and many of them were compelled to work in
armament factories.
From Holland, between 1940 and 1944, nearly half a million civilians
were deported to Germany and to other occupied countries.
(C) Murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war, and of other members
of the armed forces of the countries with whom Germany was at war, and of
persons on the High Seas.
The defendants ill-treated and murdered prisoners of war by denying
them suitable food, shelter, clothing, and medical care and other attention;
by forcing them to labor in inhumane conditions; by humiliating them,
torturing them, and by killing them. The German Government and the
German High Command imprisoned prisoners of war in various
concentration camps, where they were killed or subjected to inhuman
treatment by the various methods set forth in Paragraph VIII (A).
Members of the armed forces of the countries with whom Germany was
at war were frequently murdered while in the act of surrendering.
These murders and ill-treatment were contrary to international
conventions, particularly Articles 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Hague Regulations,
1907, and to Articles 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Prisoners of War Convention,
Geneva, 1929, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of
criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the
internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed,
and to Article 6 (b) of the Charter.

Particulars by way of example and without prejudice to the production
of evidence of other cases, are as follows:
In the Western Countries:
French officers who escaped from Oflag X C were handed over to the
Gestapo and disappeared; others were murdered by their guards; others sent
to concentration camps and exterminated. Among others, the men of Stalag
VI C were sent to Buchenwald.
Frequently prisoners captured on the Western Front were obliged to
march to the camps until they completely collapsed. Some of them walked
more than 600 kilometers with hardly any food; they marched on for 48
hours running, without being fed; among them a certain number died of
exhaustion or of hunger; stragglers were systematically murdered.
The same crimes were committed in 1943, 1944, and 1945, when the
occupants of the camps were withdrawn before the Allied advance,
particularly during the withdrawal of the prisoners from Sagan on February
8th, 1945.
Bodily punishments were inflicted upon non-commissioned officers and
cadets who refused to work. On December 24th, 1943, three French non-
commissioned officers were murdered for that motive in Stalag IV A. Much
ill-treatment was inflicted without motive on other ranks; stabbing with
bayonets, striking with rifle-butts, and whipping; in Stalag XX B the sick
themselves were beaten many times by sentries; in Stalag III B and Stalag
III C worn-out prisoners were murdered or grievously wounded. In military
jails, in Graudenz for instance, in reprisal camps, as in Rava-Ruska, the
food was so insufficient that the men lost more than 15 kilograms in a few
weeks. In May 1942, one loaf of bread only was distributed in Rava-Ruska
to each group of 35 men.
Orders were given to transfer French officers in chains to the camp of
Mauthausen after they had tried to escape. At their arrival in camp they
were murdered, either by shooting or by gas, and their bodies destroyed in
the crematorium.
American prisoners, officers and men, were murdered in Normandy
during the summer of 1944 and in the Ardennes in December 1944.
American prisoners were starved, beaten, and mutilated in various ways in
numerous Stalags in Germany or in the occupied countries, particularly in
1943, 1944, and 1945.
(D) Killing of hostages.

Throughout the territories occupied by the German Armed Forces in the
course of waging their aggressive wars, the defendants adopted and put into
effect on a wide scale the practice of taking and killing hostages from the
civilian population. These acts were contrary to international conventions,
particularly Article 50 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and
customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the
criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the
countries in which such crimes were committed, and to Article 6 (b) of the
Charter.
Particulars, by way of example and without prejudice to the production
of evidence of other cases, are as follows:
In the Western Countries:
In France hostages were executed either individually or collectively;
these executions took place in all the big cities of France, among others in
Paris, Bordeaux, and Nantes, as well as at Chateaubriant.
In Holland many hundreds of hostages were shot at the following
among other places: Rotterdam, Apeldoorn, Amsterdam, Benshop, and
Haarlem.
In Belgium many hundreds of hostages were shot during the period
1940 to 1944.
M. CHARLES GERTHOFFER (Assistant Prosecutor for the French
Republic) [Continuing the reading of the Indictment]:
(E) Plunder of public and private property.
The defendants ruthlessly exploited the people and the material
resources of the countries they occupied, in order to strengthen the Nazi war
machine, to depopulate and impoverish the rest of Europe, to enrich
themselves and their adherents, and to promote German economic
supremacy over Europe.
The defendants engaged in the following acts and practices, among
others:
1. They degraded the standard of life of the people of occupied
countries and caused starvation by stripping occupied countries of
foodstuffs for removal to Germany.
2. They seized raw materials and industrial machinery in all of the
occupied countries, removed them to Germany and used them in the interest
of the German war effort and the German economy.

3. In all the occupied countries, in varying degrees, they confiscated
businesses, plants, and other property.
4. In an attempt to give color of legality to illegal acquisitions of
property, they forced owners of property to go through the forms of
“voluntary” and “legal” transfers.
5. They established comprehensive controls over the economies of all of
the occupied countries and directed their resources, their production, and
their labor in the interests of the German war economy, depriving the local
populations of the products of essential industries.
6. By a variety of financial mechanisms, they despoiled all of the
occupied countries of essential commodities and accumulated wealth,
debased the local currency systems and disrupted the local economies. They
financed extensive purchases in occupied countries through clearing
arrangements by which they exacted loans from the occupied countries.
They imposed occupation levies, exacted financial contributions, and issued
occupation currency, far in excess of occupation costs. They used these
excess funds to finance the purchase of business properties and supplies in
the occupied countries.
7. They abrogated the rights of the local populations in the occupied
portions of the U.S.S.R. and in Poland and in other countries to develop or
manage agricultural and industrial properties, and reserved this area for
exclusive settlement, development, and ownership by Germans and their so-
called racial brethren.
8. In further development of their plan of criminal exploitation, they
destroyed industrial cities, cultural monuments, scientific institutions, and
property of all types in the occupied territories to eliminate the possibility
of competition with Germany.
9. From their program of terror, slavery, spoliation, and organized
outrage, the Nazi conspirators created an instrument for the personal profit
and aggrandizement of themselves and their adherents. They secured for
themselves and their adherents:
(a) Positions in administration of business involving power, influence,
and lucrative prerequisites;
(b) The use of cheap forced labor;
(c) The acquisition on advantageous terms of foreign properties, raw
materials, and business interests;
(d) The basis for the industrial supremacy of Germany.

These acts were contrary to international conventions, particularly
Articles 46 to 56 inclusive of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and
customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the
criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the
countries in which such crimes were committed, and to Article 6 (b) of the
Charter.
Particulars, by way of example and without prejudice to the production
of evidence of other cases, are as follows:
1. Western Countries:
There was plundered from the Western Countries from 1940 to 1944,
works of art, artistic objects, pictures, plastics, furniture, textiles, antique
pieces, and similar articles of enormous value to the number of 21,903.
In France statistics show the following:
Removal of raw materials:
Coal, 63,000,000 tons; electric energy, 20,976 Mkwh; petrol and fuel,
1,943,750 tons; iron ore, 74,848,000 tons; siderurgical products, 3,822,000
tons; bauxite, 1,211,800 tons; cement, 5,984,000 tons; lime, 1,888,000 tons;
quarry products, 25,872,000 tons; and various other products to a total
value of 79,961,423,000 francs.
Removal of industrial equipment: total—9,759,861,000 francs, of which
2,626,479,000 francs of machine tools.
Removal of agricultural produce: total—126,655,852,000 francs; i.e. for
the principal products:
Wheat, 2,947,337 tons; oats, 2,354,080 tons; milk, 790,000 hectolitres,
(concentrated and in powder, 460,000 hectolitres); butter, 76,000 tons,
cheese, 49,000 tons; potatoes, 725,975 tons; various vegetables, 575,000
tons; wine, 7,647,000 hectolitres; champagne, 87,000,000 bottles; beer
3,821,520 hectolitres; various kinds of alcohol, 1,830,000 hectolitres.
Removal of manufactured products to a total of 184,640,000,000 francs.
Plundering: Francs 257,020,024,000 from private enterprise, Francs
55,000,100,000 from the State.
Financial exploitation: From June 1940 to September 1944 the French
Treasury was compelled to pay to Germany 631,866,000,000 francs.
Looting and destruction of works of art: The museums of Nantes,
Nancy, Old-Marseilles were looted.
Private collections of great value were stolen. In this way, Raphaels,
Vermeers, Van Dycks, and works of Rubens, Holbein, Rembrandt, Watteau,

Boucher disappeared. Germany compelled France to deliver up “The
Mystic Lamb” by Van Eyck, which Belgium had entrusted to her.
In Norway and other occupied countries decrees were made by which
the property of many civilians, societies, et cetera, was confiscated. An
immense amount of property of every kind was plundered from France,
Belgium, Norway, Holland, and Luxembourg.
As a result of the economic plundering of Belgium between 1940 and
1944 the damage suffered amounted to 175 billions of Belgian francs.
(F) The exaction of collective penalties.
The Germans pursued a systematic policy of inflicting, in all the
occupied countries, collective penalties, pecuniary and otherwise, upon the
population for acts of individuals for which it could not be regarded as
collectively responsible; this was done at many places, including Oslo,
Stavanger, Trondheim, and Rogaland.
Similar instances occurred in France, among others in Dijon, Nantes,
and as regards the Jewish population in the occupied territories. The total
amount of fines imposed on French communities adds up to 1,157,179,484
francs made up as follows: A fine on the Jewish population, 1,000,000,000;
various fines, 157,179,484.
These acts violated Article 50, Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and
customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the
criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the
countries in which such crimes were committed, and Article 6 (b) of the
Charter.
(G) Wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, and devastation
not justified by military necessity.
The defendants wantonly destroyed cities, towns, and villages, and
committed other acts of devastation without military justification or
necessity. These acts violated Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague Regulations,
1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as
derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal
laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed, and Article 6
(b) of the Charter.
Particulars, by way of example only and without prejudice to the
production of evidence of other cases, are as follows:
1. Western Countries:

In March 1941 part of Lofoten in Norway was destroyed. In April 1942
the town of Telerag in Norway was destroyed.
Entire villages were destroyed in France, among others, Oradour sur
Glane, Saint Nizier in Gascogne, La Mure, Vassieu, La Chappelle en
Vercors. The town of Saint Dié was burnt down and destroyed. The Old
Port District of Marseilles was dynamited in the beginning of 1943 and
resorts along the Atlantic and the Mediterranean coasts, particularly the
town of Sanary, were demolished.
In Holland there was most widespread and extensive destruction, not
justified by military necessity, including the destruction of harbors, locks,
dykes, and bridges; immense devastation was also caused by inundations
which equally were not justified by military necessity.
(H) Conscription of civilian labor.
Throughout the occupied territories the defendants conscripted and
forced the inhabitants to labor and requisitioned their services for purposes
other than meeting the needs of the armies of occupation and to an extent
far out of proportion to the resources of the countries involved. All the
civilians so conscripted were forced to work for the German war effort.
Civilians were required to register and many of those who registered were
forced to join the Todt Organization and the Speer Legion, both of which
were semi-military organizations involving some military training. These
acts violated Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws
and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from
the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the
countries in which such crimes were committed, and Article 6 (b) of the
Charter.
Particulars, by way of example only and without prejudice to the
production of evidence of other cases, are as follows:
1. Western Countries:
In France, from 1942 to 1944, 963,813 persons were compelled to work
in Germany and 737,000 to work in France for the German Army.
In Luxembourg, in 1944 alone, 2,500 men and 500 girls were
conscripted for forced labor.
(I) Forcing civilians of occupied territories to swear allegiance to a
hostile power.
Civilians who joined the Speer Legion, as set forth in Paragraph (H)
were required, under threat of depriving them of food, money, and identity

papers, to swear a solemn oath acknowledging unconditional obedience to
Adolf Hitler, the Führer of Germany, which was to them a hostile power.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn until 2 o’clock.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic
continue the reading of the Indictment.
M. MOUNIER: In Lorraine, civil servants were obliged, in order to
retain their positions, to sign a declaration by which they acknowledged the
“return of their country to the Reich”, pledged themselves to obey without
reservation the orders of their chiefs and put themselves “at the active
service of the Führer and of National Socialist greater Germany.”
A similar pledge was imposed on Alsatian civil servants, by threat of
deportation or internment.
These acts violated Article 45 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws
and customs of war, the general principles of international law, and Article
6 (b) of the Charter.
(J) Germanization of occupied territories.
In certain occupied territories purportedly annexed to Germany the
defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavoured to assimilate
those territories politically, culturally, socially, and economically into the
German Reich. They endeavoured to obliterate the former national
character of these territories. In pursuance of these plans, the defendants
forcibly deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and
replaced them by thousands of German colonists.
Their plan included economic domination, physical conquest,
installation of puppet governments, purported de jure annexation and
enforced conscription into the German Armed Forces.
This was carried out in most of the occupied countries especially in
Norway, France (particularly in the Departments of Upper Rhine, Lower
Rhine, Moselle, Ardennes, Aisne, Nord, Meurthe and Moselle), in
Luxembourg, the Soviet Union, Denmark, Belgium, and Holland.
In France in the Departments of Aisne, Nord, Meurthe and Moselle, and
especially in that of the Ardennes, rural properties were confiscated by a
German state organization which tried to work them under German
management.
The landowners of these holdings were dispossessed and turned into
agricultural laborers. In the Departments of Upper Rhine, Lower Rhine, and

Moselle the methods of Germanization were those of annexation followed
by conscription.
1. From the month of August 1940 officials who refused to take the oath
of allegiance to the Reich were expelled. On September 21st the expulsion
and deportation of population began, and on November 22d, 1940 more
than 70,000 Lorrainers or Alsatians were driven into the south zone of
France. From July 31, 1941 onwards, more than 100,000 persons were
deported into the eastern regions of the Reich or to Poland. All the property
of the deportees or expelled persons was confiscated. At the same time,
80,000 Germans coming from the Saar or from Westphalia were installed in
Lorraine and 2,000 farms belonging to French people were transferred to
Germans.
2. From 2 January 1942 all the young people of the Departments of
Upper Rhine and Lower Rhine, aged from 10 to 18 years, were
incorporated in the Hitler Youth. The same measures were taken in the
Moselle from 4 August 1942. From 1940 all the French schools were
closed, their staffs expelled, and the German school system was introduced
in the three departments.
3. On the 28th of September 1940 an order applicable to the Department
of the Moselle ordained the Germanization of all the surnames and
Christian names which were French in form. The same measure was taken
on the 15th January 1943 in the Departments of Upper Rhine and Lower
Rhine.
4. Two orders of the 23rd and 24th August 1942 imposed by force
German nationality on French citizens.
5. On the 8th May 1941 for Upper Rhine and Lower Rhine, and on the
23rd April 1941 for the Moselle, orders were promulgated enforcing
compulsory labor service on all French citizens of either sex aged from 17
to 25 years. From the 1st January 1942 for young men, and from the 26th
January 1942 for young women, national labor service was effectively
organized in the Moselle. This measure came into force on the 27th August
1942 in Upper Rhine and Lower Rhine, but for young men only. The
classes of 1940, 1941, 1942 were called up.
6. These contingents were drafted into the Wehrmacht on the expiration
of their time in the labor service.
On the 19th August 1942 an order instituted compulsory military
service in the Moselle, and on the 25th August 1942 the contingents of 1940

to 1944 were called up in the three Departments.
Conscription was enforced by the German authorities in conformity
with the provisions of German legislation. The first induction board took
place on the 3rd September 1942. Later, in the Upper Rhine and Lower
Rhine new levies were effected everywhere of the contingents from 1928 to
1939 inclusive. The French men who refused to obey these laws were
considered as deserters and their families were deported, while their
property was confiscated.
These acts violated Articles 43, 46, 55, and 56 of the Hague
Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of
criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the
internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed,
and Article 6 (b) of the Charter.

IX. Individual, Group and Organization Responsibility for the Crimes
Stated in Count Three.
Reference is hereby made to Appendix A of this Indictment for a
statement of the responsibility of the individual defendants for the charge
set forth in Count Three of the Indictment.
Reference is hereby made to Appendix B of this Indictment for a
statement of the responsibility of the groups and organizations named
herein as criminal groups and organizations for the crime set forth in this
part three of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: I will now call upon the Chief Prosecutor for the
Soviet Union.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL J. A. OZOL (Assistant Prosecutor for the
U.S.S.R.): COUNT THREE—WAR CRIMES.
All the defendants committed War Crimes between 1 September 1939
and 8 May 1945 in Germany and in all those countries and territories
occupied by the German Armed Forces since 1 September 1939, and in
Austria, Czechoslovakia, Italy, and on the High Seas.
All the defendants, acting in concert with others, formulated and
executed a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit War Crimes as defined
in Article 6 (b) of the Charter. This plan involved, among other things, the
practice of “total war” including methods of combat and of military
occupation in direct conflict with the laws and customs of war, and the
commission of crimes perpetrated on the field of battle during encounters

with enemy armies, and against prisoners of war, and in occupied territories
against the civilian population of such territories.
The said War Crimes were committed by the defendants and by other
persons for whose acts the defendants are responsible (under Article 6 of
the Charter) as such other persons when committing the said War Crimes
performed their acts in execution of a common plan and conspiracy to
commit the said War Crimes, in the formulation and execution of which
plan and conspiracy all the defendants participated as leaders, organizers,
instigators, and accomplices.
These methods and crimes constituted violations of international
conventions, of internal penal laws, and of the general principles of criminal
law as derived from the criminal law of all civilized nations, and were
involved in and part of a systematic course of conduct.
(A) Murder and ill-treatment of civilian populations of or in occupied
territory and on the High Seas.
Throughout the period of their occupation of territories overrun by their
armed forces the defendants, for the purpose of systematically terrorizing
the inhabitants, murdered and tortured civilians, and ill-treated them, and
imprisoned them without legal process.
The murders and ill-treatment were carried out by divers means,
including shooting, hanging, gassing, starvation, gross overcrowding,
systematic undernutrition, systematic imposition of labor tasks beyond the
strength of those ordered to carry them out, inadequate provision of surgical
and medical services, kickings, beatings, brutality, and torture of all kinds,
including the use of hot irons and pulling out of fingernails and the
performance of experiments by means of operations and otherwise on living
human subjects. In some occupied territories the defendants interfered with
religious services, persecuted members of the clergy and monastic orders,
and expropriated church property. They conducted deliberate and
systematic genocide, viz. the extermination of racial and national groups,
against the civilian populations of certain occupied territories in order to
destroy particular races and classes of people, and national, racial, or
religious groups, particularly Jews, Poles, and Gypsies and others.
Civilians were systematically subjected to tortures of all kinds, with the
object of obtaining information.
Civilians of occupied countries were subjected systematically to
“protective arrests” whereby they were arrested and imprisoned without any

trial and any of the ordinary protections of the law, and they were
imprisoned under the most unhealthy and inhumane conditions.
In the concentration camps were many prisoners who were classified
“Nacht und Nebel”. These were entirely cut off from the world and were
allowed neither to receive nor to send letters. They disappeared without
trace and no announcement of their fate was ever made by the German
authorities.
Such murders and ill-treatment were contrary to international
conventions, in particular to Article 46 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the
laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived
from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the
countries in which such crimes were committed, and to Article 6 (b) of the
Charter.
The following particulars and all the particulars appearing later in this
Count are set out herein by way of example only, are not exclusive of other
particular cases, and are stated without prejudice to the right of the
Prosecution to adduce evidence of other cases of murder and ill-treatment
of civilians.
[2.] In the U.S.S.R., i.e. in the Bielorussian, Ukrainian, Estonian,
Latvian, Lithuanian, Karelo-Finnish, and Moldavian Soviet Socialist
Republics, in 19 regions of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic,
and in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, and the Balkans
(hereinafter called the “Eastern Countries”).
From the 1st September 1939, when the German Armed Forces invaded
Poland, and from the 22nd June 1941, when they invaded the U.S.S.R., the
German Government and the German High Command adopted a systematic
policy of murder and ill-treatment of the civilian populations of and in the
Eastern Countries as they were successively occupied by the German
Armed Forces. These murders and ill-treatments were carried on
continuously until the German Armed Forces were driven out of the said
countries.
Such murders and ill-treatments included:
(a) Murders and ill-treatments at concentration camps and similar
establishments set up by the Germans in the Eastern Countries and in
Eastern Germany including those set up at Maidanek and Auschwitz.
The said murders and ill-treatments were carried out by divers means
including all those set out above, as follows:

About 1½ million persons were, exterminated in Maidanek and about 4
million persons were exterminated in Auschwitz, among whom were
citizens of Poland, the U.S.S.R., the United States of America, Great
Britain, Czechoslovakia, France, and other countries.
In the Lwow region and in the city of Lwow the Germans exterminated
about 700,000 Soviet people, including 70 persons in the field of the arts,
science, and technology, and also citizens of the U.S.A., Great Britain,
Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Holland, brought to this region from other
concentration camps.
In the Jewish ghetto from 7 September 1941 to 6 July 1943 over
133,000 persons were tortured and shot.
Mass shooting of the population occurred in the suburbs of the city and
in the Livenitz forest.
In the Ganov camp 200,000 citizens were exterminated. The most
refined methods of cruelty were employed in this extermination, such as
disembowelling and the freezing of human beings in tubs of water. Mass
shootings took place to the accompaniment of the music of an orchestra
recruited from the persons interned.
Beginning with June 1943 the Germans carried out measures to hide the
evidence of their crimes. They exhumed and burned corpses, and they
crushed the bones with machines and used them for fertilizer.
At the beginning of 1944, in the Ozarichi region of the Bielorussian
S.S.R., before liberation by the Red Army, the Germans established three
concentration camps without shelters, to which they committed tens of
thousands of persons from the neighbouring territories. They intentionally
brought many people to these camps from typhus hospitals, for the purpose
of infecting the other persons interned and for spreading the disease in
territories from which the Germans were driven by the Red Army. In these
camps there were many murders and crimes.
In the Estonian S.S.R. they shot tens of thousands of persons and in one
day alone, 19 September 1944, in Camp Kloga, the Germans shot 2,000
peaceful citizens. They burned the bodies on bonfires.
In the Lithuanian S.S.R. there were mass killings of Soviet citizens,
namely: in Panerai at least 100,000; in Kaunas more than 70,000; in Alitus
about 60,000; at Prenai more than 3,000; in Villiampol about 8,000; in
Mariampol about 7,000; in Trakai and neighbouring towns 37,640.
In the Latvian S.S.R. 577,000 persons were murdered.

As a result of the whole system of internal order maintained in all
camps, the interned persons were doomed to die.
In a secret instruction entitled “The Internal Regime in Concentration
Camps”, signed personally by Himmler in 1941 severe measures of
punishment were set forth for the internees. Masses of prisoners of war
were shot, or died from the cold and torture.
(b) Murders and ill-treatments at places in the Eastern Countries and in
the Soviet Union, other than in the camps referred to in (a) above, included,
on various dates during the occupation by the German Armed Forces:
The destruction in the Smolensk region of over 135,000 Soviet citizens.
Among these, near the village of Kholmetz of the Sychev region, when
the military authorities were required to remove the mines from an area, on
the order of the commander of the 101st German Infantry Division, Major
General Fisler, the German soldiers gathered the inhabitants of the village
of Kholmetz and forced them to remove mines from the road. All of these
people lost their lives as a result of exploding mines.
In the Leningrad region there were shot and tortured over 172,000
persons, including 20,000 persons who were killed in the city of Leningrad
by the barbarous artillery barrage and the bombings.
In the Stavropol region in an anti-tank trench close to the station of
Mineralniye Vodi, and in other cities, tens of thousands of persons were
exterminated.
In Pyatigorsk many were subjected to torture and criminal treatment,
including suspension from the ceiling and other methods. Many of the
victims of these tortures were then shot.
In Krasnodar some 6,700 civilians were murdered by poison gas in gas
vans, or were shot and tortured.
In the Stalingrad region more than 40,000 persons were killed and
tortured. After the Germans were expelled from Stalingrad, more than a
thousand mutilated bodies of local inhabitants were found with marks of
torture. One hundred and thirty-nine women had their arms painfully bent
backward and held by wires. From some their breasts had been cut off and
their ears, fingers, and toes had been amputated. The bodies bore the marks
of burns. On the bodies of the men the five-pointed star was burned with an
iron or cut with a knife. Some were disembowelled.
In Orel over 5,000 persons were murdered.

In Novgorod and in the Novgorod region many thousands of Soviet
citizens were killed by shooting, starvation, and torture. In Minsk tens of
thousands of citizens were similarly killed.
In the Crimea peaceful citizens were gathered on barges, taken out to
sea and drowned, over 144,000 persons being exterminated in this manner.
In the Soviet Ukraine there were monstrous criminal acts of the Nazi
conspirators. In Babi Yar, near Kiev, they shot over 100,000 men, women,
children, and old people. In this city in January 1941, after the explosion in
German headquarters on Dzerzhinsky Street the Germans arrested as
hostages 1,250 persons—old men, minors, women with nursing infants. In
Kiev they killed over 195,000 persons.
In Rovno and the Rovno region they killed and tortured over 100,000
peaceful citizens.
In Dnepropetrovsk, near the Transport Institute, they shot or threw alive
into a great ravine 11,000 women, old men, and children.
In Kamenetz-Podolsk region 31,000 Jews were shot and exterminated,
including 13,000 persons brought there from Hungary.
In the Odessa region at least 200,000 Soviet citizens were killed.
In Kharkov about 195,000 persons were either tortured to death, shot, or
gassed in gas vans.
In Gomel the Germans rounded up the population in prison, and
tortured and tormented them, and then took them to the center of the city
and shot them in public.
In the city of Lyda in the Grodnen region, on 8 May 1942, 5,670
persons were completely undressed, driven into pens in groups of 100, and
then shot by machine guns. Many were thrown in the graves while they
were still alive.
Along with adults the Nazi conspirators mercilessly destroyed even
children. They killed them with their parents, in groups and alone. They
killed them in children’s homes and hospitals, burying the living in the
graves, throwing them into flames, stabbing them with bayonets, poisoning
them, conducting experiments upon them, extracting their blood for the use
of the German Army, throwing them into prison and Gestapo torture
chambers and concentration camps, where the children died from hunger,
torture, and epidemic diseases.
From 6 September to 24 November 1942, in the region of Brest, Pinsk,
Kobren, Dyvina, Malority, and Berezy-Kartuzsky about 400 children were

shot by German punitive units.
In the Yanov camp in the city of Lwow the Germans killed 8,000
children in two months.
In the resort of Tiberda the Germans annihilated 500 children suffering
from tuberculosis of the bone, who were in the sanatorium for the cure.
On the territory of the Latvian S.S.R. the German usurpers killed
thousands of children, which they had brought there with their parents from
the Bielorussian S.S.R., and from the Kalinin, Kaluga, and other regions of
the R.S.F.S.R.
In Czechoslovakia as a result of torture, beating, hanging, and shooting,
there were annihilated in Gestapo prisons in Brno, Seim, and other places
over 20,000 persons. Moreover many thousands of internees were subjected
to criminal treatment, beatings, and torture.
Both before the war as well as during the war thousands of Czech
patriots, in particular Catholics and Protestants, lawyers, doctors, teachers,
et cetera, were arrested as hostages and imprisoned. A large number of these
hostages were killed by the Germans.
In Greece in October 1941 the male populations between 16 and 60
years of age of the Greek villages Amelofito, Kliston, Kizonia Mesovunos,
Selli, Ano-Kerzilion, and Kato-Kerzilion were shot—in all 416 persons.
In Yugoslavia many thousands of civilians were murdered. Other
examples are given under Paragraph (D), “Killing of Hostages”, below.
THE PRESIDENT: Paragraph (B) on Page 16 was read by the Chief
Prosecutor for the French Republic. Paragraph 2 on Page 17 was omitted by
him. So had you better not go on at Paragraph 2 at Page 17?
LT. COL. OZOL: 2. From the Eastern Countries:
The German occupying authorities deported from the Soviet Union to
slavery about 4,978,000 Soviet citizens.
Seven hundred fifty thousand Czechoslovakian citizens were taken
away from Czechoslovakia and forced to work in the German war machine
in the interior of Germany.
On June 4, 1941 in the city of Zagreb, Yugoslavia, a meeting of German
representatives was called with the Councillor Von Troll presiding. The
purpose was to set up the means of deporting the Yugoslav population from
Slovenia. Tens of thousands of persons were deported in carrying out this
plan.
Murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war, and of other. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Will you read Paragraph 2 at page 18?
LT. COL. OZOL: 2. In the Eastern Countries:
At Orel prisoners of war were exterminated by starvation, shooting,
exposure, and poisoning.
Soviet prisoners of war were murdered en masse on orders from the
High Command and the headquarters of the SIPO and SD. Tens of
thousands of Soviet prisoners of war were tortured and murdered at the
“Gross Lazaret” at Slavuta.
In addition, many thousands of the persons referred to in Paragraph VIII
(A) 2, above, were Soviet prisoners of war.
Prisoners of war who escaped and were recaptured were handed over to
SIPO and SD for shooting.
Frenchmen fighting with the Soviet Army who were captured were
handed over to the Vichy Government for “proceedings.”
In March 1944, 50 R.A.F. officers who escaped from Stalag Luft III at
Sagan were murdered when captured.
In September 1941, 11,000 Polish officers who were prisoners of war
were killed in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk.
In Yugoslavia the German Command and the occupying authorities in
the person of the chief officials of the police, the SS troops (Police
Lieutenant General Rosener) and the Divisional Group Command (General
Kubler and others) in the period 1941-43 ordered the shooting of prisoners
of war.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Paragraph 2 of (D).
CAPTAIN V. V. KUCHIN (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.)
[Continuing the reading of the Indictment]: 2. In the Eastern Countries:
At Kragnevatz in Yugoslavia 2,300 hostages were shot in October 1941.
At Kraljero in Yugoslavia 5,000 hostages were shot.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you turn now to (E), Paragraph 2, page 21?
CAPT. KUCHIN: 2. Eastern Countries:
During the occupation of the Eastern Countries the German
Government and the German High Command carried out, as a systematic
policy, a continuous course of plunder and destruction including:
On the territory of the Soviet Union the Nazi conspirators destroyed or
severely damaged 1,710 cities and more than 70,000 villages and hamlets,
more than 6 million buildings and rendered homeless about 25 million
persons.

Among the cities which suffered most destruction are Stalingrad,
Sevastopol, Kiev, Minsk, Odessa, Smolensk, Novgorod, Pskov, Orel,
Kharkov, Voronezh, Rostov-on-Don, Stalino, and Leningrad.
As is evident from an official memorandum of the German Command,
the Nazi conspirators planned the complete annihilation of entire Soviet
cities. In a completely secret order of the Chief of the Naval Staff (SKL Ia
No. 1601/41, dated 29 September 1941) addressed only to Staff officers, it
was said:

“The Führer has decided to erase Petersburg from the face of the
earth. The existence of this large city will have no further interest
after Soviet Russia is destroyed. Finland has also said that the
existence of this city on her new border is not desirable from her
point of view. The original request of the Navy that docks, harbor,
et cetera, necessary for the fleet be preserved is known to the
Supreme Command of the German Armed Forces, but the basic
principles of carrying out operations against Petersburg do not
make it possible to satisfy this request.
“It is proposed to approach near to the city and to destroy it with
the aid of an artillery barrage from weapons of different calibers
and with long air attacks. . . .
“The problem of the lives of the population and of their
provisioning is a problem which cannot and must not be decided
by us.
“In this war . . . we are not interested in preserving even a part of
the population of this large city.”
The Germans destroyed 427 museums, among them the wealthy
museums of Leningrad, Smolensk, Stalingrad, Novgorod, Poltava, and
others.
In Pyatigorsk the art objects brought there from the Rostov museum
were seized.
The losses suffered by the coal mining industry alone in the Stalin
region amount to 2 billion rubles. There was colossal destruction of
industrial establishments in Makerevka, Carlovka, Yenakievo,
Konstantinovka, Mariupol, from which most of the machinery and factories
were removed.
Stealing of huge dimensions and the destruction of industrial, cultural,
and other property was typified in Kiev. More than 4 million books,
magazines, and manuscripts (many of which were very valuable and even
unique) and a large number of artistic productions and divers valuables
were stolen and carried away.
Many valuable art productions were taken away from Riga.
The extent of the plunder of cultural valuables is evidenced by the fact
that 100,000 valuable volumes and 70 cases of ancient periodicals and
precious monographs were carried away by Rosenberg’s staff alone.

Among further examples of these crimes are:
Wanton devastation of the city of Novgorod and of many historical and
artistic monuments there; wanton devastation and plunder of the city of
Rovno and of its province; the destruction of the industrial, cultural, and
other property in Odessa; the destruction of cities and villages in Soviet
Karelia; the destruction in Estonia of cultural, industrial, and other
buildings; the destruction of medical and prophylactic institutes; the
destruction of agriculture and industry in Lithuania; the destruction of cities
in Latvia.
The Germans approached monuments of culture, dear to the Soviet
people, with special hatred. They broke up the estate of the poet Pushkin in
Mikhailovskoye, desecrated his grave, and destroyed the neighboring
villages and the Svyatogor monastery.
They destroyed the estate and museum of Leo Tolstoy, “Yasnaya
Polyana” and desecrated the grave of the great writer. They destroyed, in
Klin, the museum of Tchaikovsky and, in Penaty, the museum of the painter
Repin and many others.
The Nazi conspirators destroyed 1,670 Greek Orthodox churches, 237
Roman Catholic churches, 67 chapels, 532 synagogues, et cetera.
They also broke up, desecrated and senselessly destroyed the most
valuable monuments of the Christian Church, such as the Kievo-
Pecherskaya Lavra, Novy Jerusalem in the Istrin region, and the most
ancient monasteries and churches.
Destruction in Estonia of cultural, industrial, and other premises;
burning down of many thousands of residential buildings; removal of
10,000 works of art; destruction of medical and prophylactic institutions;
plunder and removal to Germany of immense quantities of agricultural
stock including horses, cows, pigs, poultry, beehives, and agricultural
machines of all kinds.
Destruction of agriculture, enslavement of peasants, and looting of stock
and produce in Lithuania.
In the Latvian Republic destruction of the agriculture by the looting of
all stock, machinery, and produce.
Carrying away by Rosenberg’s headquarters of 100,000 valuable
volumes and 70 cases of ancient periodicals and precious monographs;
wanton destruction of libraries and other cultural buildings.

The result of this policy of plunder and destruction was to lay waste the
land and cause utter desolation.
The over-all value of the material loss which the U.S.S.R. has borne, is
computed to be 679 billion rubles, in State prices of 1941.
Following the German occupation of Czechoslovakia on 15 March 1939
the defendants seized and stole large stocks of raw materials, copper, tin,
iron, cotton, and food; caused to be taken to Germany large amounts of
railway rolling stock, and many engines, carriages, steam vessels and
trolley buses; robbed libraries, laboratories, and art museums of books,
pictures, objects of art, scientific apparatus, and furniture; stole all gold
reserves and foreign exchange of Czechoslovakia, including 23,000
kilograms of gold, of a nominal value of 5,265,000 Pounds; fraudulently
acquired control and thereafter looted the Czech banks and many Czech
industrial enterprises; and otherwise stole, looted, and misappropriated
Czechoslovak public and private property. The total sum of defendants’
economic spoliation of Czechoslovakia from 1938 to 1945 is estimated at
200 billion Czechoslovak crowns.
(G) Wanton destruction of cities, towns, and villages, and devastation
not justified by military necessity.
The defendants wantonly destroyed cities. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Will you go to Paragraph 2 of (G)? The French read
the first paragraph. Do you want to go to Paragraph 2 of (G)?
CAPT. KUCHIN: I have begun. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I thought we had read Paragraph 1. We might take
up at Paragraph 2, beginning “In the Eastern Countries the defendants
pursued. . . .”
CAPT. KUCHIN: 2. Eastern Countries:
In the Eastern Countries the defendants pursued a policy of wanton
destruction and devastation; some particulars of this, without prejudice to
the production of evidence of other cases, are set out above under the
heading “Plunder of Public and Private Property”.
In Greece in 1941 the villages of Amelofito, Kliston, Kizonia,
Messovunos, Selli, Ano-Kerzilion, and Kato-Kerzilion were utterly
destroyed.
In Yugoslavia on 15 August 1941 the German military command
officially announced that the village of Skela was burned to the ground and
the inhabitants killed on the order of the command.

On the order of the Field Commander Hoersterberg a punitive
expedition from the SS troops and the field police destroyed the villages of
Machkovats and Kriva Reka in Serbia and all the inhabitants were killed.
General Fritz Neidhold (369 Infantry Division), on 11 September 1944,
gave an order to destroy the villages of Zagniezde and Udora, hanging all
the men and driving away all the women and children.
In Czechoslovakia the Nazi conspirators also practiced the senseless
destruction of populated places. Lezaky and Lidice were burnt to the
ground and the inhabitants killed.
(H) Conscription of civilian labor.
Throughout the occupied territories the defendants conscripted and
forced the inhabitants to labor and requisitioned their services. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I think Paragraph (H) has been read, the first
paragraph of it. There only remains for you to read Paragraph 2 of (H).
CAPT. KUCHIN: 2. Eastern Countries:
Of the large number of citizens of the Soviet Union and of
Czechoslovakia, referred to under Count Three VIII (B) 2 above, many
were so conscripted for forced labor.

IX. Individual, group and organization responsibility for the offense
stated in Count Three.
Reference is hereby made to Appendix A of this Indictment for a
statement of the responsibility of the individual defendants for the offense
set forth in this Count Three of the Indictment. Reference is hereby made to
Appendix B of this Indictment for a statement of the responsibility of the
groups and organizations named herein as criminal groups and
organizations for the offense set forth in this Count Three of the Indictment.

COUNT FOUR—CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, Charter, Article 6,
especially 6 (c).

X. Statement of the offense.
All the defendants committed Crimes against Humanity during a period
of years preceding 8 May 1945, in Germany and in all those countries and
territories occupied by the German Armed Forces since 1 September 1939,
and in Austria and Czechoslovakia and in Italy and on the High Seas.

All the defendants, acting in concert with others, formulated and
executed a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit Crimes against
Humanity as defined in Article 6 (c) of the Charter. This plan involved,
among other things, the murder and persecution of all who were or who
were suspected of being hostile to the Nazi Party and all who were or who
were suspected of being opposed to the common plan alleged in Count One.
The said Crimes against Humanity were committed by the defendants,
and by other persons for whose acts the defendants are responsible (under
Article 6 of the Charter) as such other persons, when committing the said
War Crimes, performed their acts in execution of a Common Plan and
Conspiracy to commit the said War Crimes, in the formulation and
execution of which plan and conspiracy all the defendants participated as
leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices.
These methods and crimes constituted violations of international
conventions, of internal penal laws, of the general principles of criminal law
as derived from the criminal law of all civilized nations, and were involved
in and part of a systematic course of conduct. The said acts were contrary to
Article 6 of the Charter.
The Prosecution will rely upon the facts pleaded under Count Three as
also constituting Crimes against Humanity.
(A) Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other
inhumane acts committed against civilian populations before and during the
war.
For the purposes set out above, the defendants adopted a policy of
persecution, repression, and extermination of all civilians in Germany who
were, or who were believed to, or who were believed likely to become,
hostile to the Nazi Government and the Common Plan or Conspiracy
described in Count One. They imprisoned such persons without judicial
process, holding them in “protective custody” and concentration camps, and
subjected them to persecution, degradation, despoilment, enslavement,
torture, and murder.
Special courts were established to carry out the will of the conspirators;
favored branches or agencies of the State and Party were permitted to
operate outside the range even of nazified law and to crush all tendencies
and elements which were considered “undesirable”. The various
concentration camps included Buchenwald, which was established in 1933,
and Dachau, which was established in 1934. At these and other camps the

civilians were put to slave labor and murdered and ill-treated by divers
means, including those set out in Count Three above, and these acts and
policies were continued and extended to the occupied countries after the 1st
September 1939 and until 8th May 1945.
(B) Persecution on political, racial, and religious grounds in execution
of and in connection with the common plan mentioned in Count One.
As above stated, in execution of and in connection with the common
plan mentioned in Count One, opponents of the German Government were
exterminated and persecuted. These persecutions were directed against
Jews. They were also directed against persons whose political belief or
spiritual aspirations were deemed to be in conflict with the aims of the
Nazis.
Jews were systematically persecuted since 1933; they were deprived of
liberty, thrown into concentration camps where they were murdered and ill-
treated. Their property was confiscated. Hundreds of thousands of Jews
were so treated before the 1st September 1939.
Since the 1st September 1939 the persecution of the Jews was
redoubled; millions of Jews from Germany and from the occupied Western
Countries were sent to the Eastern Countries for extermination.
Particulars by way of example and without prejudice to the production
of evidence of other cases are as follows:
The Nazis murdered amongst others Chancellor Dollfuss, the Social
Democrat Breitscheid, and the Communist Thälmann. They imprisoned in
concentration camps numerous political and religious personages, for
example, Chancellor Schuschnigg and Pastor Niemöller.
In November 1938, by orders of the Chief of the Gestapo, anti-Jewish
demonstrations all over Germany took place. Jewish property was
destroyed; 30,000 Jews were arrested and sent to concentration camps and
their property confiscated.
Under paragraph VIII (A), above, millions of the persons there
mentioned as having been murdered and ill-treated were Jews.
Among other mass murders of Jews were the following:
At Kislovodsk all Jews were made to give up their property; 2,000 were
shot in an anti-tank ditch at Mineralniye Vodi; 4,300 other Jews were shot
in the same ditch; 60,000 Jews were shot on an island on the Dvina near
Riga; 20,000 Jews were shot at Lutsk; 32,000 Jews were shot at Sarny;
60,000 Jews were shot at Kiev and Dniepropetrovsk.

Thousands of Jews were gassed weekly by means of gas-wagons which
broke down from overwork.
As the Germans retreated before the Soviet Army they exterminated
Jews rather than allow them to be liberated. Many concentration camps and
ghettos were set up in which Jews were incarcerated and tortured, starved,
subjected to merciless atrocities, and finally exterminated.
About 70,000 Jews were exterminated in Yugoslavia.

XI. Individual, group and organization responsibility for the offense
stated in Count Four.
Reference is hereby made to Appendix A of this Indictment for a
statement of the responsibility of the individual defendants for the offense
set forth in this Count Four of the Indictment. Reference is hereby made to
Appendix B of this Indictment for a statement of the responsibility of the
groups and organizations named herein as criminal groups and
organizations for the offense set forth in the Count Four of the Indictment.
Wherefore, this Indictment is lodged with the Tribunal in English,
French, and Russian, each text having equal authenticity, and the charges
herein made against the above-named defendants are hereby presented to
the Tribunal.
Hartley Shawcross, acting on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland; Robert H. Jackson, acting on behalf of the
United States of America; François de Menthon, acting on behalf of the
French Republic; R. Rudenko, acting on behalf of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics. Berlin, 6th October 1945.
THE PRESIDENT: Has anybody been designated to read the
appendices?
MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal, I shall read Appendix A
and Appendix B, and the British Delegation will read Appendix C. One
word of explanation as to Appendix A. The Court will have observed that
the defendants are seated in the dock in the same order in which they are
named in the Indictment. By a mechanical slip-up they are not named in
Appendix A in exactly the same order. I think it would be too much
difficulty for the interpreters or for me to arrange them in the same order,
and if the Court will permit I will read Appendix A as it is printed.

APPENDIX A—STATEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
FOR CRIMES SET OUT IN COUNTS ONE, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR.
The statements hereinafter set forth following the name of each
individual defendant constitute matters upon which the Prosecution will
rely inter alia as pursuant to Article 6 establishing the individual
responsibility of the defendant:

GÖRING. The Defendant Göring between 1932 and 1945 was a
member of the Nazi Party, Supreme Leader of the SA, general in the SS, a
member and President of the Reichstag, Minister of the Interior of Prussia,
Chief of the Prussian Police and Prussian Secret State Police, Chief of the
Prussian State Council, Trustee of the Four Year Plan, Reich Minister for
Air, Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, President of the Council of
Ministers for the Defense of the Reich, member of the Secret Cabinet
Council, head of the Hermann Göring Industrial Combine, and Successor
Designate to Hitler. The Defendant Göring used the foregoing positions, his
personal influence, and his intimate connection with the Führer in such a
manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he promoted the military and economic preparation for war set
forth in Count One of the Indictment; he participated in the planning and
preparation of the Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression and wars in
violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances set forth in
Counts One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment,
and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment,
including a wide variety of crimes against persons and property.

RIBBENTROP. The Defendant Ribbentrop between 1932 and 1945 was
a member of the Nazi Party, a member of the Nazi Reichstag, advisor to the
Führer on matters of foreign policy, representative of the Nazi Party for
matters of foreign policy, special German delegate for disarmament
questions, Ambassador extraordinary, Ambassador in London, organizer
and director of Dienststelle Ribbentrop, Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs,
member of the Secret Cabinet Council, member of the Führer’s political
staff at general headquarters, and general in the SS. The Defendant

Ribbentrop used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his
intimate connection with the Führer in such a manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators as set
forth in Count One of the Indictment; he promoted the preparations for war
set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he participated in the political
planning and preparation of the Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression
and wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances
as set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; in accordance with
the Führer Principle he executed and assumed responsibility for the
execution of the foreign policy plans of the Nazi conspirators set forth in
Count One of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated
in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the
Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment,
including more particularly the crimes against persons and property in
occupied territories.

HESS. The Defendant Hess between 1921 and 1941 was a member of
the Nazi Party, Deputy to the Führer, Reich Minister without Portfolio,
member of the Reichstag, member of the Council of Ministers for the
Defense of the Reich, member of the Secret Cabinet Council, Successor
Designate to the Führer after the Defendant Göring, a general in the SS and
a general in the SA. The Defendant Hess used the foregoing positions, his
personal influence, and his intimate connection with the Führer in such a
manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he promoted the military, economic, and psychological
preparations for war set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
participated in the political planning and preparation for wars of aggression
and wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances
set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; he participated in the
preparation and planning of foreign policy plans of the Nazi conspirators set
forth in Count One of the Indictment; he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment
and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment,
including a wide variety of crimes against persons and property.

KALTENBRUNNER. The Defendant Kaltenbrunner between 1932 and
1945 was a member of the Nazi Party, a general in the SS, a member of the
Reichstag, a general of the Police, State Secretary for Security in Austria in
charge of the Austrian Police, Police Leader of Vienna, Lower and Upper
Austria, Head of the Reich Main Security Office and Chief of the Security
Police and Security Service. The Defendant Kaltenbrunner used the
foregoing positions and his personal influence in such a manner that:
He promoted the consolidation of control over Austria seized by the
Nazi conspirators as set forth in Count One of the Indictment; and he
authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count
Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count
Four of the Indictment including particularly the Crimes against Humanity
involved in the system of concentration camps.

ROSENBERG. The Defendant Rosenberg between 1920 and 1945 was
a member of the Nazi Party, Nazi member of the Reichstag, Reichsleiter in
the Nazi Party for Ideology and Foreign Policy, the editor of the Nazi
newspaper Völkischer Beobachter, or “People’s Observer”, and the NS
Monatshefte, head of the Foreign Political Office of the Nazi Party, Special
Delegate for the entire Spiritual and Ideological Training of the Nazi Party,
Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories, organizer of the
“Einsatzstab Rosenberg”, a general in the SS and a general in the SA. The
Defendant Rosenberg used the foregoing positions, his personal influence
and his intimate connection with the Führer in such a manner that:
He developed, disseminated, and exploited the doctrinal techniques of
the Nazi conspirators set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he promoted
the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of
their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
promoted the psychological preparations for war set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; he participated in the political planning and preparation for
wars of aggression and wars in violation of international treaties,
agreements, and assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the
Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes
set forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity
set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including a wide variety of crimes
against persons and property.

FRANK. The Defendant Frank between 1932 and 1945 was a member
of the Nazi Party, a general in the SS, a member of the Reichstag, Reich
Minister without Portfolio, Reich Commissar for the Coordination of
Justice, President of the International Chamber of Law and Academy of
German Law, Chief of the Civil Administration of Lodz, Supreme
Administrative Chief of the military district of West Prussia, Poznan, Lodz,
and Krakow, and Governor General of the occupied Polish territories. The
Defendant Frank used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and
his intimate connection with the Führer in such a manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes set
forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set
forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including particularly the War
Crimes and Crimes against Humanity involved in the administration of
occupied territories.

BORMANN. The Defendant Bormann between 1925 and 1945 was a
member of the Nazi Party, member of the Reichstag, a member of the Staff
of the Supreme Command of the SA, founder and head of “Hilfskasse der
NSDAP”, Reichsleiter, Chief of Staff Office of the Führer’s Deputy, head of
the Party Chancery, Secretary of the Führer, member of the Council of
Ministers for the Defense of the Reich, organizer and head of the
Volkssturm, a general in the SS, and a general in the SA. The Defendant
Bormann used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his
intimate connection with the Führer in such a manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in the War
Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against
Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including a wide
variety of crimes against persons and property.

FRICK. The Defendant Frick between 1932 and 1945 was a member of
the Nazi Party, Reichsleiter, general in the SS, member of the Reichstag,
Reich Minister of the Interior, Prussian Minister of the Interior, Reich

Director of Elections, General Plenipotentiary for the Administration of the
Reich, head of the Central Office for the Reunification of Austria and the
German Reich, Director of the Central Office for the Incorporation of
Sudetenland, Memel, Danzig, the Eastern Occupied Territories, Eupen,
Malmedy, and Moresnet, Director of the Central Office for the Protectorate
of Bohemia, Moravia, the Government General, Lower Styria, Upper
Carinthia, Norway, Alsace, Lorraine, and all other occupied territories, and
Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia. The Defendant Frick used the
foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his intimate connection
with the Führer in such a manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he participated in the planning and preparation of the Nazi
conspirators for wars of aggression and wars in violation of international
treaties, agreements, and assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the
Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes
set forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity
set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including more particularly the
crimes against persons and property in occupied territories.

LEY. The Defendant Ley between 1932 and 1945 was a member of the
Nazi Party, Reichsleiter, Nazi Party Organization Manager, member of the
Reichstag, leader of the German Labor Front, a general in the SA, and Joint
Organizer of the Central Inspection for the Care of Foreign Workers. The
Defendant Ley used the foregoing positions, his personal influence and his
intimate connection with the Führer in such a manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany as set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he promoted the preparation for war set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; he authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes
set forth in Count Three of the Indictment, and in the Crimes against
Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including particularly
the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity relating to the abuse of
human beings for labor in the conduct of the aggressive wars.

SAUCKEL. The Defendant Sauckel between 1921 and 1945 was a
member of the Nazi Party, Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter of Thuringia, a

member of the Reichstag, General Plenipotentiary for the Employment of
Labor under the Four Year Plan, Joint Organizer with the Defendant Ley of
the Central Inspection for the Care of Foreign Workers, a general in the SS,
and a general in the SA. The Defendant Sauckel used the foregoing
positions and his personal influence in such manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators set forth in
Count One of the Indictment; he participated in the economic preparations
for wars of aggression and wars in violation of treaties, agreements, and
assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; he
authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count
Three of the Indictment, and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in
Count Four of the Indictment, including particularly the War Crimes and
Crimes against Humanity involved in forcing the inhabitants of occupied
countries to work as slave laborers in occupied countries and in Germany.

SPEER. The Defendant Speer between 1932 and 1945 was a member of
the Nazi Party, Reichsleiter, member of the Reichstag, Reich Minister for
Armament and Munitions, Chief of the Organization Todt, General
Plenipotentiary for Armaments in the Office of the Four Year Plan, and
Chairman of the Armaments Council. The Defendant Speer used the
foregoing positions and his personal influence in such a manner that:
He participated in the military and economic planning and preparation
of the Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression and wars in violation of
international treaties, agreements, and assurances set forth in Counts One
and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in
the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes
against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including more
particularly the abuse and exploitation of human beings for forced labor in
the conduct of aggressive war.

FUNK. The Defendant Funk between 1932 and 1945 was a member of
the Nazi Party, Economic Adviser of Hitler, National Socialist Deputy to the
Reichstag, Press Chief of the Reich Government, State Secretary of the
Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, Reich Minister of
Economics, Prussian Minister of Economics, President of the German
Reichsbank, Plenipotentiary for Economy, and member of the Ministerial
Council for the Defense of the Reich. The Defendant Funk used the

foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his close connection with
the Führer in such a manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; he participated in the military and economic planning and
preparation of the Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression and wars in
violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances set forth in
Counts One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment
and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment,
including more particularly crimes against persons and property in
connection with the economic exploitation of occupied territories.

SCHACHT. The Defendant Schacht between 1932 and 1945 was a
member of the Nazi Party, a member of the Reichstag, Reich Minister of
Economics, Reich Minister without Portfolio and President of the German
Reichsbank. The Defendant Schacht used the foregoing positions, his
personal influence, and his connection with the Führer in such a manner
that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; and he participated in the military and economic plans and
preparation of the Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression, and wars in
violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances set forth in
Counts One and Two of the Indictment.

PAPEN. The Defendant Papen between 1932 and 1945 was a member
of the Nazi Party, a member of the Reichstag, Reich Chancellor under
Hitler, special Plenipotentiary for the Saar, negotiator of the Concordat with
the Vatican, Ambassador in Vienna, and Ambassador in Turkey. The
Defendant Papen used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and
his close connection with the Führer in such a manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and
participated in the consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in
Count One of the Indictment; he promoted the preparations for war set forth

in Count One of the Indictment; and he participated in the political planning
and preparation of the Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression and wars in
violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances set forth in
Counts One and Two of the Indictment.

KRUPP. The Defendant Krupp between 1932 and 1945 was head of
Friedrich KRUPP A. G., a member of the General Economic Council,
President of the Reich Union of German Industry, and head of the Group
for Mining and Production of Iron and Metals under the Reich Ministry of
Economics. The Defendant Krupp used the foregoing positions, his
personal influence, and his connection with the Führer in such a manner
that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he promoted the preparation for war set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; he participated in the military and economic planning and
preparation of the Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression and wars in
violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances set forth in
Counts One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment
and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment,
including more particularly the exploitation and abuse of human beings for
labor in the conduct of aggressive wars.

NEURATH. The Defendant Neurath between 1932 and 1945 was a
member of the Nazi Party, a general in the SS, a member of the Reichstag,
Reich Minister, Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs, President of the Secret
Cabinet Council, and Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia. The
Defendant Neurath used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and
his close connection with the Führer in such a manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators set forth in
Count One of the Indictment; he promoted the preparations for war set forth
in Count One of the Indictment; he participated in the political planning and
preparation of the Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression and wars in
violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances set forth in
Counts One and Two of the Indictment; in accordance with the Führer
Principle he executed, and assumed responsibility for the execution of the

foreign policy plans of the Nazi conspirators set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes
set forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity
set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including particularly the crimes
against persons and property in the occupied territories.

SCHIRACH. The Defendant Schirach between 1924 and 1945 was a
member of the Nazi Party, a member of the Reichstag, Reich Youth Leader
on the Staff of the SA Supreme Command, Reichsleiter in the Nazi Party
for Youth Education, Leader of Youth of the German Reich, head of the
Hitler Jugend, Reich Defense Commissioner, and Reichsstatthalter and
Gauleiter of Vienna. The Defendant Schirach used the foregoing positions,
his personal influence, and his intimate connection with the Führer in such a
manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he promoted the psychological and educational preparations for
war and the militarization of Nazi-dominated organizations set forth in
Count One of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated
in the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment,
including, particularly, anti-Jewish measures.

SEYSS-INQUART. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart between 1932 and
1945 was a member of the Nazi Party, a general in the SS, State Councillor
of Austria, Minister of the Interior and Security of Austria, Chancellor of
Austria, a member of the Reichstag, a member of the Reich Cabinet, Reich
Minister without Portfolio, Chief of the Civil Administration in South
Poland, Deputy Governor-General of the Polish occupied territory, and
Reich Commissar for the occupied Netherlands. The Defendant Seyss-
Inquart used the foregoing positions and his personal influence in such a
manner that:
He promoted the seizure and the consolidation of control over Austria
by the Nazi conspirators set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
participated in the political planning and preparation of the Nazi
conspirators for wars of aggression and wars in violation of international
treaties, agreements, and assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the
Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes

set forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity
set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including a wide variety of crimes
against persons and property.

STREICHER. The Defendant Streicher between 1932 and 1945 was a
member of the Nazi Party, a member of the Reichstag, a general in the SA,
Gauleiter of Franconia, editor in chief of the anti-Semitic newspaper Der
Stürmer. The Defendant Streicher used the foregoing positions, his personal
influence, and his close connection with the Führer in such a manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he authorized, directed, and participated in the Crimes against
Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including particularly
the incitement of the persecution of the Jews set forth in Count One and
Count Four of the Indictment.

KEITEL. The Defendant Keitel between 1938 and 1945 was Chief of
the High Command of the German Armed Forces, member of the Secret
Cabinet Council, member of the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the
Reich, and Field Marshal. The Defendant Keitel used the foregoing
positions, his personal influence, and his intimate connection with the
Führer in such a manner that:
He promoted the military preparations for war set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; he participated in the political planning and preparation of
the Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression and wars in violation of
international treaties, agreements, and assurances set forth in Counts One
and Two of the Indictment; he executed and assumed responsibility for the
execution of the plans of the Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression and
wars in violation, of international treaties, agreements, and assurances set
forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment
and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment,
including particularly the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
involved in the ill-treatment of prisoners of war and of the civilian
population of occupied territories.

JODL. The Defendant Jodl between 1932 and 1945 was lieutenant
colonel, Army Operations Department of the Wehrmacht, Colonel, Chief of
OKW Operations Department, major general and Chief of Staff OKW and
colonel general. The Defendant Jodl used, the foregoing positions, his
personal influence, and his close connection with the Führer in such a
manner that:
He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the
consolidation, of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count One of
the Indictment; he participated in the military planning and preparation of
the Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression and wars in violation of
international treaties, agreements, and assurances set forth in Counts One
and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in
the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes
against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including a
wide variety of crimes against persons and property.

RAEDER. The Defendant Raeder between 1928 and 1945 was
Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy, Generaladmiral, Grossadmiral,
Admiralinspekteur of the German Navy, and a member of the Secret
Cabinet Council. The Defendant Raeder used the foregoing positions and
his personal influence in such a manner that:
He promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he participated in the political planning and preparation of the
Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression and wars in violation of
international treaties, agreements, and assurances set forth in Counts One
and Two of the Indictment; he executed, and assumed responsibility for the
execution of the plans of the Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression and
wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances set
forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed,
and participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment, including particularly War Crimes arising out of sea warfare.

DÖNITZ. The Defendant Dönitz between 1932 and 1945 was
Commanding Officer of the Weddigen U-boat Flotilla, Commander-in-
Chief of the U-boat arm, Vice-Admiral, Admiral, Grossadmiral, and
Commander-in-Chief of the German Navy, advisor to Hitler, and successor

to Hitler as head of the German Government. The Defendant Dönitz used
the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his intimate connection
with the Führer in such a manner that:
He promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he participated in the military planning and preparation of the
Nazi conspirators for wars of aggression and wars in violation of
international treaties, agreements, and assurances set forth in Counts One
and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in
the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment, including
particularly the crimes against persons and property on the High Seas.

FRITZSCHE. The Defendant Fritzsche between 1933 and 1945 was a
member of the Nazi Party, editor-in-chief of the official German news
agency, “Deutsches Nachrichten Büro”, head of the Wireless News Service
and of the Home Press Division of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda,
Ministerialdirektor of the Reich Ministry of Propaganda, Head of the Radio
Division of the Propaganda Department of the Nazi Party, and
Plenipotentiary for the Political Organization of the Greater German Radio.
The Defendant Fritzsche used the foregoing positions and his personal
influence to disseminate and exploit the principal doctrines of the Nazi
conspirators set forth in Count One of the Indictment, and to advocate,
encourage, and incite the commission of the War Crimes set forth in Count
Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count
Four of the Indictment including, particularly, anti-Jewish measures and the
ruthless exploitation of occupied territories.

APPENDIX B—STATEMENT OF CRIMINALITY OF GROUPS AND
ORGANIZATIONS.
The statements hereinafter set forth, following the name of each group
or organization named in the Indictment as one which should be declared
criminal, constitute matters upon which the Prosecution will rely inter alia
as establishing the criminality of the group or organization:
“Die Reichsregierung (Reich Cabinet)” referred to in the Indictment
consists of persons who were:
(i) Members of the ordinary cabinet after 30 January 1933, the date on
which Hitler became Chancellor of the German Republic. The term
“ordinary cabinet” as used herein means the Reich Ministers, i.e., heads of

departments of the central Government; Reich Ministers without portfolio;
State Ministers acting as Reich Ministers; and other officials entitled to take
part in meetings of this cabinet.
(ii) Members of Der Ministerrat für die Reichsverteidigung (Council of
Ministers for the Defense of the Reich).
(iii) Members of Der Geheime Kabinettsrat (Secret Cabinet Council).
Under the Führer, these persons functioning in the foregoing capacities and
in association as a group, possessed and exercised legislative, executive,
administrative, and political powers and functions of a very high order in
the system of German Government. Accordingly, they are charged with
responsibility for the policies adopted and put into effect by the
Government including those which comprehended and involved the
commission of the crimes referred to in Counts One, Two, Three, and Four
of the Indictment.
“Das Korps der Politischen Leiter der Nationalsozialistischen
Deutschen Arbeiterpartei (Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party)” referred to
in the Indictment consists of persons who were at any time, according to
common Nazi terminology, “Politische Leiter” (Political Leaders) of any
grade or rank.
The Politischen Leiter comprised the leaders of the various functional
offices of the Party (for example, the Reichsleitung or Party Reich
Directorate, and the Gauleitung, or Party Gau Directorate), as well as the
territorial leaders of the Party (for example, the Gauleiter).
The Politischen Leiter were a distinctive and elite group within the Nazi
Party proper and as such were vested with special prerogatives. They were
organized according to the Leadership Principle and were charged with
planning, developing, and imposing upon their followers the policies of the
Nazi Party. Thus the territorial leaders among them were called
Hoheitsträger, or bearers of sovereignty, and were entitled to call upon and
utilize the various Party formations when necessary for the execution of
Party policies.
Reference is hereby made to the allegations in Count One of the
Indictment showing that the Nazi Party was the central core of the Common
Plan or Conspiracy therein set forth. The Politischen Leiter, as a major
power within the Nazi Party proper, and functioning in the capacities above
described and in association as a group, joined in the Common Plan or

Conspiracy, and accordingly share responsibility for the crimes set forth in
Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Indictment.
The Prosecution expressly reserves the right to request, at any time
before sentence is pronounced, that Politischer Leiter of subordinate grades
or ranks or of other types or classes, to be specified by the prosecution, be
excepted from further proceedings in this Case Number 1, but without
prejudice to other proceedings or actions against them.
“Die Schutzstaffeln der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen
Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the SS) including Der
Sicherheitsdienst (commonly known as the SD)” referred to in the
Indictment consists of the entire corps of the SS and all offices,
departments, services, agencies, branches, formations, organizations, and
groups of which it was at any time comprised or which were at any time
integrated in it, including but not limited to, the Allgemeine SS, the Waffen
SS, the SS Totenkopf Verbände, SS Polizei Regimenter, and the
Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführers SS (commonly known as the SD).
The SS, originally established by Hitler in 1925 as an elite section of the
SA to furnish a protective guard for the Führer and Nazi Party leaders,
became an independent formation of the Nazi Party in 1934 under the
leadership of the Reichsführer SS, Heinrich Himmler. It was composed of
voluntary members, selected in accordance with Nazi biological, racial, and
political theories, completely indoctrinated in Nazi ideology and pledged to
uncompromising obedience to the Führer. After the accession of the Nazi
conspirators to power, it developed many departments, agencies,
formations, and branches and extended its influence and control over
numerous fields of governmental and Party activity. Through Heinrich
Himmler, as Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police, agencies and
units of the SS and of the Reich were joined in operation to form a unified
repressive police force. The Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführers SS
(commonly known as the SD), a department of the SS, was developed into a
vast espionage and counter-intelligence system which operated in
conjunction with the Gestapo and criminal police in detecting, suppressing,
and eliminating tendencies, groups, and individuals deemed hostile or
potentially hostile to the Nazi Party, its leaders, principles, and objectives,
and eventually was combined with the Gestapo and criminal police in a
single security police department, the Reich Main Security Office.

Other branches of the SS developed into an armed force and served in
the wars of aggression referred to in Counts One and Two of the Indictment.
Through other departments and branches the SS controlled the
administration of concentration camps and the execution of Nazi racial,
biological, and resettlement policies. Through its numerous functions and
activities it served as the instrument for insuring the domination of Nazi
ideology and protecting and extending the Nazi regime over Germany and
occupied territories. It thus participated in and is responsible for the crimes
referred to in Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Indictment.
“Die Geheime Staatspolizei (Secret State Police, commonly known as
the Gestapo)” referred to in the Indictment consists of the headquarters,
departments, offices, branches, and all the forces and personnel of the
Geheime Staatspolizei organized or existing at any time after 30 January
1933, including the Geheime Staatspolizei of Prussia and equivalent secret
or political police forces of the Reich and the components thereof.
The Gestapo was created by the Nazi conspirators immediately after
their accession to power, first in Prussia by the Defendant Göring and
shortly thereafter in all other states in the Reich. These separate secret and
political police forces were developed into a centralized, uniform
organization operating through a central headquarters and through a
network of regional offices in Germany and in occupied territories. Its
officials and operatives were selected on the basis of unconditional
acceptance of Nazi ideology, were largely drawn from members of the SS,
and were trained in SS and SD schools. It acted to suppress and eliminate
tendencies, groups, and individuals deemed hostile or potentially hostile to
the Nazi Party, its leaders, principles, and objectives, and to repress
resistance and potential resistance to German control in occupied territories.
In performing these functions it operated free from legal control, taking any
measures it deemed necessary for the accomplishment of its missions.
Through its purposes, activities and the means it used, it participated in
and is responsible for the commission of the crimes set forth in Counts One,
Two, Three, and Four of the Indictment.
“Die Sturmabteilungen der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen
Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the SA).” That organization referred to
in the Indictment was a formation of the Nazi Party under the immediate
jurisdiction of the Führer, organized on military lines, whose membership
was composed of volunteers serving as political soldiers of the Party. It was

one of the earliest formations of the Nazi Party and the original guardian of
the National Socialist movement. Founded in 1921 as a voluntary military
formation, it was developed by the Nazi conspirators before their accession
to power into a vast private army and utilized for the purpose of creating
disorder, and terrorizing and eliminating political opponents. It continued to
serve as an instrument for the physical, ideological, and military training of
Party members and as a reserve for the German Armed Forces. After the
launching of the wars of aggression, referred to in Counts One and Two of
the Indictment, the SA not only operated as an organization for military
training but provided auxiliary police and security forces in occupied
territories, guarded prisoner-of-war camps and concentration camps and
supervised and controlled persons forced to labor in Germany and occupied
territories.
Through its purposes and activities and the means it used it participated
in and is responsible for the commission of the crimes set forth in Counts
One, Two, Three, and Four of the Indictment.
The “General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces”
referred to in the Indictment consists of those individuals who between
February 1938 and May 1945 were the highest commanders of the
Wehrmacht, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Forces. The individuals
comprising this group are the persons who held the following appointments:
Oberbefehlshaber der Kriegsmarine (Commander in Chief of the Navy);
Chef (and, formerly, Chef des Stabes) der Seekriegsleitung (Chief of Naval
War Staff); Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres (Commander in Chief of the
Army); Chef des Generalstabes des Heeres (Chief of the General Staff of
the Army); Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe (Commander in Chief of the
Air Force); Chef des Generalstabes der Luftwaffe (Chief of the General
Staff of the Air Force); Chef des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (Chief of
the High Command of the Armed Forces); Chef des Führungsstabes des
Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (Chief of the Operations Staff of the High
Command of the Armed Forces); Stellvertretender Chef des Führungsstabes
des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (Deputy Chief of the Operations Staff
of the High Command of the Armed Forces); Commanders-in-Chief in the
field, with the status of Oberbefehlshaber, of the Wehrmacht, Navy, Army,
Air Force.
Functioning in such capacities and in association as a group at the
highest level in the German Armed Forces organization, these persons had a

major responsibility for the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of
illegal war as set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment and for the
War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity involved in the execution of the
Common Plan or Conspiracy set forth in Counts Three and Four of the
Indictment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Continuing the reading of the
Indictment):

APPENDIX C—CHARGES AND PARTICULARS OF VIOLATIONS
OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND
ASSURANCES CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANTS IN THE COURSE
OF PLANNING, PREPARING AND INITIATING THE WARS.

I. Charge:
Violation of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes signed at The Hague, 29 July 1899.
Particulars: In that Germany did, by force and arms, on the dates
specified in Column 1, invade the territory of the Sovereigns specified in
Column 2, respectively, without first having attempted to settle its disputes
with the said Sovereigns by pacific means.
(Column 1) (Column 2)
6 April 1941 Kingdom of Greece
6 April 1941 Kingdom of Yugoslavia

II. Charge:
Violation of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes signed at The Hague, 18 October 1907.
Particulars: In that Germany did, on or about the dates specified in
Column 1, by force of arms invade the territory of the Sovereigns specified
in Column 2, respectively, without having first attempted to settle its
disputes with the said Sovereigns by pacific means.
(Column 1) (Column 2)
1 September 1939 Republic of Poland
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Norway
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Denmark
10 May 1940 Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

10 May 1940 Kingdom of Belgium
10 May 1940 Kingdom of the Netherlands
22 June 1941 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

III. Charge:
Violation of Hague Convention III, Relative to the Opening of
Hostilities, signed 18 October 1907.
Particulars: In that Germany did, on or about the dates specified in
Column 1, commence hostilities against the countries specified in Column
2, respectively, without previous warning in the form of a reasoned
declaration of war or an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.
(Column 1) (Column 2)
1 September 1939 Republic of Poland
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Norway
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Denmark
10 May 1940 Kingdom of Belgium
10 May 1940 Kingdom of the Netherlands
10 May 1940 Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
22 June 1941 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

IV. Charge:
Violation of Hague Convention V, Respecting the Rights and Duties of
Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land, signed 18 October
1907.
Particulars:
In that Germany did, on or about the dates specified in Column 1, by
force and arms of its military forces, cross into, invade, and occupy the
territories of the Sovereigns specified in Column 2, respectively, then and
thereby violating the neutrality of said Sovereigns.
(Column 1) (Column 2)
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Norway
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Denmark
10 May 1940 Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
10 May 1940 Kingdom of Belgium
10 May 1940 Kingdom of the Netherlands

22 June 1941 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

V. Charge:
Violation of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated
Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, 28 June 1919, known as the
Versailles Treaty.
Particulars:
(1) In that Germany did, on and after 7 March 1936, maintain and
assemble armed forces and maintain and construct military fortifications in
the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland in violation of the provisions of
Articles 42 to 44 of the Treaty of Versailles.
(2) In that Germany did, on or about 13 March 1938, annex Austria into
the German Reich in violation of the provisions of Article 80 of the Treaty
of Versailles.
(3) In that Germany did, on or about 22 March 1939, incorporate the
District of Memel into the German Reich in violation of the provisions of
Article 99 of the Treaty of Versailles.
(4) In that Germany did, on or about 1 September 1939, incorporate the
Free City of Danzig into the German Reich in violation of the provisions of
Article 100 of the Treaty of Versailles.
(5) In that Germany did, on or about 16 March 1939, incorporate the
provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, formerly part of Czechoslovakia, into
the German Reich in violation of the provisions of Article 81 of the Treaty
of Versailles.
(6) In that Germany did, at various times in March 1935 and thereafter,
repudiate various parts of Part V, Military, Naval, and Air Clauses of the
Treaty of Versailles, by creating an air force, by use of compulsory military
service, by increasing the size of the army beyond treaty limits, and by
increasing the size of the navy beyond treaty limits.

VI. Charge:
Violation of the Treaty between the United States and Germany
Restoring Friendly Relations, signed at Berlin, 25 August 1921.
Particulars:
In that Germany did, at various times in March 1935 and thereafter,
repudiate various parts of Part V, Military, Naval, and Air Clauses of the
Treaty between the United States and Germany Restoring Friendly

Relations by creating an air force, by use of compulsory military service, by
increasing the size of the army beyond treaty limits, and by increasing the
size of the navy beyond treaty limits.

VII. Charge:
Violation of the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee between Germany,
Belgium, France, Great Britain and Italy, done at Locarno, 16 October
1925.
Particulars:
(1) In that Germany did, on or about 7 March 1936, unlawfully send
armed forces into the Rhineland demilitarized zone of Germany, in
violation of Article 1 of the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee.
(2) In that Germany did, in or about March 1936, and thereafter,
unlawfully maintain armed forces in the Rhineland demilitarized zone of
Germany, in violation of Article 1 of the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee.
(3) In that Germany did, on or about 7 March 1936, and thereafter,
unlawfully construct and maintain fortifications in the Rhineland
demilitarized zone of Germany, in violation of Article 1 of the Treaty of
Mutual Guarantee.
(4) In that Germany did, on or about 10 May 1940, unlawfully attack
and invade Belgium, in violation of Article 2 of the Treaty of Mutual
Guarantee.
(5) In that Germany did, on or about 10 May 1940, unlawfully attack
and invade Belgium, without first having attempted to settle its dispute with
Belgium by peaceful means, in violation of Article 3 of the Treaty of
Mutual Guarantee.

VIII. Charge:
Violation of the Arbitration Treaty between Germany and
Czechoslovakia, done at Locarno, 16 October 1925.
Particulars:
In that Germany did, on or about 15 March 1939, unlawfully by duress
and threats of military might force Czechoslovakia to deliver the destiny of
Czechoslovakia and its inhabitants into the hands of the Führer and
Reichschancellor of Germany without having attempted to settle its dispute
with Czechoslovakia by peaceful means.

IX. Charge:
Violation of the Arbitration Convention between Germany and Belgium,
done at Locarno, 16 October 1925.
Particulars:
In that Germany did, on or about 10 May 1940, unlawfully attack and
invade Belgium without first having attempted to settle its dispute with
Belgium by peaceful means.

X. Charge:
Violation of the Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Poland, done
at Locarno, 16 October 1925.
Particulars:
In that Germany did, on or about 1 September 1939, unlawfully attack
and invade Poland without first having attempted to settle its dispute with
Poland by peaceful means.

XI. Charge:
Violation of Convention of Arbitration and Conciliation entered into
between Germany and the Netherlands on 20 May 1926.
Particulars:
In that Germany, without warning, and notwithstanding its solemn
covenant to settle by peaceful means all disputes of any nature whatever
which might arise between it and the Netherlands which were not capable
of settlement by diplomacy and which had not been referred by mutual
agreement to the Permanent Court of International Justice, did, on or about
10 May 1940, with a military force, attack, invade, and occupy the
Netherlands, thereby violating its neutrality and territorial integrity and
destroying its sovereign independence.

XII. Charge:
Violation of Convention of Arbitration and Conciliation entered into
between Germany and Denmark on 2 June 1926.
Particulars:
In that Germany, without warning, and notwithstanding its solemn
covenant to settle by peaceful means all disputes of any nature whatever
which might arise between it and Denmark which were not capable of
settlement by diplomacy and which had not been referred by mutual

agreement to the Permanent Court of International Justice, did, on or about
9 April 1940, with a military force, attack, invade, and occupy Denmark,
thereby violating its neutrality and territorial integrity and destroying its
sovereign independence.

XIII. Charge:
Violation of Treaty between Germany and other Powers Providing for
Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, signed at Paris 27
August 1928, known as the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
Particulars:
In that Germany did, on or about the dates specified in Column 1, with a
military force, attack the Sovereigns specified in Column 2, respectively,
and resort to war against such Sovereigns, in violation of its solemn
declaration condemning recourse to war for the solution of international
controversies, its solemn renunciation of war as an instrument of national
policy in its relations with such Sovereigns, and its solemn covenant that
settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or
origin arising between it and such Sovereigns should never be sought
except by pacific means
(Column 1) (Column 2)
1 September 1939 Republic of Poland
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Norway
9 April 1940 Kingdom of Denmark
10 May 1940 Kingdom of Belgium
10 May 1940 Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
10 May 1940 Kingdom of the Netherlands
6 April 1941 Kingdom of Greece
6 April 1941 Kingdom of Yugoslavia
22 June 1941 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
11 December 1941 United States of America

XIV. Charge:
Violation of Treaty of Arbitration and Conciliation entered into between
Germany and Luxembourg on 11 September 1929.
Particulars:

In that Germany, without warning, and notwithstanding its solemn
covenant to settle by peaceful means all disputes which might arise between
it and Luxembourg which were not capable of settlement by diplomacy, did,
on or about 10 May 1940, with a military force, attack, invade, and occupy
Luxembourg, thereby violating its neutrality and territorial integrity and
destroying its sovereign independence.

XV. Charge:
Violation of the Declaration of Non-Aggression entered into between
Germany and Poland on 26 January 1934.
Particulars:
In that Germany proceeding to the application of force for the purpose
of reaching a decision did, on or about 1 September 1939, at various places
along the German-Polish frontier employ military forces to attack, invade,
and commit other acts of aggression against Poland.

XVI. Charge:
Violation of German assurance given on 21 May 1935 that the
inviolability and integrity of the Federal State of Austria would be
recognized.
Particulars:
In that Germany did, on or about 12 March 1938, at various points and
places along the German-Austria frontier, with a military force and in
violation of its solemn declaration and assurance, invade and annex to
Germany the territory of the Federal State of Austria.

XVII. Charge:
Violation of Austro-German Agreement of 11 July 1936.
Particulars:
In that Germany during the period from 12 February 1938 to 13 March
1938 did by duress and various aggressive acts, including the use of
military force, cause the Federal State of Austria to yield up its sovereignty
to the German State in violation of Germany’s agreement to recognize the
full sovereignty of the Federal State of Austria.

XVIII. Charge:

Violation of German assurances given on 30 January 1937, 28 April
1939, 26 August 1939, and 6 October 1939 to respect the neutrality and
territorial inviolability of the Netherlands.
Particulars:
In that Germany, without warning, and without recourse to peaceful
means of settling any considered differences did, on or about 10 May 1940,
with a military force and in violation of its solemn assurances, invade,
occupy, and attempt to subjugate the sovereign territory of the Netherlands.

XIX. Charge:
Violation of German assurances given on 30 January 1937, 13 October
1937, 28 April 1939, 26 August 1939 and 6 October 1939, to respect the
neutrality and territorial integrity and inviolability of Belgium.
Particulars:
In that Germany, without warning, did on or about 10 May 1940, with a
military force and in violation of its solemn assurances and declarations,
attack, invade, and occupy the sovereign territory of Belgium.

XX. Charge:
Violation of assurances given on 11 March 1938 and 26 September
1938 to Czechoslovakia.
Particulars:
In that Germany, on or about 15 March 1939 did, by establishing a
Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia under duress and by the threat of
force, violate the assurance given on 11 March 1938 to respect the territorial
integrity of the Czechoslovak Republic and the assurance given on 26
September 1938 that, if the so-called Sudeten territories were ceded to
Germany, no further German territorial claims on Czechoslovakia would be
made.

XXI. Charge:
Violation of the Munich Agreement and Annexes of 29 September 1938.
Particulars:
(1) In that Germany, on or about 15 March 1939, did by duress and the
threat of military intervention force the Republic of Czechoslovakia to
deliver the destiny of the Czech people and country into the hands of the
Führer of the German Reich.

(2) In that Germany refused and failed to join in an international
guarantee of the new boundaries of the Czechoslovakian State as provided
for in Annex No. 1 to the Munich Agreement.

XXII. Charge:
Violation of the solemn assurances of Germany given on 3 September
1939, 28 April 1939, and 6 October 1939 that they would not violate the
independence or sovereignty of the Kingdom of Norway.
Particulars:
In that Germany, without warning did, on or about 9 April 1940, with its
military and naval forces attack, invade, and commit other acts of
aggression against the Kingdom of Norway.

XXIII. Charge:
Violation of German assurances given on 28 April 1939 and 26 August
1939 to respect the neutrality and territorial inviolability of Luxembourg.
Particulars:
In that Germany, without warning, and without recourse to peaceful
means of settling any considered differences, did, on or about 10 May 1940,
with a military force and in violation of the solemn assurances, invade,
occupy, and absorb into Germany the sovereign territory of Luxembourg.

XXIV. Charge:
Violation of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and
Denmark signed at Berlin 31 May 1939.
Particulars:
In that Germany without prior warning, did, on or about 9 April 1940,
with its military forces, attack, invade, and commit other acts of aggression
against the Kingdom of Denmark.

XXV. Charge:
Violation of Treaty of Non-Aggression entered into between Germany
and U.S.S.R. on 23 August 1939.
Particulars:
(1) In that Germany did, on or about 22 June 1941, employ military
forces to attack and commit acts of aggression against the U.S.S.R.

(2) In that Germany without warning or recourse to a friendly exchange
of views or arbitration did, on or about 22 June 1941, employ military
forces to attack and commit acts of aggression against the U.S.S.R.

XXVI. Charge:
Violation of German assurance given on 6 October 1939 to respect the
neutrality and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia.
Particulars:
In that Germany without prior warning did, on or about 6 April 1941,
with its military forces attack, invade and commit other acts of aggression
against the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn until 10 o’clock
tomorrow morning.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 21 November 1945 at 1000 hours.]

SECOND DAY
Wednesday, 21 November 1945

Morning Session
THE PRESIDENT: A motion has been filed with the Tribunal and the
Tribunal has given it consideration, and insofar as it may be a plea to the
jurisdiction of the Tribunal, it conflicts with Article 3 of the Charter and
will not be entertained. Insofar as it may contain other arguments which
may be open to the defendants, they may be heard at a later stage.
And now, in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter, which provides
that, after the Indictment has been read in court, the defendants shall be
called upon to plead guilty or not guilty, I now direct the defendants to
plead either guilty or not guilty.
DR. DIX: May I speak to Your Lordship for just a moment?
THE PRESIDENT: You may not speak to me in support of the motion
with which I have just dealt on behalf of the Tribunal. I have told you that
so far as that motion is a plea to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, it conflicts
with Article 3 of the Charter and will not be entertained. Insofar as it
contains or may contain arguments which may be open to the defendants,
those arguments may be heard hereafter.
DR. DIX: I do not wish to speak on the subject of a motion. As speaker
for the Defense I should like to broach a technical question and voice a
question to this effect on behalf of the Defense. May I do so? The Defense
Counsel were forbidden to talk to the defendants this morning. It is
absolutely necessary that the Defense Counsel should be able to speak to
the defendants before the session. It often happens that after the session one
cannot reach one’s client at night. It is quite possible that counsel may have
prepared something overnight which he wishes to discuss with the
defendant before the session. According to our experience it is always
permissible for the Defense Counsel to speak to the defendant before the
session. The question of conferring between Defense Counsel and clients
during sessions could be dealt with at a later date.
At present I request, on behalf of the entire Defense, that we be allowed
to confer with our clients in the courtroom, into which they usually are
brought at a very early hour. Otherwise, we shall not be in a position to
conduct the defense in an efficient and appropriate manner.

THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid that you cannot consult with your clients
in the courtroom except by written communication. When you are out of the
courtroom, security regulations can be carried out and, so far as those
security regulations go, you have full opportunity to consult with your
clients. In the courtroom we must confine you to written communications to
your clients. At the end of each day’s sitting, you will have full opportunity
to consult with them in private.
DR. DIX: I shall discuss this with my colleagues of the Defense and we
should like if possible to return to this question.
DR. THOMA: May I have the floor?
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your name please.
DR. THOMA: Dr. Ralph Thoma. I represent the Defendant Rosenberg.
Yesterday my client gave me a statement as regards the question of guilt or
innocence. I took this statement and promised him to talk with him about it.
Neither last night nor this morning have I had an opportunity to talk with
him; and, consequently, neither I nor my client are in a position to make a
statement today as to whether he is guilty or not guilty. I therefore request
that the proceedings be interrupted so that I may speak with my client.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal will be prepared to adjourn
for 15 minutes in order that you may have an opportunity of consulting with
your clients.
DR. THOMA: Thank you. I should like to make another statement.
Some of my colleagues have just told me that they are in the same position
as I, particularly Dr. Sauter. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I meant that all defendants’ counsel should have an
opportunity of consulting with their clients; but I would point out to the
defendants’ counsel that they have had several weeks’ preparation for this
Trial, and that they must have anticipated that the provisions of Article 24
would be followed. But now we will adjourn for 15 minutes in which all of
you may consult with your clients.
DR. THOMA: May I say something further in that respect, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. THOMA: The Defense asked whether the question of guilty or not
guilty could only be answered with “yes”, or “no” or whether a more
extensive and longer statement could be made. We obtained information on
this point only the day before yesterday. We therefore have had no
opportunity to confer at length with our clients on this matter.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment. The question will have to be
answered in the words of Article 24 of the Charter, and those words are
printed in italics: “The Tribunal shall ask each defendant whether he pleads
guilty or not guilty.” That is what they have got to do at that stage. Of
course, the defendants will have a full opportunity themselves, if they are
called as witnesses, and by their counsel, to make their defense fully at a
later stage.

[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: I will now call upon the defendants to plead guilty
or not guilty to the charges against them. They will proceed in turn to a
point in the dock opposite to the microphone.
Hermann Wilhelm Göring.
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING: Before I answer the question of the
Tribunal whether or not I am guilty. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I informed the Court that defendants were not
entitled to make a statement. You must plead guilty or not guilty.
GÖRING: I declare myself in the sense of the Indictment not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Rudolf Hess.
RUDOLF HESS: No.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be entered as a plea of not guilty.
[Laughter.]
THE PRESIDENT: If there is any disturbance in court, those who make
it will have to leave the court.
Joachim von Ribbentrop.
JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP: I declare myself in the sense of the
Indictment not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Wilhelm Keitel.
WILHELM KEITEL: I declare myself not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the Trial will
proceed against him, but he will have an opportunity of pleading when he is
sufficiently well to be brought back into court.
Alfred Rosenberg.
ALFRED ROSENBERG: I declare myself in the sense of the
Indictment not guilty.

THE PRESIDENT: Hans Frank.
HANS FRANK: I declare myself not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Wilhelm Frick.
WILHELM FRICK: Not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Julius Streicher.
JULIUS STREICHER: Not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Walter Funk.
WALTER FUNK: I declare myself not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Hjalmar Schacht.
HJALMAR SCHACHT: I am not guilty in any respect.
THE PRESIDENT: Karl Dönitz.
KARL DÖNITZ: Not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Erich Raeder.
ERICH RAEDER: I declare myself not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Baldur von Schirach.
BALDUR VON SCHIRACH: I declare myself in the sense of the
Indictment not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Fritz Sauckel.
FRITZ SAUCKEL: I declare myself in the sense of the Indictment,
before God and the world and particularly before my people, not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Alfred Jodl.
ALFRED JODL: Not guilty. For what I have done or had to do, I have a
pure conscience before God, before history and my people.
THE PRESIDENT: Franz von Papen.
FRANZ VON PAPEN: I declare myself in no way guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Arthur Seyss-Inquart.
ARTHUR SEYSS-INQUART: I declare myself not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Albert Speer.
ALBERT SPEER: Not guilty.
THE PRESIDENT: Constantin von Neurath.
CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH: I answer the question in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: Hans Fritzsche.
HANS FRITZSCHE: As regards this Indictment, not guilty.
[At this point Defendant Göring stood up in the prisoner’s dock and
attempted to address the Tribunal.]

THE PRESIDENT: You are not entitled to address the Tribunal except
through your counsel, at the present time.
I will now call upon the Chief Prosecutor for the United States of
America.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please Your Honors:
The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the
peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we
seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so
devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it
cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with
victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily
submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most
significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.
This Tribunal, while it is novel and experimental, is not the product of
abstract speculations nor is it created to vindicate legalistic theories. This
inquest represents the practical effort of four of the most mighty of nations,
with the support of 17 more, to utilize international law to meet the greatest
menace of our times—aggressive war. The common sense of mankind
demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by
little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power
and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which
leave no home in the world untouched. It is a cause of that magnitude that
the United Nations will lay before Your Honors.
In the prisoners’ dock sit twenty-odd broken men. Reproached by the
humiliation of those they have led almost as bitterly as by the desolation of
those they have attacked, their personal capacity for evil is forever past. It is
hard now to perceive in these men as captives the power by which as Nazi
leaders they once dominated much of the world and terrified most of it.
Merely as individuals their fate is of little consequence to the world.
What makes this inquest significant is that these prisoners represent
sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have
returned to dust. We will show them to be living symbols of racial hatreds,
of terrorism and violence, and of the arrogance and cruelty of power. They
are symbols of fierce nationalisms and of militarism, of intrigue and war-
making which have embroiled Europe generation after generation, crushing
its manhood, destroying its homes, and impoverishing its life. They have so
identified themselves with the philosophies they conceived and with the

forces they directed that any tenderness to them is a victory and an
encouragement to all the evils which are attached to their names.
Civilization can afford no compromise with the social forces which would
gain renewed strength if we deal ambiguously or indecisively with the men
in whom those forces now precariously survive.
What these men stand for we will patiently and temperately disclose.
We will give you undeniable proofs of incredible events. The catalog of
crimes will omit nothing that could be conceived by a pathological pride,
cruelty, and lust for power. These men created in Germany, under the
“Führerprinzip”, a National Socialist despotism equalled only by the
dynasties of the ancient East. They took from the German people all those
dignities and freedoms that we hold natural and inalienable rights in every
human being. The people were compensated by inflaming and gratifying
hatreds towards those who were marked as “scapegoats”. Against their
opponents, including Jews, Catholics, and free labor, the Nazis directed
such a campaign of arrogance, brutality, and annihilation as the world has
not witnessed since the pre-Christian ages. They excited the German
ambition to be a “master race”, which of course implies serfdom for others.
They led their people on a mad gamble for domination. They diverted social
energies and resources to the creation of what they thought to be an
invincible war machine. They overran their neighbors. To sustain the
“master race” in its war-making, they enslaved millions of human beings
and brought them into Germany, where these hapless creatures now wander
as “displaced persons”. At length bestiality and bad faith reached such
excess that they aroused the sleeping strength of imperiled Civilization. Its
united efforts have ground the German war machine to fragments. But the
struggle has left Europe a liberated yet prostrate land where a demoralized
society struggles to survive. These are the fruits of the sinister forces that sit
with these defendants in the prisoners’ dock.
In justice to the nations and the men associated in this prosecution, I
must remind you of certain difficulties which may leave their mark on this
case. Never before in legal history has an effort been made to bring within
the scope of a single litigation the developments of a decade, covering a
whole continent, and involving a score of nations, countless individuals,
and innumerable events. Despite the magnitude of the task, the world has
demanded immediate action. This demand has had to be met, though
perhaps at the cost of finished craftsmanship. In my country, established

courts, following familiar procedures, applying well-thumbed precedents,
and dealing with the legal consequences of local and limited events seldom
commence a trial within a year of the event in litigation. Yet less than 8
months ago today the courtroom in which you sit was an enemy fortress in
the hands of German SS troops. Less than 8 months ago nearly all our
witnesses and documents were in enemy hands. The law had not been
codified, no procedures had been established, no tribunal was in existence,
no usable courthouse stood here, none of the hundreds of tons of official
German documents had been examined, no prosecuting staff had been
assembled, nearly all of the present defendants were at large, and the four
prosecuting powers had not yet joined in common cause to try them. I
should be the last to deny that the case may well suffer from incomplete
researches and quite likely will not be the example of professional work
which any of the prosecuting nations would normally wish to sponsor. It is,
however, a completely adequate case to the judgment we shall ask you to
render, and its full development we shall be obliged to leave to historians.
Before I discuss particulars of evidence, some general considerations
which may affect the credit of this trial in the eyes of the world should be
candidly faced. There is a dramatic disparity between the circumstances of
the accusers and of the accused that might discredit our work if we should
falter, in even minor matters, in being fair and temperate.
Unfortunately, the nature of these crimes is such that both prosecution
and judgment must be by victor nations over vanquished foes. The
worldwide scope of the aggressions carried out by these men has left but
few real neutrals. Either the victors must judge the vanquished or we must
leave the defeated to judge themselves. After the first World War, we
learned the futility of the latter course. The former high station of these
defendants, the notoriety of their acts, and the adaptability of their conduct
to provoke retaliation make it hard to distinguish between the demand for a
just and measured retribution, and the unthinking cry for vengeance which
arises from the anguish of war. It is our task, so far as humanly possible, to
draw the line between the two. We must never forget that the record on
which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will
judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it
to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual
integrity to our task that this Trial will commend itself to posterity as
fulfilling humanity’s aspirations to do justice.

At the very outset, let us dispose of the contention that to put these men
to trial is to do them an injustice entitling them to some special
consideration. These defendants may be hard pressed but they are not ill
used. Let us see what alternative they would have to being tried.
More than a majority of these prisoners surrendered to or were tracked
down by the forces of the United States. Could they expect us to make
American custody a shelter for our enemies against the just wrath of our
Allies? Did we spend American lives to capture them only to save them
from punishment? Under the principles of the Moscow Declaration, those
suspected war criminals who are not to be tried internationally must be
turned over to individual governments for trial at the scene of their
outrages. Many less responsible and less culpable American-held prisoners
have been and will continue to be turned over to other United Nations for
local trial. If these defendants should succeed, for any reason, in escaping
the condemnation of this Tribunal, or if they obstruct or abort this trial,
those who are American-held prisoners will be delivered up to our
continental Allies. For these defendants, however, we have set up an
International Tribunal and have undertaken the burden of participating in a
complicated effort to give them fair and dispassionate hearings. That is the
best-known protection to any man with a defense worthy of being heard.
If these men are the first war leaders of a defeated nation to be
prosecuted in the name of the law, they are also the first to be given a
chance to plead for their lives in the name of the law. Realistically, the
Charter of this Tribunal, which gives them a hearing, is also the source of
their only hope. It may be that these men of troubled conscience, whose
only wish is that the world forget them, do not regard a trial as a favor. But
they do have a fair opportunity to defend themselves—a favor which these
men, when in power, rarely extended to their fellow countrymen. Despite
the fact that public opinion already condemns their acts, we agree that here
they must be given a presumption of innocence, and we accept the burden
of proving criminal acts and the responsibility of these defendants for their
commission.
When I say that we do not ask for convictions unless we prove crime, I
do not mean mere technical or incidental transgression of international
conventions. We charge guilt on planned and intended conduct that involves
moral as well as legal wrong. And we do not mean conduct that is a natural
and human, even if illegal, cutting of corners, such as many of us might

well have committed had we been in the defendants’ positions. It is not
because they yielded to the normal frailties of human beings that we accuse
them. It is their abnormal and inhuman conduct which brings them to this
bar.
We will not ask you to convict these men on the testimony of their foes.
There is no count in the Indictment that cannot be proved by books and
records. The Germans were always meticulous record keepers, and these
defendants had their share of the Teutonic passion for thoroughness in
putting things on paper. Nor were they without vanity. They arranged
frequently to be photographed in action. We will show you their own films.
You will see their own conduct and hear their own voices as these
defendants re-enact for you, from the screen, some of the events in the
course of the conspiracy.
We would also make clear that we have no purpose to incriminate the
whole German people. We know that the Nazi Party was not put in power
by a majority of the German vote. We know it came to power by an evil
alliance between the most extreme of the Nazi revolutionists, the most
unrestrained of the German reactionaries, and the most aggressive of the
German militarists. If the German populace had willingly accepted the Nazi
program, no Storm-troopers would have been needed in the early days of
the Party and there would have been no need for concentration camps or the
Gestapo, both of which institutions were inaugurated as soon as the Nazis
gained control of the German State. Only after these lawless innovations
proved successful at home were they taken abroad.
The German people should know by now that the people of the United
States hold them in no fear, and in no hate. It is true that the Germans have
taught us the horrors of modern warfare, but the ruin that lies from the
Rhine to the Danube shows that we, like our Allies, have not been dull
pupils. If we are not awed by German fortitude and proficiency in war, and
if we are not persuaded of their political maturity, we do respect their skill
in the arts of peace, their technical competence, and the sober, industrious,
and self-disciplined character of the masses of the German people. In 1933
we saw the German people recovering prestige in the commercial,
industrial, and artistic world after the set-back of the last war. We beheld
their progress neither with envy nor malice. The Nazi regime interrupted
this advance. The recoil of the Nazi aggression has left Germany in ruins.
The Nazi readiness to pledge the German word without hesitation and to

break it without shame has fastened upon German diplomacy a reputation
for duplicity that will handicap it for years. Nazi arrogance has made the
boast of the “master race” a taunt that will be thrown at Germans the world
over for generations. The Nazi nightmare has given the German name a
new and sinister significance throughout the world which will retard
Germany a century. The German, no less than the non-German world, has
accounts to settle with these defendants.
The fact of the war and the course of the war, which is the central theme
of our case, is history. From September 1st, 1939, when the German armies
crossed the Polish frontier, until September 1942, when they met epic
resistance at Stalingrad, German arms seemed invincible. Denmark and
Norway, the Netherlands and France, Belgium and Luxembourg, the
Balkans and Africa, Poland and the Baltic States, and parts of Russia, all
had been overrun and conquered by swift, powerful, well-aimed blows.
That attack on the peace of the world is the crime against international
society which brings into international cognizance crimes in its aid and
preparation which otherwise might be only internal concerns. It was
aggressive war, which the nations of the world had renounced. It was war in
violation of treaties, by which the peace of the world was sought to be safe-
guarded.
This war did not just happen—it was planned and prepared for over a
long period of time and with no small skill and cunning. The world has
perhaps never seen such a concentration and stimulation of the energies of
any people as that which enabled Germany 20 years after it was defeated,
disarmed, and dismembered to come so near carrying out its plan to
dominate Europe. Whatever else we may say of those who were the authors
of this war, they did achieve a stupendous work in organization, and our
first task is to examine the means by which these defendants and their
fellow conspirators prepared and incited Germany to go to war.
In general, our case will disclose these defendants all uniting at some
time with the Nazi Party in a plan which they well knew could be
accomplished only by an outbreak of war in Europe. Their seizure of the
German State, their subjugation of the German people, their terrorism and
extermination of dissident elements, their planning and waging of war, their
calculated and planned ruthlessness in the conduct of warfare, their
deliberate and planned criminality toward conquered peoples,—all these are
ends for which they acted in concert; and all these are phases of the

conspiracy, a conspiracy which reached one goal only to set out for another
and more ambitious one. We shall also trace for you the intricate web of
organizations which these men formed and utilized to accomplish these
ends. We will show how the entire structure of offices and officials was
dedicated to the criminal purposes and committed to the use of the criminal
methods planned by these defendants and their co-conspirators, many of
whom war and suicide have put beyond reach.
It is my purpose to open the case, particularly under Count One of the
Indictment, and to deal with the Common Plan or Conspiracy to achieve
ends possible only by resort to Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and
Crimes against Humanity. My emphasis will not be on individual
barbarities and perversions which may have occurred independently of any
central plan. One of the dangers ever present is that this Trial may be
protracted by details of particular wrongs and that we will become lost in a
“wilderness of single instances”. Nor will I now dwell on the activity of
individual defendants except as it may contribute to exposition of the
common plan.
The case as presented by the United States will be concerned with the
brains and authority back of all the crimes. These defendants were men of a
station and rank which does not soil its own hands with blood. They were
men who knew how to use lesser folk as tools. We want to reach the
planners and designers, the inciters and leaders without whose evil
architecture the world would not have been for so long scourged with the
violence and lawlessness, and wracked with the agonies and convulsions, of
this terrible war.

The Lawless Road to Power:
The chief instrumentality of cohesion in plan and action was the
National Socialist German Workers Party, known as the Nazi Party. Some
of the defendants were with it from the beginning. Others joined only after
success seemed to have validated its lawlessness or power had invested it
with immunity from the processes of the law. Adolf Hitler became its
supreme leader or “Führer” in 1921.
On the 24th of February 1920, at Munich, it publicly had proclaimed its
program (1708-PS). Some of its purposes would commend themselves to
many good citizens, such as the demands for “profit-sharing in the great
industries,” “generous development of provision for old age,” “creation and

maintenance of a healthy middle class,” “a land reform suitable to our
national requirements,” and “raising the standard of health.” It also made a
strong appeal to that sort of nationalism which in ourselves we call
patriotism and in our rivals chauvinism. It demanded “equality of rights for
the German people in its dealing with other nations, and the abolition of the
peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.” It demanded the “union of all
Germans on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples to form a
Great Germany.” It demanded “land and territory (colonies) for the
enrichment of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.” All
of these, of course, were legitimate objectives if they were to be attained
without resort to aggressive warfare.
The Nazi Party from its inception, however, contemplated war. It
demanded the “abolition of mercenary troops and the formation of a
national army.” It proclaimed that:
“In view of the enormous sacrifice of life and property demanded
of a nation by every war, personal enrichment through war must
be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand, therefore,
ruthless confiscation of all war profits.”
I do not criticize this policy. Indeed, I wish it were universal. I merely
wish to point out that in a time of peace, war was a preoccupation of the
Party, and it started the work of making war less offensive to the masses of
the people. With this it combined a program of physical training and sports
for youth that became, as we shall see, the cloak for a secret program of
military training.
The Nazi Party declaration also committed its members to an anti-
Semitic program. It declared that no Jew or any person of non-German
blood could be a member of the nation. Such persons were to be
disfranchised, disqualified for office, subject to the alien laws, and entitled
to nourishment only after the German population had first been provided
for. All who had entered Germany after August 2, 1914 were to be required
forthwith to depart, and all non-German immigration was to be prohibited.
The Party also avowed, even in those early days, an authoritarian and
totalitarian program for Germany. It demanded creation of a strong central
power with unconditional authority, nationalization of all businesses which
had been “amalgamated,” and a “reconstruction” of the national system of
education which “must aim at teaching the pupil to understand the idea of

the State (state sociology).” Its hostility to civil liberties and freedom of the
press was distinctly announced in these words:
“It must be forbidden to publish newspapers which do not
conduce to the national welfare. We demand the legal prosecution
of all tendencies in art or literature of a kind likely to disintegrate
our life as a nation and the suppression of institutions which
might militate against the above requirements.”
The forecast of religious persecution was clothed in the language of
religious liberty, for the Nazi program stated, “We demand liberty for all
religious denominations in the State.” But, it continues with the limitation,
“so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality
and moral sense of the German race.”
The Party program foreshadowed the campaign of terrorism. It
announced, “We demand ruthless war upon those whose activities are
injurious to the common interests”, and it demanded that such offenses be
punished with death.
It is significant that the leaders of this Party interpreted this program as
a belligerent one, certain to precipitate conflict. The Party platform
concluded, “The leaders of the Party swear to proceed regardless of
consequences—if necessary, at the sacrifice of their lives—toward the
fulfillment of the foregoing points.” It is this Leadership Corps of the Party,
not its entire membership, that stands accused before you as a criminal
organization.
Let us now see how the leaders of the Party fulfilled their pledge to
proceed regardless of consequences. Obviously, their foreign objectives,
which were nothing less than to undo international treaties and to wrest
territory from foreign control, as well as most of their internal program,
could be accomplished only by possession of the machinery of the German
State. The first effort, accordingly, was to subvert the Weimar Republic by
violent revolution. An abortive putsch at Munich in 1923 landed many of
them in jail. A period of meditation which followed produced Mein Kampf,
henceforth the source of law for the Party workers and a source of
considerable revenue to its supreme leader. The Nazi plans for the violent
overthrow of the feeble Republic then turned to plans for its capture.
No greater mistake could be made than to think of the Nazi Party in
terms of the loose organizations which we of the western world call

“political parties”. In discipline, structure, and method the Nazi Party was
not adapted to the democratic process of persuasion. It was an instrument of
conspiracy and of coercion. The Party was not organized to take over power
in the German State by winning support of a majority of the German
people; it was organized to seize power in defiance of the will of the people.
The Nazi Party, under the “Führerprinzip,” was bound by an iron
discipline into a pyramid, with the Führer, Adolf Hitler, at the top and
broadening into a numerous Leadership Corps, composed of overlords of a
very extensive Party membership at the base. By no means all of those who
may have supported the movement in one way or another were actual Party
members. The membership took the Party oath which in effect amounted to
an abdication of personal intelligence and moral responsibility. This was the
oath: “I vow inviolable fidelity to Adolf Hitler; I vow absolute obedience to
him and to the leaders he designates for me.” The membership in daily
practice followed its leaders with an idolatry and self-surrender more
Oriental than Western.
We will not be obliged to guess as to the motives or goal of the Nazi
Party. The immediate aim was to undermine the Weimar Republic. The
order to all Party members to work to that end was given in a letter from
Hitler of August 24, 1931 to Rosenberg, of which we will produce the
original. Hitler wrote:

“I am just reading in the Völkischer Beobachter, edition 235/236,
page 1, an article entitled “Does Wirth Intend To Come over?”
The tendency of the article is to prevent on our part a crumbling
away from the present form of government. I myself am
travelling all over Germany to achieve exactly the opposite. May
I therefore ask that my own paper will not stab me in the back
with tactically unwise articles. . . .” (047-PS)
Captured film enables us to present the Defendant Alfred Rosenberg,
who from the screen will himself tell you the story. The SA practiced
violent interference with elections. We have the reports of the SD
describing in detail how its members later violated the secrecy of elections
in order to identify those who opposed them. One of the reports makes this
explanation:
“. . . . The control was effected in the following way: some
members of the election committee marked all the ballot papers
with numbers. During the ballot itself, a voters’ list was made up.
The ballot-papers were handed out in numerical order, therefore it
was possible afterwards with the aid of this list to find out the
persons who cast ‘No’—votes or invalid votes. One sample of
these marked ballot-papers is enclosed. The marking was done on
the back of the ballot-papers with skimmed milk. . . .” (R-142)
The Party activity, in addition to all the familiar forms of political
contest, took on the aspect of a rehearsal for warfare. It utilized a Party
formation, “Die Sturmabteilungen”, commonly known as the SA. This was
a voluntary organization of youthful and fanatical Nazis trained for the use
of violence under semi-military discipline. Its members began by acting as
bodyguards for the Nazi leaders and rapidly expanded from defensive to
offensive tactics. They became disciplined ruffians for the breaking up of
opposition meetings and the terrorization of adversaries. They boasted that
their task was to make the Nazi Party “master of the streets”. The SA was
the parent organization of a number of others. Its offspring include “Die
Schutzstaffeln”, commonly known as the SS, formed in 1925 and
distinguished for the fanaticism and cruelty of its members; “Der
Sicherheitsdienst”, known as the SD; and “Die Geheime Staatspolizei”, the

Secret State Police, the infamous Gestapo formed in 1934 after Nazi
accession to power.
A glance at a chart of the Party organization is enough to show how
completely it differed from the political parties we know. It had its own
source of law in the Führer and sub-Führer. It had its own courts and its
own police. The conspirators set up a government within the Party to
exercise outside the law every sanction that any legitimate state could
exercise and many that it could not. Its chain of command was military, and
its formations were martial in name as well as in function. They were
composed of battalions set up to bear arms under military discipline,
motorized corps, flying corps, and the infamous “Death Head Corps”,
which was not misnamed. The Party had its own secret police, its security
units, its intelligence and espionage division, its raiding forces, and its
youth forces. It established elaborate administrative mechanisms to identify
and liquidate spies and informers, to manage concentration camps, to
operate death vans, and to finance the whole movement. Through
concentric circles of authority, the Nazi Party, as its leadership later boasted,
eventually organized and dominated every phase of German life—but not
until they had waged a bitter internal struggle characterized by brutal
criminality we charge here. In preparation for this phase of their struggle,
they created a Party police system. This became the pattern and the
instrument of the police state, which was the first goal in their plan.
The Party formations, including the Leadership Corps of the Party, the
SD, the SS, the SA, and the infamous Secret State Police, or Gestapo,—all
these stand accused before you as criminal organizations; organizations
which, as we will prove from their own documents, were recruited only
from recklessly devoted Nazis, ready in conviction and temperament to do
the most violent of deeds to advance the common program. They terrorized
and silenced democratic opposition and were able at length to combine with
political opportunists, militarists, industrialists, monarchists, and political
reactionaries.
On January 30, 1933 Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the German
Republic. An evil combination, represented in the prisoners’ dock by its
most eminent survivors, had succeeded in possessing itself of the machinery
of the German Government, a facade behind which they thenceforth would
operate to make a reality of the war of conquest they so long had plotted.
The conspiracy had passed into its second phase.

The Consolidation of Nazi Power:
We shall now consider the steps, which embraced the most hideous of
Crimes against Humanity, to which the conspirators resorted in perfecting
control of the German State and in preparing Germany for the aggressive
war indispensable to their ends.
The Germans of the 1920’s were a frustrated and baffled people as a
result of defeat and the disintegration of their traditional government. The
democratic elements, which were trying to govern Germany through the
new and feeble machinery of the Weimar Republic, got inadequate support
from the democratic forces of the rest of the world, including my country. It
is not to be denied that Germany, when worldwide depression was added to
her other problems, was faced with urgent and intricate pressures in her
economic and political life which necessitated bold measures.
The internal measures by which a nation attempts to solve its problems
are ordinarily of no concern to other nations. But the Nazi program from the
first was recognized as a desperate program for a people still suffering the
effects of an unsuccessful war. The Nazi policy embraced ends recognized
as attainable only by a renewal and a more successful outcome of war, in
Europe. The conspirators’ answer to Germany’s problems was nothing less
than to plot the regaining of territories lost in the First World War and the
acquisition of other fertile lands of Central Europe by dispossessing or
exterminating those who inhabited them. They also contemplated
destroying or permanently weakening all other neighboring peoples so as to
win virtual domination over Europe and probably of the world. The precise
limits of their ambition we need not define for it was and is as illegal to
wage aggressive war for small stakes as for large ones.
We find at this period two governments in Germany—the real and the
ostensible. The forms of the German Republic were maintained for a time,
and it was the outward and visible government. But the real authority in the
State was outside and above the law and rested in the Leadership Corps of
the Nazi Party.
On February 27, 1933, less than a month after Hitler became
Chancellor, the Reichstag building was set on fire. The burning of this
symbol of free parliamentary government was so providential for the Nazis
that it was believed they staged the fire themselves. Certainly when we
contemplate their known crimes, we cannot believe they would shrink from

mere arson. It is not necessary, however, to resolve the controversy as to
who set the fire. The significant point is in the use that was made of the fire
and of the state of public mind it produced. The Nazis immediately accused
the Communist Party of instigating and committing the crime, and turned
every effort to portray this single act of arson as the beginning of a
communist revolution. Then, taking advantage of the hysteria, the Nazis
met this phantom revolution with a real one. In the following December the
German Supreme Court with commendable courage and independence
acquitted the accused Communists, but it was too late to influence the tragic
course of events which the Nazi conspirators had set rushing forward.
Hitler, on the morning after the fire, obtained from the aged and ailing
President Von Hindenburg a presidential decree suspending the extensive
guarantees of individual liberty contained in the constitution of the Weimar
Republic. The decree provided that:
“Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the
Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further
notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free
expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right
of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the
privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications,
and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well
as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal
limits otherwise prescribed.” (1390-PS)
The extent of the restriction on personal liberty under the decree of
February 28, 1933 may be understood by reference to the rights under the
Weimar constitution which were suspended:
“Article 114. The freedom of the person is inviolable. Curtailment
or deprivation of personal freedom by a public authority is only
permissible on a legal basis.
“Persons who have been deprived of their freedom must be
informed at the latest on the following day by whose authority
and for what reasons the deprivation of freedom was ordered;
opportunity shall be afforded them without delay of submitting
objections to their deprivation of freedom.
“Article 115. Every German’s home is his sanctuary and is
inviolable. Exceptions may only be made as provided by law.

“Article 117. The secrecy of letters and all postal, telegraphic, and
telephone communications is inviolable. Exceptions are
inadmissible except by Reich law.
“Article 118. Every German has the right, within the limits of the
general laws, to express his opinions freely in speech, in writing,
in print, in picture form, or in any other way. No conditions of
work or employment may detract from this right and no
disadvantage may accrue to him from any person for making use
of this right. . . .
“Article 123. All Germans have the right to assemble peacefully
and unarmed without giving notice and without special
permission.
“A Reich law may make previous notification obligatory for
assemblies in the open air, and may prohibit them in case of
immediate danger to the public safety.
“Article 124. All the Germans have the right to form associations
or societies for purposes not contrary to criminal law. This right
may not be curtailed by preventive measures. The same
provisions apply to religious associations and societies.
“Every association may become incorporated (Erwerb der
Rechtsfähigkeit) according to the provisions of the civil law. The
right may not be refused to any association on the grounds that its
aims are political, social-political, or religious.
“Article 153. Property is guaranteed by the Constitution. Its
content and limits are defined by the laws.
“Expropriation can only take place for the public benefit and on a
legal basis. Adequate compensation shall be granted, unless a
Reich law orders otherwise. In the case of dispute concerning the
amount of compensation, it shall be possible to submit the matter
to the ordinary civil courts, unless Reich laws determine
otherwise. Compensation must be paid if the Reich expropriates
property belonging to the Lands, Communes, or public utility
associations.
“Property carries obligations. Its use shall also serve the common
good.” (2050-PS)
It must be said in fairness to Von Hindenburg that the constitution itself
authorized him temporarily to suspend these fundamental rights “if the

public safety and order in the German Reich are considerably disturbed or
endangered.” It must also be acknowledged that President Ebert previously
had invoked this power.
But the National Socialist coup was made possible because the terms of
the Hitler-Hindenburg decree departed from all previous ones in which the
power of suspension had been invoked. Whenever Ebert had suspended
constitutional guarantees of individual rights, his decree had expressly
revived the Protective Custody Act adopted by the Reichstag in 1916 during
the previous war. This act guaranteed a judicial hearing within 24 hours of
arrest, gave a right to have counsel and to inspect all relevant records,
provided for appeal, and authorized compensation from Treasury funds for
erroneous arrests.
The Hitler-Hindenburg decree of February 28, 1933 contained no such
safeguards. The omission may not have been noted by Von Hindenburg.
Certainly he did not appreciate its effect. It left the Nazi police and party
formations, already existing and functioning under Hitler, completely
unrestrained and irresponsible. Secret arrest and indefinite detention,
without charges, without evidence, without hearing, without counsel,
became the method of inflicting inhuman punishment on any whom the
Nazi police suspected or disliked. No court could issue an injunction, or
writ of habeas corpus, or certiorari. The German people were in the hands
of the police, the police were in the hands of the Nazi Party, and the Party
was in the hands of a ring of evil men, of whom the defendants here before
you are surviving and representative leaders.
The Nazi conspiracy, as we shall show, always contemplated not merely
overcoming current opposition but exterminating elements which could not
be reconciled with its philosophy of the state. It not only sought to establish
the Nazi “new order” but to secure its sway, as Hitler predicted, “for a
thousand years.” Nazis were never in doubt or disagreement as to what
these dissident elements were. They were concisely described by one of
them, Colonel General Von Fritsch, on December 11, 1938 in these words:
“Shortly after the first war I came to the conclusion that we
should have to be victorious in three battles if Germany were to
become powerful again: 1. The battle against the working class—
Hitler has won this. 2. Against the Catholic Church, perhaps
better expressed against Ultramontanism. 3. Against the Jews.”
(1947-PS)

The warfare against these elements was continuous. The battle in
Germany was but a practice skirmish for the worldwide drive against them.
We have in point of geography and of time two groups of Crimes against
Humanity—one within Germany before and during the war, the other in
occupied territory during the war. But the two are not separated in Nazi
planning. They are a continuous unfolding of the Nazi plan to exterminate
peoples and institutions which might serve as a focus or instrument for
overturning their “new world order” at any time. We consider these crimes
against humanity in this address as manifestations of the one Nazi plan and
discuss them according to General Von Fritsch’s classification.

1. The Battle against the Working Class:
When Hitler came to power, there were in Germany three groups of
trade unions. The General German Trade Union Confederation (ADGB)
with 28 affiliated unions, and the General Independent Employees
Confederation (AFA) with 13 federated unions together numbered more
than 4,500,000 members. The Christian Trade Union had over 1,250,000
members.
The working people of Germany, like the working people of other
nations, had little to gain personally by war. While labor is usually brought
around to the support of the nation at war, labor by and large is a pacific,
though by no means a pacifist force in the world. The working people of
Germany had not forgotten in 1933 how heavy the yoke of the war lord can
be. It was the workingmen who had joined the sailors and soldiers in the
revolt of 1918 to end the first World War. The Nazis had neither forgiven
nor forgotten. The Nazi program required that this part of the German
population not only be stripped of power to resist diversion of its scanty
comforts to armament, but also be wheedled or whipped into new and
unheard of sacrifices as a part of the Nazi war preparation. Labor must be
cowed, and that meant its organizations and means of cohesion and defense
must be destroyed.
The purpose to regiment labor for the Nazi Party was avowed by Ley in
a speech to workers on May 2, 1933 as follows:
“You may say what else do you want, you have the absolute
power. True we have the power, but we do not have the whole
people, we do not have you workers 100 per cent, and it is you

whom we want; we will not let you be until you stand with us in
complete, genuine acknowledgment.” (614-PS)
The first Nazi attack was upon the two larger unions. On April 21, 1933
an order not even in the name of the Government, but of the Nazi Party was
issued by the conspirator Robert Ley as “Chief of Staff of the political
organization of the NSDAP,” applicable to the Trade Union Confederation
and the Independent Employees Confederation. It directed seizure of their
properties and arrest of their principal leaders. The Party order directed
Party organs which we here denounce as criminal associations, the SA and
SS “to be employed for the occupation of the trade union properties, and for
the taking into custody of personalities who come into question.” And it
directed the taking into “protective custody” of all chairmen and district
secretaries of such unions and branch directors of the labor bank. (392-PS)
These orders were carried out on May 2, 1933. All funds of the labor
unions, including pension and benefit funds, were seized. Union leaders
were sent to concentration camps. A few days later, on May 10, 1933, Hitler
appointed Ley leader of the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront)
which succeeded to the confiscated union funds. The German Labor Front,
a Nazi controlled labor bureau, was set up under Ley to teach the Nazi
philosophy to German workers and to weed out from industrial employment
all who were backward in their lessons. (1940-PS) “Factory troops” were
organized as an “ideological shock squad within the factory” (1817-PS).
The Party order provided that “outside of the German Labor Front, no other
organization (whether of workers or of employees) is to exist.” On June 24,
1933 the remaining Christian Trade Unions were seized, pursuant to an
order of the Nazi Party signed by Ley.
On May 19, 1933, this time by a government decree, it was provided
that “trustees” of labor appointed by Hitler, should regulate the conditions
of all labor contracts, replacing the former process of collective bargaining
(405-PS). On November 30, 1934 a decree “regulating national labor”
introduced the Führer Principle into industrial relations. It provided that the
owners of enterprises should be the “Führer” and the workers should be the
followers. The “enterprise-Führer” should “make decisions for employees
and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise” (1861-PS). It was by
such bait that the great German industrialists were induced to support the
Nazi cause, to their own ultimate ruin.

Not only did the Nazis dominate and regiment German labor, but they
forced the youth into the ranks of the laboring people they had thus led into
chains. Under a compulsory labor service decree on 26 June 1935 young
men and women between the ages of 18 and 25 were conscripted for labor
(1654-PS). Thus was the purpose to subjugate German labor accomplished.
In the words of Ley, this accomplishment consisted “in eliminating the
association character of the trade union and employees’ associations, and in
its place we have substituted the conception ‘soldiers of work’.” The
productive manpower of the German nation was in Nazi control. By these
steps the defendants won the battle to liquidate labor unions as potential
opposition and were enabled to impose upon the working class the burdens
of preparing for aggressive warfare.
Robert Ley, the field marshal of the battle against labor, answered our
Indictment with suicide. Apparently he knew no better answer.

2. The Battle against the Churches:
The Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideology.
But we who believe in freedom of conscience and of religion base no
charge of criminality on anybody’s ideology. It is not because the Nazi
themselves were irreligious or pagan, but because they persecuted others of
the Christian faith that they become guilty of crime, and it is because the
persecution was a step in the preparation for aggressive warfare that the
offense becomes one of international consequence. To remove every
moderating influence among the German people and to put its population
on a total war footing, the conspirators devised and carried out a systematic
and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches.
We will ask you to convict the Nazis on their own evidence. Martin
Bormann, in June 1941, issued a secret decree on the relation of
Christianity and National Socialism. The decree provided:
“For the first time in German history the Führer consciously and
completely has the leadership of the people in his own hand. With
the Party, its components, and attached units the Führer has
created for himself and thereby the German Reich leadership an
instrument which makes him independent of the church. All
influences which might impair or damage the leadership of the
people exercised by the Führer with help of the NSDAP, must be
eliminated. More and more the people must be separated from the

churches and their organs, the pastors. Of course, the churches
must and will, seen from their viewpoint, defend themselves
against this loss of power. But never again must an influence on
leadership of the people be yielded to the churches. This
(influence) must be broken completely and finally.
“Only the Reich Government and by its direction the Party, its
components, and attached units have a right to leadership of the
people. Just as the deleterious influences of astrologers, seers, and
other fakers are eliminated and suppressed by the State, so must
the possibility of church influence also be totally removed. Not
until this has happened, does the State leadership have influence
on the individual citizens. Not until then are people and Reich
secure in their existence for all the future.” (D-75)
And how the Party had been securing the Reich from Christian
influence, will be proved by such items as this teletype from the Gestapo,
Berlin, to the Gestapo, Nuremberg, on July 24, 1938. Let us hear their own
account of events in Rottenburg.
“The Party on 23 July 1939 from 2100 on carried out the third
demonstration against Bishop Sproll. Participants about 2500-
3000 were brought in from outside by bus, etc. The Rottenburg
populace again did not participate in the demonstration. This town
took rather a hostile attitude to the demonstrations. The action got
completely out of hand of the Party member responsible for it.
The demonstrators stormed the palace, beat in the gates and
doors. About 150 to 200 people forced their way into the palace,
searched the rooms, threw files out of the windows and
rummaged through the beds in the rooms of the palace. One bed
was ignited. Before the fire got to the other objects of equipment
in the rooms and the palace, the flaming bed could be thrown
from the window and the fire extinguished. The Bishop was with
Archbishop Groeber of Freiburg and the ladies and gentlemen of
his menage in the chapel at prayer. About 25 to 30 people pressed
into this chapel and molested those present. Bishop Groeber was
taken for Bishop Sproll. He was grabbed by the robe and dragged
back and forth. Finally the intruders realized that Bishop Groeber
is not the one they are seeking. They could then be persuaded to

leave the building. After the evacuation of the palace by the
demonstrators I had an interview with Archbishop Groeber who
left Rottenburg in the night. Groeber wants to turn to the Führer
and Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick, anew. On the course
of the action, the damage done as well as the homage of the
Rottenburg populace beginning today for the Bishop I shall
immediately hand in a full report, after I am in the act of
suppressing counter mass meetings. . . .
“In case the Führer has instructions to give in this matter, I
request that these be transmitted most quickly. . . .” (848-PS)
Later, Defendant Rosenberg wrote to Bormann reviewing the proposal
of Kerrl as Church Minister to place the Protestant Church under State
tutelage and proclaim Hitler its supreme head. Rosenberg was opposed,
hinting that nazism was to suppress the Christian Church completely after
the war (See also 098-PS).
The persecution of all pacifist and dissenting sects, such as Jehovah’s
Witnesses and the Pentecostal Association, was peculiarly relentless and
cruel. The policy toward the Evangelical Churches, however, was to use
their influence for the Nazis’ own purposes. In September 1933 Mueller
was appointed the Führer’s representative with power to deal with the
“affairs of the Evangelical Church” in its relations to the State. Eventually,
steps were taken to create a Reich Bishop vested with power to control this
Church. A long conflict followed, Pastor Niemöller was sent to
concentration camp, and extended interference with the internal discipline
and administration of the churches occurred.
A most intense drive was directed against the Roman Catholic Church.
After a strategic concordat with the Holy See, signed in July 1933 in Rome,
which never was observed by the Nazi Party, a long and persistent
persecution of the Catholic Church, its priesthood, and its members, was
carried out. Church schools and educational institutions were suppressed or
subjected to requirements of Nazi teaching inconsistent with the Christian
faith. The property of the Church was confiscated and inspired vandalism
directed against Church property was left unpunished. Religious instruction
was impeded and the exercise of religion made difficult. Priests and bishops
were laid upon, riots were stimulated to harass them, and many were sent to
concentration camps.

After occupation of foreign soil, these persecutions went on with greater
vigor than ever. We will present to you from the files of the Vatican the
earnest protests made by the Vatican to Ribbentrop summarizing the
persecutions to which the priesthood and the Church had been subjected in
this twentieth century under the Nazi regime. Ribbentrop never answered
them. He could not deny. He dared not justify.
I now come to “Crimes against the Jews.”
THE PRESIDENT: We shall now take our noon recess.

[A recess was taken until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn for 15 minutes at half
past 3 and will then continue until half past 4.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I was about to take up the “Crimes
Committed against the Jews.”

3. Crimes against the Jews:
The most savage and numerous crimes planned and committed by the
Nazis were those against the Jews. Those in Germany in 1933 numbered
about 500,000. In the aggregate, they had made for themselves positions
which excited envy, and had accumulated properties which excited the
avarice of the Nazis. They were few enough to be helpless and numerous
enough to be held up as a menace.
Let there be no misunderstanding about the charge of persecuting Jews.
What we charge against these defendants is not those arrogances and
pretensions which frequently accompany the intermingling of different
peoples and which are likely, despite the honest efforts of government, to
produce regrettable crimes and convulsions. It is my purpose to show a plan
and design, to which all Nazis were fanatically committed, to annihilate all
Jewish people. These crimes were organized and promoted by the Party
leadership, executed and protected by the Nazi officials, as we shall
convince you by written orders of the Secret State Police itself.
The persecution of the Jews was a continuous and deliberate policy. It
was a policy directed against other nations as well as against the Jews
themselves. Anti-Semitism was promoted to divide and embitter the
democratic peoples and to soften their resistance to the Nazi aggression. As
Robert Ley declared in Der Angriff on 14 May 1944: “The second German
secret weapon is Anti-Semitism because if it is constantly pursued by
Germany, it will become a universal problem which all nations will be
forced to consider.”
Anti-Semitism also has been aptly credited with being a “spearhead of
terror.” The ghetto was the laboratory for testing repressive measures.
Jewish property was the first to be expropriated, but the custom grew and
included similar measures against anti-Nazi Germans, Poles, Czechs,

Frenchmen, and Belgians. Extermination of the Jews enabled the Nazis to
bring a practiced hand to similar measures against Poles, Serbs, and Greeks.
The plight of the Jew was a constant threat to opposition or discontent
among other elements of Europe’s population—pacifists, conservatives,
Communists, Catholics, Protestants, Socialists. It was in fact, a threat to
every dissenting opinion and to every non-Nazi’s life.
The persecution policy against the Jews commenced with non-violent
measures, such as disfranchisement and discriminations against their
religion, and the placing of impediments in the way of success in economic
life. It moved rapidly to organized mass violence against them, physical
isolation in ghettos, deportation, forced labor, mass starvation, and
extermination. The Government, the Party formations indicted before you
as criminal organizations, the Secret State Police, the Army, private and
semi-public associations, and “spontaneous” mobs that were carefully
inspired from official sources, were all agencies that were concerned in this
persecution. Nor was it directed against individual Jews for personal bad
citizenship or unpopularity. The avowed purpose was the destruction of the
Jewish people as a whole, as an end in itself, as a measure of preparation for
war, and as a discipline of conquered peoples.
The conspiracy or common plan to exterminate the Jew was so
methodically and thoroughly pursued, that despite the German defeat and
Nazi prostration this Nazi aim largely has succeeded. Only remnants of the
European Jewish population remain in Germany, in the countries which
Germany occupied, and in those which were her satellites or collaborators.
Of the 9,600,000 Jews who lived in Nazi-dominated Europe, 60 percent are
authoritatively estimated to have perished. Five million seven hundred
thousand Jews are missing from the countries in which they formerly lived,
and over 4,500,000 cannot be accounted for by the normal death rate nor by
immigration; nor are they included among displaced persons. History does
not record a crime ever perpetrated against so many victims or one ever
carried out with such calculated cruelty.
You will have difficulty, as I have, to look into the faces of these
defendants and believe that in this twentieth century human beings could
inflict such sufferings as will be proved here on their own countrymen as
well as upon their so-called “inferior” enemies. Particular crimes, and the
responsibility of defendants for them, are to be dealt with by the Soviet
Government’s counsel, when committed in the East, and by counsel for the

Republic of France when committed in the West. I advert to them only to
show their magnitude as evidence of a purpose and a knowledge common
to all defendants, of an official plan rather than of a capricious policy of
some individual commander, and to show such a continuity of Jewish
persecution from the rise of the Nazi conspiracy to its collapse as forbids us
to believe that any person could be identified with any part of Nazi action
without approving this most conspicuous item in their program.
The Indictment itself recites many evidences of the anti-Semitic
persecutions. The Defendant Streicher led the Nazis in anti-Semitic
bitterness and extremism. In an article appearing in Der Stürmer on 19
March 1942 he complained that Christian teachings have stood in the way
of “racial solution of the Jewish question in Europe”, and quoted
enthusiastically as the twentieth century solution the Führer’s proclamation
of February 24, 1942 that “the Jew will be exterminated.” And on
November 4, 1943 Streicher declared in Der Stürmer that the Jews “have
disappeared from Europe and that the Jewish ‘Reservoir of the East’ from
which the Jewish plague has for centuries beset the people of Europe, has
ceased to exist.” Streicher now has the effrontery to tell us he is “only a
Zionist”—he says he wants only to return the Jews to Palestine. But on May
7, 1942 his newspaper, Der Stürmer, had this to say:
“It is also not only a European problem! The Jewish question
is a world question! Not only is Germany not safe in the face of
the Jews as long as one Jew lives in Europe, but also the Jewish
question is hardly solved in Europe so long as Jews live in the rest
of the world.”
And the Defendant Hans Frank, a lawyer by profession, I say with
shame, summarized in his diary in 1944 the Nazi policy thus: “The Jews are
a race which has to be eliminated; whenever we catch one, it is his end”
(2233-PS, 4 March 1944, P. 26). And earlier, speaking of his function as
Governor General of Poland, he confided to his diary this sentiment: “Of
course I cannot eliminate all lice and Jews in only a year’s time” (2233-PS,
Vol. IV, 1940, P. 1158). I could multiply endlessly this kind of Nazi ranting
but I will leave it to the evidence and turn to the fruit of this perverted
thinking.
The most serious of the actions against Jews were outside of any law,
but the law itself was employed to some extent. There were the infamous

Nuremberg decrees of September 15, 1935 (Reichsgesetzblatt 1935, Part. I,
P. 1146). The Jews were segregated into ghettos and put into forced labor;
they were expelled from their professions; their property was expropriated;
all cultural life, the press, the theater, and schools were prohibited them; and
the SD was made responsible for them (212-PS, 069-PS). This was an
ominous, guardianship, as the following order for “The Handling of the
Jewish Question” shows:
“The competency of the Chief of the Security Police and Security
Service, who is charged with the mission of solving the European
Jewish question, extends even to the Occupied Eastern
Provinces. . . .
“An eventual act by the civilian population against the Jews is not
to be prevented as long as this is compatible with the maintenance
of order and security in the rear of the fighting troops. . . .
“The first main goal of the German measures must be strict
segregation of Jewry from the rest of the population. In the
execution of this, first of all is the seizing of the Jewish populace
by the introduction of a registration order and similar appropriate
measures. . . .
“Then immediately, the wearing of the recognition sign consisting
of a yellow Jewish star is to be brought about and all rights of
freedom for Jews are to be withdrawn. They are to be placed in
ghettos and at the same time are to be separated according to
sexes. The presence of many more or less closed Jewish
settlements in White Ruthenia and in the Ukraine makes this
mission easier. Moreover, places are to be chosen which make
possible the full use of the Jewish manpower in case labor needs
are present. . . .
“The entire Jewish property is to be seized and confiscated with
exception of that which is necessary for a bare existence. As far as
the economical situation permits, the power of disposal of their
property is to be taken from the Jews as soon as possible through
orders and other measures given by the commissariat, so that the
moving of property will quickly cease.
“Any cultural activity will be completely forbidden, to the Jew.
This includes the outlawing of the Jewish press, the Jewish
theaters, and schools.

“The slaughtering of animals according to Jewish rites is also to
be prohibited. . . .” (212-PS)
The anti-Jewish campaign became furious in Germany following the
assassination in Paris of the German Legation Councillor Von Rath.
Heydrich, Gestapo head, sent a teletype to all Gestapo and SD offices with
directions for handling “spontaneous” uprising anticipated for the nights of
November 9 and 10, 1938 so as to aid in destruction of Jewish-owned
property and protect only that of Germans. No more cynical document ever
came into evidence. Then there is a report by an SS brigade leader, Dr.
Stahlecker, to Himmler, which recites that:
“. . . Similarly, native anti-Semitic forces were induced to start
pogroms against Jews during the first hours after capture, though
this inducement proved to be very difficult. Following out orders,
the Security Police was determined to solve the Jewish question
with all possible means and most decisively. But it was desirable
that the Security Police should not put in an immediate
appearance, at least in the beginning, since the extraordinarily
harsh measures were apt to stir even German circles. It had to be
shown to the world that the native population itself took the first
action by way of natural reaction against the suppression by Jews
during several decades and against the terror exercised by the
Communists during the preceding period. . . .”
“. . . In view of the extension of the area of operations and the
great number of duties which had to be performed by the Security
Police, it was intended from the very beginning to obtain the co-
operation of the reliable population for the fight against vermin—
that is mainly the Jews and Communists. Beyond our directing of
the first spontaneous actions of self-cleansing, which will be
reported elsewhere, care had to be taken that reliable people
should be put to the cleansing job and that they were appointed
auxiliary members of the Security Police. . . .”
“. . . Kovno. To our surprise it was not easy at first to set in
motion an extensive pogrom against Jews. Klimatis, the leader of
the partisan unit, mentioned above, who was used for this purpose
primarily, succeeded in starting a pogrom on the basis of advice
given to him by a small advanced detachment acting in Kovno,

and in such a way that no German order or German instigation
was noticed from the outside. During the first pogrom in the night
from 25 to 26 June the Lithuanian partisans did away with more
than 1,500 Jews, set fire to several synagogues or destroyed them
by other means and burned down a Jewish dwelling district
consisting of about 60 houses. During the following nights about
2,300 Jews were made harmless in a similar way. In other parts of
Lithuania similar actions followed the example of Kovno, though
smaller and extending to the Communists who had been left
behind.
“These self-cleansing actions went smoothly because the Army
authorities who had been informed showed understanding for this
procedure. From the beginning it was obvious that only the first
days after the occupation would offer the opportunity for carrying
out pogroms. After the disarmament of the partisans the self-
cleansing actions ceased necessarily.
“It proved much more difficult to set in motion similar cleansing
actions in Latvia. . . .” (L-180)
Of course, it is self-evident that these “uprisings” were managed by the
Government and the Nazi Party. If we were in doubt, we could resort to
Streicher’s memorandum of April 14, 1939 which says:
“The anti-Jewish action of November 1938 did not arise
spontaneously from the people. . . . Part of the Party formation
have been charged with the execution of the anti-Jewish action.”
(406-PS)
Jews as a whole were fined a billion Reichsmarks. They were excluded
from all businesses, and claims against insurance companies for their
burned properties were confiscated, all by decree of the Defendant Göring.
(Reichsgesetzblatt, 1938, Part I, Pp. 1579-82)
Synagogues were the objects of a special vengeance. On November 10,
1938 the following order was given:
“By order of the Group Commander:
All Jewish synagogues in the area of Brigade 50 have to be blown
up or set afire. . . . The operation will be carried out in civilian

clothing. . . . Execution of the order will be reported. . . .” (1721-
PS)
Some 40 teletype messages from various police headquarters will tell
the fury with which all Jews were pursued in Germany on those awful
November nights. The SS troops were turned loose and the Gestapo
supervised. Jewish-owned property was authorized to be destroyed. The
Gestapo ordered twenty to thirty thousand “well-to-do-Jews” to be arrested.
Concentration camps were to receive them. Healthy Jews, fit for labor, were
to be taken. (3051-PS)
As the German frontiers were expanded by war, so the campaign against
the Jews expanded. The Nazi plan never was limited to extermination in
Germany; always it contemplated extinguishing the Jew in Europe and
often in the world. In the West, the Jews were killed and their property
taken over. But the campaign achieved its zenith of savagery in the East.
The eastern Jew has suffered as no people ever suffered. Their sufferings
were carefully reported to the Nazi authorities to show faithful adherence to
the Nazi design. I shall refer only to enough of the evidence of these to
show the extent of the Nazi design for killing Jews.
If I should recite these horrors in words of my own, you would think me
intemperate and unreliable. Fortunately, we need not take the word of any
witness but the Germans themselves. I invite you now to look at a few of
the vast number of captured German orders and reports that will be offered
in evidence, to see what a Nazi invasion meant. We will present such
evidence as the report of “Einsatzgruppe (Action Group) A” of October 15,
1941 which boasts that in overrunning the Baltic States, “Native anti-
Semitic forces were induced to start pogroms against the Jews during the
first hours after occupation. . . .” The report continues:
“From the beginning it was to be expected that the Jewish
problem in the East could not be solved by pogroms alone. In
accordance with the basic orders received, however, the cleansing
activities of the Security Police had to aim at a complete
annihilation of the Jews. Special detachments reinforced by
selected units—in Lithuania partisan detachments, in Latvia units
of the Latvian auxiliary police—therefore performed extensive
executions both in the towns and in rural areas. The actions of the
execution detachments were performed smoothly.”

“The sum total of the Jews liquidated in Lithuania amounts to
71,105. During the pogroms in Kovno 3,800 Jews were
eliminated, in the smaller towns about 1,200 Jews.”
“In Latvia, up to now a total of 30,000 Jews were executed. Five
hundred were eliminated by pogroms in Riga.” (L-180)
This is a captured report from the Commissioner of Sluzk on October
30, 1941 which describes the scene in more detail. It says:
“. . . The first lieutenant explained that the police battalion had
received the assignment to effect the liquidation of all Jews here
in the town of Sluzk, within two days. . . . Then I requested him to
postpone the action one day. However, he rejected this with the
remark that he had to carry out this action everywhere and in all
towns and that only two days were allotted for Sluzk. Within
these two days, the town of Sluzk had to be cleared of Jews by all
means. . . . All Jews without exception were taken out of the
factories and shops and deported in spite of our agreement. It is
true that part of the Jews was moved by way of the ghetto where
many of them were processed and still segregated by me, but a
large part was loaded directly on trucks and liquidated without
further delay outside of the town. . . . For the rest, as regards the
execution of the action, I must point out to my deepest regret that
the latter bordered already on sadism. The town itself offered a
picture of horror during the action. With indescribable brutality
on the part of both the German police officers and particularly the
Lithuanian partisans, the Jewish people, but also among them
White Ruthenians, were taken out of their dwellings and herded
together. Everywhere in the town shots were to be heard and in
different streets the corpses of shot Jews accumulated. The White
Ruthenians were in greatest distress to free themselves from the
encirclement. Regardless of the fact that the Jewish people,
among whom were also tradesmen, were mistreated in a terribly
barbarous way in the face of the White Ruthenian people, the
White Ruthenians themselves were also worked over with rubber
clubs and rifle butts. There was no question of an action against
the Jews any more. It rather looked like a revolution. . . .”

There are reports which merely tabulate the numbers slaughtered. An
example is an account of the work of Einsatzgruppen of SIPO and SD in the
East, which relates that:
In Estonia, all Jews were arrested immediately upon the arrival of the
Wehrmacht. Jewish men and women above the age of 16 and capable of
work were drafted for forced labor. Jews were subjected to all sorts of
restrictions and all Jewish property was confiscated. All Jewish males above
the age of 16 were executed, with the exception of doctors and elders. Only
500 of an original 4,500 Jews remained. Thirty-seven thousand, one
hundred eighty persons have been liquidated by the SIPO and SD in White
Ruthenia during October. In one town, 337 Jewish women were executed
for demonstrating a ‘provocative attitude.’ In another, 380 Jews were shot
for spreading vicious propaganda.
And so the report continues, listing town after town, where hundreds of
Jews were murdered:
In Vitebsk 3,000 Jews were liquidated because of the danger of
epidemics. In Kiev 33,771 Jews were executed on September 29 and 30 in
retaliation for some fires which were set off there. In Shitomir 3,145 Jews
‘had to be shot’ because, judging from experience they had to be considered
as the carriers of Bolshevik propaganda. In Cherson 410 Jews were
executed in reprisal against acts of sabotage. In the territory east of the
Dnieper, the Jewish problem was ’solved’ by the liquidation of 4,891 Jews
and by putting the remainder into labor battalions of up to 1,000 persons.
(R-102)
Other accounts tell not of the slaughter so much as of the depths of
degradation to which the tormentors stooped. For example, we will show
the report made to Defendant Rosenberg about the army and the SS in the
area under Rosenberg’s jurisdiction, which recited the following:
“Details: In presence of SS man, a Jewish dentist has to break all gold
teeth and fillings out of mouth of German and Russian Jews before they are
executed.”
Men, women and children are locked into barns and burned alive.
Peasants, women and children are shot on the pretext that they are
suspected of belonging to bands. (R-135)
We of the Western World heard of gas wagons in which Jews and
political opponents were asphyxiated. We could not believe it. But here we

have the report of May 16, 1942 from the German SS Officer Becker to his
supervisor in Berlin which tells this story:
Gas vans in C group can be driven to execution spot, which is generally
stationed 10 to 15 kms. from main road, only in dry weather. Since those to
be executed become frantic if conducted to this place, such vans become
immobilized in wet weather.
Gas vans in D group were camouflaged as cabin trailers, but vehicles
well known to authorities and civilian population which calls them ‘death
vans’.
Writer of letter (Becker) ordered all men to keep as far away as possible
during gassing. Unloading van has ‘atrocious spiritual and physical effect’
on men and they should be ordered not to participate in such work. (501-
PS)
I shall not dwell on this subject longer than to quote one more sickening
document which evidences the planned and systematic character of the
Jewish persecutions. I hold a report written with Teutonic devotion to detail,
illustrated with photographs to authenticate its almost incredible text, and
beautifully bound in leather with the loving care bestowed on a proud work.
It is the original report of the SS Brigadier General Stroop in charge of the
destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto, and its title page carries the inscription,
“The Jewish ghetto in Warsaw no longer exists.” It is characteristic that one
of the captions explains that the photograph concerned shows the driving
out of Jewish “bandits”; those whom the photograph shows being driven
out are almost entirely women and little children. It contains a day-by-day
account of the killings mainly carried out by the SS organization, too long
to relate, but let me quote General Stroop’s summary:
“The resistance put up by the Jews and bandits could only be
suppressed by energetic actions of our troops day and night. The
Reichsführer SS ordered, therefore, on 23 April 1943, the cleaning
out of the ghetto with utter ruthlessness and merciless tenacity. I,
therefore, decided to destroy and burn down the entire ghetto
without regard to the armament factories. These factories were
systematically dismantled and then burned. Jews usually left their
hideouts, but frequently remained in the burning buildings and
jumped out of the windows only when the heat became
unbearable. They then tried to crawl with broken bones across the
street into buildings which were not afire. Sometimes they

changed their hideouts during the night into the ruins of burned
buildings. Life in the sewers was not pleasant after the first week.
Many times we could hear loud voices in the sewers. SS men or
policemen climbed bravely through the manholes to capture these
Jews. Sometimes they stumbled over Jewish corpses; sometimes
they were shot at. Tear gas bombs were thrown into the manholes
and the Jews driven out of the sewers and captured. Countless
numbers of Jews were liquidated in sewers and bunkers through
blasting. The longer the resistance continued the tougher became
the members of the Waffen SS, Police and Wehrmacht who
always discharged their duties in an exemplary manner.
Frequently Jews who tried to replenish their food supplies during
the night or to communicate with neighboring groups were
exterminated.
“This action eliminated,” says the SS commander, “a proved total
of 56,065. To that, we have to add the number killed through
blasting, fire, etc., which cannot be counted.” (1061-PS)
We charge that all atrocities against Jews were the manifestation and
culmination of the Nazi plan to which every defendant here was a party. I
know very well that some of these men did take steps to spare some
particular Jew for some personal reason from the horrors that awaited the
unrescued Jew. Some protested that particular atrocities were excessive, and
discredited the general policy. While a few defendants may show efforts to
make specific exceptions to the policy of Jewish extermination, I have
found no instance in which any defendant opposed the policy itself or
sought to revoke or even modify it.
Determination to destroy the Jews was a binding force which at all
times cemented the elements of this conspiracy. On many internal policies
there were differences among the defendants. But there is not one of them
who has not echoed the rallying cry of nazism: “Deutschland erwache, Juda
verrecke!” (Germany awake, Jewry perish!).

Terrorism and Preparation for War:
How a government treats its own inhabitants generally is thought to be
no concern of other governments or of international society. Certainly few
oppressions or cruelties would warrant the intervention of foreign powers.
But the German mistreatment of Germans is now known to pass in

magnitude and savagery any limits of what is tolerable by modern
civilization. Other nations, by silence, would take a consenting part in such
crimes. These Nazi persecutions, moreover, take character as international
crimes because of the purpose for which they were undertaken.
The purpose, as we have seen, of getting rid of the influence of free
labor, the churches, and the Jews was to clear their obstruction to the
precipitation of aggressive war. If aggressive warfare in violation of treaty
obligation is a matter of international cognizance the preparations for it
must also be of concern to the international community. Terrorism was the
chief instrument for securing the cohesion of the German people in war
purposes. Moreover, these cruelties in Germany served as atrocity practice
to discipline the membership of the criminal organization to follow the
pattern later in occupied countries.
Through the police formations that are before you accused as criminal
organizations, the Nazi Party leaders, aided at some point in their basic and
notorious purpose by each of the individual defendants, instituted a reign of
terror. These espionage and police organizations were utilized to hunt down
every form of opposition and to penalize every nonconformity. These
organizations early founded and administered concentration camps—
Buchenwald in 1933, Dachau in 1934. But these notorious names were not
alone. Concentration camps came to dot the German map and to number
scores. At first they met with resistance from some Germans. We have a
captured letter from Minister of Justice Gürtner to Hitler which is revealing.
A Gestapo official had been prosecuted for crimes committed in the camp at
Hohnstein, and the Nazi Governor of Saxony had promptly asked that the
proceeding be quashed. The Minister of Justice in June of 1935 protested
because, as he said:
“In this camp unusually grave mistreatments of prisoners have
occurred at least since summer 1933. The prisoners not only were
beaten with whips without cause, similarly as in the
Concentration Camp Bredow near Stettin till they lost
consciousness, but they were also tortured in other manners, e.g.
with the help of a dripping apparatus constructed exclusively for
this purpose, under which prisoners had to stand until they were
suffering from serious purulent wounds of the scalp. . . .” (787-
PS)

I shall not take time to detail the ghastly proceedings in these
concentration camps. Beatings, starvings, tortures, and killings were routine
—so routine that the tormentors became blasé and careless. We have a
report of discovery that in Plötzensee one night, 186 persons were executed
while there were orders for only 180. Another report describes how the
family of one victim received two urns of ashes by mistake.
Inmates were compelled to execute each other. In 1942 they were paid
five Reichsmarks per execution, but on June 27, 1942 SS General Glücks
ordered commandants of all concentration camps to reduce this honorarium
to three cigarettes. In 1943 the Reich leader of the SS and Chief of German
Police ordered the corporal punishments on Russian women to be applied
by Polish women and vice versa, but the price was not frozen. He said that
as reward, a few cigarettes was authorized. Under the Nazis, human life had
been progressively devalued, until it finally became worth less than a
handful of tobacco—ersatz tobacco. There were, however, some traces of
the milk of human kindness. On August 11, 1942 an order went from
Himmler to the commanders of 14 concentration camps that only German
prisoners are allowed to beat other German prisoners (2189-PS).
Mystery and suspense was added to cruelty in order to spread torture
from the inmate to his family and friends. Men and women disappeared
from their homes or business or from the streets, and no word came of
them. The omission of notice was not due to overworked staff; it was due to
policy. The Chief of the SD and SIPO reported that in accordance with
orders from the Führer anxiety should be created in the minds of the family
of the arrested person. (668-PS) Deportations and secret arrests were
labeled, with a Nazi wit which seems a little ghoulish, “Nacht und Nebel”
(Night and Fog) (L-90, 833-PS). One of the many orders for these actions
gave this explanation:
“The decree carries a basic innovation. The Führer and
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces commands that crimes
of the specified sort committed by civilians of the occupied
territories are to be punished by the pertinent courts-martial in the
occupied territories only when (a) the sentence calls for the death
penalty, and (b) the sentence is pronounced within eight days after
the arrest.
“Only when both conditions are met does the Führer and
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces hope for the desired

deterrent effect from the conduct of punitive proceedings in the
occupied territories.
“In other cases, in the future, the accused are to be secretly
brought to Germany, and the further conduct of the trial carried
on here. The deterrent effect of these measures lies (a) in allowing
the disappearance of the accused without a trace, (b) therein that
no information whatsoever may be given about their whereabouts
and their fate.” (833-PS)
To clumsy cruelty, scientific skill was added. “Undesirables” were
exterminated by injection of drugs into the bloodstream, by asphyxiation in
gas chambers. They were shot with poison bullets, to study the effects. (L-
103)
Then, to cruel experiments the Nazi added obscene ones. These were
not the work of underling-degenerates but of master-minds high in the Nazi
conspiracy. On May 20, 1942 General Field Marshal Milch authorized SS
General Wolff to go ahead at Dachau Camp with so-called “cold
experiments”; and four female gypsies were supplied for the purpose.
Himmler gave permission to carry on these “experiments” also in other
camps. (1617-PS) At Dachau, the reports of the “doctor” in charge show
that victims were immersed in cold water until their body temperature was
reduced to 28 degrees centigrade (82.4 degrees Farenheit), when they all
died immediately (1618-PS). This was in August 1942. But the “doctor’s”
technique improved. By February 1943 he was able to report that 30
persons were chilled to 27 to 29 degrees, their hands and feet frozen white,
and their bodies “rewarmed” by a hot bath. But the Nazi scientific triumph
was “rewarming with animal heat.” The victim, all but frozen to death, was
surrounded with bodies of living women until he revived and responded to
his environment by having sexual intercourse. (1616-PS) Here Nazi
degeneracy reached its nadir.
I dislike to encumber the record with such morbid tales, but we are in
the grim business of trying men as criminals, and these are the things that
their own agents say happened. We will show you these concentration
camps in motion pictures, just as the Allied armies found them when they
arrived, and the measures General Eisenhower had to take to clean them up.
Our proof will be disgusting and you will say I have robbed you of your
sleep. But these are the things which have turned the stomach of the world
and set every civilized hand against Nazi Germany.

Germany became one vast torture chamber. Cries of its victims were
heard round the world and brought shudders to civilized people everywhere.
I am one who received during this war most atrocity tales with suspicion
and scepticism. But the proof here will be so overwhelming that I venture to
predict not one word I have spoken will be denied. These defendants will
only deny personal responsibility or knowledge.
Under the clutch of the most intricate web of espionage and intrigue that
any modern state has endured, and persecution and torture of a kind that has
not been visited upon the world in many centuries, the elements of the
German population which were both decent and courageous were
annihilated. Those which were decent but weak were intimidated. Open
resistance, which had never been more than feeble and irresolute,
disappeared. But resistance, I am happy to say, always remained, although it
was manifest in only such events as the abortive effort to assassinate Hitler
on July 20, 1944. With resistance driven underground, the Nazi had the
German State in his own hands.
But the Nazis not only silenced discordant voices. They created positive
controls as effective as their negative ones. Propaganda organs, on a scale
never before known, stimulated the Party and Party formations with a
permanent enthusiasm and abandon such as we, democratic people, can
work up only for a few days before a general election. They inculcated and
practiced the Führerprinzip which centralized control of the Party and of the
Party-controlled State over the lives and thought of the German people,
who are accustomed to look upon the German State, by whomever
controlled, with a mysticism that is incomprehensible to my people.
All these controls from their inception were exerted with unparalleled
energy and single-mindedness to put Germany on a war footing. We will
show from the Nazis’ own documents their secret training of military
personnel, their secret creation of a military air force. Finally, a conscript
army was brought into being. Financiers, economists, industrialists joined
in the plan and promoted elaborate alterations in industry and finance to
support an unprecedented concentration of resources and energies upon
preparations for war. Germany’s rearmament so outstripped the strength of
her neighbors that in about a year she was able to crush the whole military
force of continental Europe, exclusive of that of Soviet Russia, and then to
push the Russian armies back to the Volga. These preparations were of a
magnitude which surpassed all need of defense, and every defendant, and

every intelligent German, well understood them to be for aggressive
purposes.

Experiments in Aggression:
Before resorting to open aggressive warfare, the Nazis undertook some
rather cautious experiments to test the spirit of resistance of those who lay
across their path. They advanced, but only as others yielded, and kept in a
position to draw back if they found a temperament that made persistence
dangerous.
On 7 March 1936 the Nazis reoccupied the Rhineland and then
proceeded to fortify it in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Pact of
Locarno. They encountered no substantial resistance and were emboldened
to take the next step, which was the acquisition of Austria. Despite repeated
assurances that Germany had no designs on Austria, invasion was perfected.
Threat of attack forced Schuschnigg to resign as Chancellor of Austria and
put the Nazi Defendant Seyss-Inquart in his place. The latter immediately
opened the frontier and invited Hitler to invade Austria “to preserve order”.
On March 12th invasion began. The next day, Hitler proclaimed himself
Chief of the Austrian State, took command of its armed forces, and a law
was enacted annexing Austria to Germany.
Threats of aggression had succeeded without arousing resistance. Fears
nevertheless had been stirred. They were lulled by an assurance to the
Czechoslovak Government that there would be no attack on that country.
We will show that the Nazi Government already had detailed plans for the
attack. We will lay before you the documents in which these conspirators
planned to create an incident to justify their attack. They even gave
consideration to assassinating their own Ambassador at Prague in order to
create a sufficiently dramatic incident. They did precipitate a diplomatic
crisis which endured throughout the summer. Hitler set September 30th as
the day when troops should be ready for action. Under the threat of
immediate war, the United Kingdom and France concluded a pact with
Germany and Italy at Munich on September 29, 1938, which required
Czechoslovakia to acquiesce in the cession of the Sudetenland to Germany.
It was consummated by German occupation on October 1, 1938.
The Munich Pact pledged no further aggression against Czechoslovakia,
but the Nazi pledge was lightly given and quickly broken. On the 15th of
March 1939, in defiance of the treaty of Munich itself, the Nazis seized and

occupied Bohemia and Moravia, which constituted the major part of
Czechoslovakia not already ceded to Germany. Once again the West stood
aghast, but it dreaded war, it saw no remedy except war, and it hoped
against hope that the Nazi fever for expansion had run its course. But the
Nazi world was intoxicated by these unresisted successes in open alliance
with Mussolini and in covert alliance with Franco. Then, having made a
deceitful, delaying peace with Russia, the conspirators entered upon the
final phase of the plan to renew war.

War of Aggression:
I will not prolong this address by detailing the steps leading to the war
of aggression which began with the invasion of Poland on September 1,
1939. The further story will be unfolded to you from documents including
those of the German High Command itself. The plans had been laid long in
advance. As early as 1935 Hitler appointed the Defendant Schacht to the
position of General Deputy for the War Economy (2261-PS). We have the
diary of General Jodl (1780-PS); the “Plan Otto,” Hitler’s own order for
attack on Austria in case trickery failed (C-102); the “Plan Green” which
was the blueprint for attack on Czechoslovakia (388-PS); plans for the war
in the West (375-PS, 376-PS); Funk’s letter to Hitler dated August 25, 1939
detailing the long course of economic preparation (699-PS); Keitel’s top-
secret mobilization order for 1939-40 prescribing secret steps to be taken
during a “period of tension” during which no “ ‘state of war’ will be
publicly declared even if open war measures against the foreign enemy will
be taken.” This letter order (1639A-PS) is in our possession despite a secret
order issued on March 16, 1945, when Allied troops were advancing into
the heart of Germany, to burn these plans. We have also Hitler’s directive,
dated December 18, 1940, for the “Barbarossa Contingency” outlining the
strategy of the attack upon Russia (446-PS). That plan in the original bears
the initials of the Defendants Keitel and Jodl. They were planning the attack
and planning it long in advance of the declaration of war. We have detailed
information concerning “Case White,” the plan for attack on Poland (C-
120). That attack began the war. The plan was issued by Keitel on April 3rd,
1939. The attack did not come until September. Steps in preparation for the
attack were taken by subordinate commanders, one of whom issued an
order on June 14, providing that:

“The Commander-in-Chief of the Army has ordered the working
out of a plan of deployment against Poland which takes in
account the demands of the political leadership for the opening of
war by surprise and for quick success. . . .
“I declare it the duty of the commanding generals, the divisional
commanders, and the commandants to limit as much as possible
the number of persons who will be informed, and to limit the
extent of the information, and ask that all suitable measures be
taken to prevent persons not concerned from getting
information. . . .
“The operation, in order to forestall an orderly Polish
mobilization and concentration, is to be opened by surprise with
forces which are for the most part armored and motorized, placed
on alert in the neighborhood of the border. The initial superiority
over the Polish frontier guards and surprise that can be expected
with certainty are to be maintained by quickly bringing up other
parts of the Army as well to counteract the marching up of the
Polish Army. . . .
“If the development of the political situation should show that a
surprise at the beginning of the war is out of question, because of
well-advanced defense preparations on the part of the Polish
Army, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army will order the
opening of the hostilities only after the assembling of sufficient
additional forces. The basis of all preparations will be to surprise
the enemy. . . .” (2327-PS)
We have also the order for the invasion of England, signed by Hitler and
initialed by Keitel and Jodl. It is interesting that it commences with a
recognition that although the British military position is “hopeless,” they
show not the slightest sign of giving in. (442-PS)
Not the least incriminating are the minutes of Hitler’s meeting with his
high advisers. As early as November 5, 1937 Hitler told Defendants Göring,
Raeder, and Neurath, among others, that German rearmament was
practically accomplished and that he had decided to secure by force,
starting with a lightning attack on Czechoslovakia and Austria, greater
living space for Germans in Europe no later than 1943-45 and perhaps as
early as 1938 (386-PS). On the 23rd of May, 1939 the Führer advised his
staff that:

“It is a question of expanding our living space in the East and of
securing our food supplies. . . . Over and above the natural
fertility, thorough-going German exploitation will enormously
increase the surplus.
“There is therefore no question of sparing Poland, and we are left
with the decision: To attack Poland at the first suitable
opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair.
There will be war.” (L-79)
On August 22nd, 1939 Hitler again addressed members of the High
Command, telling them when the start of military operations would be
ordered. He disclosed that for propaganda purposes, he would provocate a
good reason. “It will make no difference,” he announced, “whether this
reason will sound convincing or not. After all, the victor will not be asked
whether he talked the truth or not. We have to proceed brutally. The
stronger is always right.” (1014-PS) On 23 November 1939, after the
Germans had invaded Poland, Hitler made this explanation:
“. . . For the first time in history we have to fight on only one
front, the other front is at present free. But no one can know how
long that will remain so. I have doubted for a long time whether I
should strike in the East and then in the West. Basically I did not
organize the armed forces in order not to strike. The decision to
strike was always in me. Earlier or later I wanted to solve the
problem. Under pressure it was decided that the East was to be
attacked first. . . .” (789-PS)
We know the bloody sequel. Frontier incidents were staged. Demands
were made for cession of territory. When Poland refused, the German forces
invaded on September 1st, 1939. Warsaw was destroyed; Poland fell. The
Nazis, in accordance with plan, moved swiftly to extend their aggression
throughout Europe and to gain the advantage of surprise over their
unprepared neighbors. Despite repeated and solemn assurances of peaceful
intentions, they invaded Denmark and Norway on 9th April 1940; Belgium,
The Netherlands, and Luxembourg on 10th May 1940; Yugoslavia and
Greece on 6th April 1941.
As part of the Nazi preparation for aggression against Poland and her
allies, Germany, on 23rd August 1939, had entered into a non-aggression
pact with Soviet Russia. It was only a delaying treaty intended to be kept no

longer than necessary to prepare for its violation. On June 22, 1941,
pursuant to long-matured plans, the Nazis hurled troops into Soviet territory
without any declaration of war. The entire European world was aflame.

Conspiracy with Japan:
The Nazi plans of aggression called for use of Asiatic allies and they
found among the Japanese men of kindred mind and purpose. They were
brothers, under the skin.
Himmler records a conversation he had on January 31, 1939 with
General Oshima, Japanese Ambassador at Berlin. He wrote:
“Furthermore, he (Oshima) had succeeded up to now to send 10
Russians with bombs across the Caucasian frontier. These
Russians had the mission to kill Stalin. A number of additional
Russians, whom he had also sent across, had been shot at the
frontier.” (2195-PS)
On September 27th, 1940 the Nazis concluded a German-Italian-
Japanese 10-year military and economic alliance by which those powers
agreed “to stand by and cooperate with one another in regard to their efforts
in Greater East Asia and regions of Europe respectively wherein it is their
prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things.”
On March 5, 1941 a top-secret directive was issued by Defendant
Keitel. It stated that the Führer had ordered instigation of Japan’s active
participation in the war and directed that Japan’s military power has to be
strengthened by the disclosure of German war experiences and support of a
military, economic, and technical nature has to be given. The aim was stated
to be to crush England quickly thereby keeping the United States out of the
war. (C-75)
On March 29, 1941 Ribbentrop told Matsuoka, the Japanese Foreign
Minister, that the German Army was ready to strike against Russia.
Matsuoka reassured Ribbentrop about the Far East. Japan, he reported, was
acting at the moment as though she had no interest whatever in Singapore,
but intends to strike when the right moment comes. (1877-PS)
On April 5, 1941 Ribbentrop urged Matsuoka that entry of Japan into
the war would “hasten the victory” and would be more in the interest of
Japan than of Germany since it would give Japan a unique chance to fulfill
her national aims and to play a leading part in Eastern Asia (1882-PS).

The proofs in this case will also show that the leaders of Germany were
planning war against the United States from its Atlantic as well as
instigating it from its Pacific approaches. A captured memorandum from the
Führer’s headquarters, dated October 29, 1940, asks certain information as
to air bases and supply and reports further that:
“The Führer is at present occupied with the question of the
occupation of the Atlantic islands with a view to the prosecution
of war against America at a later date. Deliberations on this
subject are being embarked upon here.” (376-PS)
On December 7th, 1941, a day which the late President Roosevelt
declared “will live in infamy,” victory for German aggression seemed
certain. The Wehrmacht was at the gates of Moscow. Taking advantage of
the situation, and while her plenipotentiaries were creating a diplomatic
diversion in Washington, Japan without declaration of war treacherously
attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. Attacks
followed swiftly on the British Commonwealth, and The Netherlands in the
Southwest Pacific. These aggressions were met in the only way that they
could be met, with instant declarations of war and with armed resistance
which mounted slowly through many long months of reverse until finally
the Axis was crushed to earth and deliverance for its victims was won.
Your Honor, I am about to take up “Crimes in the Conduct of War”,
which is quite a separate subject. We are within 5 minutes of the recessing
time. It will be very convenient for me if it will be agreeable to you.
THE PRESIDENT: We will sit again in 15 minutes’ time.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1550 hours.]

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal must request that if it adjourns for 15
minutes members of the bar and others are back in their seats after an
interval of 15 minutes. Mr. Justice Jackson, I understand that you wish to
continue to 5:15, when you may be able to conclude your speech?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that would be the most orderly way.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Tribunal will be glad to do so.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please your Honor, I will now take
up the subject of “Crimes in the Conduct of War”.

Even the most warlike of peoples have recognized in the name of
humanity some limitations on the savagery of warfare. Rules to that end
have been embodied in international conventions to which Germany
became a party. This code had prescribed certain restraints as to the
treatment of belligerents. The enemy was entitled to surrender and to
receive quarter and good treatment as a prisoner of war. We will show by
German documents that these rights were denied, that prisoners of war were
given brutal treatment and often murdered. This was particularly true in the
case of captured airmen, often my countrymen.
It was ordered that captured English and American airmen should no
longer be granted the status of prisoners of war. They were to be treated as
criminals and the Army was ordered to refrain from protecting them against
lynching by the populace. (R-118) The Nazi Government, through its police
and propaganda agencies, took pains to incite the civilian population to
attack and kill airmen who crash-landed. The order, given by the
Reichsführer SS Himmler on 10 August 1943, directed that: “It is not the
task of the police to interfere in clashes between German and English and
American flyers who have bailed out”. This order was transmitted on the
same day by SS Obersturmbannführer Brand of Himmler’s personal staff to
all senior executive SS and Police officers, with these directions:
“I am sending you the inclosed order with the request that the
Chief of the Regular Police and of the Security Police be
informed. They are to make this instruction known to their
subordinate officers verbally.” (R-110)
Similarly, we will show Hitler’s top secret order, dated 18 October
1942, that Commandos, regardless of condition, were “to be slaughtered to
the last man” after capture (498-PS). We will show the circulation of secret
orders, one of which was signed by Hess, to be passed orally to civilians,
that enemy fliers or parachutists were to be arrested or liquidated (062-PS).
By such means were murders incited and directed.
This Nazi campaign of ruthless treatment of enemy forces assumed its
greatest proportions in the fight against Russia. Eventually all prisoners of
war were taken out of control of the Army and put in the hands of Himmler
and the SS (058-PS). In the East, the German fury spent itself. Russian
prisoners were ordered to be branded. They were starved. I shall quote

passages from a letter written February 28, 1942 by Defendant Rosenberg
to Defendant Keitel:
“The fate of the Soviet prisoners of war in Germany is on the
contrary a tragedy of the greatest extent. Of 3,600,000 prisoners
of war, only several hundred thousand are still able to work fully.
A large part of them has starved, or died, because of the hazards
of the weather. Thousands also died from spotted fever. . . .
“The camp commanders have forbidden the civilian population to
put food at the disposal of the prisoners, and they have rather let
them starve to death. . . .
“In many cases, when prisoners of war could no longer keep up
on the march because of hunger and exhaustion, they were shot
before the eyes of the horrified population, and the corpses were
left.
“In numerous camps, no shelter for the prisoners of war was
provided at all. They lay under the open sky during rain or snow.
Even tools were not made available to dig holes or caves. . . .
“Finally, the shooting of prisoners of war must be mentioned; for
instance, in various camps, all the ‘Asiatics’ were shot”. (081-PS)
Civilized usage and conventions to which Germany was a party had
prescribed certain immunities for civilian populations unfortunate enough
to dwell in lands overrun by hostile armies. The German occupation forces,
controlled or commanded by men on trial before you, committed a long
series of outrages against the inhabitants of occupied territory that would be
incredible except for captured orders and captured reports which show the
fidelity with which those orders were executed.
We deal here with a phase of common criminality designed by the
conspirators as part of the common plan. We can appreciate why these
crimes against their European enemies were not of a casual character but
were planned and disciplined crimes when we get at the reason for them.
Hitler told his officers on August 22, 1939 that: “The main objective in
Poland is the destruction of the enemy and not the reaching of a certain
geographical line” (1014-PS). The project of deporting promising youth
from occupied territories was approved by Rosenberg on the theory that “a
desired weakening of the biological force” of the conquered people is being
achieved (031-PS). To Germanize or to destroy was the program. Himmler

announced, “Either we win over any good blood that we can use for
ourselves and give it a place in our people or, gentlemen—you may call this
cruel, but nature is cruel,—we destroy this blood.” As to “racially good
types” Himmler further advised, “Therefore, I think that it is our duty to
take their children with us, to remove them from their environment, if
necessary by robbing or stealing them” (L-70). He urged deportation of
Slavic children to deprive potential enemies of future soldiers.
The Nazi purpose was to leave Germany’s neighbors so weakened that
even if she should eventually lose the war, she would still be the most
powerful nation in Europe. Against this background, we must view the plan
for ruthless warfare, which means a plan for the commission of War Crimes
and Crimes against Humanity.
Hostages in large numbers were demanded and killed. Mass
punishments were inflicted, so savage that whole communities were
extinguished. Rosenberg was advised of the annihilation of three
unidentified villages in Slovakia. (970-PS) In May of 1943 another village
of about 40 farms and 220 inhabitants was ordered wiped out. The entire
population was ordered shot, the cattle and property impounded, and the
order required that “the village will be destroyed totally by fire.” (163-PS)
A secret report from Rosenberg’s Reich Ministry of Eastern Territory
reveals that:
“Food rations allowed the Russian population are so low that they
fail to secure their existence and provide only for minimum
subsistence of limited duration. The population does not know if
they will still live tomorrow. They are faced with death by
starvation. . . .
“The roads are clogged by hundreds of thousands of people,
sometimes as many as one million according to the estimate of
experts, who wander around in search of nourishment. . . .
“Sauckel’s action has caused unrest among the civilians. . . .
Russian girls were deloused by men, nude photos in forced
positions were taken, women doctors were locked into freight
cars for the pleasure of the transport commanders, women in
night shirts were fettered and forced through the Russian towns to
the railroad station, etc. All this material has been sent to the
OKH.” (1381-PS)

Perhaps the deportation to slave labor was the most horrible and
extensive slaving operation in history. On few other subjects is our evidence
so abundant or so damaging. In a speech made on January 25, 1944 the
Defendant Frank, Governor General of Poland, boasted, “I have sent
1,300,000 Polish workers into the Reich” (059-PS, P. 2). The Defendant
Sauckel reported that “out of the 5 million foreign workers who arrived in
Germany not even 200,000 came voluntarily.” This fact was reported to the
Führer and Defendants Speer, Göring, and Keitel. (R-24) Children of 10 to
14 years were impressed into service by telegraphic order of Rosenberg’s
Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories:
“The Command is further charged with the transferring of
worthwhile Russian youth between 10-14 years of age, to the
Reich. The authority is not affected by the changes connected
with the evacuation and transportation to the reception camps of
Bialystok, Krajewo, and Olitei. The Führer wishes that this
activity be increased even more.” (200-PS)
When enough labor was not forthcoming, prisoners of war were forced
into war work in flagrant violation of international conventions (016-PS).
Slave labor came from France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, and the East.
Methods of recruitment were violent (R-124, 018-PS, 204-PS). The
treatment of these slave laborers was stated in general terms, not difficult to
translate into concrete deprivations, in a letter to the Defendant Rosenberg
from the Defendant Sauckel, which stated:
“All prisoners of war, from the territories of the West as well as
of the East, actually in Germany, must be completely incorporated
into the German armament and munition industries. Their
production must be brought to the highest possible level. . . .
“The complete employment of all prisoners of war as well as the
use of a gigantic number of new foreign civilian workers, men
and women, has become an indisputable necessity for the solution
of the mobilization of labor program in this war.
“All the men must be fed, sheltered, and treated in such a way as
to exploit them to the highest possible extent at the lowest
conceivable degrees of expenditure. . . .” (016-PS)

In pursuance of the Nazi plan permanently to reduce the living
standards of their neighbors and to weaken them physically and
economically, a long series of crimes were committed. There was extensive
destruction, serving no military purpose, of the property of civilians. Dikes
were thrown open in Holland almost at the close of the war not to achieve
military ends but to destroy the resources and retard the economy of the
thrifty Netherlanders.
There was carefully planned economic syphoning off of the assets of
occupied countries. An example of the planning is shown by a report on
France dated December 7, 1942 made by the Economic Research
Department of the Reichsbank. The question arose whether French
occupation costs should be increased from 15 million Reichsmarks per day
to 25 million Reichsmarks per day. The Reichsbank analyzed French
economy to determine whether it could bear the burden. It pointed out that
the armistice had burdened France to that date to the extent of 18½ billion
Reichsmarks, equalling 370 billion francs. It pointed out that the burden of
these payments within 2½ years equalled the aggregate French national
income in the year 1940, and that the amount of payments handed over to
Germany in the first 6 months of 1942 corresponded to the estimate for the
total French revenue for that whole year. The report concluded:
“In any case, the conclusion is inescapable that relatively heavier
tributes have been imposed on France since the armistice in June
1940 than upon Germany after the World War. In this connection,
it must be noted that the economic powers of France never
equalled those of the German Reich and that the vanquished
France could not draw on foreign economic and financial
resources in the same degree as Germany after the last World
War.”
The Defendant Funk was the Reich Minister of Economics and
President of the Reichsbank; the Defendant Ribbentrop was Foreign
Minister; the Defendant Göring was Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan;
and all of them participated in the exchange of views of which this captured
document is a part. (2149-PS) Notwithstanding this analysis by the
Reichsbank, they proceeded to increase the imposition on France from 15
million Reichsmarks daily to 25 million per day.

It is small wonder that the bottom has been knocked out of French
economy. The plan and purpose of the thing appears in a letter from General
Stülpnagel, head of the German Armistice Commission, to the Defendant
Jodl as early as 14 September 1940 when he wrote, “The slogan
‘Systematic weakening of France’ has already been surpassed by far in
reality” (1756-PS).
Not only was there a purpose to debilitate and demoralize the economy
of Germany’s neighbors for the purpose of destroying their competitive
position, but there was looting and pilfering on an unprecedented scale. We
need not be hypocritical about this business of looting. I recognize that no
army moves through occupied territory without some pilfering as it goes.
Usually the amount of pilfering increases as discipline wanes. If the
evidence in this case showed no looting except of that sort, I certainly
would ask no conviction of these defendants for it.
But we will show you that looting was not due to the lack of discipline
or to the ordinary weaknesses of human nature. The German organized
plundering, planned it, disciplined it, and made it official just as he
organized everything else, and then he compiled the most meticulous
records to show that he had done the best job of looting that was possible
under the circumstances. And we have those records.
The Defendant Rosenberg was put in charge of a systematic plundering
of the art objects of Europe by direct order of Hitler dated 29 January 1940
(136-PS). On the 16th of April 1943 Rosenberg reported that up to the 7th
of April, 92 railway cars with 2,775 cases containing art objects had been
sent to Germany; and that 53 pieces of art had been shipped to Hitler direct,
and 594 to the Defendant Göring. The report mentioned something like
20,000 pieces of seized art and the main locations where they were stored.
(015-PS)
Moreover this looting was glorified by Rosenberg. Here we have 39
leather-bound tabulated volumes of his inventory, which in due time we will
offer in evidence. One cannot but admire the artistry of this Rosenberg
report. The Nazi taste was cosmopolitan. Of the 9,455 articles inventoried,
there were included 5,255 paintings, 297 sculptures, 1,372 pieces of antique
furniture, 307 textiles, and 2,224 small objects of art. Rosenberg observed
that there were approximately 10,000 more objects still to be inventoried.
(015-PS) Rosenberg himself estimated that the values involved would come
close to a billion dollars (090-PS).

I shall not go into further details of the War Crimes and Crimes against
Humanity committed by the gangster ring whose leaders are before you. It
is not the purpose in my part of this case to deal with the individual crimes.
I am dealing with the Common Plan or design for crime and will not dwell
upon individual offenses. My task is to show the scale on which these
crimes occurred, and to show that these are the men who were in the
responsible positions and who conceived the plan and design which renders
them answerable, regardless of the fact that the plan was actually executed
by others.
At length, this reckless and lawless course outraged the world. It
recovered from the demoralization of surprise attack, assembled its forces
and stopped these men in their tracks. Once success deserted their banners,
one by one the Nazi satellites fell away. Sawdust Caesar collapsed.
Resistance forces in every occupied country arose to harry the invader.
Even at home, Germans saw that Germany was being led to ruin by these
mad men, and the attempt on July 20, 1944 to assassinate Hitler, an attempt
fostered by men of highest station, was a desperate effort by internal forces
in Germany to stop short of ruin. Quarrels broke out among the failing
conspirators, and the decline of the Nazi power was more swift than its
ascendancy. German Armed Forces surrendered, its Government
disintegrated, its leaders committed suicide by the dozen, and by the
fortunes of war these defendants fell into our hands. Although they are not,
by any means, all the guilty ones, they are survivors among the most
responsible. Their names appear over and over in the documents and their
faces grace the photographic evidence. We have here the surviving top
politicians, militarists, financiers, diplomats, administrators, and
propagandists, of the Nazi movement. Who was responsible for these
crimes if they were not?

The Law of the Case:
The end of the war and capture of these prisoners presented the
victorious Allies with the question whether there is any legal responsibility
on high-ranking men for acts which I have described. Must such wrongs
either be ignored or redressed in hot blood? Is there no standard in the law
for a deliberate and reasoned judgment on such conduct?
The Charter of this Tribunal evidences a faith that the law is not only to
govern the conduct of little men, but that even rulers are, as Lord Chief

Justice Coke put it to King James, “under God and the law.” The United
States believed that the law long has afforded standards by which a juridical
hearing could be conducted to make sure that we punish only the right men
and for the right reasons. Following the instructions of the late President
Roosevelt and the decision of the Yalta conference President Truman
directed representatives of the United States to formulate a proposed
International Agreement, which was submitted during the San Francisco
Conference to Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union,
and the Provisional Government of France. With many modifications, that
proposal has become the Charter of this Tribunal.
But the Agreement which sets up the standards by which these prisoners
are to be judged does not express the views of the signatory nations alone.
Other nations with diverse but highly respected systems of jurisprudence
also have signified adherence to it. These are Belgium, The Netherlands,
Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Poland, Greece,
Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, Australia, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, New Zealand,
Venezuela, and India. You judge, therefore, under an organic act which
represents the wisdom, the sense of justice, and the will of 21 governments,
representing an overwhelming majority of all civilized people.
The Charter by which this Tribunal has its being, embodies certain legal
concepts which are inseparable from its jurisdiction and which must govern
its decision. These, as I have said, also are conditions attached to the grant
of any hearing to defendants. The validity of the provisions of the Charter is
conclusive upon us all, whether we have accepted the duty of judging or of
prosecuting under it, as well as upon the defendants, who can point to no
other law which gives them a right to be heard at all. My able and
experienced colleagues believe, as do I, that it will contribute to the
expedition and clarity of this Trial if I expound briefly the application of the
legal philosophy of the Charter to the facts I have recited.
While this declaration of the law by the Charter is final, it may be
contended that the prisoners on trial are entitled to have it applied to their
conduct only most charitably if at all. It may be said that this is new law,
not authoritatively declared at the time they did the acts it condemns, and
that this declaration of the law has taken them by surprise.
I cannot, of course, deny that these men are surprised that this is the
law; they really are surprised that there is any such thing as law. These
defendants did not rely on any law at all. Their program ignored and defied

all law. That this is so will appear from many acts and statements, of which
I cite but a few.
In the Führer’s speech to all military commanders on November 23,
1939 he reminded them that at the moment Germany had a pact with
Russia, but declared: “Agreements are to be kept only as long as they serve
a certain purpose.” Later in the same speech he announced: “A violation of
the neutrality of Holland and Belgium will be of no importance” (789-PS).
A top secret document, entitled “Warfare as a Problem of Organization,”
dispatched by the Chief of the High Command to all commanders on April
19, 1938 declared that “the normal rules of war towards neutrals may be
considered to apply on the basis whether operation of rules will create
greater advantages or disadvantages for the belligerents” (L-211). And from
the files of the German Navy Staff, we have a “Memorandum on Intensified
Naval War,” dated October 15, 1939, which begins by stating a desire to
comply with International Law. “However,” it continues, “if decisive
successes are expected from any measure considered as a war necessity, it
must be carried through even if it is not in agreement with international
law.” (L-184) International law, natural law, German law, any law at all was
to these men simply a propaganda device to be invoked when it helped and
to be ignored when it would condemn what they wanted to do. That men
may be protected in relying upon the law at the time they act is the reason
we find laws of retrospective operations unjust. But these men cannot bring
themselves within the reason of the rule which in some systems of
jurisprudence prohibits ex post facto laws. They cannot show that they ever
relied upon international law in any state or paid it the slightest regard.
The third Count of the Indictment is based on the definition of War
Crimes contained in the Charter. I have outlined to you the systematic
course of conduct toward civilian populations and combat forces which
violates international conventions to which Germany was a party. Of the
criminal nature of these acts at least, the defendants had, as we shall show,
clear knowledge. Accordingly, they took pains to conceal their violations. It
will appear that the Defendants Keitel and Jodl were informed by official
legal advisors that the orders to brand Russian prisoners of war, to shackle
British prisoners of war, and to execute commando prisoners were clear
violations of international law. Nevertheless, these orders were put into
effect. The same is true of orders issued for the assassination of General
Giraud and General Weygand, which failed to be executed only because of

a ruse on the part of Admiral Canaris, who was himself later executed for
his part in the plot to take Hitler’s life on July 20, 1944.
The fourth Count of the Indictment is based on Crimes against
Humanity. Chief among these are mass killings of countless human beings
in cold blood. Does it take these men by surprise that murder is treated as a
crime?
The first and second Counts of the Indictment add to these crimes the
crime of plotting and waging wars of aggression and wars in violation of
nine treaties to which Germany was a party. There was a time, in fact, I
think the time of the first World War, when it could not have been said that
war-inciting or war making was a crime in law, however reprehensible in
morals.
Of course, it was, under the law of all civilized peoples, a crime for one
man with his bare knuckles to assault another. How did it come that
multiplying this crime by a million, and adding fire arms to bare knuckles,
made it a legally innocent act? The doctrine was that one could not be
regarded as criminal for committing the usual violent acts in the conduct of
legitimate warfare. The age of imperialistic expansion during the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries added the foul doctrine, contrary to the teachings
of early Christian and international law scholars such as Grotius, that all
wars are to be regarded as legitimate wars. The sum of these two doctrines
was to give war-making a complete immunity from accountability to law.
This was intolerable for an age that called itself civilized. Plain people
with their earthy common sense, revolted at such fictions and legalisms so
contrary to ethical principles and demanded checks on war immunities.
Statesmen and international lawyers at first cautiously responded by
adopting rules of warfare designed to make the conduct of war more
civilized. The effort was to set legal limits to the violence that could be
done to civilian populations and to combatants as well.
The common sense of men after the first World War demanded,
however, that the law’s condemnation of war reach deeper, and that the law
condemn not merely uncivilized ways of waging war, but also the waging
in any way of uncivilized wars—wars of aggression. The world’s statesmen
again went only as far as they were forced to go. Their efforts were timid
and cautious and often less explicit than we might have hoped. But the
1920’s did outlaw aggressive war.

The re-establishment of the principle that there are unjust wars and that
unjust wars are illegal is traceable in many steps. One of the most
significant is the Briand-Kellogg Pact of 1928, by which Germany, Italy,
and Japan, in common with practically all nations of the world, renounced
war as an instrument of national policy, bound themselves to seek the
settlement of disputes only by pacific means, and condemned recourse to
war for the solution of international controversies. This pact altered the
legal status of a war of aggression. As Mr. Stimson, the United States
Secretary of State put it in 1932, such a war:
“. . . is no longer to be the source and subject of rights. It is no
longer to be the principle around which the duties, the conduct,
and the rights of nations revolve. It is an illegal thing. . . . By that
very act, we have made obsolete many legal precedents and have
given the legal profession the task of re-examining many of its
codes and treaties.”
The Geneva Protocol of 1924 for the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes, signed by the representatives of 48 governments, declared that “a
war of aggression constitutes . . . an international crime.” The Eighth
Assembly of the League of Nations in 1927, on unanimous resolution of the
representatives of 48 member nations, including Germany, declared that a
war of aggression constitutes an international crime. At the Sixth Pan-
American Conference of 1928, the 21 American Republics unanimously
adopted a resolution stating that “war of aggression constitutes an
international crime against the human species.”
A failure of these Nazis to heed, or to understand the force and meaning
of this evolution in the legal thought of the world, is not a defense or a
mitigation. If anything, it aggravates their offense and makes it the more
mandatory that the law they have flouted be vindicated by juridical
application to their lawless conduct. Indeed, by their own law—had they
heeded any law—these principles were binding on these defendants. Article
4 of the Weimar constitution provided that: “The generally accepted rules of
international law are to be considered as binding integral parts of the law of
the German Reich” (2050-PS). Can there be any doubt that the outlawry of
aggressive war was one of the “generally accepted rules of international
law” in 1939?

Any resort to war—to any kind of a war—is a resort to means that are
inherently criminal. War inevitably is a course of killings, assaults,
deprivations of liberty, and destruction of property. An honestly defensive
war is, of course, legal and saves those lawfully conducting it from
criminality. But inherently criminal acts cannot be defended by showing
that those who committed them were engaged in a war, when war itself is
illegal. The very minimum legal consequence of the treaties making
aggressive wars illegal is to strip those who incite or wage them of every
defense the law ever gave, and to leave war-makers subject to judgment by
the usually accepted principles of the law of crimes.
But if it be thought that the Charter, whose declarations concededly bind
us all, does contain new law I still do not shrink from demanding its strict
application by this Tribunal. The rule of law in the world, flouted by the
lawlessness incited by these defendants, had to be restored at the cost to my
country of over a million casualties, not to mention those of other nations. I
cannot subscribe to the perverted reasoning that society may advance and
strengthen the rule of law by the expenditure of morally innocent lives but
that progress in the law may never be made at the price of morally guilty
lives.
It is true of course, that we have no judicial precedent for the Charter.
But international law is more than a scholarly collection of abstract and
immutable principles. It is an outgrowth of treaties and agreements between
nations and of accepted customs. Yet every custom has its origin in some
single act, and every agreement has to be initiated by the action of some
state. Unless we are prepared to abandon every principle of growth for
international law, we cannot deny that our own day has the right to institute
customs and to conclude agreements that will themselves become sources
of a newer and strengthened international law. International law is not
capable of development by the normal processes of legislation, for there is
no continuing international legislative authority. Innovations and revisions
in international law are brought about by the action of governments such as
those I have cited, designed to meet a change in circumstances. It grows, as
did the common law, through decisions reached from time to time in
adapting settled principles to new situations. The fact is that when the law
evolves by the case method, as did the common law and as international
law must do if it is to advance at all, it advances at the expense of those
who wrongly guessed the law and learned too late their error. The law, so

far as international law can be decreed, had been clearly pronounced when
these acts took place. Hence, I am not disturbed by the lack of judicial
precedent for the inquiry it is proposed to conduct.
The events I have earlier recited clearly fall within the standards of
crimes, set out in the Charter, whose perpetrators this Tribunal is convened
to judge and punish fittingly. The standards for War Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity are too familiar to need comment. There are, however,
certain novel problems in applying other precepts of the Charter which I
should call to your attention.

The Crime against Peace:
A basic provision of the Charter is that to plan, prepare, initiate, or wage
a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties,
agreements, and assurances, or to conspire or participate in a common plan
to do so, is a crime.
It is perhaps a weakness in this Charter that it fails itself to define a war
of aggression. Abstractly, the subject is full of difficulty and all kinds of
troublesome hypothetical cases can be conjured up. It is a subject which, if
the defense should be permitted to go afield beyond the very narrow charge
in the Indictment, would prolong the Trial and involve the Tribunal in
insoluble political issues. But so far as the question can properly be
involved in this case, the issue is one of no novelty and is one on which
legal opinion has well crystallized.
One of the most authoritative sources of international law on this
subject is the Convention for the Definition of Aggression signed at London
on July 3, 1933 by Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Turkey, the Soviet
Union, Persia, and Afghanistan. The subject has also been considered by
international committees and by commentators whose views are entitled to
the greatest respect. It had been little discussed prior to the first World War
but has received much attention as international law has evolved its
outlawry of aggressive war. In the light of these materials of international
law, and so far as relevant to the evidence in this case, I suggest that an
“aggressor” is generally held to be that state which is the first to commit
any of the following actions:
(1) Declaration of war upon another state;
(2) Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of
the territory of another state;

(3) Attack by its land, naval, or air forces, with or without a declaration
of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another state; and
(4) Provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory of
another state, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded state, to
take in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands
of all assistance or protection.
And I further suggest that it is the general view that no political,
military, economic, or other considerations shall serve as an excuse or
justification for such actions; but exercise of the right of legitimate self-
defense, that is to say, resistance to an act of aggression, or action to assist a
state which has been subjected to aggression, shall not constitute a war of
aggression.
It is upon such an understanding of the law that our evidence of a
conspiracy to provoke and wage an aggressive war is prepared and
presented. By this test each of the series of wars begun by these Nazi
leaders was unambiguously aggressive.
It is important to the duration and scope of this Trial that we bear in
mind the difference between our charge that this war was one of aggression
and a position that Germany had no grievances. We are not inquiring into
the conditions which contributed to causing this war. They are for history to
unravel. It is no part of our task to vindicate the European status quo as of
1933, or as of any other date. The United States does not desire to enter into
discussion of the complicated pre-war currents of European politics, and it
hopes this trial will not be protracted by their consideration. The remote
causations avowed are too insincere and inconsistent, too complicated and
doctrinaire to be the subject of profitable inquiry in this trial. A familiar
example is to be found in the “Lebensraum” slogan, which summarized the
contention that Germany needed more living space as a justification for
expansion. At the same time that the Nazis were demanding more space for
the German people, they were demanding more German people to occupy
space. Every known means to increase the birth rate, legitimate and
illegitimate, was utilized. “Lebensraum” represented a vicious circle of
demand—from neighbors more space, and from Germans more progeny.
We do not need to investigate the verity of doctrines which led to constantly
expanding circles of aggression. It is the plot and the act of aggression
which we charge to be crimes.

Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however
objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means
for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions. It may be that
the Germany of the 1920’s and 1930’s faced desperate problems, problems
that would have warranted the boldest measures short of war. All other
methods—persuasion, propaganda, economic competition, diplomacy—
were open to an aggrieved country, but aggressive warfare was outlawed.
These defendants did make aggressive war, a war in violation of treaties.
They did attack and invade their neighbors in order to effectuate a foreign
policy which they knew could not be accomplished by measures short of
war. And that is as far as we accuse or propose to inquire.

The Law of Individual Responsibility:
The Charter also recognizes individual responsibility on the part of
those who commit acts defined as crimes, or who incite others to do so, or
who join a common plan with other persons, groups or organizations to
bring about their commission. The principle of individual responsibility for
piracy and brigandage, which have long been recognized as crimes
punishable under international law, is old and well established. That is what
illegal warfare is. This principle of personal liability is a necessary as well
as logical one if international law is to render real help to the maintenance
of peace. An international law which operates only on states can be
enforced only by war because the most practicable method of coercing a
state is warfare. Those familiar with American history know that one of the
compelling reasons for adoption of our constitution was that the laws of the
Confederation, which operated only on constituent states, were found
ineffective to maintain order among them. The only answer to recalcitrance
was impotence or war. Only sanctions which reach individuals can
peacefully and effectively be enforced. Hence, the principle of the
criminality of aggressive war is implemented by the Charter with the
principle of personal responsibility.
Of course, the idea that a state, any more than a corporation, commits
crimes, is a fiction. Crimes always are committed only by persons. While it
is quite proper to employ the fiction of responsibility of a state or
corporation for the purpose of imposing a collective liability, it is quite
intolerable to let such a legalism become the basis of personal immunity.

The Charter recognizes that one who has committed criminal acts may
not take refuge in superior orders nor in the doctrine that his crimes were
acts of states. These twin principles working together have heretofore
resulted in immunity for practically everyone concerned in the really great
crimes against peace and mankind. Those in lower ranks were protected
against liability by the orders of their superiors. The superiors were
protected because their orders were called acts of state. Under the Charter,
no defense based on either of these doctrines can be entertained. Modern
civilization puts unlimited weapons of destruction in the hands of men. It
cannot tolerate so vast an area of legal irresponsibility.
Even the German Military Code provides that:
“If the execution of a military order in the course of duty violates
the criminal law, then the superior officer giving the order will
bear the sole responsibility therefor. However, the obeying
subordinate will share the punishment of the participant: (1) if he
has exceeded the order given to him, or (2) if it was within his
knowledge that the order of his superior officer concerned an act
by which it was intended to commit a civil or military crime or
transgression.” (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1926 No. 37, P. 278, Art. 47)
Of course, we do not argue that the circumstances under which one
commits an act should be disregarded in judging its legal effect. A
conscripted private on a firing squad cannot expect to hold an inquest on the
validity of the execution. The Charter implies common sense limits to
liability just as it places common sense limits upon immunity. But none of
these men before you acted in minor parts. Each of them was entrusted with
broad discretion and exercised great power. Their responsibility is
correspondingly great and may not be shifted to that fictional being, “the
State”, which cannot be produced for trial, cannot testify, and cannot be
sentenced.
The Charter also recognizes a vicarious liability, which responsibility is
recognized by most modern systems of law, for acts committed by others in
carrying out a common plan or conspiracy to which a defendant has become
a party. I need not discuss the familiar principles of such liability. Every day
in the courts of countries associated in this prosecution, men are convicted
for acts that they did not personally commit, but for which they were held

responsible because of membership in illegal combinations or plans or
conspiracies.

The Political, Police, and Military Organizations:
Accused before this Tribunal as criminal organizations are certain
political and police organizations which the evidence will show to have
been instruments of cohesion in planning and executing the crimes I have
detailed. Perhaps the worst of the movement were the Leadership Corps of
the NSDAP, the Schutzstaffeln or “SS”, and the Sturmabteilungen or “SA”,
and the subsidiary formations which these include. These were the Nazi
Party leadership, espionage, and policing groups. They were the real
government, above and outside of any law. Also accused as organizations
are the Reich Cabinet and the Secret Police, or Gestapo, which were
fixtures of the Government but animated solely by the Party.
Except for a late period when some compulsory recruiting was done in
the SS, membership in all these militarized organizations was voluntary.
The police organizations were recruited from ardent partisans who enlisted
blindly to do the dirty work the leaders planned. The Reich Cabinet was the
governmental facade for Nazi Party Government and in its members legal,
as well as actual responsibility was vested for the entire program.
Collectively they were responsible for the program in general, individually
they were especially responsible for segments of it. The finding which we
ask you to make, that these are criminal organizations, will subject
members to punishment to be hereafter determined by appropriate tribunals,
unless some personal defense—such as becoming a member under threat to
person, to family, or inducement by false representation, or the like—be
established. Every member will have a chance to be heard in the subsequent
forum on his personal relation to the organization, but your finding in this
trial will conclusively establish the criminal character of the organization as
a whole.
We have also accused as criminal organizations the High Command and
the General Staff of the German Armed Forces. We recognize that to plan
warfare is the business of professional soldiers in all countries. But it is one
thing to plan strategic moves in the event war comes, and it is another thing
to plot and intrigue to bring on that war. We will prove the leaders of the
German General Staff and of the High Command to have been guilty of just
that. Military men are not before you because they served their country.

They are here because they mastered it, along with these others, and drove
it to war. They are not here because they lost the war, but because they
started it. Politicians may have thought of them as soldiers, but soldiers
know they were politicians. We ask that the General Staff and the High
Command, as defined in the Indictment, be condemned as a criminal group
whose existence and tradition constitute a standing menace to the peace of
the world.
These individual defendants did not stand alone in crime and will not
stand alone in punishment. Your verdict of “guilty” against these
organizations will render prima facie guilty, as nearly as we can learn,
thousands upon thousands of members now in custody of United States
forces and of other armies.

The responsibility of this Tribunal:
To apply the sanctions of the law to those whose conduct is found
criminal by the standards I have outlined, is the responsibility committed to
this Tribunal. It is the first court ever to undertake the difficult task of
overcoming the confusion of many tongues and the conflicting concepts of
just procedure among divers systems of law, so as to reach a common
judgment. The tasks of all of us are such as to make heavy demands on
patience and good will. Although the need for prompt action has admittedly
resulted in imperfect work on the part of the Prosecution, four great nations
bring you their hurriedly assembled contributions of evidence. What
remains undiscovered we can only guess. We could, with witnesses’
testimony, prolong the recitals of crime for years—but to what avail. We
shall rest the case when we have offered what seems convincing and
adequate proof of the crimes charged without unnecessary cumulation of
evidence. We doubt very much whether it will be seriously denied that the
crimes I have outlined took place. The effort will undoubtedly be to
mitigate or escape personal responsibility.
Among the nations which unite in accusing these defendants the United
States is perhaps in a position to be the most dispassionate, for, having
sustained the least injury, it is perhaps the least animated by vengeance. Our
American cities have not been bombed by day and by night, by humans,
and by robots. It is not our temples that had been laid in ruins. Our
countrymen have not had their homes destroyed over their heads. The
menace of Nazi aggression, except to those in actual service, has seemed

less personal and immediate to us than to European peoples. But while the
United States is not first in rancor, it is not second in determination that the
forces of law and order be made equal to the task of dealing with such
international lawlessness as I have recited here.
Twice in my lifetime, the United States has sent its young manhood
across the Atlantic, drained its resources, and burdened itself with debt to
help defeat Germany. But the real hope and faith that has sustained the
American people in these great efforts was that victory for ourselves and
our Allies would lay the basis for an ordered international relationship in
Europe and would end the centuries of strife on this embattled continent.
Twice we have held back in the early stages of European conflict in the
belief that it might be confined to a purely European affair. In the United
States, we have tried to build an economy without armament, a system of
government without militarism, and a society where men are not
regimented for war. This purpose, we know now, can never be realized if
the world periodically is to be embroiled in war. The United States cannot,
generation after generation, throw its youth or its resources on to the
battlefields of Europe to redress the lack of balance between Germany’s
strength and that of her enemies, and to keep the battles from our shores.
The American dream of a peace-and-plenty economy, as well as the
hopes of other nations, can never be fulfilled if those nations are involved in
a war every generation so vast and devastating as to crush the generation
that fights and burden the generation that follows. But experience has
shown that wars are no longer local. All modern wars become world wars
eventually. And none of the big nations at least can stay out. If we cannot
stay out of wars, our only hope is to prevent wars.
I am too well aware of the weaknesses of juridical action alone to
contend that in itself your decision under this Charter can prevent future
wars. Judicial action always comes after the event. Wars are started only on
the theory and in the confidence that they can be won. Personal punishment,
to be suffered only in the event the war is lost, will probably not be a
sufficient deterrent to prevent a war where the warmakers feel the chances
of defeat to be negligible.
But the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in
a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to
law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against
German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it

must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit
here now in judgment. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and
violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own
people only when we make all men answerable to the law. This trial
represents mankind’s desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to
statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of
the world’s peace and to commit aggressions against the rights of their
neighbors.
The usefulness of this effort to do justice is not to be measured by
considering the law or your judgment in isolation. This trial is part of the
great effort to make the peace more secure. One step in this direction is the
United Nations organization, which may take joint political action to
prevent war if possible, and joint military action to insure that any nation
which starts a war will lose it. This Charter and this Trial, implementing the
Kellogg-Briand Pact, constitute another step in the same direction—
juridical action of a kind to ensure that those who start a war will pay for it
personally.
While the defendants and the prosecutors stand before you as
individuals, it is not the triumph of either group alone that is committed to
your judgment. Above all personalities there are anonymous and impersonal
forces whose conflict makes up much of human history. It is yours to throw
the strength of the law back of either the one or the other of these forces for
at least another generation. What are the real forces that are contending
before you?
No charity can disguise the fact that the forces which these defendants
represent, the forces that would advantage and delight in their acquittal, are
the darkest and most sinister forces in society—dictatorship and oppression,
malevolence and passion, militarism and lawlessness. By their fruits we
best know them. Their acts have bathed the world in blood and set
civilization back a century. They have subjected their European neighbors
to every outrage and torture, every spoliation and deprivation that
insolence, cruelty, and greed could inflict. They have brought the German
people to the lowest pitch of wretchedness, from which they can entertain
no hope of early deliverance. They have stirred hatreds and incited domestic
violence on every continent. These are the things that stand in the dock
shoulder to shoulder with these prisoners.

The real complaining party at your bar is Civilization. In all our
countries it is still a struggling and imperfect thing. It does not plead that
the United States, or any other country, has been blameless of the
conditions which made the German people easy victims to the
blandishments and intimidations of the Nazi conspirators.
But it points to the dreadful sequence of aggressions and crimes I have
recited, it points to the weariness of flesh, the exhaustion of resources, and
the destruction of all that was beautiful or useful in so much of the world,
and to greater potentialities for destruction in the days to come. It is not
necessary among the ruins of this ancient and beautiful city with untold
members of its civilian inhabitants still buried in its rubble, to argue the
proposition that to start or wage an aggressive war has the moral qualities of
the worst of crimes. The refuge of the defendants can be only their hope
that international law will lag so far behind the moral sense of mankind that
conduct which is crime in the moral sense must be regarded as innocent in
law.
Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to
deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance.
It does not expect that you can make war impossible. It does expect that
your juridical action will put the forces of international law, its precepts, its
prohibitions and, most of all, its sanctions, on the side of peace, so that men
and women of good will, in all countries, may have “leave to live by no
man’s leave, underneath the law.”
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn until 10 o’clock
tomorrow morning.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 22 November 1945 at 1000 hours.]

THIRD DAY
Thursday, 22 November 1945

Morning Session
THE PRESIDENT: Before the Chief Prosecutor for the United States
proceeds to present the evidence on Count One, the Tribunal wishes me to
announce the decision on the application made on behalf of the Defendant
Julius Streicher by his counsel that his condition should be examined. It has
been examined by three medical experts on behalf of the Tribunal and their
report has been submitted to and considered by the Tribunal; and it is as
follows:
“1. The Defendant Julius Streicher is sane.
“2. The Defendant Julius Streicher is fit to appear before the
Tribunal, and to present his defense.
“3. It being the unanimous conclusion of the examiners that Julius
Streicher is sane, he is for that reason capable of understanding
the nature and policy of his acts during the period of time covered
by the Indictment.”
The Tribunal accepts the report of the medical experts and the trial
against Julius Streicher will, therefore, proceed.
The other matter to which I have to refer is a motion on behalf of
counsel for Bormann, whom the Tribunal have decided to try in his absence
in pursuance of Article 12 of the Charter. Counsel for Bormann has made a
motion that the trial against him should be postponed, but, in view of the
fact that the provisions of the Charter and the Tribunal’s rules of procedure
have been strictly carried out in the notices which have been given, and the
fact that counsel for Bormann will have ample time before he is called upon
to present defense on his behalf, the motion is denied.
I will now call upon counsel for the United States to present the
evidence on Count One.
COL. STOREY: May it please the Tribunal, as the first order of
business concerning the evidence, it shall be my purpose to outline the
method of capturing, assembling, processing, and authenticating documents
to be presented in evidence by the United States. I shall also describe and
illustrate the plan of presenting documents and briefs relating to the United
States’ case-in-chief.

As the United States Army advanced into German territory, there were
attached to each Army and subordinate organization specialized military
personnel whose duties were to capture and preserve enemy information in
the form of documents, records, reports, and other files. The Germans kept
accurate and voluminous records. They were found in Army headquarters,
Government buildings, and elsewhere. During the later stages of the war,
particularly, such documents were found in salt mines, buried in the ground,
behind false walls, and many other places believed secure by the Germans.
For example, the personal correspondence and diaries of the Defendant
Rosenberg, including his Nazi correspondence, were found behind a false
wall in an old castle in eastern Bavaria. The records of the OKL, or
Luftwaffe, of which the Defendant Göring was Commander-in-Chief—
equivalent to the records of the Headquarters of the Air Staff of the United
States Army Air Forces—were found in various places in the Bavarian
Alps. Most of such Luftwaffe records were assembled and processed by the
Army at Berchtesgaden.
When the Army first captured documents and records, they immediately
placed the materials under guard and later assembled them in temporary
document centers. Many times the records were so voluminous that they
were hauled by fleets of Army trucks to document centers. Finally, as the
territory seized was made secure, Army zones were established and each
Army established a fixed document center to which were transported the
assembled documents and records. Later this material was indexed and
cataloged, which was a slow process.
Beginning last June, Mr. Justice Jackson requested me to direct the
assembling of documentary evidence on the continent for the United States
case. Field teams from our office were organized under the direction of
Major William H. Coogan, who established United States liaison officers at
the main Army document centers. Such officers were directed to screen and
analyze the mass of captured documents, and select those having
evidentiary value for our case. Literally hundreds of tons of enemy
documents and records were screened and examined and those selected
were forwarded to Nuremberg for processing. I now offer in evidence an
affidavit by Major Coogan, dated November 19, 1945, attached hereto,
describing the method of procedure, capture, screening and delivery of such
documents to Nuremberg. (Document Number 001 A-PS, Exhibit USA-1)

At this time, if Your Honors please, and in order to present this matter to
the Tribunal, I believe it wise to read at least substantial portions of this
affidavit. It is dated November 19, 1945.
“I, Major William H. Coogan, 0-455814, Q.M.C., a
commissioned officer of the United States of America, do hereby
certify as follows:
“1. The United States Chief of Counsel in July 1945 charged the
Field Branch of the Documentation Division with the
responsibility of collecting, evaluating, and assembling
documentary evidence in the European Theater for use in the
prosecution of the major Axis War Criminals before the
International Military Tribunal. I was appointed Chief of the Field
Branch on 20 July 1945. I am now the Chief of the
Documentation Division, Office of United States Chief of
Counsel.
“2. I have served in the United States Army for more than 4 years
and am a practicing attorney by profession. Based upon my
experience as an attorney and as a United States Army officer, I
am familiar with the operation of the United States Army in
connection with seizing and processing captured enemy
documents. In my capacity as Chief of the Documentation
Division, Office of the United States Chief of Counsel, I am
familiar with and have supervised the processing, filing,
translating, and photostating of all documentary evidence for the
United States Chief of Counsel.”
I skip to paragraph 4.
“4. The Field Branch of the Documentation Division was staffed
by personnel thoroughly conversant with the German language.
Their task was to search for and select captured enemy documents
in the European Theater which disclosed information relating to
the prosecution of the major Axis war criminals. Officers under
my command were placed on duty at various document centers
and also dispatched on individual missions to obtain original
documents. When the documents were located, my
representatives made a record of the circumstances under which
they were found and all information available concerning their
authenticity was recorded. Such documents were further

identified by Field Branch pre-trial serial numbers, assigned by
my representatives who would then periodically dispatch the
original documents by courier to the Office of the United States
Chief of Counsel.
“5. Upon receipt of these documents they were duly recorded and
indexed. After this operation, they were delivered to the
Screening and Analysis Branch of the Documentation Division of
the Office of United States Chief of Counsel, which Branch re-
examined the documents in order to finally determine whether or
not they should be retained as evidence for the prosecutors. This
final screening was done by German-speaking analysts on the
staff of the United States Chief of Counsel. When the document
passed the screeners, it was then transmitted to the Document
Room of the Office of United States Chief of Counsel, with a
covering sheet prepared by the screeners showing the title or
nature of the document, the personalities involved, and its
importance. In the Document Room, a trial identification number
was given to each document and to each group of documents, in
cases where it was desirable for the sake of clarity to file several
documents together.
“6. United States documents were given trial identification
numbers in one of five series designated by the letters: “PS”, “L”,
“R”, “C”, and “EC”, indicating the means of acquisition of the
documents. Within each series documents were listed
numerically.
“7. After a document was so numbered, it was then sent to a
German-speaking analyst who prepared a summary of the
document with appropriate references to personalities involved,
index headings, information as to the source of the document as
indicated by the Field Branch, and the importance of the
document to a particular phase of the case. Next, the original
document was returned to the Document Room and then checked
out to the Photostating Department, where photostatic copies
were made. Upon return from photostating, it was placed in an
envelope in one of the several fireproof safes in the rear of the
Document Room. One of the photostatic copies of the document
was sent to the translators, thereafter leaving the original itself in

the safe. A commissioned officer has been, and is, responsible for
the documents in the safe. At all times when he is not present the
safe is locked and a military guard is on duty outside the only
door. If the officers preparing the certified translation, or one of
the officers working on the briefs, found it necessary to examine
the original document, this was done within the Document Room
in the section set aside for that purpose. The only exception to this
strict rule has been where it has been occasionally necessary to
present the original document to Defense Counsel for
examination. In this case, the document was entrusted to a
responsible officer of the Prosecution staff.
“8. All original documents are now located in safes in the
Document Room, where they will be secured until they are
presented by the Prosecution to the court during the progress of
this Trial.
“9. Some of the documents which will be offered in evidence by
the United States were seized and processed by the British Army.
Also, personnel from the Office of the United States Chief of
Counsel and the British War Crimes Executive have acted jointly
in locating, seizing and processing such documents.
“10. Substantially the same system of acquiring documentary
evidence was utilized by the British Army and the British War
Crimes Executive as above set forth with respect to the United
States Army and the Office of the United States Chief of Counsel.
“11. Therefore, I certify in my official capacity as hereinabove
stated, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the documents
captured in the British Zone of Operations and Occupation, which
will be offered in evidence by the United States Chief of Counsel,
have been authenticated, translated, and processed in substantially
the same manner as hereinabove set forth with respect to the
operations of the United States Chief of Counsel.
“12. Finally, I certify that all documentary evidence offered by the
United States Chief of Counsel, including those documents from
British Army sources, are in the same condition as captured by
the United States and British Armies; that they have been
translated by competent and qualified translators; that all
photostatic copies are true and correct copies of the originals and

that they have been correctly filed, numbered, and processed as
above outlined.”
Signed by: “William H. Coogan, Major, QMC, 0-455814.”
After the documents selected by the screening process outlined reached
our office, they were again examined, re-screened, and translated by expert
U.S. Army personnel, as outlined by Major Coogan.
Finally, more than 2,500 documents were selected and filed here in this
Court House. At least several hundred will be offered in evidence. They
have been photographed, translated into English, filed, indexed, and
processed. The same general procedure was followed by the British War
Crimes Executive with regard to documents captured by the British Army,
and there has been complete integration and cooperation of activities with
the British in that regard.
In order to present our case and to assist the Tribunal, we have prepared
written briefs on each phase of our case which cite the documents by
appropriate numbers. Legal propositions of the United States will also be
presented in such briefs. The briefs and documents will cover each
allegation of the Indictment which is the United States’ responsibility. I hold
in my hand one of the trial briefs entitled “Reshaping of Education,
Training of Youth,” which will be offered later on this day. Accompanying
each brief is a document book containing true copies in English of all
documents referred to in the brief. I hold in my hand the document book
that will be submitted to this Tribunal in support of the brief which I have
just exhibited to your Honors. Likewise, copies in German have been, or
will be, furnished to Defense counsel at the time such documents are
offered in evidence. Upon conclusion of the presentation of each phase or
section of our case by counsel, the entire book of documents will be offered
in evidence, such as this book. At the same time, Lieutenant Barrett who
will sit right here all during the Trial and who is on our staff, will hand to
the clerk of this Tribunal the original documents that may be offered in
evidence in this form. It will have the seal of the Tribunal, will be Exhibit
USA, 2836-PS, and in turn Lieutenant Barrett will hand that original
document to the Tribunal. In the same manner, the document book will be
passed by Lieutenant Barrett to the clerk of the Court, and these trial briefs
for the assistance of the Tribunal will be made available to the Court and to
Defense Counsel. Likewise, copies of documents actually introduced in
evidence will be made available to the press. Thus, may Your Honors

please, it is hoped that by this procedure the usual laborious and tedious
method of introducing documentary evidence may be expedited.
May I, therefore, respectfully inquire of the Tribunal and of Defense
counsel if there is any objection to the procedure outlined? If not, the
United States will proceed with the presentation of the documentary and
trial briefs as outlined herein.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no objection to the course that you
propose.
COL. STOREY: If Your Honors please, may I now announce what will
be presented immediately following by the United States?
THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps that I ought to say to counsel for the
defendants that their silence will be taken as their assent to the course
proposed. In the absence of any objection by them to the course proposed
by Colonel Storey on behalf of the Chief Prosecutor for the United States,
the Tribunal will take it that they agree that the course is convenient.
Thank you, gentlemen.
COL. STOREY: If Your Honors please, the next presentation will be the
briefs and documents on the Common Plan or Conspiracy up to 1939. We
will open by presentation of charts of the Nazi Party and Reich Government
with exhibits and explanation by Mr. Albrecht. That will be followed by a
presentation of the trial briefs and documents on the other phases of the
Common Plan or Conspiracy up to 1939.
RALPH G. ALBRECHT (Associate Trial Counsel for the United
States): May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution will now allude briefly
to certain facts, which may well be considered to be within judicial
purview, the consideration of which the Prosecution has found useful in
understanding and evaluating the evidence that will be presented in the
course of the Trial, in support of the allegations of the Indictment.
In the opinion of the Prosecution, some preliminary references must be
made to the National Socialist German Labor Party, the NSDAP, which in
itself is not one of the defendant organizations in this proceeding, but which
is represented among the defendant organizations by its most important
formations, namely the Leadership Corps of the NSDAP, which you will
hear referred to as Das Korps der Politischen Leiter der NSDAP, the SS
(Die Schutzstaffeln der NSDAP), and the SA (Die Sturmabteilungen) of the
Party.

With the permission of the Tribunal the Prosecution will offer at this
point, as its first exhibit, a chart showing the structure and organization of
the NSDAP, substantially as it existed at the peak of its development in
March 1945. This chart has been prepared by the Prosecution on the basis
of information contained in important and well-known official publications
of the National Socialist Party with which the defendants must be presumed
to have been well acquainted. We refer particularly to the Organization
Book of the Party, (Das Organisationsbuch der NSDAP), and to the
National Socialist Year Book, (Nationalsozialistisches Jahrbuch), of both of
which, be it noted, the late Defendant Robert Ley was the chief editor or
publisher. Both books appeared, in the course of time, in many editions and
in hundreds of thousands of copies, throughout the period when the
National Socialist Party was in control of the German Reich and of the
German people. The chart, furthermore, which we are offering has been
certified on its face as correct by a high official of the Nazi Party, namely
Franz Xaver Schwarz, its treasurer (Reichsschatzmeister der NSDAP) and
its official in charge of Party administration; and his affidavit is being
submitted with the chart, and I now wish to offer this chart in evidence.
(Document Number 2903-PS, Exhibit USA-2.)
We have been able to have this chart duplicated, and, with the
permission of the Tribunal, we are making it available to all concerned.
Before I offer some remarks of explanation concerning the organization
of the National Socialist German Labor Party, which, we believe, will be
found useful in connection with the Prosecution’s case, I would just like to
call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the larger chart which now
appears is a simplification of the duplicated chart which Your Honors have
been furnished. For if it had been reproduced in the same detail, I am afraid
many of the boxes would not have appeared intelligible from this point.
I would like to call your attention first of all to an organization with
which we will have to become very familiar: the Leadership Corps of the
NSDAP, (the Reichsleiter), which has been named as a defendant
organization and which comprises the sum of the officials and leaders of the
Nazi Party. If Your Honors will be good enough to follow me down the
center line of the chart, we come to the main horizontal line of division
where the word “Reichsleiter” appears. That is the first category of the
Leadership Corps, I should say, the main category, perhaps, of the
Leadership Corps.

The Führer, of course, stands above it. As we follow the vertical line of
division to the lower part of the chart, we reach five additional boxes, which
may be referred to collectively as the Hoheitsträger, the bearers of the
sovereignty of the Party, and those, are the Gauleiter, the Kreisleiter, the
Ortsgruppenleiter, the Zellenleiter, and the Blockleiter.
The Führer at the top of our chart is the supreme and the only leader in
the Nazi hierarchy. His successor-designate was first the Defendant Hess
and subsequently the Defendant Göring.
The Reichsleiter, of whom 16 are shown on this chart, comprise
collectively the Party Directorate (Reichsleitung). Through them,
coordination of the Party and State machinery was achieved. A number of
these Reichsleiter, each of whom, at some time, was in charge of at least
one office within the Party Directorate, were also the heads of other Party
formations and affiliated and supervised organizations of the Party and also
of agencies of the State, and they even held ministerial positions. The
Reichsleitung may be said to represent the horizontal organization of the
Party according to functions, within which all threads controlling the varied
life of the German people met. Each office within the Reichsleitung of the
NSDAP executed definite tasks assigned to it by the Führer, or by the leader
of the Party Chancellery (Chef der Parteikanzlei), who on the chart before
you appears directly under the Führer.
In 1945 the chief of the Party Chancellery was Martin Bormann, the
defendant in this proceeding, and before him, and until his flight to England
in 1941, the Defendant Rudolf Hess. It was the duty of the Reichsleitung to
make certain that these tasks assigned to it by the Führer were carried out
with expedition and without interruption, in order that the will of the Führer
quickly and rapidly was communicated to the lowest Party echelon, the
lowliest Zelle or Block. The individual offices of the Reichsleitung had the
mission to remain in constant and closest contact with the life of the people
through the agency of the subdivisions of the component Party
organizations in the Gaue, within the Kreis, or the Ort or the lower group.
These leaders had been taught that the right to organize human beings
accrued through the appreciation of the fact that a people must be educated
ideologically; “weltanschaulich”, the Germans call it, that is to say,
according to the philosophy of National Socialism.
Among the Reichsleiter, on trial in this cause, may be included the
following defendants:

If Your Honors will follow me to this broad, horizontal line, we start at
the extreme left at the box marked with the Defendant Frank’s name. At one
time, although not in March 1945, he was the head of the Legal Office of
the Party. He was the Reichsleiter des Reichsrechtsamtes.
In the third square appears the Defendant Rosenberg, the delegate of the
Führer for Ideological Training and Education of the Party. He was called
“Der Beauftragte des Führers für die Überwachung der gesamten geistigen
und weltanschaulichen Schulung der NSDAP.” Next to him, to the right, is
the Defendant Von Schirach, leader of youth education, (Leiter für die
Jugenderziehung). Next to him, appears the late Defendant Robert Ley, at
one time head of the Party Organization (Reichsorganisationsleiter der
NSDAP) and also the leader of the German Labor Front, the DAF (Leiter
der Deutschen Arbeitsfront).
Then, if we cross the vertical line, and proceed to the right—in passing I
might allude to the box marked with the name of Schwarz. He was the Party
official and Reichsleiter, who certified to the chart before the Tribunal.
As we proceed further to the right, next to the last box, we find the
name of the Defendant Frick, who was the leader of the Reichstag fraction
(Leiter der NS Reichstagsfraktion).
The next categories to be considered are the Hoheitsträger, at the bottom
of the vertical line, in the center of the chart. The National Socialists called
them the bearers of sovereignty. To them was assigned the political
sovereignty over specially designated subdivisions of the State, of which
they were the appointed leaders. The Hoheitsträger may be said to represent
the vertical organization of the Party.
These leaders, these Hoheitsträger included all Gauleiter, of whom there
were 42 within the Reich in 1945. A Gauleiter was a political leader of the
largest subdivision of the State. He was charged by the Führer with the
political, cultural, and economic control over all forms and manifestations
of the life of the people and the coordination of the same with National
Socialist philosophy and ideology.
A number of the defendants before the bar of this Tribunal were former
Gauleiter of the NSDAP. I mention, in this connection, the Defendant
Streicher, Gauleiter of Franconia, “Franken-Führer” they called him, whose
seat was in the city of Nuremberg. Von Schirach was Gauleiter of Vienna
and the Defendant Sauckel was Gauleiter of Thuringia.

The next lower category on the chart were the Kreisleiter, the political
leaders of the largest subdivision within a Gau. Then follow the
Ortsgruppenleiter, the political leaders of the largest subdivision within the
Kreis. And a Kreis consisted perhaps of several towns or villages or, in the
case of a larger city, anywhere from 1,500 to 3,000 households.
The next Hoheitsträger were the Zellenleiter, the political leaders of a
group from four to eight city blocks, or of a corresponding group within
country districts, and then follow the Blockleiter, the political leaders of
from 40 to 60 households.
Now, each of these political leaders, of these Hoheitsträger, or bearers
of sovereignty, was directly responsible to the next highest leader in the
Nazi hierarchy. The Gauleiter was directly responsible to the Führer
himself; the Kreisleiter was directly responsible to the Gauleiter, the
Ortsgruppenleiter to the Kreisleiter, and so on.
The Führer himself reserved to himself, in accordance with the
philosophy that runs through the Party, the right to name all Führer. It was
he, personally, that named the Reichsleiter, all members of the Party
Directorate. It was he that appointed all Gauleiter and Kreisleiter and all
political leaders, down to the grade of Gauamtsleiter, which was a lower
classification of political leader within the Party organization of the Gau.
These Hoheitsträger, together with the Reichsleitung, constituted the all-
powerful group of leaders by means of which the Nazi Party reached right
down into the lives of the people, consolidated its control of them and
compelled them to conform to the National Socialist pattern. For this
purpose broad powers were given to them, including the right to call upon
all Party formations to effectuate their plans. They could requisition the
services of the SA and of the SS, as well as of the HJ and of the NSKK. If I
may direct your attention, for the moment, to the Party organizations that
appear at the extreme left of the chart, I would just like to say that
structurally these organizations were organized regionally to accord with
the offices and regions controlled by the Hoheitsträger. If I might be more
explicit, let us take the SA. The subsidiary formations of the SA came down
and corresponded, in its lower organizations, to the Gau, so that we have a
Gauleitung in the SA, and further down, to the Kreis, so that we have a
Kreisleitung in the SA, so that the Gauleiter and the Kreisleiter, to cite two
examples, charged with a particular duty by the Führer, could call on these
organizations for assistance in carrying out their tasks.

These sinister implications of the use of this power will become more
apparent as the Prosecution’s case develops, and as the wealth of
evidentiary material is introduced into evidence to prove the criminality of
the defendant organizations.
The component Party-organizations, called “Gliederungen” within the
Party, are shown at the extreme left of the chart, and are the organizations to
which I directed the attention of Your Honors a moment ago. These
organizations actually constitute the Party itself, and substantially the entire
Party-membership is contained within these organizations. The four
principal organizations are sometimes referred to as “para-military”
organizations. They were uniformed organizations and they were armed.
These organizations were the notorious SA and SS, which are named as
party-defendants in this case, the HJ (Hitler Youth), and the NSKK—the
Motor Corps of the Party (Kraftfahrkorps). Then there were also the
National Socialist Women’s Organization, the National Socialist German
Students’ Bund (Nationalsozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund), and the
National Socialist University Teachers’ Organization
(Nationalsozialistischer Dozentenbund).
There are additional organizations that were officially designated within
the Party, as affiliated organizations, not Gliederungen or controlled
organizations, but affiliated organizations (Angeschlossene Verbände der
NSDAP). Among those organizations we have the German Labor Front
(Deutsche Arbeitsfront)—the DAF; we have an organization that controlled
the civil service (Reichsbund der Deutschen Beamten). There were the
physicians within the National Socialist Deutscher Ärztebund; there were
the teachers in the National Socialist Lehrerbund; there were the lawyers
within the National Socialist Rechtswahrerbund, of which, at one time, the
Defendant Frank was the head.
There is another group of organizations which was officially known as
supervised organizations (Betreute Organisationen der NSDAP),
organizations that included certain specialized women’s organizations
(Deutsches Frauenwerk), certain student societies (Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Studentenschaft), former university students (Altherrenbund der
Deutschen Studenten). There was a group that had reference to the German
communes (Nationalsozialistischer Deutscher Gemeindetag), and there was
a Reichsbund für Leibesübungen that interested itself in controlling all
those interested in physical exercise.

According to the official Party designations applicable to the various
organizations and associations that controlled German life there was a
fourth category, which is the last organization that appears to the right on
the chart before Your Honors, which is sometimes simply called “Weitere
Nationalsozialistische Organisationen”, and here, in some respects, we are
in “No man’s land”, because the Party was not static, it was dynamic and
our latest information is now to the effect that the organizations that
ordinarily came within this category, well-known organizations like the
RAD (Reich Labor Service) and the NSFK (the National Socialist
Fliegerkorps) or Flying Corps may no longer be included there. At least that
was the opinion of the Party treasurer, who certified to this chart.
I think with these few remarks, I have given some general impression of
the structure of the Party, with which we are dealing in this proceeding
before Your Honors.
Before leaving the chart, perhaps I would just like to point out several
other instances where some of the defendants appear in this set-up.
At the very top, to the left of the Führer, as marked on the chart before
Your Honors, are the successors-designate of the Führer. First is the
Defendant Hess, until 1941, and followed by the Defendant Göring. Under
the Führer appears the chief of the Party Chancellery, the Defendant Martin
Bormann, and then, if we come to the level of the Reichsleiter, and go to the
left, opposite Rosenberg’s name, we find that somewhat below that his
name is repeated as the head of an office on a lower level, namely, the
Foreign Relations Office of the Party, which played such a sinister influence
in the early work of the Party, as will later appear in the documentary
evidence to be presented to Your Honors.
We then come to the late Defendant Ley’s name, on the main horizontal
division, and follow the dotted line to a lower level, and we will find he was
the chief of the German Labor Front, and if we come closer to the vertical
line, to a lower level, below the Reichsleitung, we find the Defendant Speer
in the Hauptamt für Technik (the Office of Technical Affairs), and below
that as the chief of the Bund Deutscher Technik (German Technological
League).
With the permission of the Tribunal, the Prosecution will now pass to
the consideration of the governmental machinery of the German State,
which, like the organization of the Nazi Party, requires some brief
observations before the Prosecution proceeds with the submission of proof

on the Common Plan of Conspiracy, with which the defendants have been
charged.
If the Tribunal will allow, the Prosecution will offer as its second
exhibit, another chart, delineating substantially the governmental structure
of the Reich Government as it existed in March 1945, and also the chief
Leadership Corps of the Reich Government and the Reich Administration
during those years. (Document Number 2905-PS, Exhibit USA-3)
This chart has been prepared by the Prosecution on the basis of
information contained in two official publications, Das Taschenbuch für
Verwaltungsbeamte, (the Manual for Administrative Officers) and the
National Sozialistisches Jahrbuch, to which I have already alluded, edited
by the Defendant Ley.
This chart has been examined, corrected, and certified by the Defendant
Wilhelm Frick, whose affidavit is submitted with the chart. In fact, it is
reproduced directly on the copies of the charts before Your Honors.
It seems plain that the Defendant Frick, a former Minister of Interior of
the Reich from January 1933 to August 1943, was well qualified, by reason
of his position and long service in public office during the National
Socialist regime, to certify to the substantial accuracy of the facts disclosed
in this chart.
Now, with the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to make some
brief comments on this chart.
First of all, we refer to the Reichsregierung, which is the big box in the
center of the chart on the vertical line, directly below Hitler. The
Reichsregierung is a word that may not be translated literally as
“government of the Reich.” The word “Reichsregierung” is a word of art
and is applied collectively to the ministers who composed the German
Cabinet.
The Reichsregierung has been named as a defendant in this proceeding,
and as used in the Indictment the expression “Reichsregierung” identifies a
group which, we will urge, should be declared to have been a criminal
organization.
This group includes all the men named in that center box, who were
members of the Cabinet after 30 January 1933, that is, Reich ministers with
and without portfolio, and all other officials entitled to participate in the
deliberations of the Cabinet.

Secondly, it includes members of the Counsel of Ministers for the
Defense of the Reich. It is called “Ministerrat für die Reichsverteidigung”,
which is the large box to the right of the vertical line.
Then, it includes the members of the Secret Cabinet Council, which is
the small box to the left of the vertical line, the Geheimer Kabinettsrat, of
which the Defendant Von Neurath was the President.
Unlike the Cabinets and Ministerial Councils in countries that were not
within the orbit of the Axis, the Reichsregierung, after 30 January, 1933
when Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the German Reich, did not remain
merely the executive branch of the Government. In short order it also came
to be possessed, and it exercised legislative, and other functions as well, in
the governmental system into which the German Government developed
while under the domination of the National Socialist Party.
It is proper to observe here that unlike such Party organizations as the
SA and SS, the Reichsregierung, before 1933, certainly, was not a body
created exclusively or even predominantly for the purpose of committing
illegal acts. The Reichsregierung was an instrument of government
provided for by the Weimar constitution. Under the Nazi regime, however,
the Reichsregierung gradually became a primary agent of the Party, with
functions formulated in accordance with the objectives and methods of the
Party itself. The Party to all intents and purposes, was intended to be a
Führerorden, an order of Führer, a pool of political leaders. And while the
Party was, in the words of a German law, “the bearer of the concept of the
German State,” it was not identical with the State.
Thus, in order to realize its ideological and political objectives and to
reach the German people, the Party had to avail itself of official state
channels.
The Reichsregierung, and such agencies and offices established by it,
were the chosen instruments, by means of which the Party policies were
converted into legislative and administrative acts, binding upon the German
people as a whole.
In order to accomplish this result, the Reichsregierung was thoroughly
remodelled by the Party. Some of the steps may be here recorded, by which
the coordination of Party and State machinery was assured in order to
impose the will of the Führer on the German people.
On January 30, 1933, the date that the Führer became Reich Chancellor,
there were few National Socialists that were Cabinet members. But, as the

power of the Party in the Reich grew, the Cabinet came to include an ever
increasing number of Nazis, until by January 1937 no non-Party member
remained in the Reichsregierung. New cabinet-posts were created and Nazis
appointed to them. Many of these cabinet members were also in the
Reichsleitung of the Party.
To give but a few examples:
The Defendant Rosenberg, whose name Your Honors will find in that
central box on the vertical line, the delegate of the Führer for Ideological
Training and Education of the Party, was a member of the Reichsregierung
in his capacity as Minister for the Occupied Eastern Areas, the
Reichsminister für die besetzten Ostgebiete.
And if Your Honors will follow me on the vertical line to the main
horizontal line and proceed to the very end, you will find a box marked
“Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories”, of which the head was the
Defendant Rosenberg.
The Defendant Frick, the leader of the National Socialist fraction in the
Reichstag, was also Minister of the Interior.
If Your Honors will follow me down to the main horizontal line and two
boxes over you will find the Ministry presided over by the Defendant Frick.
Goebbels, the Reichsleiter für Propaganda, also sat in the Cabinet as
Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda (Reichsminister für
Volksaufklärung und Propaganda). He is in the next box to the right from
the Ministry of the Interior.
After the 25th of July 1934 Party participation in the work of the
Cabinet was at all times achieved through the person of the Defendant
Rudolf Hess, the deputy of the Führer. By a decree of Hitler the Defendant
Hess was invested with the power to take part in the editing of legislative
bills with all the departments of the Reich. Later this power of the Führer’s
deputy was expanded to include all executive decisions and orders that were
published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, the official volume in which are
contained the decrees of the State. After Hess’s flight to England in 1941,
the Defendant Martin Bormann, as his successor, took over the same
functions, and in addition he was given the authority of a Reichsminister so
that he could sit in the Cabinet.
Now, another item of importance:
On the 30th of January 1937, four years after Hitler became Chancellor,
the Führer executed the acceptances into the Party of those last few Cabinet

members who still remained out of the Party. Only one Cabinet member had
the strength of character to reject membership in the Party. That was the
Minister of Transportation and Minister of Posts, Mr. Eltz-Rübenach. His
example was not followed by the Defendant Von Neurath. His example was
not followed by the Defendant Raeder. And if the Defendant Schacht was
not yet at that time a member of the Party, I might say that his example was
not followed by the Defendant Schacht.
The chart shows many other instances where Party members on the
highest, as well as subordinate levels, occupied corresponding or other
positions in the organization of the State. Take Hitler himself. The Führer of
the NSDAP was also the Chancellor of the Reich, with which office,
furthermore, the office of President of the Reich was joined and merged
after the death of President Von Hindenburg in 1934.
Take the Defendant Göring, the successor-designate of Hitler. As Führer
of the SA, he sat in the Cabinet as Air Minister (Luftfahrtminister) and he
also held many other important positions, including that of Commander-in-
Chief of the Luftwaffe (the German Air Force) and that of Delegate for the
Four Year Plan.
Himmler, the notorious head of the SS, the Reichsführer SS, was also
the chief of the German Police, reporting to the Defendant Frick. He
himself later became Minister of the Interior after the attempted
assassination of Hitler on June 20, 1944, which event also catapulted him
into the position of Commander-in-Chief of the German Reserve Army.
Now, at the extreme upper left of the chart is a small box that is labeled
“Reichstag” (the former German parliament).
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn for 10 minutes, and 10
minutes only.

[A recess was taken.]

MR. ALBRECHT: The Reichstag presents an anomaly in this picture.
Under the republic it had been the supreme law-making body of the Reich,
subject only to a limited check by the Reichsrat (the Council of the Reich),
by the President, and by the people themselves by way of initiative and
referendum.

Putting their opposition to all forms of Parliamentarianism into effect at
once, the Nazis proceeded to curtail the powers of the Reichstag, to
eliminate the Reichsrat, and to merge the Presidency with the Office of
Chancellor occupied by the Führer. By the Act of 24th of March 1933 the
Cabinet was given unlimited legislative powers, including the right to
deviate from the constitution. Subsequently, as I stated, the Reichsrat was
abolished, and with that act the residuum of the power to legislate in the
Reichstag was reduced to a minimum. I say the power was reduced to a
minimum because the actual power to legislate was never taken away from
the Reichstag, but certainly after the advent of the Party to power it was
never permitted to exercise as a legislature.
The Reichsregierung retained its legislative powers throughout, even
though from time to time other agencies of the Reichsregierung, such as the
Plenipotentiary for Administration, in the upper right of the chart, (the
Generalbevollmächtigter für die Reichsverwaltung), the Plenipotentiary for
Economy, also in the right-hand corner of the chart, (the
Generalbevollmächtigter für die Wirtschaft), and the Council of Ministers
for the Defense of the Reich, were created. That is the big box to the right
of the vertical line. And these agencies of the Reichsregierung received
certain concurrent legislative powers.
The development of the Reichstag into an emasculated legislative body
was, however, only an intermediate step on the road to rule by Führer
decrees. That was the ultimate goal of the Party, and a goal which they
achieved.
The Nazis then proceeded to delegate some of the powers of the Reich
Cabinet to all sorts of newly created agencies, some of which I have already
mentioned. Cabinet functions were delegated first of all to the Reich
Defense Council, the Reichsverteidigungsrat, possibly as early as the 4th of
April 1933, but we believe certainly not later than 1935. I might say in this
connection that with respect to a number of these agencies of the
Reichsregierung which received delegated powers, we are moving in a
somewhat shadowy land, because in developing this organization we are
dealing—to some extent, at least—with decrees and actions that were
secret, or secretive, in character.
A number of these decrees were never definitely fixed in time. A
number of them were never published and the German people themselves
never became acquainted with them. And that is why I say that the Reich

Defense Council may possibly have been created as early as two and one-
half months after the advent of Hitler to power but we believe that we will
be able to show to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that that important body
in the Government of the Reich was created certainly not later than May
1935.
I say it is an important body. This was the war-planning group, of which
Hitler himself was chairman and the Defendant Göring the alternate. It was
a large war-planning body, as Your Honors will note, that included many
Cabinet members, and there was also a working committee—the true
numerical size of which does not appear from the chart—which was
presided over by the Defendant Keitel. That also was composed of Cabinet
members and of Reich defense officials, the majority of whom were
appointed by Cabinet officers and subject to their control. Other powers
were delegated to the Plenipotentiary, whom I have named before, for
Administration, appearing at the extreme right of the chart. That was the
Defendant Frick, and later the notorious Himmler.
Subordinate to Frick in his capacity as Plenipotentiary for
Administration were complete ministries, the Ministry of the Interior
(Frick’s old ministry), Ministry of Justice, Education, Church Affairs, and
Raumordnung (the Ministry for Special Planning).
Other powers went to the delegate for the Four Year Plan, again the
Defendant Göring, whose box appears to the left of the median line, half
way to the edge.
There were certain other powers that went to an organization within the
shadow-land I mentioned, and which, unfortunately, does not have its name
appear on this chart, the Dreierkollegium (the College of Three), which title
should really be imposed over the last three boxes in the upper right hand
corner; because the Dreierkollegium consisted not alone of the
Plenipotentiary for Administration, but also the Plenipotentiary for War
Economy, and the chairman of that group who, I believe, was the Defendant
Keitel, as the head of the OKW, the Wehrmacht, all the armed forces. The
duties of the Dreierkollegium would seem to have included the drafting of
decrees in preparation of and for use during war. To the Secret Cabinet
Council, the Geheimer Kabinettsrat, of which the Defendant Von Neurath
was chairman,—or President, I believe was his title, went other powers.
That Secret Cabinet Council was created by a decree of the Führer in 1938.

Certain other delegation of power took place to the Ministerrat für die
Reichsverteidigung (the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Realm),
which is the smallest box appearing under the large box of the Reich
Defense Council, to the right of the vertical line.
The Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich was responsible
to the Führer alone. Its membership, as would seem to be indicated on the
chart, was taken from the Reich Defense Council. It had broad powers to
issue decrees with the force of law in so far as the Reichsregierung itself
had not legislated on the subject.
It should be stressed that this delegation of Cabinet functions to various
groups, composed largely of its own members, helped to conceal some of
the important policies of the Reichsregierung, namely, those relating to the
preparation of war, which delegated the necessary authority to secret and
semi-secret agencies. Thus in a general way, as I have outlined, did the
National Socialist Party succeed in putting Nazi policies into effect through
its dummy, through the machinery of the State, the Reichsregierung, in its
revised form.
I think it might be helpful if Your Honors will permit me to point out on
this chart the large number of instances in which the defendants’ names
reappear in connection with the functions of the Government of the Reich.
Now, first of all, the Reichsregierung itself—I am sorry to say in that
connection that there is one omission, a very important omission. It is the
name of the Vice Chancellor under Hitler, Von Papen, who was Vice
Chancellor from the seizure of power until some time around the purge in
June 1934.
Your Honors will see a grouping of Reich Ministers with portfolio, and
under it of Ministers without portfolio, in which mostly the names of the
defendants in court are listed. There are State Ministers listed acting as
Reich Ministers, and you will note the name of the Defendant Frank. There
are other participants in Cabinet meetings, among which you will notice the
name of the Defendant Von Schirach.
Now, this whole line on which the Cabinet hangs is the level of the
Reich Cabinet, and as I have stated, organizations that grew out of this
maternal organism, the Reichsregierung.
To the left the Secret Cabinet Council includes the names of the
defendants. Still further to the left is the delegate for the Four Year Plan.
And over to the very end is the Reichstag, of which the President was the

Defendant Göring, and the leader of the Reichstagsfraktion, the Defendant
Frick.
If we proceed to the right of the median line, we have the Reich Defense
Council, with Hitler himself as chairman, the Reich Defense Committee
under it, and the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Realm, which
grew out of the Reich Defense Council. And we see mostly the names of
Cabinet ministers, including, if I may advert to that fact, particularly the
names of purely military leaders, such as the Defendant Raeder and the
Defendant Keitel.
And farther to the right, all names mentioned as defendants in these
proceedings, Schacht, the first Plenipotentiary for War Economy, later
succeeded by Funk; Field Marshal Keitel as the Chief of the OKW, and the
Defendant Frick again as Plenipotentiary for Administration, in the triangle
which became known as the “Dreierkollegium.”
If we descend the vertical line to the horizontal line in the middle, we
have the various ministries over which these Cabinet ministers, this
Reichsregierung, presided. We have also at the extreme left and the extreme
right, very important and special offices that were set up at the instigation of
the Party, and those offices reported directly to the Führer himself.
If I may start at the extreme left, I will point out that as the civil
government moved after the military machine into the lowlands, the
Defendant Seyss-Inquart became the Reichskommissar for the Netherlands.
A few names below that of Seyss-Inquart is the name of the Defendant
Von Neurath, the Reichsprotektor for Bohemia and Moravia, who was later
succeeded by the Defendant Frick; and under those names, the name of the
Defendant Frank, the General-gouverneur of Poland.
Adjoining the box of these administrators who reported directly to the
Reich Chancellor and President was the Foreign Office, presided over first
by the Defendant Von Neurath, and subsequently by the Defendant Von
Ribbentrop.
If we proceed down below the elongation under the smaller box dealing
with German legations, there should, of course, in any itemized, detailed
treatment of that box appear the name of the Defendant Von Papen, the
representative of the Reich in Austria for a time, and later in Turkey.
The next box on the horizontal line is the Ministry of Economics, (the
Reichswirtschaftsministerium). First is the name of the Defendant Schacht,

followed by the name of the Defendant Göring, and by the name of the
Defendant Funk.
The next box, the Ministry for Armament and War Production (the
Reichsministerium für Rüstung und Kriegsproduktion), was presided over
by the Defendant Speer. And out of this organization, and subordinate to it,
in the box devoted to the Organization Todt, again the name of the
Defendant Speer, who succeeded Todt to the leadership of that organization
upon the death of Todt.
Two boxes over, the Ministry of Justice, if Your Honors will follow me,
down close to the bottom of the page to the last left-hand box, appearing
under the Ministry of Justice, is the Reichsrechtsanwaltskammer—I am
sorry, the box next to the bottom at the left which is devoted to the
Academy for German Law (Die Akademie für deutsches Recht), over which
the Defendant Frank presided for a time.
Almost at the vertical line, the Air Ministry, of which the Defendant
Göring was Oberkommandant; and next to it again the Ministry of the
Interior, presided over by the Defendant Frick.
If Your Honors will follow me again to the bottom of all the squares to
the small horizontal line at the bottom of the Ministry of the Interior, we
come to certain state officials, called “Reich Governors” (Reichsstatthalter).
And if those boxes were sufficiently detailed there would appear thereon
the names, among others, of the Defendant Sauckel, who besides being the
Gauleiter of Thuringia, was also the Reichsstatthalter or Governor there.
There would also appear the name of the Defendant Von Schirach, who was
not only the Gauleiter of Vienna, but also the State representative there—
the Governor—the Reichsstatthalter of Vienna.
And springing out of the Ministry of the Interior is the box or boxes
devoted to the German police, and in the first sub-division appearing to the
right, the Chief of the Security Police and SD, the name of the Defendant
Kaltenbrunner.
In the Ministry of Propaganda, about midway down in this box, appears
the name of the Defendant Fritzsche, who, although as the chart is drawn,
would not appear in the position of one of the chief directing heads of the
Ministry, actually was very much more important than his position there
will indicate; and proof will be submitted to Your Honors in support of that
contention.

At the end of the horizontal line is the Ministry for the Occupied
Eastern Territories (the Reichsministerium für die Besetzten Ostgebiete) of
which the Defendant Rosenberg was the head.
And to the right of that box, among the agencies immediately
subordinate to Hitler as Reichskanzler and President, there is the office of
General Inspector for Highways, with the name of the Defendant Speer
associated with it; the General Inspector for Water and Energy, again with
the name of the Defendant Speer associated with it.
There follows the Reich Office for Forestry (the Reichsforstamt) under
the Defendant Göring; the Reichsjugendführer (the leader of the Reich
Youth), the Defendant Von Schirach; the Reich Housing Commissioner
(Reichswohnungskommissar), the late Defendant Robert Ley; and among
the subsequent agencies, that of the important Reichsbank, over which the
Defendant Schacht presided, to be succeeded subsequently by the
Defendant Funk; the General Inspector for the Reich Capital
(Generalbauinspekteur für die Reichshauptstadt), the Defendant Speer.
I think I have named all of the defendants as they appear on this chart,
and of those now before Your Honors in this cause I think they all appear on
this chart in one capacity or another, in one or more capacities,—all, I might
add, except the Defendant Jodl. Jodl was the Chief of Staff of all the Armed
Forces. He was the head of the Wehrmacht Führungsstab, and in the chart as
evidential material which will be subsequently brought before Your Honors,
the name Jodl will figure prominently in connection with the organization
of the Armed Forces.
If I may make one correction at this point, a slip of the tongue that was
called to my attention, in discussing the chart of the Party, in the small box
to the left containing the designates of the Führer to succeed him to the
Party leadership, I made the statement that Göring succeeded Hess as
Führer-designate. Actually, when the designations were announced by the
Führer, Göring was always the first designate, and the Defendant Hess the
second.
In Annex A of the Indictment the various offices, Party functions, and
State offices which these defendants held in the course of the period under
discussion, these various offices are mentioned. And we would like to
submit at this time and offer into evidence as exhibits proof of the offices
that were occupied by these defendants. This proof consists of 17
statements, more or less, signed by the defendants themselves and/or their

counsel, certifying to the Party and State offices that they have held from
time to time. Some of these statements were not as complete as we desired
to have them, and we have appended thereto a statement showing such
additional offices or proof of Party membership as was available to us. I
would like to offer those into evidence.
MR. ALBRECHT: And now, if Your Honors please, I offer into
evidence the two charts to which my remarks have been addressed in the
course of the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel for the United States continue the
evidence until half past 12?
COL. STOREY: If Your Honor please, it lacks 2 minutes until half past
12. Mr. Albrecht has finished, and will it be convenient for Your Honors for
Major Wallis to start at 2 o’clock?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]

Afternoon Session
COL. STOREY: If the Tribunal please, Major Frank Wallis will now
present the briefs and documents supporting the briefs in behalf of the
phase of the case known as the Common Plan or Conspiracy, up through
1939.
Major Wallis.
MAJOR FRANK B. WALLIS (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United
States): Mr. President, members of the Tribunal:
It will be my purpose to establish most of the material allegations of the
Indictment running from Paragraph IV on Page 3, to Subparagraph E on
Page 6. The subjects involved are:
The aims of the Nazi Party, their doctrinal techniques, their rise to
power, and the consolidation of control over Germany between 1933 and
1939 in preparation for aggressive war.
This story has already been sketched by the American Chief Prosecutor.
Moreover, it is history, beyond challenge by the defendants. For the most
part, we rely upon the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. What we offer is
merely illustrative material—including statements by the defendants and
other Nazi leaders—laws, decrees, and the like. We do not need to rest upon
captured documents or other special sources, although some have been
used.
For the convenience of the court and Defense counsel, the illustrative
material has been put together in document books, and the arguments
derived from them have been set out in trial briefs.
I intend only to comment briefly on some of the materials and to
summarize the main lines of the briefs.
What is the charge in Count One?
The charge in Count One is that the defendants, with divers other
persons, participated in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or
Conspiracy to commit, or which involved the commission of Crimes against
Humanity (both within and without Germany), War Crimes, and Crimes
against Peace.
The charge is, further, that the instrument of cohesion among the
defendants, as well as an instrument for the execution of the purposes of the

conspiracy, was the Nazi Party, of which each defendant was a member or
to which he became an adherent.
The scope of the proof which I shall offer is:
First, that the Nazi Party set for itself certain aims and objectives,
involving basically the acquisition of “Lebensraum”, or living space, for all
“racial” Germans.
Second, that it was committed to the use of any methods, whether or not
legal, in attaining these objectives, and that it did in fact use illegal
methods.
Third, that it put forward and disseminated various lines of propaganda,
and used various propaganda techniques to assist it in its unprincipled rise
to power.
Fourth, that it ultimately did seize all governmental power in Germany.
Fifth, that it used this power to complete the political conquest of the
State, to crush all opposition, and to prepare the nation psychologically and
otherwise for the foreign aggression upon which it was bent from the outset.
In general we undertake to outline, so far as relevant to the charge, what
happened in Germany during the pre-war period, leaving it to others to
carry the story and proof through the war years.
The aims of this conspiracy were open and notorious. It was far
different from any other conspiracy ever unfolded before a court of justice,
not only because of the gigantic number of people involved, the period of
time covered, the magnitude and audacity of it, but because, unlike other
criminal conspirators, these conspirators often boastfully proclaimed to the
world what they planned to do, before they did it.
As an illustration, Hitler, in his speech of 30 January 1941, said:
“My program was to abolish the Versailles Treaty. It is futile
nonsense for the rest of the world to pretend today that I did not
reveal this program until 1933 or 1935 or 1937. Instead of
listening to the foolish chatter of emigres, these gentlemen would
have been wiser to read what I have written thousands of times.
No human being has declared or recorded what he wanted more
than I. Again and again I wrote these words, ‘The abolition of the
Treaty of Versailles’.”
First, a brief reference to the history of the Nazi Party.

The Court will no doubt recollect that the National Socialist Party had
its origin in the German Labor Party, which was founded on 5 January 1919
in Munich. It was this organization which Hitler joined as seventh member
on 12 September 1919. At a meeting of the German Labor Party held on 24
February 1920, Hitler announced to the world the “25 Theses” that
subsequently became known as the “unalterable” program of the National
Socialist German Workers Party.
A few days later, on 4 March 1920, the name of the German Labor Party
was changed to the “National Socialist German Workers Party,” frequently
referred to as the NSDAP, or Nazi Party. It is under that name that the Nazi
Party continued to exist until its dissolution after the collapse and
unconditional surrender of Germany in 1945.
The disagreements and intrigues within the Party between Hitler’s
followers and those who opposed him were finally resolved on 29 July
1921, when Hitler became “First Chairman” and was invested with
extraordinary powers. Hitler immediately reorganized the Party and
imposed upon it the Führerprinzip—the leadership principle—of which you
will hear more later. Thereafter Hitler, the Führer, determined all questions
and made all decisions for the Party.
The main objectives of the Party, which are fastened upon the
defendants and their co-conspirators by reason of their membership in, or
knowing adherence to the Party, were openly and notoriously avowed. They
were set out in the Party program of 1920, were publicized in Mein Kampf
and in Nazi literature generally, and were obvious from the continuous
pattern of public action of the Party from the date of its founding.
Now two consequences, of importance in the Trial of this case, derive
from the fact that the major objectives of the Party were publicly and
repeatedly proclaimed:
First, the Court may take judicial notice of them.
Second, the defendants and their co-conspirators cannot be heard to
deny them or to assert that they were ignorant of them.
The Prosecution offers proof of the major objectives of the Party—and
hence of the objectives of the conspiracy—only to refresh or implement
judicial recollection. The main objectives were:
First, to overthrow the Treaty of Versailles and its restrictions on
military armament and activity in Germany;
Second, to acquire territories lost by Germany in World War I;

Third, to acquire other territories inhabited by so-called “racial
Germans”;
and
Fourth, to acquire still further territories said to be needed as living
space by the racial Germans so incorporated—all at the expense of
neighboring and other countries.
In speaking of the first aim, Hitler made an admission which applied
equally to the other aims, namely, that he had stated and written a thousand
times or more that he demanded the abolition of the Versailles Treaty.
These aims are fully documented in the evidence offered by the
Prosecution on this phase of the case, and it is not my purpose at this time
to recite to the Court numerous declarations made by the defendants and
others with respect to these aims.
Moreover, these conspirators again and again publicly announced to the
still unbelieving world that they proposed to accomplish these objectives by
any means found opportune, including illegal means and resort to threat of
force, force, and aggressive war. The use of force was distinctly sanctioned,
in fact guaranteed, by official statements and directives of the conspirators
which made activism and aggressiveness a political quality obligatory for
Party members. As Hitler stated in Mein Kampf:
“What we needed and still need are not a hundred or two hundred
reckless conspirators, but a hundred thousand and a second
hundred thousand fighters for our philosophy of life.”
In 1929 Hitler stated:
“We confess further that we will tear anyone to pieces who would
dare hinder us in this undertaking. Our rights will be protected
only when the German Reich is again supported by the point of
the German dagger.”
Hitler, in 1934, addressing the Party Congress at Nuremberg, stated the
duties of Party members in the following terms:
“Only a part of the people will consist of really active fighters. It
is they who were fighters of the National Socialist revolution. Of
them, more is demanded than of the millions among the rest of
the population. For them it is not sufficient to confess, ‘I believe’,
but to swear, ‘I fight’.”

In proof of the fact that the Party was committed to the use of any
means, whether or not legal or honorable, it is only necessary to remind the
Court that the Party virtually opened its public career by staging a
revolution—the Munich Putsch of 1923.
Now let us consider for a moment the doctrinal techniques of the
Common Plan or Conspiracy which are alleged in the Indictment.
To incite others to join in the Common Plan, or Conspiracy and as a
means of securing for the Nazi conspirators the highest degree of control
over the German community, they disseminated and exploited certain
doctrines.
The first of these was the “master race” doctrine—that persons of so-
called “German blood” were a master race. This doctrine of racial
supremacy was incorporated as Point 4 in the Party program, which
provided:
“Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the
race can only be one who is of German blood without
consideration of confession. Consequently, no Jew can be a
member of the race.”
They outlined this master race doctrine as a new religion—the faith of
the blood—superseding in individual allegiance all other religions and
institutions. The Defendant Rosenberg and the Defendant Streicher were
particularly prominent in disseminating this doctrine. Much of the evidence
to be offered in this case will illustrate the Nazi conspirators’ continued
espousal and exploitation of this master race doctrine.
This doctrine had an eliminatory purpose. Call anything “non-German”
or Jewish, and you have a clear right, indeed a duty, to cast it out. In fact
purges did not stop at so-called racial lines, but went far beyond.
The second important doctrine which permeates the entire conspiracy
and is one of the important links in establishing the guilt of each of these
defendants is the doctrine or concept of the Führerprinzip, or leadership
principle.
This doctrine permeated the Nazi Party and all its formations and allied
organizations and eventually permeated the Nazi State and all institutions,
and is of such importance that I would like to dwell upon it for a few
moments and attempt to explain the concepts which it embraces.
The Führerprinzip embodies two major political concepts:

1. Authoritarianism;
2. Totalitarianism.
Authoritarianism implies the following: All authority is concentrated at
the top and is vested in one person only, the Führer. It further implies that
the Führer is infallible as well as omnipotent. The Party manual states:
“Under the Commandments of the National Socialists: The Führer is
always right. . . .”
Also, there are no legal or political limits to the authority of the Führer.
Whatever authority is wielded by others is derived from the authority of the
Führer. Moreover, within the sphere of jurisdiction allotted to him, each
appointee of the Führer manipulates his power in equally unrestricted
fashion, subordinate only to the command of those above him. Each
appointee owes unconditional obedience to the Führer and to the superior
Party leaders in the hierarchy.
Each Political Leader was sworn in yearly. According to the Party
manual, which will be introduced in evidence, the wording of the oath was
as follows:
“I pledge eternal allegiance to Adolf Hitler. I pledge
unconditional obedience to him and the Führer appointed by
him.”
The Party manual also provides that:
“The Political Leader is inseparably tied to the ideology and the
organization of the NSDAP. His oath only ends with his death or
with his expulsion from the National Socialist Community.”
As the Defendant Hans Frank stated in one of his publications:
“Leadership principle in the administration means:
“Always to replace decision by majority, by decision on the part
of a specific person with clear jurisdiction and with sole
responsibility to those above, and to entrust to his authority the
realization of the decision to those below.”
And finally the concept of authoritarianism contained in the
Führerprinzip implies: The authority of the Führer extends into all spheres
of public and private life.

The second main concept of the Führerprinzip is totalitarianism which
implies the following:
The authority of the Führer, his appointees, and through them, of the
Party as a whole, extends into all spheres of public and private life.
The Party dominates the State.
The Party dominates the Armed Forces.
The Party dominates all individuals within the State.
The Party eliminates all institutions, groups, and individuals unwilling
to accept the leadership of its Führer.
As the Party manual states:
“Only those organizations can lay claim to the institution of the
leadership principle and to the National Socialist meaning of the
State and people in the National Socialist meaning of the term,
which . . . have been integrated into, supervised and formed by
the Party and which, in the future, will continue to do so.”
The manual goes on to state:
“All others which conduct an organizational life of their own are
to be rejected as outsiders and will either have to adjust
themselves or disappear from public life.”
Illustrations of the Führerprinzip and its application to the Party, the
State and allied organizations are fully set forth in the brief and
accompanying documents, which will be offered in evidence.
The third doctrine or technique employed by the Nazi conspirators to
make the German people amenable to their will and aims was the doctrine
that war was a noble and necessary activity of Germans. The purpose of this
doctrine was well expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf when he said:
“The question of restoration of German power is not a question of
how to fabricate arms, but a question of how to create the spirit
which makes a people capable of bearing arms. If this spirit
dominates a people, the will finds a thousand ways to secure
weapons.”
Hitler’s writings and public utterances are replete with declarations
rationalizing the use of force and glorifying war. The following is typical,
when he said:

“Always before God and the world, the stronger has the right to
carry through his will. History proves it! He who has no might
has no use for right.”
As will be shown in subsequent proof, this doctrine of the glorification
of war played a major part in the education of the German youth of the pre-
war era.
I now offer the documents which establish the aims of the Nazi Party
and their doctrinal techniques. I also have for the assistance of the Court
and Defense Counsel, briefs which make the argument from these
documents.
I now direct your attention to the rise to power of the Nazi Party.
The first attempt to acquire political control was by force. In fact at no
time during this period did the Party participate in any electoral campaigns,
nor did it see fit to collaborate with other political. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Major Wallis, have you got copies of these for
defendants’ counsel?
MAJOR WALLIS: In Room 54, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, they will be wanting to follow them now.
MAJOR WALLIS: Mr. President, my remarks, which I am proceeding
toward, will cover an entirely different subject than in the briefs before you.
The briefs cover what I have already said, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you depositing a copy of these briefs for each
of the defendants’ counsel?
MAJOR WALLIS: I am informed, if Your Honor pleases, that the same
procedure has been followed with respect to these briefs as has been
followed with respect to the documents, namely, a total of six has been
made available to the defendants in Room 54. If Your Honor does not deem
that number sufficient, I feel sure that I can give assurance, on behalf of the
Chief Prosecutor of the United States, that before the close of the day an
ample supply of copies will be there for use.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that the Defense Counsel
should each have a copy of these briefs.
MAJOR WALLIS: That will be done, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Members of the Defense Counsel: You will
understand that I have directed on behalf of the Tribunal that you should
each have a copy of this brief.

DR. DIX: We are very grateful for this directive, but none of us has seen
any of these documents so far. I assume and hope that these documents will
be given to the Defense in the German translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Major Wallis.
MAJOR WALLIS: I now direct your attention to the rise to power of the
Nazi Party.
The 9th of November 1923 warranted the end as well as the beginning
of an era. On the 9th of November occurred the historical fact popularly
known as the Hitler Putsch. During the night of November 8th to 9th Hitler,
supported by the SA under the Defendant Göring, at a meeting in Munich,
proclaimed the National Revolution and his dictatorship of Germany, and
announced himself as the Chancellor of the Reich. On the following
morning the duly constituted authorities of the State, after some bloodshed
in Munich, put an end to this illegal attempt to seize the Government. Hitler
and some of his followers were arrested and tried, and sentenced to
imprisonment.
The new era in the National Socialist movement commences with
Hitler’s parole from prison in December 1924. With the return of its leader,
the Party took up its fight for power once again. The prohibitions invoked
by the Government against the Nazi Party at the time of the Munich Putsch
gradually were removed and Hitler the Führer of the Party, formally
announced that in seeking to achieve its aims to overthrow the Weimar
Government, the Party would resort only to “legal” means. A valid
inference from these facts may well be suggested, namely that the Party’s
resort to “legality” was in reality only a condition on which it was permitted
to carry on its activities in a democratically organized state. But consistent
with its professed resort to “legality”, the Party now participated in the
popular elections of the German people and generally took part in political
activity. At the same time it engaged in feverish activity to expand the Party
membership, its organizational structure and activities. The SA and the SS
recruited numerous new members. Hitler’s Mein Kampf appeared in 1925.
The Hitler Youth was founded. Newspapers were published, among them
the Völkischer Beobachter of which the Defendant Rosenberg was editor,
and Der Angriff published by Goebbels, later the notorious Minister of
Propaganda and Public Enlightenment. Meetings of other political parties
were interfered with and broken up, and there was much street brawling.

The results of the Party’s attempt to win political power made little
headway for a number of years, despite the strenuous efforts exerted to that
end. In 30 elections in which the National Socialists participated from 1925
to 1930 for seats in the Reichstag and in the Landtage or Provincial Diets of
the various German states, the Nazis received mandates in but 16 and
gained no seats at all in 14 elections. The National Socialist vote in the
1927 elections did not exceed 4 per cent of the total number of votes cast.
The year 1929 marks the first modest success at the polls in the State of
Thuringia. The Nazi received over 11 per cent of the popular vote, elected 6
representatives out of the total of 53 to the Diet, and the Defendant Frick
became Minister of Interior of Thuringia, the first National Socialist chosen
to ministerial rank.
With such encouragement and proof of the success of its methods to win
support, the Nazi Party redoubled its traditional efforts (by means of terror
and coercion). These met with some rebuff on the part of the Reich and
various German states. Prussia required its civil servants to terminate their
membership in the Party and forbade the wearing of brown shirts, which
were worn by the SA of the Party. Baden likewise ruled against the wearing
of brown shirts, and Bavaria prohibited the wearing of uniforms by political
organizations. New National Socialist writings appeared in Germany. The
new National Socialist Monthly appeared under the editorship of the
Defendant Rosenberg, and shortly thereafter, in June 1930, Rosenberg’s
Myth of the 20th Century was published.
Against this background—President Von Hindenburg having meanwhile
dissolved the Reichstag when Chancellor Brüning failed to obtain a vote of
confidence—Germany moved to the polls once more on the 14th September
1930. By this election their representation in the Reichstag was increased
from 12 seats to 107 seats out of a total of 577.
The new Reichstag met and 107 Nazis marched into the session dressed
in brown shirts. Rowdy opposition at once developed, intent on causing the
fall of the Brüning Cabinet. Taking advantage of the issues caused by the
then prevailing general economic distress, the Nazis sought a vote of non-
confidence and dissolution of the Reichstag. Failing in these obstructionary
tactics, the Nazis walked out on the Reichstag.
With 107 members in the Reichstag the Nazi propaganda increased in
violence. The obstruction by the Nazi deputies of the Reichstag continued
with the same pattern of conduct. Repeatedly motions of non-confidence in

Brüning and for dissolution of the Reichstag were offered and were lost.
And after every failure the Nazi members stalked out of the chamber anew.
By spring of 1932, Brüning’s position became untenable and the
Defendant Von Papen was appointed Chancellor. The Reichstag was
dissolved and new elections held in which the Nazis increased the number
of their seats to 230 out of a total of 608. The Nazi Party was becoming a
strong party in Germany, but it had failed to become the majority party. The
obstructive tactics of the Nazi deputies in the Reichstag continued, and by
the fall of 1932 Von Papen’s Government was no longer able to continue.
President Von Hindenburg again dissolved the Reichstag, and in the new
elections of November the Nazi representation in the Reichstag actually
decreased to 196 seats. The short-lived Von Schleicher Government then
came into being—it was the 3rd December 1932—and by the end of
January 1933 it went out of existence. With the support of the Nationalist
Party under Hugenberg and other political assistance, Hitler became
Chancellor of Germany by designation of Von Hindenburg.
That is the end of the prologue, as it were, to the dramatic and sinister
story that will be developed by the Prosecution in the course of this Trial.
Let it be noted here, however, and remembered, as the story of the misdeeds
and crimes of these defendants and their fellow conspirators are exposed,
that at no time in the course of their alleged “legal” efforts to gain
possession of the State, did the conspirators represent a majority of the
people.
Now it is commonly said that the Nazi conspirators “seized control”
when Hitler became Chancellor of the German Republic on 30 January
1933. It may be more truly said that they seized control upon securing the
passage of the Law for the Protection of the People and the State on 24
March 1933. The steps leading to this actual seizure of power are worthy of
recital. The Nazi conspirators were fully cognizant of their lack of control
over the legislative powers of the republic. They needed, if they were to
carry out the first steps of their grand conspiracy under the cloak of law, an
enabling act which, would vest supreme legislative power in Hitler’s
Cabinet, free from all restraints of the Weimar constitution. Such an
enabling act however required a change in the constitution which, in turn,
required two-thirds of the regular members of the Reichstag to be present,
and at least two-thirds of the votes of those present.

The time-table of events leading up to the passage of this enabling act,
known as the Law for the Protection of the People and the State, is as
follows:
1. On January 30th, 1933 Hitler held his first Cabinet meeting and we
have the original minutes of that meeting, which will be offered in
evidence. The Defendants Von Papen, Von Neurath, Frick, Göring, and
Funk were present. According to the minutes of this meeting, Hitler pointed
out that the adjournment of the Reichstag would be impossible without the
collaboration of the Center Party. He went on to say:
“We might, however, consider suppressing the Communist Party
to eliminate its votes in the Reichstag and by this measure achieve
a majority in the Reichstag.”
He expressed the fear, however, that this might result in a general strike.
The Reich Minister of Economy, according to these official minutes, stated
that in his opinion, it was impossible to avoid the suppression of the
Communist Party of Germany, for, if that were not done they could not
achieve a majority in the Reichstag, certainly not a majority of two-thirds;
that, after the suppression of the Communist Party, the passage of an
enabling act through the Reichstag would be possible. The Defendant Frick
suggested that it would be best initially to request an enabling law from the
Reichstag. At this meeting Hitler agreed to contact representatives of the
Center Party the next morning to see what could be done by way of making
a deal with them.
2. The next event in this time-table was the Reichstag fire on the 28th of
February 1933.
3. Taking advantage of the uncertainty and unrest created by the
Reichstag fire, and the disturbances being created by the SA, the provisions
of the Weimar constitution guaranteeing personal freedom, and other
personal liberties were suspended by a decree of the Reich President on
February 28, 1933.
Then on 5th of March 1933, elections to the Reichstag were held. The
Nazis acquired 288 seats out of a total of 647.
On the 15th of March 1933, another meeting of the Reich Cabinet was
held, and we also have the original official minutes of that meeting which
bears the initials, opposite their names, of the defendants who were present
at that meeting, signifying that they have read—I contend that it is a

reasonable inference to state that it signifies that they read these minutes
and approved them. The following defendants were present at this meeting:
Von Papen, Von Neurath, Frick, Göring, and Funk. At this meeting,
according to these official minutes Hitler stated that the putting over of the
enabling act in the Reichstag by a two-thirds vote would, in his opinion,
meet with no opposition. The Defendant Frick pointed out that the
Reichstag had to ratify the enabling act with a constitutional majority within
three days, and that the Center Party had not expressed itself negatively. He
went on to say that the enabling act would have to be broadly conceived in
a manner to allow for deviation from the provisions of the Constitution of
the Reich. He further stated that as far as the constitutional requirements of
a two-thirds majority was concerned, a total of 432 delegates would have to
be present for the ratification of the enabling act. The Defendant Göring
expressed his conviction at this meeting that the enabling act would be
ratified with the required two-thirds vote for, if necessary, the majority
could be obtained by refusing admittance to the Reichstag of some Social
Democrats.
Now on the 20th of March another Cabinet meeting was held, and we
also have the official, original records of this meeting which will be offered
in evidence. The Defendants Frick, Von Papen, Von Neurath, Göring, and
Funk were present. The proposed enabling act was again the subject of a
discussion. Hitler reported on the conference he had completed with the
representatives of the Center Party. The Defendant Neurath proposed a note
concerning the arrangement to be agreed to by the representatives of the
Center Party. The Defendant Frick expounded to the meeting the contents of
the draft of the proposed law, and further stated that changes in the standing
orders or rules of the Reichstag were also necessary, that an explicit rule
must be made that unexcused absent delegates be considered present, and if
that was done it would probably be possible to ratify the enabling act on the
following Thursday in all three readings.
It is interesting to note that among the things recorded in the official
minutes of this Cabinet meeting was the Defendant Göring’s announcement
that he had ordered SA troops on the Polish border to be cautious and not to
show themselves in uniform, and that the Defendant Neurath recommended
also that the SA be cautious, especially in Danzig. In addition, the
Defendant Neurath pointed out that Communists in SA uniforms were being
caught continuously. These stool pigeons had to be hanged. Justice had to