Summation for the Prosecution by Justice
Robert
Jackson
[July 26, 1946]
THE PRESIDENT: I call on the chief prosecutor, the
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendant Hess is absent.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief of Counsel for the
It is common to think of our own time as standing at the apex of
civilization, from which the deficiencies of preceding ages may
patronizingly
be viewed in the light of what is assumed to be "progress." The
reality is that in the long perspective of history the present century
will not
hold an admirable position, unless its second half is to redeem its
first. These
two-score years in the twentieth century will be recorded in the book
of years
as one of the most bloody in all annals. Two World Wars have left a
legacy of
dead which number more than all the armies engaged in any way that made
ancient
or medieval history. No half-century ever witnessed slaughter on such a
scale,
such cruelties and inhumanities, such wholesale deportations of peoples
into
slavery, such annihilations of minorities. The terror of Torquemada
pales
before the Nazi Inquisition. These deeds are the overshadowing
historical facts
by which generations to come will remember this decade. If we cannot
eliminate
the causes and prevent the repetition of these barbaric events, it is
not an
irresponsible prophecy to say that this twentieth century may yet
succeed in
bringing the doom of civilization.
Goaded by these facts, we were moved to redress the blight on the
record of
our era. The defendants complain that our pace is too fast. In drawing
the
Charter of this Tribunal, we thought we were recording an accomplished
advance
in international law. But they say we have outrun our times, that we
have
anticipated an advance that should be, but has not yet been made. The
Agreement
of London, whether it originates or merely records, at all events marks
a
transition in international law which roughly corresponds to that in
the
evolution of local law when men ceased to punish crime by "hue and
cry" and began to let reason and inquiry govern punishment. The society
of
nations has emerged from the primitive "hue and cry," the law of
"catch and kill." It seeks to apply sanctions to enforce
international law, but to guide their application by evidence, law, and
reason
instead of outcry. The defendants denounce the law under which their
accounting
is asked. Their dislike for the law which condemns them is not
original. It has
been remarked before that: "No thief e'er felt the halter draw with
good
opinion of the law."
I shall not labor the law of this case. The position of the
In interpreting the Charter, however, we should not overlook the
unique and
emergent character of this body as an International Military Tribunal.
It is no
part of the constitutional mechanism of internal justice of any of the
signatory nations.
Of one thing we may be sure. The future will never have to ask, with
misgiving, what could the Nazis have said in their favor. History will
know
that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. They have been
given the
kind of a Trial which they, in the days of their pomp and power, never
gave to
any man.
But fairness is not weakness. The extraordinary fairness of these
hearings
is an attribute of our strength. The Prosecution's case, at its close,
seemed
inherently unassailable because it rested so heavily on German
documents of
unquestioned authenticity. But it was the weeks upon weeks of pecking
at this
case, by one after another of the defendants, that has demonstrated its
true
strength. The fact is that the testimony of the defendants has removed
any
doubt of guilt which, because of the extraordinary nature and magnitude
of
these crimes, may have existed before they spoke. They have helped
write their
own judgment of condemnation.
But justice in this case has nothing to do with some of the
arguments put
forth by the defendants or their counsel. We have not previously and we
need
not now discuss the merits of all their obscure and tortuous
philosophy. We are
not trying them for the possession of obnoxious ideas. It is their
right, if
they choose, to renounce the Hebraic heritage in the civilization of
which
We charge unlawful aggression but we are not trying the motives,
hopes, or
frustrations which may have led
Let me emphasize one cardinal point. The
I perhaps can do no better service than to try to lift this case out
of the
morass of detail with which the record is full and put before you only
the bold
outlines of a case that is impressive in its simplicity. True, it’s
thousands
of documents and more thousands of pages of testimony deal with an
epoch and
cover a continent, and touch almost every branch of human endeavor.
They
illuminate specialties, such as diplomacy, naval development and
warfare, land
warfare, the genesis of air warfare, the politics of the Nazi rise to
power,
the finance and economics of totalitarian war, sociology, penology,
mass
psychology, and mass pathology. I must leave it to experts to comb the
evidence
and write volumes on their specialties, while I picture in broad
strokes the
offenses whose acceptance as lawful could threaten the continuity of
civilization. I must, as Kipling put it, "splash at a 10-league canvas
with brushes of comet's hair."
The Crimes of the Nazi Regime.
The strength of the case against these defendants under the
conspiracy
Count, which it is the duty of the
The charge requires examination of a criminal policy, not of a
multitude of
isolated, unplanned, or disputed crimes. The substantive crimes upon
which we
rely, either as goals of a common plan or as means for its
accomplishment, are
admitted. The pillars which uphold the conspiracy charge may be found
in five
groups of overt acts, whose character and magnitude are important
considerations in appraising the proof of conspiracy.
1. The Seizure of Power and Subjugation of
The Nazi Party seized control of the
The Nazi junta in the early days lived in constant fear of
overthrow.
Goring, in 1934, pointed out that its enemies were legion and said:
"Therefore, the concentration camps have been created, where we have
first confined thousands of Communists and social democrat
functionaries"
In 1933 Goring forecast the whole program of purposeful cruelty and
oppression when he publicly announced:
"Whoever in the future raises a hand against a representative of the
National Socialist movement or of the State must know that he will lose
his
life in a very short while" (2494-PS).
New political crimes were created to this end. It was made a
treason,
punishable with death, to organize or support a political party other
than the
Nazi Party (2548-PS). Circulating a false or exaggerated statement, or
one
which would harm the State or even the Party, was made a crime
(1652-PS). Laws
were enacted of such ambiguity that they could be used to punish almost
any
innocent act. It was, for example, made a crime to provoke "any act
contrary to the public welfare" (1390-PS).
The doctrine of punishment by analogy was-introduced to enable
conviction
for acts which no statute forbade (1962-PS). Minister of Justice
Gurtner
explained that National Socialism considered every violation of the
goals of
life which the community set up for itself to be a wrong per se, and
that the
acts could be punished even g though it was not contrary to existing
"formal law" (2549-PS).
The Gestapo and the SD were instrumentalities of an espionage system
which
penetrated public and private life (1680-PS). Goring controlled a
personal
wire-tapping unit. All privacy of communication was abolished
(1390-PS). Party
Blockleiter appointed over every 50 householders spied continuously on
all
within their ken (1893-PS).
Upon the strength of this spying individuals were dragged off to
"protective custody" and to concentration camps without legal
proceedings of any kind (1956-PS) and without statement of any reason
therefore
(2533-PS). The partisan Political Police were exempted from effective
legal
responsibility for their acts (2347-PS).
With all administrative offices in Nazi control and with the
Reichstag
reduced to impotence, the judiciary remained the last obstacle to this
reign of
terror (2469-PS). But its independence was soon overcome and it was
reorganized
to dispense a venal justice (784-PS) Judges were ousted for political
or racial
reasons and were spied upon and put under pressure to join the Nazi
Party
(2967-PS). After the Supreme Court had acquitted three of the four men
whom the
Nazis accused of setting the Reichstag fire, its jurisdiction over
treason
cases was transferred to a newly established "People's Court"
consisting of two judges and five Party officials (2967-PS). The German
film of
this "People's Court" in operation, which we showed in this chamber,
revealed its presiding judge pouring partisan abuse on speechless
defendants
(3054-PS). Special courts were created to try political crimes, only
Party
members were appointed judges (2065-PS), and "judges' letters"
instructed the puppet judges as to the "general lines" they must
follow (D-229).
The result was the removal of all peaceable means either to resist
or to
change the Government. Having sneaked through the portals of power, the
Nazis
slammed the gate in the face of all others who might also aspire to
enter.
Since the law was what the Nazis said it was, every form of opposition
was
rooted out and every dissenting voice throttled.
2. The Preparation and Waging of Wars of Aggression.
From the moment the Nazis seized power, they set about feverish but
stealthy
efforts, in defiance of the Versailles Treaty, to arm for war. In 1933
they
found no air force. By 1939 they had 21 squadrons, consisting of 240
echelons
or about 2,400 first-line planes, together with trainers and
transports. In
1933 they found an army of 3 infantry and 3 cavalry divisions. By 1939
they had
raised and equipped an army of 51 divisions, 4 of which were fully
motorized
and 4 of which were Panzer divisions. In 1933 they found a navy of 1
cruiser
and 6 light cruisers. By 1939 they had built a navy of 4 battleships, 1
aircraft carrier, 6 cruisers, 22 destroyers, and 54 submarines. They
had also
built up in that period an armament industry as efficient as that of
any
country in the world (EC-28).
These new weapons were put to use, commencing in September 1939, in
a series
of undeclared wars against nations with which
We need not trouble ourselves about the many abstract difficulties
that can
be conjured up about what constitutes aggression in doubtful cases. I
shall
show you, in discussing the conspiracy, that by any test ever put
forward by
any responsible authority, by all the canons of plain common sense,
these were
unlawful wars of aggression in breach of treaties and in violation of
assurances.
The third group of crimes was: Warfare in Disregard of International
Law.
It is unnecessary to labor this point on the facts. Goring asserts
that the
Rules of Land Warfare were obsolete, that no nation could fight a total
war
within their limits. He testified that the Nazis would have denounced
the conventions
to which
It was, however, against the Soviet people and Soviet prisoners that
Teutonic fury knew no bounds, in spite of a warning by Admiral Canaris
that the
treatment was in violation of international law.
We need not, therefore, for the purposes of the conspiracy Count,
recite the
revolting details of starving, beating, murdering, freezing, and mass
extermination
admittedly used against the Eastern soldiery. Also, we may take as
established
or admitted that the lawless conduct such as shooting British and
American
airmen, mistreatment of Western prisoners of war, forcing French
prisoners of
war into German war work, and other deliberate violations of the Hague
and
Geneva Conventions, did occur, and in obedience to highest levels of
authority
(R-110).
The fourth group of crimes is: Enslavement and Plunder of
Populations in
Occupied Countries.
The Defendant Sauckel, Plenipotentiary General for the Utilization
of Labor
(1666-PS), is authority for the statement that "out of 5,000,000
foreign
workers who arrived in
Sauckel ordered that "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 degree of expenditure" (054-PS). About two million of these
were employed directly in the manufacture of armaments and munitions
(016-PS).
The director of the Krupp locomotive factory in
Populations of occupied countries were otherwise exploited and
oppressed
unmercifully. Terror was the order of the day. Civilians were arrested
without
charges, committed without counsel, executed without hearing. Villages
were
destroyed, the male inhabitants shot or sent to concentration camps,
the women
sent to forced labor, and the children scattered abroad (3012-PS). The
extent
of the slaughter in
"If I wanted to have a poster put up for every seven Poles who were
shot, the forests of Poland would not suffice for producing the paper
for such
posters" (2032-PS).
Those who will enslave men cannot be expected to refrain from
plundering
them. Boastful reports show how thoroughly and scientifically the
resources of
occupied lands were sucked into the German war economy, inflicting
shortage,
hunger, and inflation upon the inhabitants (EC-317). Besides this grand
plan to
aid the German war effort there were the sordid activities of the
Rosenberg
Einsatzstab which pillaged art treasures for Goring and his
fellow-bandits
(014-PS). It is hard to say whether the spectacle of
International law at all times before and during this war spoke with
precision and authority respecting the protection due civilians of an
occupied
country and the slave trade and plunder of occupied countries was at
all times
flagrantly unlawful.
And the fifth group of crimes is: Persecution and Extermination of
Jews and
Christians.
The Nazi movement will be of evil memory in history because of its
persecution of the Jews, the most far-flung and terrible racial
persecution of
all time. Although the Nazi Party neither invented nor monopolized
anti-Semitism, its leaders from the very beginning embraced it, incited
it, and
exploited it. They used it as "the psychological spark that ignites the
mob." After the seizure of power it became an official state policy.
The
persecution began in a series of discriminatory laws eliminating the
Jews from
the civil service, the professions, and economic life. As it became
more
intense it included segregation of Jews in ghettos, and exile. Riots
were
organized by Party leaders to loot Jewish business places and to burn
synagogues. Jewish property was confiscated and a collective fine of a
billion
marks was imposed upon German Jewry. The program progressed in fury and
irresponsibility to the "final solution." This consisted of sending
all Jews who were fit to work to concentration camps as slave laborers,
and all
who were not fit, which included children under 12 and people over 50,
as well
as any others judged unfit by an SS doctor, to concentration camps for
extermination
(2605-PS).
Adolf Eichmann, the sinister figure who had charge of the
extermination
program, has estimated that the anti-Jewish activities resulted in the
killing
of 6 million Jews. Of these, 4 million were killed in extermination
institutions,
and 2 million were killed by Einsatzgruppen, mobile units of the
Security
Police and SD which pursued Jews in the ghettos and in their homes and
slaughtered them by gas wagons, by mass shooting in antitank ditches
and by
every device which Nazi ingenuity could conceive. So thorough and
uncompromising was this program that the Jews of Europe as a race no
longer
exist, thus fulfilling the diabolic "prophecy" of Adolf Hitler at the
beginning of the war (2738-PS).
Of course, any such program must reckon with the opposition of the
Christian
Church. This was recognized from the very beginning. Defendant Bormann
wrote
all Gauleiters in 1941 that "National Socialism and Christian concepts
are
irreconcilable," and that the people must be separated from the
churches
and the influence of the churches totally removed (D-75). Defendant
The Gestapo appointed "Church specialists" who were instructed
that the ultimate aim was "destruction of the confessional churches"
1815-PS). The record is full of specific instances of the persecution
of
clergymen (1164-PS, 1521-PS, 848-PS, 849-PS), the confiscation of
Church
property (1481-PS), interference with religious publications (1498-PS),
disruption of religious education (121-PS) and suppression of religious
organizations (1481-PS, 1482-PS, R-145).
The chief instrumentality for persecution and extermination was the
concentration camp, sired by the Defendant Goring and nurtured under
the
over-all authority of Defendants Frick and Kaltenbrunner.
The horrors of these iniquitous places have been vividly disclosed
by
documents (2309-PS, 3870-PS) and testified to by witnesses.
The Tribunal must be satiated with ghastly verbal and pictorial
portrayals.
From your records it is clear that the concentration camps were the
first and
worst weapon of Nazi oppression used by the
These, then, were the five great substantive crimes of the Nazi
regime.
Their commission, which cannot be-denied, stands admitted. The
Defendant
Keitel, who is in a position to know the facts, has given the Tribunal
what
seems to be a fair summation of the case on the facts:
"The defendant has declared that he admits the contents of the
general
Indictment to be proved from the objective and factual point of view
(that is
to say, not every individual case) and this in consideration of the law
of
procedure governing the Trial. It would be senseless, despite the
possibility
of refuting several documents or individual facts, to attempt to shake
the
Indictment as a whole."
I pass now to the inquiry as to whether these groups of criminal
acts were
integrated in a Common Plan or Conspiracy.
The Prosecution submits that these five categories of premeditated
crimes
were not separate and independent phenomena but that all were committed
pursuant to a Common Plan or Conspiracy. The Defense admits that these
classes
of crimes were committed but denies that they are connected one with
another as
parts of a single program.
The central crime in this pattern of crimes, the kingpin which holds
them
all together, is the plot for aggressive wars. The chief reason for
international cognizance of these crimes lies in this fact. Have we
established
the Plan or Conspiracy to make aggressive war?
Certain admitted or clearly proven facts help answer that question.
First is
the fact that such war of aggression did take place. Second, it is
admitted
that from the moment the Nazis came to power, every one of them and
every one
of the defendants worked like beavers to prepare for some war. The
question
therefore comes to this: Were they preparing for the war which did
occur, or
were they preparing for some war which never has happened? It is
probably true
that in their early days none of them had in mind what month of what
year war
would begin, the exact dispute which would precipitate it, or whether
its first
impact would be
The plans of Adolf Hitler for aggression were just as secret as Mein
Kampf,
of which over six million copies were published in
Goring has testified in this courtroom that at his first meeting
with
Hitler, long before the seizure of power, quoting:
"I noted that Hitler had a definite view of the impotency of protest
and, as a second point, that he was of the opinion that
Immediately after the seizure of power the Nazis went to work to
implement
these aggressive intentions by preparing for war. They first enlisted
German
industrialists in a secret rearmament program. Twenty days after the
seizure of
power Schacht was host to Hitler, Goring, and some 20 leading
industrialists.
Among them were Krupp von Bohlen of the great Krupp armament works and
representatives of I. G. Farben and other
Some 2 months after Schacht had sponsored his first meeting to gain
the support
of the industrialists, the Nazis moved to harness industrial labor to
their
aggressive plans. In April 1933 Hitler ordered Dr. Ley "to take over
the
trade unions," numbering some six million members. By Party directive
Ley
seized the unions their property and their funds. Union leaders, taken
into
"protective custody" by the SS and SA, were put into concentration
camps (2283-PS, 2271-PS, 2335-PS, 2334-PS, 2928-PS, 2277-PS, 2332-PS
2333-PS).
The free labor unions were then replaced by a Nazi organization known
as the
German Labor Front, with Dr. Ley at its head. It was expanded until it
controlled over 23 million members (2275-PS). Collective bargaining was
eliminated, the voice of labor could no longer be heard as to working
conditions and the labor contract was prescribed by "trustees of
labor" appointed by Hitler (405-PS). The war purpose of this labor
program
was clearly acknowledged by Robert Ley 5 days after war broke out, when
he
declared in a speech that:
"We National Socialists have monopolized all resources and all our
energies during the past 7 years so as to be able to be equipped for
the
supreme effort of battle" (1939-PS).
The Nazis also proceeded at once to adapt the Government to the
needs of
war. In April 1933 the Cabinet formed a Defense Council, the working
committee
of which met frequently thereafter. In the meeting of 5/23/1933 at
which
Defendant Keitel presided the members were instructed that:
"No document must be lost since otherwise the enemy propaganda would
make use of it. Matters communicated orally cannot be proven; they can
be
denied by us in
In January 1934and, Your Honors, dates in this connection are
important with
Defendant Jodl present, the Council planned a mobilization calendar and
mobilization order for some 240,000 industrial plants. Again it was
agreed that
nothing should be in writing so that "the military purpose may not be
traceable" (EC-404).
On 5/21/1935, the top secret Reich Defense Law was enacted.
Defendant
Schacht was appointed Plenipotentiary for War Economy with the task of
secretly
preparing all economic forces for war and in the event of mobilization,
of
financing the war (2261-PS).
Schacht's secret efforts were supplemented in October 1936 by the
appointment of Defendant Goring as commissioner of the Four Year Plan,
with the
duty of putting the entire economy in a state of readiness for war
within 4
years (EC-408).
A secret program for the accumulation of the raw materials and
foreign
credits necessary for extensive rearmament was also set on foot
immediately
upon seizure of power. In September of 1934, the Minister of Economics
was
already complaining that:
"The task of stockpiling is being hampered by the lack of foreign
currency; the need for secrecy and camouflage also is a retarding
influence" (EC-128).
Foreign currency controls were at once established. Financing was
delegated
to the wizard Schacht, who conjured up the mefo bill to serve the dual
objectives of tapping the short-term money market for rearmament
purposes while
concealing the amount of these expenditures (EC-436).
The spirit of the whole Nazi administration was summed up by Goring
at a
meeting of the Council of Ministers, which included Schacht, on
5/27/1936, when
he said,
"All measures are to be considered from the standpoint of an assured
waging of war" (1301-PS).
The General Staff, of course, also had to be enlisted in the war
plan. Most
of the generals, attracted by the prospect of rebuilding their armies,
became
willing accomplices. The hold-over Minister of War Von Blomberg and the
Chief
of Staff General Von Fritsch, however, were not cordial to the
increasingly
belligerent policy of the Hitler regime, and by vicious and obscene
plotting
they were discredited and removed in January 1938. Thereupon, Hitler
assumed
for himself Supreme Command of the Armed Forces and the positions of
Blomberg
and of Von Fritsch were filled by others who became, as Blomberg said
of
Keitel, "a willing tool in Hitler's hands for every one of his
decisions." The generals did not confine their participation to merely
military matters. They participated in all major diplomatic and
political
maneuvers, such as the Obersalzberg meeting where Hitler, flanked by
Keitel and
other top generals, issued his virtual ultimatum to Schuschnigg
(1780-PS).
As early as 11/5/1937 the plan to attack had begun to take
definiteness as
to time and victim. In a meeting which included the Defendants Raeder,
Goring,
and Von Neurath, Hitler stated the cynical objective: "The question for
Six months later, emboldened by the bloodless Austrian conquest,
Hitler, in
a secret directive to Keitel, stated his "unalterable decision to smash
On the same day, Jodl noted in his diary that the Fuhrer had stated
his
final decision to destroy
All along the line preparations became more definite for a war of
expansion
on the assumption that it would result in a worldwide conflict. In
September
1938 Admiral Carls officially commented on a "Draft Study of Naval
Warfare
against
"2. Both requirements can only be fulfilled in opposition to
Anglo-French interests and will limit their positions as world powers.
It is
unlikely that they can be achieved by peaceful means. The decision to
make
"3. War against
"It can only be justified and have a chance of success if it is
prepared economically as well as politically and militarily and waged
with the
aim of conquering for Germany an outlet to the ocean" (C-23).
This Tribunal knows what categorical assurances were given to an
alarmed
world after the Anschluss, after
As early as 4/15/1938 Goring pointed out to Mussolini and Ciano that
the
possession of those territories would make possible an attack on
"After the settlement of the Czechoslovakian question, it will be
generally assumed that
Hitler, after the Polish invasion, boasted that it was the Austrian
and
Czechoslovakian triumphs by which "the basis for the action against
By May of 1939 the Nazi preparations had ripened to the point that
Hitler
confided to the Defendants Goring, Raeder, Keitel, and others his
readiness
"to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity," even though he
recognized that "further successes cannot be attained without the
shedding
of blood." The larcenous motives behind this decision he made plain in
words that echoed the covetous theme of Mein Kampf:
"Circumstances must be adapted to aims. This is impossible without
invasion of foreign states or attacks upon foreign property. Living
space in
proportion to the magnitude of the state is the basis of all power
further
successes cannot be attained without expanding our living space in the
East..." (L-79).
While a credulous world slumbered, snugly blanketed with perfidious
assurances of peaceful intentions, the Nazis prepared not as before for
a war
but now for the war. The Defendants Goring, Keitel, Raeder, Frick, and
Funk,
with others, met as the Reich Defense Council in June of 1939. The
minutes,
authenticated by Goring, are revealing evidences of the way in which
each step
of Nazi planning dovetailed with every other. These five key
defendants, 3
months before the first Panzer unit had knifed into Poland, were laying
plans
for "employment of the population in wartime," and had gone so far as
to classify industry for priority in labor supply after "5 million
servicemen had been called up." They decided upon measures to avoid
"confusion when mobilization takes place," and declared a purpose
"to gain and maintain the lead in the decisive initial weeks of a
war." They then planned to use in production prisoners of war, criminal
prisoners, and concentration camp inmates. They then decided on
"compulsory work for women in wartime." They had already passed on
applications from 1,172,000 specialist workmen for classification as
indispensable, and had approved 727,000 of them. They boasted that
orders to
workers to report for duty "are ready and tied up in bundles at the
labor
offices." And they resolved to increase the industrial manpower supply
by
bringing into
It is the minutes of this significant conclave of many key
defendants which
disclose how the plan to start the war was coupled with the plan to
wage the
war through the use of illegal sources of labor to maintain production.
Hitler,
in announcing his plan to attack
Here also comes to the surface the link between war labor and
concentration
camps, a manpower source that was increasingly used and with increasing
cruelty. An agreement between Himmler and the Minister of Justice
Thierack in
1942 provided for "the delivery of antisocial elements from the
execution
of their sentence to the Reichsfuhrer SS to be worked to death"
(654-PS).
An SS directive provided that bedridden prisoners be drafted for work
to be performed
in bed (1395-PS). The Gestapo ordered 46,000 Jews arrested to increase
the
"recruitment of manpower into the concentration camps" (1472-PS). One
hundred thousand Jews were brought from
The use of prisoner-of-war labor as then planned in that meeting
also grew
with German needs. At a time when every German soldier was needed at
the front
and forces were not available at home, Russian prisoners of war were
forced to
man anti.aircraft guns against Allied planes. Field Marshal Milch
reflected the
Nazi merriment at this flagrant violation of international law, saying:
".
. . this is an amusing thing, that the Russians must work the guns"
(R-124).
The orders for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war were so
ruthless
that Admiral Canaris, pointing out that they would "result in arbitrary
mistreatments and killing," protested to the OKW against them as
breaches
of international law. The reply of Keitel was unambiguous. He said:
"The objections arise from the military conception of chivalrous
warfare! This is the destruction of an ideology! Therefore, I approve
and back
the measures" (C-338).
The Geneva Convention would have been thrown overboard openly except
that
Jodl objected because he wanted the benefits of Allied observance of it
while
it was not being allowed to hamper the Germans in any way.
Other crimes in the conduct of warfare were planned with equal
thoroughness
as a means of insuring victory of German arms. In October 1938, almost
a year
before the start of the war, the large scale violation of the
established rules
of warfare was contemplated as a policy, and the Supreme Command
circulated a
"most secret" list of devious explanations to be given by the
Propaganda Minister in such cases (C-2). Even before this time
commanders of
the Armed Forces were instructed to employ any means of warfare so long
as it
facilitated victory (L-211). After the war was in progress the orders
increased
in savagery. A typical Keitel order, demanding the use of the “most
brutal
means," provided that: ". . . It is the duty of the troops to use all
means without restriction, even against women and children, so long as
it
insures success."
The German naval forces were no more immune from the infection than
the land
forces. Raeder ordered violations of the accepted rules of warfare
wherever
necessary to gain strategic successes (C-157). Donitz urged his
submarine crews
not to rescue survivors of torpedoed enemy ships in order to cripple
merchant
shipping of the Allied Nations by decimating their crews (D-642).
Thus, the war crimes against Allied forces and the crimes against
humanity
committed in occupied territories are incontestably part of the program
for
making the war because, in the German calculations, they were
indispensable to
its hope of success.
Similarly, the whole group of prewar crimes, including the
persecutions
within
"The first question was to achieve and establish a different
political
structure for
With these purposes, Goring admitted that the plan was made to
overthrow the
From Goring's cross-examination we learn how necessarily the whole
program
of crime followed. Because they considered a strong state necessary to
get rid
of the Versailles Treaty, they adopted the Fuhrerprinzip. Having seized
power,
the Nazis thought it necessary to protect it by abolishing
parliamentary
government and suppressing all organized opposition from political
parties
(L-83). This was reflected in the philosophy of Goring that the opera
was more
important than the Reichstag. Even the "opposition of each individual
was
not tolerated unless it was a matter of unimportance." To insure the
suppression of opposition a secret police force was necessary. In order
to
eliminate incorrigible opponents, it was necessary to establish
concentration
camps and to resort to the device of protective custody. Protective
custody,
Goring testified, meant that:
"People were arrested and taken into protective custody who had
committed no crime but who one might expect, if they remained in
freedom, would
do all sorts of things to damage the
The same war purpose was dominant in the persecution of the Jews. In
the
beginning, fanaticism and political opportunism played a principal
part, for
anti-Semitism and its allied scapegoat, mythology, was a vehicle on
which the
Nazis rode to power. It was for this reason that the filthy Streicher
and the
blasphemous Rosenberg were welcomed at Party rallies and made leaders
and
officials of the State or Party. But the Nazis soon regarded the Jews
as
foremost among the opposition to the police state with which they
planned to
put forward their plans of military aggression. Fear of their pacifism
and
their opposition to strident nationalism was given as the reason that
the Jews
had to be driven from the political and economic life of
At a meeting held on 11/12/1938, 2 days after the violent
anti-Jewish pogroms
instigated by Goebbels and carried out by the Party Leadership Corps
and the
SA, the program for the elimination of Jews from the German economy was
mapped
out by Goring, Funk, Heydrich, Goebbels, and the other top Nazis. The
measures
adopted included confinement of the Jews in ghettos, cutting off their
food
supply, "Aryanizing" their shops, and restricting their freedom of
movement (1816-PS). Here another purpose behind the Jewish persecutions
crept
in, for it was the wholesale confiscation of their property which
helped
finance German rearmament. Although Schacht's plan to have foreign
money ransom
the entire race within Germany was not adopted, the Jews were stripped
to the
point where Goring was able to advise the Reich Defense Council that
the critical
situation of the Reich exchequer, due to rearmament, had keen relieved
"through the billion Reichsmark fine imposed on Jewry, and through
profits
accrued to the Reich in the Aryanization of Jewish enterprises"
(3575-PS).
A glance over the dock will show that, despite quarrels among
themselves,
each defendant played a part which fitted in with every other, and that
all
advanced the common plan. It contradicts experience that men of such
diverse
backgrounds and talents should so forward each other's aims by
coincidence.
The large and varied role of Goring was half militarist and half
gangster.
He stuck his pudgy finger in every pie. He used his SA musclemen to
help bring
the gang into power. In order to entrench that power he contrived to
have the Reichstag
burned, established the Gestapo, and created the concentration camps.
He was
equally adept at massacring opponents and at framing scandals to get
rid of
stubborn generals. He built up the Luftwaffe and hurled it at his
defenseless
neighbors. He was among the foremost in harrying Jews out of the land.
By
mobilizing the total economic resources of
The parts played by the other defendants, although less
comprehensive and
less spectacular than that of the Reichsmarshal, were nevertheless
integral and
necessary contributions to the joint undertaking, without any one of
which the
success of the common enterprise would have been in jeopardy. There are
many
specific deeds of which these men have been proven guilty. No purpose
would be served
nor indeed is time available to review all the crimes which the
evidence has
charged up to their names. Nevertheless, in viewing the conspiracy as a
whole
and as an operating mechanism, it may be well to recall briefly the
outstanding
services which each of the men in the dock rendered to the common
cause.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to adjourn?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Entirely, Your Honor.
[A recess was taken.]
The zealot Hess, before succumbing to wanderlust, was the engineer
tending
the Party machinery, passing orders and propaganda down to the
Leadership Corps,
supervising every aspect of Party activities, and maintaining the
organization
as a loyal and' ready instrument of power. When apprehensions abroad
threatened
the success of the Nazi regime for conquest, it was the duplicitous
Ribbentrop,
the salesman of deception, who was detailed to pour wine on the
troubled waters
of suspicion by preaching the gospel of limited and peaceful
intentions.
Keitel, the weak and willing tool, delivered the Armed Forces, the
instrument
of aggression, over to the Party and directed them in executing its
felonious
designs.
Kaltenbrunner, the grand inquisitor, took up the bloody mantle of
Heydrich
to stifle opposition and terrorize compliance, and buttressed the power
of
National Socialism on a foundation of guiltless corpses. It was
Rosenberg, the
intellectual high priest of the "master race," who provided the
doctrine of hatred which gave the impetus for the annihilation of
Jewry, and
who put his infidel theories into practice against the
Streicher, the venomous vulgarian, manufactured and distributed
obscene
racial libels which incited the populace to accept and assist the
progressively
savage operations of "race purification." As Minister of Economics
Funk accelerated the pace of rearmament and as Reichsbank president
banked for
the SS the gold teeth fillings of concentration camp victims probably
the most
ghoulish collateral in banking history. It was Schacht, the facade of
starched
respectability, who in the early days provided the window dressing, the
bait
for the hesitant, and whose wizardry later made it possible for Hitler
to
finance the colossal rearmament program, and to do it secretly.
Donitz, Hitler's legatee of defeat, promoted the success of the Nazi
aggressions by instructing his pack of submarine killers to conduct
warfare at
sea with the illegal ferocity of the jungle. Raeder, the political
admiral,
stealthily built up the German Navy in defiance of the Versailles
Treaty, and
then put it to use in a series of aggressions which he had taken a
leading part
in planning. Von Schirach, poisoner of a generation, initiated the
German youth
in Nazi doctrine, trained them in legions for service in the SS and
Wehrmacht,
and delivered them up to the Party as fanatic, unquestioning executors
of its
will.
Sauckel, the greatest and cruelest slaver since the Pharaohs of
Egypt,
produced desperately needed manpower by driving foreign peoples into
the land
of bondage on a scale unknown even in the ancient days of tyranny in
the
kingdom of the
Seyss-Inquart, spearhead of the Austrian fifth column, took over the
government of his own country only to make a present of it to Hitler,
and then,
moving north, brought terror and oppression to the
The activities of all these defendants, despite their varied
backgrounds and
talents, were joined with the efforts of other conspirators not now in
the
dock, who played still other essential roles. They blend together into
one
consistent and militant pattern animated by a common objective to
reshape the
map of
". . .There were no specialists among the National Socialists for
the
particular tasks. Most of the National Socialist collaborators did not
previously follow a trade requiring technical education."
It was the fatal weakness of the early Nazi band that it lacked
technical
competence. It could not from among its own ranks make up a government
capable
of carrying out all the projects necessary to realize its aims. Therein
lies
the special crime and betrayal of men like Schacht and Von Neurath,
Speer and
Von Papen, Raeder and Donitz, Keitel and Jodl. It is doubtful whether
the Nazi
master plan could have succeeded without their specialized intelligence
which
they so willingly put at its command. They did so with knowledge of its
announced aims and methods, and continued their services after practice
had
confirmed the direction in which they were tending. Their superiority
to the
average run of Nazi mediocrity is not their excuse. It is their
condemnation.
The dominant fact which stands out from all the thousands of pages
of the
record of this Trial is that the central crime of the whole group of
Nazi crimes
the attack on the peace of the world was clearly and deliberately
planned. The
beginning of these wars of aggression was not an unprepared and
spontaneous
springing to arms by a population excited by some current indignation.
A week
before the invasion of Poland Hitler told his military commanders:
"I shall give a propagandist cause for starting war never mind
whether
it be plausible or not. The victor shall not be asked later on whether
we told
the truth or not. In starting and making a war, it is not the right
that
matters, but victory (1014-PS).
The propagandist incident was duly provided by dressing
concentration camp
inmates in Polish uniforms, in order to create the appearance of a
Polish
attack on a German frontier radio station (2751-PS). The plan to occupy
Thus, the follow-up wars were planned before the first was launched.
These
were the most carefully plotted wars in all history. Scarcely a step in
their
terrifying succession and progress failed to move according to the
master
blueprint or the subsidiary schedules and timetables until long after
the
crimes of aggression were consummated.
Nor were the war crimes and the crimes against humanity unplanned,
isolated,
or spontaneous offenses. Aside from our undeniable evidence of their
plotting,
it is sufficient to ask whether 6 million people could be separated
from the
population of several nations on the basis of their blood and birth,
could be
destroyed and their bodies disposed of, except that the operation
fitted into
the general scheme of government. Could the enslavement of 5 millions
of
laborers, their impressment into service, their transportation to
Germany,
their allocation to work where they would be most useful, their
maintenance, if
slow starvation can be called maintenance, and their guarding have been
accomplished if it did not fit into the common plan? Could hundreds of
concentration camps located throughout Germany, built to accommodate
hundreds
of thousands of victims, and each requiring labor and materials for
construction, manpower to operate and supervise, and close gearing into
the economy
could such efforts have been expended under German autocracy if they
had not
suited the plan? Has the Teutonic passion for organization suddenly
become
famous for its toleration of nonconforming activity? Each part of the
plan
fitted into every other. The slave-labor program meshed with the needs
of
industry and agriculture, and these in turn synchronized with the
military
machine. The elaborate propaganda apparatus geared with the program to
dominate
the people and incite them to a war their sons would have to fight. The
armament industries were fed by the concentration camps. The
concentration
camps were fed by the Gestapo. The Gestapo was fed by the spy system of
the
Nazi Party. Nothing was permitted under the Nazi iron rule that was not
in
accordance with the program. Everything of consequence that took place
in this
regimented society was but a manifestation of a premeditated and
unfolding
purpose to secure the
The defendants meet this overwhelming case, some by admitting a
limited
responsibility, some by putting the blame on others, and some by taking
the
position in effect that while there have been enormous crimes there are
no
criminals. Time will not permit me to examine each individual and
particular
defense, but there are certain lines of defense common to so many cases
that
they deserve some consideration.
Counsel for many of the defendants seek to dismiss the conspiracy or
common
planning charge on the ground that the pattern of the Nazi plan does
not fit
into the concept of conspiracy applicable in German law to the plotting
of a
highway robbery or a burglary. Their concept of conspiracy is in the
terms of a
stealthy meeting in the dead of night, in a secluded hideout, in which
a small
group of felons plot every detail of a specific crime. The Charter
forestalls
resort to such parochial and narrow concepts of conspiracy taken from
local law
by using the additional and nontechnical term, "common plan."
Omitting entirely the alternative term of "conspiracy," the Charter
reads that "leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices
participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan to
commit any of
the described crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any
persons in
execution of such plan."
The Charter concept of a common plan really represents the
conspiracy
principle in an international context. A common plan or conspiracy to
seize the
machinery of a state, to commit crimes against the peace of the world,
to blot
a race out of existence, to enslave millions, and to subjugate and loot
whole
nations cannot be thought of in the same terms as the plotting of petty
crimes,
although the same underlying principles are applicable. Little
gangsters may
plan which will carry a pistol and which a stiletto, who will approach
a victim
from the front and who from behind, and where they will waylay him. But
in
planning a war, the pistol becomes a Wehrmacht, the stiletto, a
Luftwaffe.
Where to strike is not a choice of dark alleys, but a matter of world
geography. The operation involves the manipulation of public opinion,
the law
of the state, the police power, industry, and finance. The baits and
bluffs
must be translated into a nation's foreign policy. Likewise the degree
of
stealth which points to a guilty purpose in a conspiracy will depend
upon its
object. The clandestine preparations of a state against international
society,
although camouflaged to those abroad, might be quite open and notorious
among
its own people. But stealth is not an essential ingredient of such
planning.
Parts of the common plan may be proclaimed from the housetops, as
anti-Semitism
was, and parts of it kept under cover s rearmament for a long time was.
It is a
matter of strategy how much of the preparation shall be made public, as
was
Goring's announcement in 1935 of the creation of an air force, and how
much
shall be kept covert, as in the case of the Nazis' use of shovels to
teach
"labor corps" the manual of arms (3054-PS). The forms of this grand
type of conspiracy are amorphous, the means are opportunistic, and
neither can
divert the law from getting at the substance of things.
The defendants contend, however, that there could be no conspiracy
involving
aggressive war because: (1) None of the Nazis wanted war; (2)
rearmament was
only intended to provide the strength to make Germany's voice heard in
the
family of nations and (3) the wars were not in fact aggressive wars but
were
defensive against a "Bolshevik menace."
When we analyze the argument that the Nazis did not want war it
comes down,
in substance, to this: "The record looks bad indeed objectively but
when
you consider the state of my mind subjectively I hated war. I knew the
horrors
of war. I wanted peace." I am not so sure of this. I am even less
willing
to accept Goring's description of the General Staff as pacifist.
However, it
will not injure our case to admit that as an abstract proposition none
of these
defendants liked war. But they wanted things which they knew they could
not get
without war. They wanted their neighbors' lands and goods. Their
philosophy seems
to be that if the neighbors would not acquiesce, then they are the
aggressors
and are to blame for the war. The fact is, however, that war never
became
terrible to the Nazis until it came home to them, until it exposed
their
deceptive assurances to the German people that German cities, like the
ruined
one in which we meet, would be invulnerable. From then on, war was
terrible.
But again the defendants claim, "To be sure, we were building guns.
But
not to shoot. They were only to give us weight in negotiating." At its
best this argument amounts to a contention that the military forces
were
intended for blackmail, not for battle. The threat of military invasion
which
forced the Austrian Anschluss, the threats which preceded Munich, and
Goring's
threat to bomb the beautiful city of Prague if the President of
Czechoslovakia
did not consent to a Protectorate, are examples of what the defendants
have in
mind when they talk of arming to back negotiation.
But from the very nature of German demands, the day was bound to
come when
some country would refuse to buy its peace, would refuse to pay
danegelt,
"for the end of that game is oppression and shame, and the nation that
plays it is lost."
Did these defendants then intend to withdraw German demands, or was
But some of the defendants argue that the wars were not aggressive
and were
only intended to protect
At the outset this argument of self-defense falls because it
completely
ignores This damning combination of facts clearly established in the
record:
First, the enormous and rapid German preparations for war; second, the
repeatedly avowed intentions of the German leaders to attack, which I
have
previously cited; and third, the fact that a series of wars occurred in
which
German forces struck the first blows, without warning, across the
borders of
other nations. Even if it could be shown which it cannot that the
Russian war
was really defensive, such is demonstrably not the case with those wars
which
preceded it. It may also be pointed out that even those who would have
you
believe that
It is not necessary to examine the validity of an abstract principle
which
does not apply to the facts of our case. I do not doubt that if a
nation
arrived at a judgment that it must resort to war in self-defense,
because of
conditions affording reasonable grounds for such an honest judgment,
any
tribunal would accord it great and perhaps conclusive weight, even if
later
events proved that judgment mistaken. But the facts in this case call
for no
such deference to honest judgment because no such judgment was ever
pretended
much less honestly made.
In all the documents which disclose the planning and rationalization
of
these attacks, not one sentence has been or can be cited to show a
good-faith
fear of attack. It may be that statesmen of other nations lacked the
courage
forthrightly and fully to disarm. Perhaps they suspected the secret
rearmament
of
Minister of War Von Blomberg, in his 1937 directive prescribing
general
principles for the preparation for war of the Armed Forces has given
the lie to
these feeble claims of self-defense. He stated at that time:
"The general political situation justifies the supposition that
Nevertheless, he recommended:
". . . a continuous preparation for war in order to (a)
counterattack
at any time, and (b) to enable the military exploitation of politically
favorable opportunities should they occur"
If these defendants may now cynically plead self-defense, although
no
good-faith need of self-defense was asserted or contemplated by any
responsible
leader at that time, it reduces nonaggression treaties to a legal
absurdity.
They become additional instruments of deception in the hands of the
aggressor,
and traps for well-meaning nations. If there be in nonaggression pacts
an
implied condition that each nation may make a bona fide judgment as to
the
necessity for self-defense against imminent threatened attack, it
certainly
cannot be invoked to shelter those who never made any such judgment at
all.
In opening this case I ventured to predict that there would be no
serious
denial that the crimes charged were committed, and that the issue would
concern
the responsibility of particular defendants. The defendants have
fulfilled that
prophecy. Generally, they do not deny that these things happened, but
it is
contended that they "just happened," and that they were not the
result of a common plan or conspiracy.
One of the chief reasons the defendants say there was no conspiracy
is the
argument that conspiracy was impossible with a dictator. The argument
runs that
they all had to obey Hitler's orders, which had the force of law in the
This argument is an effort to evade Article 8 of the Charter, which
provides
that the order of the Government or of a superior shall not free a
defendant
from responsibility but can only be considered in mitigation. This
provision of
the Charter corresponds with the justice and with the realities of the
situation, as indicated in Defendant Speer's description of what he
considered
to be the common responsibility of the leaders of the German nation:
". . . with reference to utterly decisive matters, there is total
responsibility. There must be total responsibility insofar as a person
is one
of the leaders, because who else could assume responsibility for the
development of events, if not the immediate associates who work with
and around
the head of the State?"
Again he told the Tribunal:
". . . it is impossible after the catastrophe to evade this total
responsibility. If the war had been won, the leaders would also have
assumed
total responsibility."
Like much of Defense Counsel's abstract arguments, the contention
that the
absolute power of Hitler precluded a conspiracy crumbles in the face of
the
facts of record. The Fuhrerprinzip of absolutism was itself a part of
the
common plan, as Goring has pointed out. The defendants may have become
the
slaves of a dictator, but he was their dictator. To make him such was,
as
Goring has testified, the object of the Nazi movement from the
beginning. Every
Nazi took this oath:
"I pledge eternal allegiance to Adolf Hitler. I pledge unconditional
obedience to him and the Fuhrers appointed by him" 1893-PS).
Moreover, they forced everybody else in their power to take it This
oath was
illegal under German law, which made it criminal to become a member of
an organization
in which obedience to "unknown superiors or unconditional obedience to
known superiors is pledged." These men destroyed free government in
What these men have overlooked is that Adolf Hitler's acts are their
acts.
It was these men among millions of others, and it was these men leading
millions of others, who built up Adolf Hitler and vested in his
psychopathic
personality not only innumerable lesser decisions but the supreme issue
of war
or peace. They intoxicated him with power and adulation. They fed his
hates and
aroused his fears. They put a loaded gun in his eager hands. It was
left to
Hitler to pull the trigger, and when he did they all at that time
approved. His
guilt stands admitted, by some defendants reluctantly, by some
vindictively.
But his guilt is the- guilt of the whole dock, and of every man in it.
But it is urged that these defendants could not be in agreement on a
common
plan or in a conspiracy because they were fighting among themselves or
belonged
to different factions or cliques. Of course, it is not necessary that
men
should agree on everything in order to agree on enough things to make
them
liable for a criminal conspiracy. Unquestionably there were
conspiracies within
the conspiracy, and intrigues and rivalries and battles for power
Schacht and
Goring disagreed, but over which of them should control the economy,
not over
whether the economy should be regimented for war. Goring claims to have
departed from the plan because through Dahlerus he conducted some
negotiations
with men of influence in
Some of the defendants also contend that in any. event there was no
conspiracy to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity because
cabinet
members never met with the military to plan these acts. But these
crimes were
only the inevitable and incidental results of the plan to commit the
aggression
for Lebensraum purposes. Hitler stated, at a conference with his
commanders,
that: "The main objective in
Reichskommissar Koch in the
This was Lebensraum on its seamy side. Could men of their practical
intelligence expect to get neighboring lands free from the claims of
their
tenants without committing crimes against humanity? The last stand of
each
defendant is that even if there was a conspiracy, he was not in it. It
is
therefore important in examining their attempts at avoidance of
responsibility
to know, first of all, just what it is that a conspiracy charge
comprehends and
punishes In conspiracy we do not punish one man for another man's
crime. We
seek to punish each for his own crime of joining a common criminal plan
in
which others also participated. The measure of the criminality of the
plan and
therefore of the guilt of each participant is, of course, the sum total
of
crimes committed by all in executing the plan. But the gist of the
offense is
participation in the formulation or execution of the plan. These are
rules
which every society has found necessary in order to reach men, like
these
defendants, who never get blood on their own hands but who lay plans
that
result in the shedding of blood. All over
Each of these men made a real contribution to the Nazi plan. Each
man had a
key part. Deprive the Nazi regime of the functions performed by a
Schacht, a
Sauckel, a Von Papen, or a Goring and you have a different regime. Look
down
the rows of fallen men and picture them as the photographic and
documentary
evidence shows them to have been in their days of power. Is there one
who did
not substantially advance the conspiracy along its bloody path toward
its
bloody goal? Can we assume that the great effort of these men's lives
was
directed toward ends they never suspected?
To escape the implications of their positions and the inference of
guilt
from their activities, the defendants are almost unanimous in one
defense. The
refrain is heard time and again: These men were without authority,
without
knowledge, without influence without importance. Funk summed up the
general
self-abasement of the dock in his plaintive lament that: "I always, so
to
speak, came up to the door, but I was not permitted to enter."
In the testimony of each defendant, at some point there was reached
the
familiar blank wall: Nobody knew anything about what was going on. Time
after
time we have heard the chorus from the dock: "I only heard about these
things here for the first time."
These men saw no evil, spoke none, and none was uttered in their
presence.
This claim might sound very plausible if made by one defendant. But
when we put
all their stories together, the impression which emerges of the Third
Reich,
which was to last a thousand years, is ludicrous. If we combine only
the
stories of the front bench, this is the ridiculous composite picture of
Hitler's Government that emerges. It was composed of:
A Number 2 man who knew nothing of the excesses of the Gestapo which
he
created, and never suspected the Jewish extermination program although
he was
the signer of over a score of decrees which instituted the persecutions
of that
race;
A Number 3 man who was merely an innocent middleman transmitting
Hitler's orders
without even reading them, like a postman or delivery boy;
A foreign minister who knew little of foreign affairs and nothing of
foreign
policy;
A field marshal who issued orders to the Armed Forces but had no
idea of the
results they would have in practice;
A security chief who was of the impression that the policing
functions of
his Gestapo and SD were somewhat on the order of directing traffic;
A Party philosopher who was interested in historical research and
had no
idea of the violence which his philosophy was inciting in the twentieth
century;
A governor general of
A Gauleiter of Franconia whose occupation was to pour forth filthy
writings
about the Jews, but who had no idea that anybody would read them;
A minister of interior who knew not even what went on in the
interior of his
own office, much less the interior of his own department, and nothing
at all
about the interior of Germany;
A Reichsbank president who was totally ignorant of what went in and
out of
the vaults of his bank;
And a plenipotentiary for the war economy who secretly marshaled the
entire
economy for armament, but had no idea it had anything to do with war.
This may seem like a fantastic exaggeration, but this is what you
would
actually be obliged to conclude if you were to acquit these defendants.
They do protest too much. They deny knowing what was common
knowledge. They
deny knowing plans and programs that were as public as Mein Kampf and
the Party
program. They deny even knowing the contents of documents they received
and
acted upon.
Nearly all the defendants take two or more conflicting positions.
Let us
illustrate the inconsistencies of their positions by the record of one
defendant
who, if pressed, would himself concede that he is the most intelligent,
honorable, and innocent man in the dock. That is Schacht. And this is
the
effect of his own testimony but let us not forget that I recite it not
against
him alone, but because most of its self-contradictions are found in the
testimony of several defendants:
Schacht did not openly join the Nazi movement until it had won, nor
openly
desert it until it had lost. He admits that he never gave it public
opposition,
but asserts that he never gave it private loyalty. When we demand of
him why he
did not stop the criminal course of the regime in which he was a
minister, he
says he had not a bit of influence. When we ask why he remained a
member of the
criminal regime, he tells us that by sticking on he expected to
moderate its
program. Like a Brahmin among untouchables, he could not bear to mingle
with
the Nazi socially, but never could he afford to separate from them
politically.
Of all the Nazi aggressions by which he now claims to have been shocked
there is
not one that he did not support before the world with the weight of his
name
and prestige. Having armed Hitler to blackmail a continent, his answer
now is
to blame
Schacht always fought for his position in a regime he now affects to
despise. He sometimes disagreed with his Nazi confederates about what
was
expedient in reaching their goal, but he never dissented from the goal
itself.
When he did break with, them in the twilight of the regime, it was over
tactics, not principles. From then on he never ceased to urge others to
risk
their positions and their necks to forward his plots, but never on any
occasion
did he hazard either of his own. He now boasts that he personally would
have
shot Hitler if he had had the opportunity, but the German newsreel
shows that
even after the fall of France, when he faced the living Hitler, he
stepped out
of line to grasp the hand he now claims to loathe and hung upon the
words of
the man he now says he thought unworthy of belief. Schacht says he
steadily
"sabotaged" the Hitler Government. Yet the most relentless secret
service in the world never detected him doing the regime any harm until
long
after he knew the war to be lost and the Nazis doomed. Schacht, who
dealt in
hedges all his life, always kept himself in a position to claim that he
was in
either camp. The plea for him is as specious on analysis as it is
persuasive on
first sight. Schacht represents the most dangerous and reprehensible
type of opportunism
that of the man of influential position who is ready to join a movement
that he
knows to be wrong because he thinks it is winning.
These defendants, unable to deny that they were the men in the very
top
ranks of power, and unable to deny that the crimes I have outlined
actually
happened, know that their own denials are incredible unless they can
suggest
someone who is guilty.
The defendants have been unanimous, when pressed, in shifting the
blame on
other men, sometimes on one and sometimes on another. But the names
they have
repeatedly picked are Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, Goebbels, and Bormann.
All of
these are dead or missing. No matter how hard we have pressed the
defendants
on. the stand, they have never pointed the finger at a living man as
guilty. It
is a temptation to ponder the wondrous workings of a fate which has
left only
the guilty dead and only the innocent alive. It is almost too
remarkable.
The chief villain on whom blame is placed some of the defendants vie
with
each other in producing appropriate epithets is Hitler. He is the man
at whom
nearly every defendant has pointed an accusing finger.
I shall not dissent from this consensus, nor do I deny that all
these dead
and missing men shared the guilt. In crimes so reprehensible that
degrees of
guilt have lost their significance they may have played the most evil
parts.
But their guilt cannot exculpate the defendants. Hitler did not carry
all
responsibility to the grave with him. All the guilt is not wrapped in
Himmler's
shroud. It was these dead men whom these living chose to be their
partners in
this great conspiratorial brotherhood, and the crimes that they did
together
they must pay for one by one.
It may well be said that Hitler's final crime was against the land
he had
ruled. He was a mad messiah who started the war without cause and
prolonged it
without reason. If he could not rule he cared not what happened to
" . . . The sacrifices which were made on both sides after January
1945
were without sense. The dead of this period will be the accusers of the
man
responsible for the continuation of that fight, Adolf Hitler, just as
much as
the destroyed cities, destroyed in that last phase, who had lost
tremendous
cultural values and tremendous numbers of dwellings.... The German
people” he said”
remained faithful to Adolf Hitler until the end. He has betrayed them
knowingly. He has tried to throw them into the abyss. . ."
Hitler ordered everyone else to fight to the last and then retreated
into
death by his own hand. But he left life as he lived it, a deceiver; he
left the
official report that he had died in battle. This was the man whom these
defendants exalted to a Fuhrer. It was they who conspired to get him
absolute
authority over all of
". . . the tremendous danger, however, contained in this
totalitarian
system only became abundantly clear at the moment when we were
approaching the
end. It was then that one could see what the meaning of the principle
was,
namely, that every order should be carried out without any criticism.
Everything . . . you have seen in the way of orders which were carried
out
without any consideration, did after all turn out to be mistakes . . .
This system
let me put it like this to the end of the system it had become clear
what
tremendous dangers are contained in any such system, as such quite
apart from
Hitler's principle. The combination of Hitler and this system, then,
brought
about this tremendous catastrophe to this world."
But let me for a moment turn devil's advocate. I admit that Hitler
was the
chief villain. But for the defendants to put all blame on him is
neither manly
nor true. We know that even the head of the state has the same limits
to his
senses and to the hours of his days as do lesser men. He must rely on
others to
be his eyes and ears as to most that goes on in a great empire. Other
legs must
run his errands; other hands must execute his plans. On whom did Hitler
rely
for such things more than upon these men in the dock? Who led him to
believe he
had an invincible air armada if not Goring? Who kept disagreeable facts
from
him? Did not Goring forbid Field Marshal Milch to warn Hitler that in
his
opinion
If these dead men could take the witness stand and answer what has
been said
against them, we might have a less distorted picture of the parts
played by
these defendants. Imagine the stir that would occur in the dock if it
should
behold Adolf Hitler advancing to the witness box, or Himmler with an
armful of
dossiers, or Goebbels, or Bormann with the reports of his Party spies,
or the
murdered Rohm or Canaris. The ghoulish defense that the world is
entitled to
retribution only from the cadavers is an argument worthy of the crimes
at which
it is directed. We have presented to this Tribunal an affirmative case
based on
incriminating documents which are sufficient, if unexplained, to
require a
finding of guilt on Count One against each defendant. In the final
analysis,
the only question is whether the defendant's own testimony is to be
credited as
against the documents and other evidence of their guilt. What, then, is
their
testimony worth? The fact is that the Nazi habit of economizing in the
use of
truth pulls the foundations out from under their own defenses. Lying
-has
always been a highly approved Nazi technique. Hitler, in Mein Kampf,
advocated
mendacity as a policy. Von Ribbentrop admits the use of the "diplomatic
lie." Keitel advised that the facts of rearmament be kept secret so
that
they could be denied at
"I think you can score many more successes when you want to lead
someone if you don't tell them the truth than if you tell them the
truth."
This was the philosophy of the National Socialists. When for years
they have
deceived the world, and masked falsehood with plausibilities, can
anyone be
surprised that they continue their habits of a lifetime in this dock?
Credibility
is one of the main issues of this Trial. Only those who have failed to
learn
the bitter lessons of the last decade can doubt that men who have
always played
on the unsuspecting credulity of generous opponents would not hesitate
to do
the same, now.
It is against such a background that these defendants now ask this
Tribunal
to say that they are not guilty of planning, executing, or conspiring
to commit
this long list of crimes and wrongs. They stand before the record of
this Trial
as bloodstained
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon the chief prosecutor for the United
Kingdom of
Great Britain.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Would it be agreeable, Your Honors, if Sir Hartley Shawcross should start his address after the recess?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then we will sit again at a quarter to 2.