Chapter V: Section 128: of the Criminal Code of 1871 is especially pertinent. It (1)

reads:

“The participation in an organization the existence,
constitution, or purposes of which are to be kept secret from
the Government, or in which obedience to unknown superiors or
unconditional obedience to known superiors is pledged, is
punishable by imprisonment up to six months for the members and
from one month to one year for the founders and officers. Public
officials may be deprived of the right to hold public office for
a period of from one to five years.”

Under the Empire, various Polish national unions were the subject of criminal prosecution. Under the Republic, judicial judgments in 1927-28 held criminal the entire Communist Party of Germany. In 1922 and 1928 judgments ran against the political Leadership Corps of the Communist Party, which included all its so-called “body of functionaries,” corresponding to the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party which we have accused. The judgment included every cashier, every employee, every delivery boy and messenger, and every district leader. In 1930 a judgment of criminality against the “Union of Red Front Fighters” of the Communist Party made no discrimination between leaders and ordinary members.

Most significant of all is the fact that on 30 May, 1924 the German courts rendered judgment that the whole Nazi Party was a criminal organization. This decision referred not only to the Leadership Corps, which we are indicting here, but to all other members as well. The whole subsequent rise to power of the Nazi Party was in the shadow of this judgment of illegality.

The German courts in dealing with criminal organizations proceeded on the theory that all members were held together by a common plan in which each one participated even though at various levels. Moreover, the fundamental principles of responsibility of members as stated by the German Supreme Court are strikingly like the principles that govern our Anglo-American law of conspiracy. Among them were these:

1. “It is a matter of indifference whether all the members
pursued the forbidden aims. It is enough if a part exercised the
forbidden activity.” (R.G. VIa 97/22 of the 8.5.22.)

2. “It is a matter of indifference whether the members of the
group or association agree with the aims, tasks, means of
working and means of fighting.” (R.G. 58, 401 of the 24.10.24.)

3. “The real attitude of mind of the participants is a matter of
indifference. Even if they had the intention of not
participating in criminal efforts, or hindering them, this can
not eliminate their responsibility.” (R.G. 58, 401 of the
24.10.24.)

Organizations with criminal ends are everywhere regarded as in the nature of criminal conspiracies, and their criminality is judged by the application of conspiracy principles. The reason why they are offensive to law-governed people has been succinctly stated as follows:

“The reason for finding criminal liability in case of a
combination to effect an unlawful end or to use unlawful means,
where none would exist, even though the act contemplated were
actually committed by an individual, is that a combination of
persons to commit a wrong, either as an end or as a means to an
end, is so much more dangerous, because of its increased power
to do wrong, because it is more difficult to guard against and
prevent the evil designs of a group of persons than of a single
person, and because of the terror which fear of such a
combination tends to create in the minds of people.” (_Miller on
Criminal Law_, 1932, p. 110.)

The Charter, in Article 6, provides that “Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.” The individual defendants are arraigned at your bar on this charge which, if proved, makes them responsible for the acts of others in execution of the common plan.

The Charter did not define responsibility for the acts of others in terms of “conspiracy” alone. The crimes were defined in non-technical but inclusive terms, and embraced formulating and executing a “common plan” as well as participating in a “conspiracy.” It was feared that to do otherwise might import into the proceedings technical requirements and limitations which have grown up around the term “conspiracy.” There are some divergences between the Anglo-American concept of conspiracy and that of either Soviet, French, or German jurisprudence. It was desired that concrete cases be guided by the broader considerations inherent in the nature of the social problem, rather than controlled by refinements of any local law.

Now, except for procedural difficulties arising from their multitude, there is no reason why every member of any Nazi organization accused here could not have been indicted and convicted as a part of the conspiracy under Article 6 even if the Charter had never mentioned organizations at all. Voluntary affiliation constituted a definite act of adherence to some common plan and purpose. These did not pretend to be merely social or cultural groups; admittedly they were united for action. In the case of several of the Nazi organizations, the fact of confederation was evidenced by formal induction into membership, the taking of an oath, the wearing of a distinctive uniform, the submission to a discipline. That all members of each Nazi organization did combine under a common plan to achieve some end by combined efforts is abundantly established.

The criteria for determining the collective guilt of those who thus adhered to a common plan obviously are those which would test the legality of any combination or conspiracy. Did it contemplate illegal methods or aim at illegal ends? If so, the liability of each member of one of these Nazi organizations for the acts of every other member is not essentially different from the liability for conspiracy enforced in Courts of the United States against business men who combine in violation of the anti-trust laws, or of other defendants accused under narcotic drugs laws, sedition acts, or other federal penal enactments.

Among the principles every day enforced in Courts of Great Britain and the United States in dealing with conspiracy are these:

1. No meeting or formal agreement is necessary. It is sufficient, although one performs one part and other persons other parts, if there be concert of action, and working together understandingly with a common design to accomplish a common purpose.

2. One may be liable even though he may not have known who his fellow-conspirators were, or just what part they were to take, or what acts they committed, and though he did not take personal part in them or was absent when criminal acts occurred.

3. There may be liability for acts of fellow-conspirators although the particular acts were not intended or anticipated, if they were done in execution of the common plan.

4. It is not necessary to liability that one be a member of a conspiracy at the same time as other actors, or at the time of criminal acts. When one becomes a party to it, he adopts and ratifies what has gone before and remains responsible until he abandons the conspiracy with notice to his fellow-conspirators.

Of course, members of criminal organizations or conspiracies who personally commit crimes are individually punishable for those crimes exactly as are those who commit the same offenses without organizational backing. But the very gist of the crime of conspiracy or membership in a criminal association is liability for acts one did not personally commit but which his acts facilitated or abetted. The crime is to combine with others and to participate in the unlawful common effort, however innocent the personal acts of the participant when considered by themselves.

The very innocent act of mailing a letter is enough to implicate one in a conspiracy if the purpose of the letter is to advance a criminal plan. There are countless examples of this doctrine in Anglo-American jurisprudence.

The sweep of the law of conspiracy is an important consideration in determining the criteria of guilt for organizations. Certainly the vicarious liability imposed in consequence of voluntary membership, formalized by oath, dedicated to a common organizational purpose and submission to a discipline and chain of command, can not be less than that which follows from informal cooperation with a nebulous group to a common end as is sufficient in conspiracy. This meets the suggestion that the prosecution is required to prove every member, or every part, fraction, or division of the membership to be guilty of criminal acts. The suggestion ignores the conspiratorial nature of the charge. Such an interpretation also would reduce the Charter to an unworkable absurdity. To concentrate in one International Tribunal inquiries requiring such detailed evidence as to each member would set a task not possible of completion within the lives of living men.

It is easy to toss about such a plausible but superficial cliché as, “One should be convicted for his activities, not for his membership.” But this ignores the fact that membership in Nazi bodies was itself an activity. It was not something passed out to a passive citizen like a handbill. Even a nominal membership may aid and abet a movement greatly. Does anyone believe that Hjalmar Schacht sitting in the front row of the Nazi Party Congress of 1935, wearing the insignia of the Party, was included in the Nazi propaganda films merely for artistic effect? This great banker’s mere loan of his name to this shady enterprise gave it a lift and a respectability in the eyes of every hesitating German. There may be instances in which membership did not aid and abet the organizational ends and means, but individual situations of that kind are for appraisal in the later hearings and not by this Tribunal. By and large, the use of organization affiliation is a quick and simple, but at the same time fairly accurate outline of the contours of a conspiracy to do what the organization actually did. It is the only one workable at this stage of the trial. It can work no injustice because before any individual can be punished, he can submit the facts of his own case to further and more detailed judicial scrutiny.

While the Charter does not so provide, we think that on ordinary legal principles the burden of proof to justify a declaration of criminality is upon the prosecution. It is discharged, we think, when we establish the following:

1. The organization or group in question must be some aggregation of persons associated in some identifiable relationship with a collective general purpose.

2. While the Charter does not so declare, we think it implied that membership in such an organization must be generally voluntary. That does not require proof that every member was a volunteer. Nor does it mean that an organization is not to be considered voluntary if the defense proves that some minor fraction or small percentage of its membership was compelled to join. The test is a common-sense one: Was the organization on the whole one which persons were free to join or to stay out of? Membership is not made involuntary by the fact that it was good business or good politics to identify one’s self with the movement. Any compulsion must be of the kind which the law normally recognizes, and threats of political or economic retaliation would be of no consequence.

3. The aims of the organization must be criminal in that it was designing to perform acts denounced as crimes in Article 6 of the Charter. No other act would authorize conviction of an individual and therefore no other act would authorize conviction of an organization in connection with the conviction of the individual.

4. The criminal aims or methods of the organization must have been of such character that its membership in general may properly be charged with knowledge of them. This again is not specifically required by the Charter. Of course, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish the individual knowledge of every member of the organization or to rebut the possibility that some may have joined in ignorance of its true character.

5. Some individual defendant must have been a member of the organization and must be convicted of some act on the basis of which the organization is declared to be criminal.

D. _Definition of Issues for Trial._

The progress of this trial will be expedited by clear definition of the issues to be tried. I have indicated what we consider to be the proper criteria of guilt. There are also subjects which we think are not relevant before this Tribunal, some of which are mentioned in the specific questions asked by the Tribunal.

Only a single ultimate issue is before this Tribunal for decision. That is whether accused organizations properly may be characterized as criminal ones or as innocent ones. Nothing is relevant here that does not bear on a question that would be common to the case of every member. Any matter which would be exculpating for some members but not for all is irrelevant here.

We think it is not relevant to this proceeding at this stage that one or many members were conscripted if in general the membership was voluntary. It may be conceded that conscription is a good defense for an individual charged with membership in a criminal organization, but an organization can have criminal purposes and commit criminal acts even if a portion of its membership consists of persons who were compelled to join it. The issue of conscription is not pertinent to this proceeding but it is pertinent to the trials of individuals for membership in organizations declared criminal by this Tribunal.

We also think it is not relevant to this proceeding that one or more members of the named organizations were ignorant of its criminal purposes or methods if its purposes or methods were open and notorious. An organization may have criminal purposes and commit criminal acts although one or many of its members were without personal knowledge thereof. If a person joined what he thought was a social club but what in fact was a gang of cutthroats and murderers, his lack of knowledge would not exonerate the gang considered as a group, although it might possibly be a factor in extenuation of a charge of criminality brought against him for mere membership in the organization. Even then the test would be not what the man knew, but what, as a person of common understanding, he should have known.

It is not relevant to this proceeding that one or more members of the named organizations were themselves innocent of unlawful acts. This proposition is basic to the entire theory of the declaration of organizational criminality. The purpose of declaring criminality of organizations, as in every conspiracy charge, is punishment for aiding crimes, although the precise perpetrators may never be found or identified. We know that the Gestapo and SS, as organizations, were given principal responsibility for the extermination of the Jewish people in Europe—but beyond a few isolated instances, we can never establish which members of the Gestapo or SS actually carried out the murders. Any member guilty of direct participation in such crimes can be tried on the charge of having committed specific crimes in addition to the general charge of membership in a criminal organization. Therefore, it is wholly immaterial that one or more members of the organizations were themselves allegedly innocent of specific wrongdoing. The purpose of this proceeding is not to reach instances of individual criminal conduct, even in subsequent trials and, therefore, such considerations are irrelevant here.

Another question raised by the Tribunal is the period of time during which the groups or organizations named in the Indictment are claimed by the Prosecution to have been criminal. The Prosecution believes that each organization should be declared criminal during the period referred to in the Indictment. We do not contend that the Tribunal is without power to condition its declaration so as to cover a lesser period of time than that set forth in the Indictment. The Prosecution feels, however, that there is in the record at this time adequate evidence to support the charge of criminality with respect to each of the named organizations during the full period of time set forth in the Indictment.

Another question raised by the Tribunal is whether any classes of persons included within the accused groups or organizations should be excluded from the declaration of criminality. It is, of course, necessary that the Tribunal relate its declaration to some identifiable group or organization. The Tribunal, however, is not expected or required to be bound by formalities of organization. In framing the Charter, the use was deliberately avoided of terms or concepts which would involve this trial in legal technicalities about “juristic persons” or “entities.” Systems of jurisprudence are not uniform in the refinements of these fictions. The concept of the Charter, therefore, is a nontechnical one. “Group” or “organization” should be given no artificial or sophistical meaning. The word “group” was used in the Charter as a broader term, implying a looser and less formal structure or relationship than is implied in the “organization.” The terms mean in the context of the Charter what they mean in the ordinary speech of people. The test to identify a group or organization is, we submit, a natural and common-sense one.

It is important to bear in mind that while the Tribunal no doubt has power to make its own definition of the groups it will declare criminal, the precise composition and membership of groups and organizations is not an issue for trial here. There is no Charter requirement and no practical need for the Tribunal to define a group or organization with such particularity that its precise composition or membership is thereby determined. The creation of a mechanism for later trial of such issues was a recognition that the declaration of this Tribunal is not decisive of such questions and is likely to be so general as to comprehend persons who on more detailed inquiry will prove to be outside of it. An effort by this Tribunal to try questions of exculpation of individuals, few or many, would unduly protract the trial, transgress the limitation of the Charter, and quite likely do some mischief by attempting to adjudicate precise boundaries on evidence which is not directed to that purpose.

The prosecution stands upon the language of the Indictment and contends that each group or organization should be declared criminal as an entity and that no inquiry should be entered upon and no evidence entertained as to the exculpation of any class or classes of persons within such descriptions. Practical reasons of conserving the Tribunal’s time combine with practical considerations for the defendants. A single trial held in one city to deal with questions of excluding thousands of defendants living all over Germany could not be expected to do justice to each member unless it was expected to endure indefinitely. Provision for later, local trial of individual relationships protects the rights of members better than can possibly be done in proceedings before this Tribunal.

With respect to the Gestapo, the United States consents to exclude persons employed in purely clerical, stenographic, janitorial or similar unofficial routine tasks. As to the Nazi Leadership Corps we abide by the position taken at the time of submission of the evidence, that the following should be included: the Fuehrer, the _Reichsleitung_ (i.e., the _Reichsleiters_, main departments and officeholders), the _Gauleiters_ and their staff officers, the _Kreisleiters_ and their staff officers, the _Ortsgruppenleiters_, the _Zellenleiters_, and the _Blockleiters_, but not members of the staff of the last three officials. As regards the SA, it is considered advisable that the Declaration expressly exclude (1) wearers of the SA Sports Badge; (2) SA controlled Home Guard Units (_SA Wehrmannschaften_) which were not strictly part of the SA; (3) The _Marchabteilungen_ of the N.S.K.O.V. (National Socialist League for Disabled Veterans); and (4) the SA Reserve, so as to include only the active part of the organization, and that members who were never in any part of that organization other than the Reserve should be excluded.

The Prosecution does not feel that there is evidence of the severability of any class or classes of persons within the organizations accused which would justify any further concessions and feels that no other part of the named groups should be excluded. In this connection, we would again stress the principles of conspiracy. The fact that a section of an organization itself committed no criminal act, or may have been occupied in technical or administrative functions, does not relieve that section of criminal responsibility if its activities contributed to the accomplishment of the criminal enterprise.

E. _Further Steps Before This Tribunal._

Over 45,000 persons have joined in communications to this Tribunal asking to be heard in connection with the accusations against organizations. The volume of these applications has caused apprehension as to further proceedings. No doubt there are difficulties yet to be overcome, but my study indicates that the difficulties are greatly exaggerated.

The Tribunal is vested with wide discretion as to whether it will entertain an application to be heard. The Prosecution would be anxious, of course, to have every application granted that is necessary, not only to do justice but to avoid the appearance of doing anything less than justice. And we do not consider that expediting this trial is so important as affording a fair opportunity to present all really pertinent facts.

Analysis of the conditions which have brought about this flood of applications indicates that their significance is not proportionate to their numbers. The Tribunal sent out 200,000 printed notices of the right to appear before it and defend. They were sent to Allied prisoner of war and internment camps. The notice was published in all German language papers and was repeatedly broadcast over the radio. The 45,000 persons who responded with applications to be heard came principally from about 15 prisoner of war and internment camps in British or United States control. Those received included an approximate 12,000 from Dachau, 10,000 from Langwasser, 7,500 from Auerbach, 4,000 from Staumuehle, 2,500 from Garmisch, and several hundred from each of the others.

We undertook investigation of these applications from Auerbach camp as probably typical of all. The camp is for prisoners of war, predominantly SS members, and its prisoners number 16,964 enlisted men and 923 officers. The notice of the International Tribunal was posted in each barracks and was read to all inmates. The applications to the Tribunal were forwarded without censorship. Applications to defend were made by 7,509 SS members.

Investigation indicates that these were filed in direct response to the notice and that no action was directed or inspired from any other source within the camp. All who were interrogated professed no knowledge of any SS crimes or of SS criminal purpose, but expressed interest only in their individual fate. Our investigators report no indication that the SS members had additional evidence or information to submit on the general question of the criminality of the SS as an organization. They seemed to think it necessary to make the application to this Tribunal in order to protect themselves.

Examination of the applications made to the Tribunal indicates that most members do not profess to have evidence on the general issue triable here. They assert that the writer has neither committed, witnessed, nor known of the crimes charged against the organization. On a proper definition of the issues such an application is insufficient on its face.

A careful examination of the Tribunal’s notice to which these applications respond will indicate that the notice contains no word which would inform a member, particularly if a layman, of the narrowness of the issues here, or of the later opportunity of each member, if and when prosecuted, to present personal defenses. On the other hand, I think the notice creates the impression that every member may be convicted and punished by this Tribunal and that his only chance to be heard is here.

In view of these facts we suggest consideration of the following program for completion of this trial as to organizations.

1. That the Tribunal formulate and express in an order the scope of the issues and the limitations on the issues to be heard by it.

2. That a notice adequately informing members as to the limitation on issues and the opportunity for later, individual trial, be sent to all applicants and published as was the original notice.

3. That a panel of masters be appointed as authorized in Article 17(e) of the Charter to examine applications and report those insufficient on their own statements, and to go to the camps and supervise the taking of any relevant evidence. Defense counsel and prosecution representatives should of course attend and be heard before the masters. The masters should reduce any evidence to deposition form and report the whole to the Tribunal to be introduced as a part of its record.

4. The representative principle may also be employed to simplify this task. Members of particular organizations in particular camps might well be invited to choose one or more to represent them in presenting evidence.

It may not be untimely to remind the Tribunal and defense counsel that the prosecution has omitted from evidence many relevant documents which show repetition of crimes by these organizations in order to save time by avoiding cumulative evidence. It is not too much to expect that cumulative evidence of a negative character will likewise be limited.

Some concern has been expressed as to the number of persons who might be affected by the declarations of criminality we have asked. Some people seem more susceptible to the shock of a million punishments than to the shock of 5 million murders. At most the number of punishments will never catch up with the number of crimes. However, it is impossible to state even with approximate accuracy the number of persons who might be affected. Figures from German sources seriously exaggerate the number, because they do not take account of heavy casualties in the latter part of the war, and make no allowances for duplication of membership, which was large. For example, the evidence is to the effect that 75 percent of the Gestapo men also were members of the SS. We know that the United States forces have in detention a roughly estimated 130,000 persons who appear to be members of accused organizations. I have no figures from other Allied forces. But how many of these actually would be prosecuted, instead of being dealt with under the denazification program, no one can foretell. Whatever the number, of one thing we may be sure: it is so large that a thorough inquiry by this Tribunal, into each case, would prolong its session beyond endurance. All questions as to whether individuals or sub-groups of accused organizations should be excepted from the Declaration of Criminality, should be left for local courts, located near the home of the accused and near sources of evidence. These courts can work in one or at most in two languages, instead of four, and can hear evidence which both parties direct to the specific issues.

F. _Conclusion._

This is not the time to review the evidence against particular organizations which, we take it, should be reserved for summation after all the evidence is presented. But it is timely to say that the selection of the six organizations named in the Indictment was not a matter of chance. The chief reasons they were chosen are these: collectively they were the ultimate repositories of all power in the Nazi regime; they were not only the most powerful, but the most vicious organizations in the regime; and they were organizations in which membership was generally voluntary.

The Nazi Leadership Corps consisted of the directors and principal executors of the Nazi Party, which was the force lying behind and dominating the whole German state. The Reichs Cabinet was the facade through which the Nazi Party translated its will into legislative, administrative, and executive acts. The two pillars on which the security of the regime rested were the armed forces, directed and controlled by the General Staff and High Command, and the police forces—the Gestapo, the SA, the SD, and the SS. These organizations exemplify all the evil forces of the Nazi regime.

These organizations were also selected because, while representative, they were not so large or extensive as to make it probable that innocent, passive, or indifferent Germans might be caught up in the same net with the guilty. State officialdom is represented, but not all administrative officials or department heads or civil servants; only the _Reichsregierung_, the very heart of Nazidom within the Government, is named. The armed forces are accused, but not the average soldier or officer, no matter how high ranking. Only the top policy-makers—the General Staff and High Command—are named. The police forces are accused, but not every policeman: not the ordinary police, which performed only normal police functions. Only the most terroristic and repressive police elements—the Gestapo and SD—are named. The Nazi Party is accused, but not every Nazi voter, not even every member; only the leaders, the _Politische Leiter_. (_See Chart No. 14._) And not even every Party official or worker is included; only “the bearers of sovereignty,” in the metaphysical jargon of the Party, who were the actual commanding officers and their staff officers on the highest levels, are accused. The “formations” or strong arms of the Party are accused, but not every one of the seven formations, nor any of the twenty or more supervised or affiliated party groups. Nazi organizations in which membership was compulsory, either legally or in practice (like the Hitler Youth and the _Deutsche Studentschaft_); Nazi professional organizations (like the Civil Servants Organization, the National Socialist Teachers Organization, and the National Socialist Lawyers Organization); Nazi organizations having some legitimate purpose (like the welfare organizations), have not been indicted. Only two formations are named, the SA and the SS, the oldest of the Nazi organizations, groups which had no purpose other than carrying out the Nazi schemes and which actively participated in every crime denounced in the Charter.

In administering preventive justice with a view to forestalling repetition of these crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, it would be a greater catastrophe to acquit these organizations than it would be to acquit the entire 22 individual defendants in the box. These defendants’ power for harm is spent. That of these organizations goes on. If they are exonerated here, the German people will infer that they did no wrong and will easily be regimented in reconstituted organizations under new names behind the same program.

In administering retributive justice it would be possible to exonerate these organizations only by concluding that no crimes have been committed by the Nazi regime. Their sponsorship of every Nazi purpose and their confederation to execute every measure to attain those ends is beyond denial. A failure to condemn these organizations under the terms of the Charter can only mean that such Nazi ends and means cannot be considered criminal, and that the Charter of the Tribunal is considered a nullity.

2. THE NAZI PARTY LEADERSHIP CORPS

The Nazi Party Leadership Corps—it is proposed to demonstrate—was responsible for planning, directing, and supervising the criminal measures carried into execution by the Nazi Party, which was the central core of the common plan or conspiracy charged in Count I of the Indictment. Moreover, it will be shown, the members of the Leadership Corps themselves actively participated in the commission of illegal measures in aid of the conspiracy. In the light of the evidence to be discussed, the Leadership Corps may be fairly described as the brain, the backbone, and the directing arms of the Nazi Party. Its responsibilities are more massive and comprehensive than those of the army of followers who blindly and faithfully did its bidding.

A. _Composition, Functions, Responsibilities, and Powers of the
Leadership Corps._

In considering the composition and organizational structure of the Leadership Corps, preliminary reference is made to the organization chart of the Nazi Party (_Chart Number 1_) as well as a chart of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party appearing at page 9 of a magazine published by the Chief Education Office of the Nazi Party entitled “_Das Gesicht der Partei_” (The Face of the Party). These charts and the evidence to follow show that the Leadership Corps constituted the sum of the officials of the Nazi Party: it included the Fuehrer; the _Reichsleiter_ and Reich office holders; the five categories of leaders who were area commanders (called _Hoheitstraeger_, or “bearers of sovereignty”) ranging all the way from the 40-odd _Gauleiter_ in charge of large districts down through the intermediate political leaders to the _Blockleiter_, charged with looking after 40 to 60 households; and what may best be described as the Staff Officers attached to each of the 5 levels of _Hoheitstraeger_.

Organized upon a hierarchical basis, forming a pyramidal structure, the principal Political Leaders on a scale of descending authority were:

_Fuehrer_

_Reichsleiter_ (Reich Leaders) and _Main Office_ and _Office
Holders_

_Gauleiter_ (District Leaders) and Staff Officers

_Kreisleiter_ (County Leaders) and Staff Officers

_Ortsgruppenleiter_ (Local Chapter Leaders) and Staff Officers

_Zellenleiter_ (Cell Leaders) and Staff Officers

_Blockleiter_ (Block Leaders) and Staff Officers

A large part of this and other evidence relating to the composition of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party is to be found in the 1943 edition of the _Organization Book of the NSDAP_, an authoritative primer on Nazi organizations which was edited by the defendant, Reich Organization Leader of the NSDAP, Dr. Robert Ley.

The _Reichsleitung_ of the Leadership Corps consisted of the _Reichsleiter_ or Reich Leaders of the Party, the _Hauptaemter_ (Main Offices) and the _Aemter_ (or Offices). The _Reichsleiter_ of the Party were, next to Hitler, the highest officeholders in the Party hierarchy. All the _Reichsleiter_ and Main Office and officeholders within the _Reichsleitung_ were appointed by Hitler and were directly responsible to him. _The Organization Book of the NSDAP_ puts it as follows:

“The Fuehrer appoints the following Political Directors:
“_Reichsleiter_ and all Political Directors, to include the
Directors of the Womens Leagues within the Reich Directorate or
_Reichsleitung_.” (_1893-PS_)

The significant fact is that through the _Reichsleitung_ perfect coordination of Party and State machinery was guaranteed. The Party Manual describes it this way:

“In the _Reichsleitung_ the arteries of the organization of the
German people and of the German State merge.” (_1893-PS_)

To demonstrate that the _Reichsleiter_ of the Leadership Corps included the most powerful coalition of political overlords in Nazi Germany, it is necessary only to mention their names. The list of _Reichsleiter_ includes the following defendants on trial: Rosenberg, Von Schirach, Frick, Bormann, and Ley.

The evidence to be presented will show that Rosenberg was the leader of an organization named for him, the _Einsatzstab_ Rosenberg, which carried out a vast program of looting and plunder of art treasures throughout occupied Europe. The evidence will further show that, as Representative of the Fuehrer for the Supervision of Nazi Ideology and Schooling, Rosenberg participated in an aggressive campaign to undermine the Christian churches and to supersede Christianity by a German National Church founded upon a combination of irrationality, pseudo-scientific theories, mysticism, and the cult of the racial state.

It will be shown that the late Defendant Ley, acting as the agent of Hitler and the Leadership Corps, directed the Nazi assault upon the independent labor unions of Germany and before destroying himself first destroyed the free and independent labor movement; and that he replaced it by a Nazi organization, the German Labor front or DAF, which he employed as a means of exploiting the German labor force in the interests of the conspiracy and to instill Nazi ideology among the ranks of the German workers.

It will be shown that Frick participated in the enactment of many laws which were designed to promote the conspiracy in its several phases. Frick shares responsibility for the grave injury done by the officials of the Leadership Corps to the concept of the rule of law by virtue of his efforts to give the color of law and formal legality to a large volume of Nazi legislation violative of the rights of humanity, such as the legislation designed to stigmatize and eliminate the Jewish people of Germany and German-occupied Europe. As chief of the Party Chancellery, immediately under Hitler, Bormann was an extremely important force in directing the activities of the Leadership Corps. As will be shown, a decree of 16 January 1942 provided that the participation of the Party in all important legislation, governmental appointments, and promotions had to be undertaken exclusively by Bormann. He took part in the preparation of all laws and decrees issued by the Reich authorities and gave his assent to those of the subordinate governments.

The list of _Reichsleiter_ of the NSDAP set forth in the _National Socialist Yearbook_ (1943 Edition) shows that the following 15 _Reichsleiter_ were in office in 1943 (_2473-PS_):

“_THE REICHSLEITERS OF THE NSDAP_
“Max Amann _Reichsleiter_ for the Press.
“Martin Bormann Chief of the Party Chancery.
“Phillipp Bouhler Chief of the Chancery of the Fuehrer of
the NSDAP. Chairman of the official Party
Investigation Commission for the
Protection of National Socialist Writings.
“Walter Darré On leave.
“Otto Dietrich Reich Press Chief of the NSDAP.
“Franz von Epp Chief of the _Kolonialpolitischen Amtes_.
“Karl Fiehler Chief of the main office for Municipal
Politics.
“Wilhelm Frick Leader of the National Socialist “faction”
in the Reichstag.
“Joseph Goebbels Reich Propaganda Leader of the NSDAP.
“Konstantin Hierl Leader of the Reich Labor.
“Heinrich Himmler Reich Leader of the SS. The Deputy of the
NSDAP, for all questions of Germandom.
“Robert Ley Reich Organization Leader of the NSDAP.
Leader of the German Labor Front.
“Victor Lutze Chief of Staff of the SA.
“Alfred Rosenberg Representative of the Fuehrer for the
supervision of all mental and ideological
training and education of the NSDAP.
“Baldur von Schirach Reich Leader for the Education of Youth of
the NSDAP.
“Franz Xaver Schwarz Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP.”
(_2473-PS_)

The principal functions of the _Reichsleiter_ included carrying out the tasks and missions assigned to them by the Fuehrer or by the Chief of the Party Chancellery, Martin Bormann. The _Reichsleiter_ were further charged with insuring that Party policies were being executed in all the subordinate areas of the Reich. The _Reichsleiter_ were also responsible for insuring a continual flow of new leadership into the Party. With respect to the function and responsibilities of the _Reichsleiter_, the Organization Book of the NSDAP states as follows:

“The NSDAP represents the political conception, the political
conscience, and the political will of the German nation.
Political conception, political conscience, and political will
are embodied in the person of the Fuehrer. Based on his
directives and in accordance with the program of the NSDAP the
organs of the Reich Directorate directionally determine the
political aims of the German people. It is in the Reich
Directorate that the arteries of the organization of the German
people and the State merge. It is the task of the separate
organs of the Reich Directorate to maintain as close a contact
as possible with the life of the nation through their
sub-offices in the Gau * * *

“The structure of the Reich Directorate is thus that the channel
from the lowest Party office upwards shows the most minute
weaknesses and changes in the mood of the people * * *

“Another essential task of the Reich Directorate is to assure a
good selection of leaders. It is the duty of the Reich
Directorate to see that there is leadership in all phases of
life, a leadership which is firmly tied to National Socialist
ideology and which promotes its dissemination with all its
energy * * *

“* * * It is the supreme task of the Reich Organization Leader
to preserve the Party as a well-sharpened sword for the
Fuehrer.” (_1893-PS_)

The domination of the German Government by the top members of the Leadership Corps was facilitated by a circular decree of the Reich Minister of Justice, dated 17 February 1934, which established equal rank for the offices within the _Reichsleitung_ of the Leadership Corps and the Reich offices of the government. In this decree it was expressly provided that

“the supreme offices of the _Reichsleitung_ are equal in rank to
the supreme Reich Government authorities.”

The Party Manual termed the control exercised over the machinery of government by the Leadership Corps “the permeation of the State apparatus with the political will of the Party.”

Domination by the Leadership Corps over the German State and Government was facilitated by uniting in the same Nazi chieftains both high office within the _Reichsleitung_ and corresponding offices within the apparatus of government. For example, Goebbels was a _Reichsleiter_ in charge of Party propaganda, but he was also a cabinet minister in charge of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment. Himmler held office within the _Reichsleitung_ as head of the Main Office for “Volkdom” and as Reichsfuehrer of the SS. At the same time, Himmler held the governmental position of Reich Commission for the Consolidation of Germandom and was the governmental head of the German police system (_Chart Number 1_). This personal union of high office in the Leadership Corps and high governmental position in the same Nazi Leaders greatly assisted the plan of the Leadership Corps to dominate and control the German State and Government.

In addition to the _Reichsleiter_, the _Reichsleitung_ (Reich Party Directorate) included about eleven _Hauptamter_, or Main Offices, and about four _Amter_, or Offices. The _Hauptamter_ of the Party included such main organizations as those for personnel, training, technology (headed by Speer), “Volkdom,” (headed by Himmler), civil servants, communal policy, and the like. The _Amter_, or offices, of the Party within the _Reichsleitung_ included the Office for Foreign Policy under Rosenberg which actively participated in plans for aggression against Norway, the Office for Colonial Policy, the Office for Geneology, and the Office for Racial Policy.

Certain of the main offices and offices within the _Reichsleitung_ appeared again within the _Gauleitung_, or Gau Party Directorate, and _Kreisleitung_, or County Party Directorate. Thus, the _Reichsleiter_ and main office and office holders within the _Reichsleitung_ exercised, through functional channels running through subordinate offices on lower regional levels, total control over the various sectors of the national life of Germany.

(1) _Gauleiter._ For Party purposes Germany was divided into major administrative regions, _Gaue_, which, in turn, were subdivided into _Kreise_ (counties), _Ortsgruppen_ (local chapters), _Zellen_ (cells), and _Blocke_ (blocks). Each _Gau_ was in charge of a _Gauleiter_ who was the political leader of the _Gau_ or district. Each _Gauleiter_ was appointed by and was responsible to Hitler himself. The _Organization Book of the NSDAP_ states:

“The _Gau_ represents the concentration of a number of Party
counties, or _Kreise_. The _Gauleiter_ is directly subordinate
to the Fuehrer. He is appointed by the Fuehrer. The _Gauleiter_
bears overall responsibility to the Fuehrer for the sector of
sovereignty entrusted to him. The rights, duties, and
jurisdiction of the _Gauleiter_ result primarily from the
mission assigned by the Fuehrer and, apart from that, from
detailed directives.” (_1893-PS_)

The responsibility and function of the _Gauleiter_ and his staff officers or office holders were essentially political, namely, to insure the authority of the Nazi Party within his area, to coordinate the activities of the Party and all its affiliated and supervised organizations, and to enlarge the influence of the Party over people and life in his _Gau_ generally. Following the outbreak of the war, when it became imperative to coordinate the various phases of the German war effort, the _Gauleiter_ were given additional important responsibilities. The Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich, which was a sort of general staff for civil defense and the mobilization of the German war economy, by a decree of 1 September 1939 (1939, _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 1565), appointed about sixteen _Gauleiter_ as Reich Defense Commissars. Later, under the impact of mounting military reverses and an increasingly strained war economy, more and more important administrative functions were put on a _Gau_ basis; the Party Gaue became the basic defense areas of the Reich and each _Gauleiter_ became a Reich Defense Commissar (Decree of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich of 16 November 1942, 1942 _Reichsgesetzblatt_, Part I, page 649). In the course of the war, additional functions were entrusted to the _Gauleiter_ so that at the end, with the exception of certain special matters, such as police affairs, almost all phases of the German war economy were coordinated and supervised by them. For instance, regional authority over price control was put under the _Gauleiter_ as Reich Defense Commissars, and housing administration was placed under the _Gauleiter_ as _Gau_ Housing Commissar. Toward the end of the war, the _Gauleiter_ were charged even with military and quasi military tasks. They were made commanders of the _Volkssturm_ in their areas and were entrusted with such important functions as the evacuation of civilian population in the path of the advancing Allied armies, as well as measures for the destruction of vital installations.

The structure and organization of the Party _Gau_ were substantially repeated in the lower levels of the Party organization such as the _Kreise_, _Ortsgruppen_, Cells, and Blocks. Each of these was headed by a political leader who, subject to the Fuehrer principle and the orders of superior political leaders, was sovereign within his sphere. The Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party was in effect a “hierarchy of descending caesars.” Each of the subordinate Party levels, such as _Kreise_, _Ortsgruppen_, and so on, was organized into offices or _Amter_ dealing with the various specialized functions of the Party. But the number of such departments and offices diminished as the Party unit dropped in the hierarchy, so that, while the _Kreise_ office contained all, or most of the offices in the _Gau_ (such as the deputy, the staff office leader, an organization leader, school leader, propaganda leader, press office leader, treasurer, judge of the Party Court, inspector, and the like), the _Ortsgruppe_ had less and the _Zellen_ and _Blocke_ fewer still.

(2) _Kreisleiter_ (_County Leaders_). The _Kreisleiter_ was appointed and dismissed by Hitler upon the nomination of the _Gauleiter_ and directly subordinate to the _Gauleiter_ in the Party hierarchy. The _Kreis_ usually comprised a single county. The _Kreisleiter_, within the _Kreis_, had in general the same position, powers, and prerogatives granted the _Gauleiter_ in the _Gau_. In cities they constituted the very core of Party power and organization. According to the _Organization Book of the NSDAP_:

“The _Kreisleiter_ carries over-all responsibility towards the
_Gauleiter_ within his zone of sovereignty for the political and
ideological training and organization of the Political Leaders,
the Party members, as well as the population.” (_1893-PS_)

(3) _Ortsgruppenleiter_ (_Local Chapter Leaders_). The area of the _Ortsgruppenleiter_ comprised one or more communes or, in a town, a certain district. The _Ortsgruppe_ was composed of a combination of blocks and cells and, according to local circumstances, contained up to 1500 households. The _Ortsgruppenleiter_ also had a staff of office leaders to assist him in the various functional activities of the Party. All other political leaders in his area of responsibility were subordinate to and under the direction of the _Ortsgruppenleiter_. For example, the leaders of the various affiliated organizations of the Party, within his area, such as the German Labor Front, and the Nazi organizations for lawyers, students, and civil servants, were all subordinate to the _Ortsgruppenleiter_. In accordance with the Fuehrer principle, the _Ortsgruppenleiter_ or Local Chapter Leaders were appointed by the _Gauleiter_ and were directly under and subordinate to the _Kreisleiter_.

The party Manual provides as follows with respect to the _Ortsgruppenleiter_:

“As _Hoheitstraeger_ [Bearer of Sovereignty] all expressions of
the Party will emanate from the _Ortsgruppenleiter_; he is
responsible for the political and ideological leadership and
organization within his zone of sovereignty.

“The _Ortsgruppenleiter_ carries the over-all responsibility for
the political results of all measures initiated by the offices,
organizations, and affiliated associations of the Party. * * *
The _Ortsgruppenleiter_ has the right to protest to the
_Kreisleiter_ against any measures contrary to the interests of
the Party with regard to an outside political appearance in
public.” (_1893-PS_)

(4) _Zellenleiter_ (_Cell Leaders_). The _Zellenleiter_ was responsible for four to eight blocks. He was the immediate superior of and had control and supervision over the _Blockleiter_ (Block Leader). His mission and duties, according to the Party Manual, corresponded to the missions of the _Blockleiter_. (_1893-PS_)

(5) _Blockleiter_ (_Block Leaders_). The _Blockleiter_ was the one Party official who was peculiarly in a position to have continuous contact with the German people. The _block_ was the lowest unit in the Party pyramidal organization. The _block_ of the Party comprised 40 to 60 households and was regarded by the Party as the focal point upon which to press the weight of its propaganda. The _Organization Book of the NSDAP_ states:

“The household is the basic community upon which the block and
cell system is built. The household is the organizational focal
point of all Germans united in an apartment and includes
roomers, domestic help, etc. * * * The _Blockleiter_ has
jurisdiction over all matters within his zone relating to the
Movement and is fully responsible to the _Zellenleiter_. * * *”
(_1893-PS_)

The _Blockleiter_, as in the case of other political leaders, was charged with planning, disseminating, and developing a receptivity to the policies of the Nazi Party among the population in his area of responsibility. It was also the expressed duty of the _Blockleiter_ to spy on the population. According to the Party Manual:

“It is the duty of the _Blockleiter_ to find people
disseminating damaging rumors and to report them to the
_Ortsgruppe_ so that they may be reported to the respective
State authorities.

“The _Blockleiter_ must not only be preacher and defender of the
National Socialist ideology towards the members of nation and
Party entrusted to his political care, but he must also strive
to achieve practical collaboration of the Party members within
his block zone * * *.”

“The _Blockleiter_ shall continuously remind the Party members
of their particular duties towards the people and the State * *
* The _Blockleiter_ keeps a list (card file) about the
households * * * In principle, the _Blockleiter_ will settle his
official business verbally and he will receive messages verbally
and pass them on in the same way. Correspondence will only be
used in cases of absolute necessity * * * The _Blockleiter_
conducts National Socialist propaganda from mouth to mouth. He
will eventually awaken the understanding of the eternally
dissatisfied as regards the frequently misunderstood or wrongly
interpreted measures and laws of the National Socialist
Government * * * It is not necessary to him to fall in with
complaints and gripes about possibly obvious shortcomings of any
kind in order to demonstrate * * * solidarity * * * A condition
to gain the confidence of all people is to maintain absolute
secrecy in all matters.” (_1893-PS_)

There were in Germany around a half million of these _Blockleiter_. Large though this figure may appear, there can be no doubt that these officials were in and of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. Though they stood at the broad base of the Party pyramid rather than at its summit, where rested the _Reichsleiter_, by virtue of this fact they were stationed at close intervals throughout the German civil population. It may be doubted that the average German ever looked upon the face of Heinrich Himmler. But the man in the street in Nazi Germany could not have avoided an uneasy acquaintance with the _Blockleiter_ in his neighbourhood. It was the block leaders who represented to the people of Germany the police-state of Hitler’s Germany. In fact, the _Blockleiter_ were little fuehrers with real power over the civilians in their domains. The authority of the _Blockleiter_ to exercise coercion and the threat of force upon the civil population is shown in an excerpt from page 7 of the magazine published by the Chief Education Office of the Party, entitled “The Face of the Party”:

“Advice and sometimes also the harsher form of education is
employed if the faulty conduct of an individual harms this
individual himself and thus also the community.”

(6) _Hoheitstraeger._ Within the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party certain of the Political Leaders possessed a higher degree of responsibility than others, were vested with special prerogatives, and constituted a distinctive and elite group. These were the so-called “_Hoheitstraeger_” (Bearers of Sovereignty) who represented the Party within their area of jurisdiction, the so-called _Hoheitsgebiet_. The Party Manual (_1893-PS_) states as follows:

“Among the Political Leaders, the _Hoheitstraeger_ assumed a
special position. Contrary to the other Political Leaders who
have departmental missions, the _Hoheitstraeger_ themselves are
in charge of a geographical sector known as the _Hoheitsgebiet_
[Sectors of Sovereignty].

“_Hoheitstraeger_ are:
“The _Fuehrer_
The _Gauleiter_
The _Kreisleiter_
The _Ortsgruppenleiter_
The _Zellenleiter_
The _Blockleiter_.
“_Hoheitsgebiet_ are:
“The _Reich_
The _Gau_
The _Kreis_
The _Ortsgruppe_
The _Zelle_
The _Block_.

“Within their sector of sovereignty the _Hoheitstraeger_ have
sovereign political rights. They represent the Party within
their sector. The _Hoheitstraeger_ supervise all Party Officers
within their jurisdiction and * * * are responsible for the
maintenance of discipline. * * * The directors of offices, etc.,
and of the affiliated organizations are responsible to their
respective _Hoheitstraeger_ as regards their special missions. *
* * The _Hoheitstraeger_ are superior to all Political Leaders,
managers, etc., within their sector. As regards personal
considerations, _Hoheitstraeger_ * * * are endowed with special
rights.