Chapter XII: Part 12

“We have read a lot in the foreign press during the last few
days that this aim, the union of both countries, is to a certain
degree justified, but that the method of effecting this union
was terrible. . . . This method, which certainly did not suit
one or another foreigner, is nothing but the consequence of
countless perfidies and brutal acts of violence which foreign
countries have practiced against us.”

And I refer now to Page 3 of this same document and to the fourth paragraph, about the center of the page, and reading from it:

“I am known for sometimes expressing thoughts which give offense
and there I would not like to depart from this custom. I know
that there are even here, in this country a few people—I
believe they are not too numerous—who find fault with the
events of the last few days; but nobody, I believe, doubts the
goal, and it should be said to all grumblers that you can’t
satisfy everybody. One person says he would have done it maybe
in one way, but the remarkable thing is that they did not do it,
and that it was only done by our Adolf Hitler; and if there is
still something left to be improved, then those grumblers should
try to bring about these improvements from the German Reich, and
within the German community, but not to disturb it from
without.”

In the memorandum of the 7th of January 1939, written by the Defendant Schacht and other directors of the Reichsbank to Hitler, urging a balancing of the budget in view of the threatening danger of inflation, it was stated—and I now refer to the document bearing the label EC-369 and particularly to the paragraph at the bottom of the first page of that document:

“From the beginning the Reichsbank has been aware of the fact
that a successful foreign policy can be attained only by the
reconstruction of the German Armed Forces. It (the Reichsbank)
therefore assumed to a very great extent the responsibility to
finance the rearmament in spite of the inherent dangers to the
currency. The justification thereof was the necessity, which
pushed all other considerations into the background, to carry
through the armament at once, out of nothing, and furthermore
under camouflage, which made a respect-commanding foreign policy
possible.”

The Reichsbank directors, as experts on money, believed that a point had been reached where greater production of armaments was no longer possible. We say that was merely a judgment on the situation and not a moral principle, for there was no opposition to Hitler’s policy of aggression. Doubts were ascertained only as to whether he could finance that policy. Hitler’s letter to Schacht on the occasion of Schacht’s departure from the Reichsbank, as contained in Document EC-397, pays high tribute to Schacht’s great efforts in furthering the program of the Nazi conspirators. The Armed Forces by now had enabled Hitler to take Austria and the Sudetenland. We say Schacht’s task up to that point had been well done. And to quote from Document EC-397 in the words of Hitler, in a letter which he wrote to the Defendant Schacht, “Your name, above all, will always be connected with the first epoch of the national rearmament.”

Even though dismissed from the presidency of the Reichsbank, Schacht was retained as a Minister without portfolio and special confidential adviser to Hitler. The Defendant Funk stepped into Schacht’s position as President of the Reichsbank. And I ask at this point that the Court might take judicial notice of the _Völkischer Beobachter_ of January 21, 1939. The Defendant Funk was completely uninhibited by fears of inflation, for like Göring, under whom he had served in the Four Year Plan, he recognized no obstacles to the plan to attack Poland.

In Document 699-PS, in a letter from the Defendant Funk to Hitler, written on August 25 of 1939, only a few days before the attack on Poland, the Defendant Funk reported to Hitler that the Reichsbank was prepared to withstand any disturbances of the international currency and credit system occasioned by a large-scale war. He said that he had secretly transferred all available funds of the Reichsbank abroad into gold, and that Germany stood ready to meet the financial and economic tasks which lay ahead.

And so it seems plain and clear from the writings, from the acts, from the speeches of the Nazi conspirators themselves, that they did in fact direct the whole of the German economy toward preparation for aggressive war. To paraphrase the words that the Defendant Göring once used, these conspirators gave the German people “guns instead of butter,” and we say they also gave history its most striking example of a nation gearing itself in time of peace to the single purpose of aggressive war. Their economic preparations, formulated and applied with the ruthless energy of the Defendant Göring, with the cynical financial wizardry of the Defendant Schacht, and the willing complicity of Funk, among others, were the indispensable first act in the heart-breaking tragedy which their aggression inflicted upon the world.

I should like to offer, if I may at this time, Your Honor, those documents which I have referred to in the course of this discussion. We have here the original documents in the folders, and they compare with the translations which have been submitted to the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: Have the defendants had the opportunity of inspecting these documents?

MR. DODD: I doubt that they have had full opportunity to inspect them, Your Honor. The photostats are there, but I don’t think they have had time to inspect them because they haven’t been there long enough for that.

THE PRESIDENT: I think that they should have full opportunity of inspecting them and comparing with the copies which have been submitted to us before the originals are put in.

MR. DODD: Very well, Your Honor. We may offer them at a later date, as I understand, Your Honor?

THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. The Tribunal will adjourn for 10 minutes.

[_A recess was taken._]

COLONEL STOREY: May it please the Tribunal: The U. S. Prosecution now passes into the aggressive war phase of the case and it will be presented by Mr. Alderman.

MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal: I rise to present on behalf of the United States Chief of Counsel, evidence to support the allegation of Count One of the Indictment relating to the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of illegal and aggressive war, and relating to the conspiracy to commit that crime.

The aggressive war phase of the case, the aggressive war phase of the conspiracy case under Count One, and the aggressive war phase of the entire case is really, we think, the heart of the case. If we did not reach it in our presentation we would not reach the heart of the case. If we did not present it to the Tribunal in the necessary detail, we would fail to present what is necessary to the heart of the case.

After all, everything else in this case, however dramatic, however sordid, however shocking and revolting to the common instincts of civilized peoples, is incidental to, or subordinate to, the aggressive war aspect of the case.

All the dramatic story of what went on in Germany in the early phases of the conspiracy—the ideologies used, the techniques of terror used, the suppressions of human freedom employed in the seizure of power, and even the concentration camps and the Crimes against Humanity, the persecutions, tortures, and murders committed—all these things would have little juridical international significance except for the fact that they were the preparation for the commission of aggressions against peaceful neighboring peoples.

Even the aspects of the case involving War Crimes in the strict sense are aspects which are merely the inevitable, proximate result of the wars of aggression launched and waged by these conspirators, and of the kind of warfare they waged—that is—total war, the natural result of the totalitarian party-dominated state that waged it, and atrocious war, the natural result of the atrocious doctrines, designs, and purposes of these war-makers.

For these reasons, I repeat that in our view the phases of the case dealing with territorial gains acquired by threats of force and with actual aggressions and aggressive wars constitute the real heart of the case. Accordingly, we ask the indulgence of the Tribunal if for these reasons we make the presentation of this part of the case as detailed as seems to us necessary in view of the outstanding importance of the subject matter.

The general scope of the case to be presented by the American Prosecution has been stated in the opening address by Mr. Justice Jackson. That address indicated to the Tribunal the general nature and character of the evidence to be offered by the American Prosecution in support of the allegations with which I shall deal. However, before approaching the actual presentation of that evidence, it seems to us that it would be helpful to an orderly presentation of the case, to address the Tribunal in an introductory way concerning this specific segment of the Prosecution’s case. In doing so, I shall not attempt to retrace the ground so ably covered by Mr. Justice Jackson. On the contrary, I shall confine my introductory remarks to matters specifically and peculiarly applicable to that part of the American case relating to the crime of illegal warfare, and the Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit that crime.

The substantive rule of law which must guide the considerations of the Tribunal on this aspect of the case, and the rule of law which must be controlling in the final judgment of the Tribunal on this part of the case, is stated in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. Article 6, so far as pertinent here, reads as follows:

“_Article_ 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred
to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major
war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the
power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of
the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as
members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

“The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be
individual responsibility:

“(a) _CRIMES AGAINST PEACE_: namely, planning, preparation,
initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in
violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances,
or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any of the foregoing. . . .”

Subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 6 are not pertinent to this aspect of the case. However, the unnumbered final paragraph of Article 6 is of controlling importance on this aspect of the case. That paragraph reads:

“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.”

In receiving evidence on this aspect of the case I would request the Tribunal to have in mind five principles derived from the portions of the Charter I have just read:

(1) The Charter imposes “individual responsibility” for acts constituting “Crimes against Peace”;

(2) The term “Crimes against Peace” embraces planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of illegal war;

(3) The term “Crimes against Peace” also embraces participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit illegal war;

(4) An illegal war consists of either a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. These two kinds of illegal war might not necessarily be the same. It will be sufficient for the Prosecution to show that the war was aggressive irrespective of breach of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. On the other hand it would be sufficient for the Prosecution to show that the war was in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances irrespective of whether or not it was a war of aggression. We think the evidence in this case will establish conclusively that the wars planned, prepared, initiated, and waged by these defendants, and the wars which were the object of their common plan and conspiracy, were illegal for both reasons.

The fifth principle which I ask you to bear in mind, is that individual criminal responsibility of a defendant is imposed by the Charter not merely by reason of direct, immediate participation in the crime. It is sufficient for the Prosecution to show that a defendant was a leader, an organizer, instigator, or accomplice who participated either in the formulation or in the execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit Crimes against Peace. In the case of many of the defendants the evidence will show direct and immediate personal participation in the substantive crime itself. In the case of some of the defendants the evidence goes to their participation in the formulation and execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy. In the case of each defendant, we think, the evidence will establish full individual responsibility for Crimes against Peace, as defined in the Charter of this Tribunal. In this connection I wish to emphasize that the Charter declares that the responsibility of conspirators extends not only to their own acts, but also to all acts performed by any persons in execution of the conspiracy.

It is familiar law in my country that if two or more persons set out to rob a bank, in accordance with a criminal scheme to that end, and in the course of carrying out their scheme one of the conspirators commits the crime of murder, all of the participants in the planning and execution of the bank robbery are guilty of murder, whether or not they had any other personal participation in the killing. This is a simple rule of law declared in the Charter. All the parties to a Common Plan or Conspiracy are the agents of each other and each is responsible as principal for the acts of all the others as his agents.

So much for the terms of the Charter having a bearing on this aspect of the case.

I invite the attention of the Tribunal to the portions of the Indictment lodged against the defendants on trial which relate to the crimes of illegal war or war of aggression. Particularly I ask the Tribunal to advert to the statements of offense under Count One and Count Two of the Indictment in this case.

The statement of offense under Count One of the Indictment is contained in Paragraph III. The offense there stated, so far as pertinent to the present discussion, is:

“All the defendants, with divers other persons, during a period
of years preceding 8th May 1945, participated as leaders,
organizers, instigators, or accomplices in the formulation or
execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit, or which
involved the commission of, Crimes against Peace, as defined in
the Charter of this Tribunal. . . . The Common Plan or
Conspiracy embraced the commission of Crimes against Peace, in
that the defendants planned, prepared, initiated, and waged wars
of aggression, which were also wars in violation of
international treaties, agreements, or assurances.”

The statement of offense under Count Two of the Indictment is also relevant at this point. It must be obvious that essentially Counts One and Two interlock in this Indictment. The substance of the offense stated under Count Two, Paragraph V of the Indictment is this:

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

The emphasis in the statement of offense under Count One of the Indictment is on the Common Plan or Conspiracy. The emphasis under Count Two of the Indictment is on the substantive crimes to which the conspiracy related and which were committed in the course of and pursuant to that conspiracy.

I should hasten to add at this point that in the division of the case as between the Chief Prosecutors of the four Prosecuting Governments, primary responsibility for the presentation of evidence supporting Count One has been placed on the American prosecutor, and primary responsibility for the presentation of the evidence supporting Count Two of the Indictment has been placed on the British prosecutor.

But as we shall show somewhat later, there will to some extent be a cooperative effort as between the two prosecutors to present certain phases of both counts together. In addition to the statement of offense relating to illegal war in Paragraph III under Count One of the Indictment, Count One also contains what amounts to a bill of particulars of that offense. In so far as those particulars relate to illegal war, they are contained in Paragraph IV (F) of the Indictment which is set out in the English text on Page 7 through the top of Page 10 under the general heading “Utilization of Nazi Control for Foreign Aggression.” The allegations of this bill of particulars have been read in open court, in the presence of the defendants, and the Tribunal, as well as the defendants, are certainly familiar with the contents of those allegations. I call attention to them now, however, in order to focus attention on the parts of the Indictment which are relevant in consideration of the evidence which I intend to bring before the Tribunal.

My introduction to the presentation of evidence in this matter would be faulty if I did not invite the Tribunal to consider with me the relationship between history and the evidence in this case. Neither counsel nor Tribunal can orient themselves to the problem at hand—neither counsel nor Tribunal can present or consider the evidence in this case in its proper context, neither can argue or evaluate the staggering implications of the evidence to be presented—without reading that history, reading that evidence against the background of recorded history. And by recorded history, I mean the history merely of the last 12 years.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, of the U. S. Supreme Court, found in his judicial experience that “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” My recollection is that he stated it perhaps better, earlier in the preface to his book on the common law where he said, I think, “The life of the law has been not logic but experience.” I submit that in the present case a page of history is worth a hundred tons of evidence. As lawyers and judges we cannot blind ourselves to what we know as men. The history of the past 12 years is a burning, living thing in our immediate memory. The facts of history crowd themselves upon us and demand our attention.

It is common ground among all systems of jurisprudence that matters of common knowledge need not be proved, but may receive the judicial notice of courts without other evidence. The Charter of this Tribunal, drawing on this uniformly recognized principle, declares in Article 21:

“The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common
knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof.”

The facts of recorded history are the prime example of facts of common knowledge which require no proof. No court would require evidence to prove that the Battle of Hastings occurred in the year 1066, or that the Bastille fell on the 14th of July 1789, or that Czar Alexander I freed the serfs in 1863, or that George Washington was the first President of the United States or that George III was the reigning King of England at that time.

If I may be allowed to interpolate, an old law professor of mine used to present the curiosity of the law: that a judge is held to responsibility for no knowledge of the law whatsoever, that a lawyer is held to a reasonable knowledge of the law, and a layman is held to an absolute knowledge of all the laws. It works inversely as to facts, or facts of common knowledge. There, the judge is imputed to know all of those facts, however many of them he may have forgotten as an individual man. So one of the purposes of this presentation will be to implement the judicial knowledge which by hypothesis exists, and which probably actually exists.

It is not our purpose however, to convert the record of these proceedings into a history book. The evidence which we offer in this case is evidence which for the moment has been concealed from historians. It will fill in recorded history, but it must be read against the background which common knowledge provides. The evidence in this case consists primarily of captured documents. These documents fill in the inside story underlying the historical record which we all already knew. This evidence which we will offer constitutes an illustrative spot check on history—on the history of the recent times as the world knows it. The evidence to be offered is not a substitute for history. We hope the Tribunal will find it to be an authentication of history. The evidence which we have drawn from captured documents establishes the validity of the recent history of the past 12 years—a history of many aggressions by the Nazi conspirators accused in this case.

As I offer to the Tribunal document after document, I ask the Court to see in those documents definite additions to history, the addition of new elements long suspected and now proved. The elements which the captured documents on this particular aspect of the case will add to recorded history are the following:

(1) The conspiratorial nature of the planning and preparation which underlay the Nazi aggressions already known to history;

(2) The deliberate premeditation which preceded those acts of aggression;

(3) The evil motives which led to the crimes;

(4) The individual participation of named persons in the Nazi conspiracy for aggression;

(5) The deliberate falsification of the pretexts claimed by the Nazi aggressors as the reasons for their criminal activities.

These elements the captured documents will demonstrate beyond possible doubt, and these elements, in the context of historical facts, we think are all that need to be shown.

The critical period between the Nazi seizure of power and the initiation of the first war of aggression was a very short period. This critical period of a lawless preparation and illegal scheming which ultimately set the whole world aflame was unbelievably short. It covered only 6 years, 1933 to 1939. The speed with which all this was accomplished evidences at once the fanatical intensity of the conspirators and their diabolical efficiency. Crowded into these 6 short years is the making of the greatest tragedy that has ever befallen mankind.

A full understanding of these 6 years, and of the vibrant 6 years of war that followed, demands that we see this period of time divided into rather definite phases, phases that reflect the development and execution of the Nazi master plan. I suggest that the Tribunal as it receives evidence, fit it into five phases. The first was primarily preparatory, although it did involve overt acts. That phase covers roughly the period from 1933 to 1936. In that period the Nazi conspirators, having acquired governmental control of Germany by the middle of 1933, turned their attention toward utilization of that control for foreign aggression. Their plan at this stage was to acquire military strength and political bargaining power to be used against other nations. In this they succeeded. The second phase of their aggression was shorter. It is rather interesting to see that as the conspiracy gained strength it gained speed. During each phase the conspirators succeeded in accomplishing more and more in less and less time until, toward the end of the period, the rate of acceleration of their conspiratorial movement was enormous. The second phase of their utilization of control for foreign aggression involved the actual seizure and absorption of Austria and Czechoslovakia in that order. By March, the third month of 1939, they had succeeded in that phase. The third phase may be measured in months rather than years: from March 1939 to September 1939. The previous aggression being successful, having been consummated without the necessity of resorting to actual war, the conspirators had obtained much desired resources and bases and were ready to undertake further aggressions, by means of war if necessary. By September 1939 war was upon the world. The fourth phase of the aggression consisted of expanding the war into a general European war of aggression. By April 1941 the war which had theretofore involved Poland, the United Kingdom, and France, had been expanded by invasions into Scandinavia and into the Low Countries and into the Balkans. In the next phase the Nazi conspirators carried the war eastward by invasion of the territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and finally, through their Pacific ally, Japan, precipitated the attack on the United States at Pearl Harbor.

The final result of these aggressions is fresh in the minds of all of us.

I turn now to certain outstanding evidence at hand. While on this phase of the case we shall not rest exclusively on them alone; the essential elements of the crime which I have already pointed out can be made out by a mere handful of captured documents. My order of presentation of these will be first to present one by one this handful of documents, documents which prove the essential elements of the case on aggressive war up to the hilt. These documents will leave no reasonable doubt concerning the aggressive character of the Nazi war or concerning the conspiratorial premeditation of that war. Some of this group of documents are the specific basis for particular allegations in the Indictment. As I reach those documents, I shall invite the attention of the Tribunal to the allegations of the Indictment which are specifically supported by them. Having proved the corpus of the crime in this way, I will follow the presentation of this evidence with a more or less chronological presentation of the details of the case on aggressive war producing more detailed evidence of the relevant activities of the conspirators from 1933 to 1941.

The documents which we have selected for single presentation at this point, before developing the case in detail, are 10 in number. The documents have been selected to establish the basic facts concerning each phase of the development of the Nazi conspiracy for aggression. Each document is conspiratorial in nature. Each document is one, I believe, heretofore unknown to history and each document is self-contained and tells its own story. Those are the three standards of selection which we have sought to apply.

I turn to the period of 1933 to 1936, a period characterized by an orderly, planned sequence of preparations for war. This is the period covered by Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section IV (F) of the Indictment, to be found at Page 7 of the printed English text. The essential character of this period was the formulation and execution of the plan to re-arm and to re-occupy and fortify the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and other treaties, in order to acquire military strength and political bargaining power to be used against other nations.

If the Tribunal please, we have what have been referred to as document books. They are English translations of German documents, in some cases German versions. I shall ask that they be handed up and we will hand one copy at the moment to counsel for the defendants. It has been physically impossible to prepare 21 sets of them. If possible we shall try to furnish further copies to the defendants, the original German documents. . . .

DR. DIX: I would be very much obliged. In order that there should be no misunderstanding we have arranged that tomorrow we will discuss with the Prosecution in what way the whole of the evidence may be made available to all the Defense Counsel. It is, of course, necessary that no one should have the advantage over the other. For this reason, while I appreciate the good will of the Prosecution to overcome the difficulties, I must refuse their kind offer of a copy of the book, because I feel that in so doing I would have an unfair advantage over the others. I am not in a position during the proceedings to hand the evidentiary document to my colleagues. I ask you therefore to appreciate the reasons why I have refused this document. I am convinced that tomorrow we shall be able to agree about the way in which we can receive evidence, and I suggest that today we try to continue as we have done up to now.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Alderman, can you inform the Tribunal how many copies of these documents you will be able to furnish to the Tribunal by Monday?

MR. ALDERMAN: I cannot at the moment. If Your Honor pleases: may I make this suggestion in connection with it, which I think may be of help to all concerned? I think many of us have underestimated the contribution of this interpreting system to this Trial. We all see how it has speeded the proceeding, but in so far as my presentation of German documents is concerned, I shall let the documents speak. I expect to read the pertinent parts of the documents into the system so that they will go into the transcript of record. Counsel for the German defendants will get their transcripts in German; our French and Russian Allies will get their transcripts in their language, and it seems to me that that is the most helpful way to overcome this language barrier. I can recognize that for Dr. Dix to receive a volume of documents which are English translations of German documents might not seem very helpful to him. Further, as an aid, we will have original German documents in court—one copy; and if the Court will allow, I would ask that the original German document, from which I shall read, would be passed to the German interpreter under Colonel Dostert, so that instead of undertaking to translate an English translation back into perhaps a bad German, he will have the original German document before him and in that way, the exact German text will be delivered in the daily transcript to all of the counsel for the defendants. I hope that may be a helpful suggestion.

THE PRESIDENT: That to some extent depends, does it not, upon how much of the document you omit?

MR. ALDERMAN: That is quite true, Sir. As to these 10 documents with which I propose to deal immediately, I expect to read into the transcript practically the whole of the documents, because the whole of them is significant, much more significant than anything I could say. Also all of these 10 documents were listed in the list of documents which we furnished counsel for the defendants, I believe, the 1st of November.

THE PRESIDENT: You say that they were. . . .

MR. ALDERMAN: In the list. But of course I recognize that a list of documents is very different from the documents themselves.

THE PRESIDENT: Are the documents very long?

MR. ALDERMAN: Some of them are very long and some of them are very short; you can’t generalize. Whenever it is a speech of Adolf Hitler you can count it is fairly long.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you not by Monday have in the hands of every member of the Defense Counsel copies of these 10 documents? It is suggested to me that photostating could be done quite easily.

MR. ALDERMAN: I understand that both our photostatic facilities and our mimeographing facilities are right up to the hilt with work. It is a very difficult mechanical problem.

COL. STOREY: If the Tribunal please: In further explanation, the documents which Mr. Alderman intends to offer were on the defendants’ list filed in the Document Center on the 1st day of November 1945. Lieutenant Barrett had 23 copies of each one photostated as far as he could on that list. Six copies went into the defendants’ Information Center. Now, we can’t say at this time whether six copies—that, is photostatic copies of each one—have been furnished to the defendants, but whenever they wanted copies of any particular one, either the original was exhibited to them or photostatic copies were made.

Again, Sir, I call attention to the physical problems that are almost insurmountable: to make 23 photostatic copies which are required of every document. Now then, Sir. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: If I may interrupt you, I imagine that the list which was deposited on the 1st of November didn’t contain only these 10 documents but contained a great number of other documents.

COL. STOREY: That is correct, Sir.

THE PRESIDENT: So that the defendants’ counsel wouldn’t know which out of that list of documents were going to be relied upon.

COL. STOREY: Except, Sir, they were notified that the Prosecution would use all or some of those documents if necessary, and if the copies were not furnished upon request, they have been made and delivered to them.

May I say, Sir, that working 24 hours a day, we are trying to furnish 10 sets of all of these to defendants’ counsel, and they will be. . . . One complete set was delivered to defendants’ counsel here now as a convenience to follow. The other sets, I feel certain, will be in their hands sometime Sunday, but one complete list we now turn over to them—not a list, complete copies.

DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): I should like to point out one fact. The Prosecution declared this morning that the documents that will be put before us today are contained in the list which was submitted on the 1st of November, that is—in the list which was submitted this morning. This morning a list was made available to us in room 54. I have it in my hand. This morning nine documents were named. Of these nine documents, only one, contrary to what the Prosecution said, was found in the old list; the other eight documents were neither in the old list nor in the new list. The eight other documents are, as I ascertained at lunch time today, not in the document room. Neither are they available in photostatic copies, so they could not be made available to me. I think, gentlemen, that it will not be possible for us to work on this basis. I therefore request that we should be allowed to wait until we know the result of the discussion which we are told will take place tomorrow with the Prosecution, so that we may then. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal proposes to adjourn now and to give Defense Counsel the opportunity of meeting Counsel for the Prosecution tomorrow morning. Both Counsel for the Prosecution and Defense Counsel appear to be perfectly ready to make every possible effort to deal with the case in the most reasonable way, and at that meeting you will be able to discuss these documents which you say have been omitted and the Counsel for the Prosecution will try to satisfy you with reference to the other documents.

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, I have one more request. The Prosecution has just said that it will hardly be possible to make 23 photostatic copies. I believe, gentlemen, that if these documents are as important as the Prosecution said today, it is a _conditio sine qua non_ that every defense counsel and every defendant should have a photostatic copy of these documents.

As we all know it is easy to produce a photostat in a few hours. With the excellent apparatus here available to the Prosecution it should, in my opinion, be easy to produce 20 or 40 photostats of these 10 documents in 48 hours.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you will meet the Counsel for the Prosecution tomorrow and attempt to come to some satisfactory arrangement with them then; and now the Tribunal will adjourn.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 26 November 1945 at 1000 hours._]

FIFTH DAY
Monday, 26 November 1945

_Morning Session_

DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Von Ribbentrop): May it please the Court, I should like to make an application. I am Dr. Sauter, counsel for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. On 30 October the Defendant Von Ribbentrop requested that his former secretary, Margareta Blank, at that time in the Remand Prison in Nuremberg, be placed at his disposal in order that he might dictate his reply to the Indictment, as well as a description of the manner in which he performed his official duties in the last 7 or 8 years.

On 11 November 1945 the Tribunal allowed this request. The Defendant Von Ribbentrop was therefore able to dictate for a few hours, but this was stopped for reasons unknown to him. Neither has the Defendant Von Ribbentrop had returned to him the shorthand notes or the typed transcript. He has not been able to dictate any more to Fräulein Blank.

On 15 November Ribbentrop repeated his request regarding the witness Blank, but up to the present she has not been placed again at his disposal. The Defendant Ribbentrop therefore requests the President to give instructions that his former secretary, Margareta Blank, again be placed at his disposal in order to take down the necessary notes from dictation. Such permission appears to be absolutely essential to enable the Defendant Ribbentrop properly to prepare his own testimony and the testimony of the defense witnesses.

Particularly in the case of Von Ribbentrop, the material to be treated is so voluminous, that no other way of treating it appears feasible to us. The Defendant Von Ribbentrop has a further request to make. He has repeatedly asked that some of his former colleagues, in particular Ambassador Gauss, Ambassador Von Rintelen, Minister Von Sonnleitner, Professor Fritz Berber, and Under State Secretary Henke, be brought to Nuremberg as witnesses, and that he be permitted to speak to these witnesses in the presence of his counsel. This request had in part been refused by the Court on 10 November. The remaining part has not yet been decided.

It is quite impossible for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop to give a clear and exhaustive account of the entire foreign policy for the last 7 or 8 years if nothing is placed at his disposal except a pencil and a block of writing paper. Even the White Books of the Foreign Office, for which he has asked, could not be placed at his disposal. In view of the fact that the data concerning Germany’s foreign policy during the last 7 or 8 years is so extensive, the Defendant Von Ribbentrop cannot possibly recall every single date, every event, every document, _et cetera_, unless his memory is refreshed by his being able to speak with his former colleagues.

Apart from this the Defendant Von Ribbentrop has been in the habit of taking a great many soporifics during the last 4 years, especially bromides, and his memory has suffered in consequence. It would not be very helpful to the investigation of historical truth in a field which interests not only this Court, but also, to an even greater extent, the outside world, if Von Ribbentrop during his examination, might have to state at every turn that he could no longer recollect these details.

Defendant Von Ribbentrop therefore applies to the Court and begs that his above-mentioned colleagues be brought here and that he receive permission to discuss with them matters pertaining to the Trial, in order that he may prepare for further proceedings.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already intimated to defendant’s counsel that all applications should, as far as practicable, be made in writing, and they consider that the applications which have how been made orally should have been made in writing. They will consider the facts with reference to the applications in respect of the Defendant Von Ribbentrop’s secretary. The other applications as to witnesses and documents, which have been made in writing, have been considered, or will be considered by the Tribunal.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, may I say in this connection that the applications which I have today submitted have been repeatedly lodged with the Court in writing, but my client is anxious lest he experience difficulties in preparing for his own hearing and the hearing of the defense witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: As was announced at the sitting on Friday, Counsel for the Prosecution were to try to arrange with defendants’ counsel some satisfactory arrangement with reference to the production of documents in the German language. In accordance with that announcement, Counsel for the Prosecution saw Counsel for the Defense, and representatives of the Prosecution and the Defense appeared before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has provisionally made the following arrangement:

1. That in the future, only such parts of documents as are read in court by the Prosecution shall in the first instance be part of the record. In that way those parts of the documents will be conveyed to defendants’ counsel through the earphones in German.

2. In order that defendants and their counsel may have an opportunity of inspecting such documents in their entirety in German, a photostatic copy of the original and one copy thereof shall be deposited in the defendants’ counsel room at the same time that they are produced in court.

3. The defendants’ counsel may at any time refer to any other part of such documents.

4. Prosecuting counsel will furnish defendants’ counsel with 10 copies of their trial briefs in English and five copies of their books of documents in English, at the time such briefs and books are furnished to the Tribunal.

5. Defendants’ counsel will be furnished with one copy of each of the transcripts of the proceedings.

That is all. I call upon the prosecuting counsel for the United States.

MR. ALDERMAN: If it pleases the Tribunal, may I make, Mr. President, one inquiry with regard to your reference to trial briefs? On my section of the case I shall not expect to hand up trial briefs to the Court. Whatever I have in the nature of trial briefs will be put over the microphone. I wonder if that is satisfactory?

THE PRESIDENT: I think what I said meets that case.

MR. ALDERMAN: I thought so, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Because what I said was that the defendants’ counsel would be furnished with 10 copies of the trial briefs in English at the same time that they are furnished to the Tribunal. Therefore, if you don’t furnish the trial briefs to the Tribunal, none will be furnished to the defendants’ counsel.

MR. ALDERMAN: Yes. When the Tribunal rose on Friday last, I had just completed an introductory statement preliminary to the presentation of evidence on the aggressive war aspect of the case. In that introductory statement I had invited attention to the parts of the Charter and to the parts of the Indictment which are pertinent to this aspect of the case. I had also discussed the relationship between recorded history and the evidence to be presented, indicating what sort of additions to recorded history would be made by the evidence contained in the captured documents.

I then indicated to the Court that I would first proceed by presenting singly a handful of captured documents, which, in our opinion, prove the corpus of the crime of aggressive war, leaving no reasonable doubt concerning the aggressive character of the Nazi war, or concerning the conspiratorial premeditation of that war. I indicated to the Tribunal that after proving the corpus of the crime in this way I would follow the presentation of this evidence with a more or less chronological presentation of the case on aggressive war, producing evidence in greater detail of the relevant activities of the conspirators from 1933 to 1941.

As the members of the Tribunal may understand, it is easier to make plans about presentation than to keep them. There have been, by necessity, some changes in our plans. I indicated on Friday that to a certain extent the American case under Count One and the British case under Count Two would interlock. The British Chief Prosecutor, Sir Hartley Shawcross, is by force of circumstances, required to be in London this week. He expects to be back next week. The intention now is that when he returns Monday he will make his opening statement covering Count Two of the Indictment and such interrelated parts of Count One of the Indictment as have not by then been presented. So that what is at the moment planned, if it meets with the Court’s views, is that I shall continue, as far as I may within 2 days of this week, on the detailed story as to aggressive war; that thereupon we shall alter the presentation and present some other matters coming under Count One. Then, following the British Chief Prosecutor’s opening statement on Monday of next week, we shall continue jointly with the chapters on Poland, Russia, and Japan, as parts of both Count One and Two. While that may not be strictly logical, it seems to us the best method with which to proceed under the circumstances.

I turn now to the period of 1933 to 1936, a period characterized by an orderly, planned sequence of preparations for war. This is the period covered by Paragraphs 1 and 2 of IV (F) of the Indictment. This may be found at Page 7 of the printed English text of the Indictment.

The essential character of this period was the formulation and execution of the plan to rearm and to reoccupy and fortify the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and other treaties, in order to acquire military strength and political bargaining power to be used against other nations.

Hitler’s own eloquence in a secret speech delivered to all Supreme Commanders on 23 November 1939, at 1200 hours, is sufficient to characterize this phase of the Nazi conspiracy. This document comes to hand as a captured document found in the OKW files—OKW is Ober Kommando der Wehrmacht (the High Command of the Army, Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces)—and was captured at Flensburg. The document is numbered 789-PS in our numbered series of documents.

I have in my hand, if the Court please, the German original of this document in the condition in which it was captured, and I wish to offer the document in evidence and have it given the proper serial number as the United States prosecutor’s exhibit. The serial number, I understand, is United States Exhibit 23. I would ask that the German text of the original be handed to the German interpreters.

If the Court please, understanding the ruling just made by the presiding justice, although I have offered the entire document, as it is a very long speech, I shall not read into the record the entire speech. Of course the presiding judge said defense counsel may insert any other parts of it as they wish.

I shall begin reading at the beginning, and read a little more than half of the first page in the English text. I am advised that the German original is marked with a blue pencil at the point where I shall stop reading. I will read the English translation:

“November 23, 1939, 1200 hours. Conference with the Führer, to
which all Supreme Commanders are ordered. The Führer gives the
following speech:

“The purpose of this conference is to give you an idea of the
world of my thoughts, which takes charge of me, in the face of
future events, and to tell you my decisions. The building up of
our Armed Forces was only possible in connection with the
ideological”—the German word is “weltanschaulich”—“education
of the German people by the Party.”

If I may interpolate just to comment on that interesting German word “weltanschaulich”, I take it that ideological is about as close a translation as we can get, but the word means more than that. It means a whole attitude towards the world, a way of looking on the world.

“When I started my political task”—I am quoting again—“in
1919, my strong belief in final success was based on a thorough
observation of the events of the day and the study of the
reasons for their occurrence. Therefore, I never lost my belief
in the midst of setbacks which were not spared me during my
period of struggle. Providence has had the last word and brought
me success. Moreover, I had a clear recognition of the probable
course of historical events and the firm will to make brutal
decisions. The first decision was in 1919 when I, after long
internal conflict, became a politician and took up the struggle
against my enemies. That was the hardest of all decisions. I
had, however, the firm belief that I would arrive at my goal.
First of all, I desired a new system of selection. I wanted to
educate a minority which would take over the leadership. After
15 years I arrived at my goal, after strenuous struggles and
many setbacks. When I came to power in 1933, a period of the
most difficult struggle lay behind me. Everything existing
before that had collapsed. I had to reorganize everything,
beginning with the mass of the people and extending it to the
Armed Forces. First, reorganization of the interior, abolishment
of appearances of decay and defeatist ideas, education to
heroism. While reorganizing the interior, I undertook the second
task: To release Germany from its international ties. Two
particular characteristics are to be pointed out: Secession from
the League of Nations and denunciation of the Disarmament
Conference. It was a hard decision. The number of prophets who
predicted that it would lead to the occupation of the Rhineland
was large, the number of believers was very small. I was
supported by the nation, which stood firmly behind me, when I
carried out my intentions. After that the order for rearmament.
Here again there were numerous prophets who predicted
misfortunes, and only a few believers. In 1935 the introduction
of compulsory armed service. After that, militarization of the
Rhineland, again a process believed to be impossible at that
time. The number of people who put trust in me was very small.
Then, beginning of the fortification of the whole country,
especially in the west.

“One year later, Austria came.”—I suppose he meant Austria
went.—“This step also was considered doubtful. It brought about
a considerable reinforcement of the Reich. The next step was
Bohemia, Moravia, and Poland. This step also was not possible to
accomplish in one campaign. First of all, the western
fortification had to be finished. It was not possible to reach
the goal in one effort. It was clear to me from the first moment
that I could not be satisfied with the Sudeten-German territory.
That was only a partial solution. The decision to march into
Bohemia was made. Then followed the erection of the
Protectorate, and with that the basis for the action against
Poland was laid, but I wasn’t quite clear at that time whether I
should start first against the East and then in the West, or
vice versa.”

There are some curious antitheses of thought in that speech, as in most of Adolf Hitler’s speeches. In one sentence he combines guidance by Providence with the making of brutal decisions. He constantly speaks of how very few people were with him, and yet the mass of the German people were with him. But he does give a brief summary of the gist of what is contained in the allegations of the Indictment, to which I have invited your attention:

The organization of the mass of the people, then extending to the Armed Forces, and the various brutal decisions that he did make, about which history knows.

That long document contains other material of great interest. It may be that we shall advert to other portions of it later. At this point, however, I have simply asked the Court to focus attention on the matter I have just read and its bearing on the development of the conspiracy during the period 1933 to 1936.

Another captured document is sufficient to demonstrate the preparations for war in which the Nazi conspirators were engaged during this period. I refer to a top-secret letter dated 24 June 1935 from General Von Brauchitsch to the Supreme Commanders of the Army, Navy, and Air Forces. Attached to that letter is a copy of a secret Reich Defense Law of 21 May 1935 and a copy of a decision of the Reich Cabinet of 21 May 1935 on the Council for the Defense of the Reich.

These documents were captured in the OKW files at Fechenheim. This group of documents is numbered 2261-PS in our numbered series of documents. It seems to us one of the most significant evidences of secret and direct preparations for aggressive war.

I gave expression to a typographical error. That was General Von Blomberg instead of Brauchitsch.

I have the original of these documents. I ask that they be admitted into evidence as Exhibit USA-24.

The top page of that document, which I shall read in full, is the letter signed “Von Blomberg, Berlin, 21 June 1935, Top Secret”; headed “The Reich Minister of War and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, No. 1820/35 Top Secret L II a.”