Chapter XXXVII: Section II: , Subsection 2(a), are to be assumed whenever, for

example, the property belongs to a Pole, for the Polish real
estate will be needed without exception for the preservation of
the German folkdom.”

In the Government General Defendant Frank promulgated a decree on 24 January 1940 authorizing sequestration for the “performance of tasks serving the public interest” and liquidation of “anti-social or financially unremunerative concerns.” The decree is embodied in the _Verordnungsblatt_ of the Government General, Number 6, 27 January 1940, Page 23; and we ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of it. The undefined criteria in this decree obviously empowered Nazi officials in the Government General to engage in wholesale seizure of property.

The magnitude of the conspirators’ confiscation program in Poland was staggering. I ask Your Honors to turn to the chart on the sixth page of Document Number R-92, which was introduced into evidence a moment ago as Exhibit Number USA-312.

This chart shows that as of 31 May 1943 the staggering total of 693,252 estates, comprising 6,097,525 hectares, had been seized and 9,508 estates, comprising 270,446 hectares, had been confiscated by the Estate Offices Danzig-West Prussia, Posen, Ciechanów, and Silesia. This, it will be noted, represented the seizure and confiscation of only four offices.

That, Your Honors, concludes our discussion on Poland; and I now turn to Czechoslovakia. At this point of the proceedings we shall introduce only one document upon Czechoslovakia. This one document, however, contains a startling revelation of the conspirators’ plans to germanize Bohemia and Moravia. It relates how three plans, each characterized by its severity, were discussed; and finally how the Führer decided on plan (c), which involved the assimilation of about one-half of the Czech population by the Germans and the extermination of the other half. Moreover, the plan envisaged a large influx into Czechoslovakia of Germans whose loyalty to the Führer was unquestioned. I offer this document in evidence. It is Document Number 862-PS, and it is Exhibit Number USA-313. This is a top-secret report, dated 15 October 1940, which was written by General Friderici, Deputy General of the Wehrmacht in Bohemia and Moravia. On the face of the document, it appears that only four copies were made. The document we offer in evidence is the original document, which was found among the captured files of the OKW. This document bears the handwritten letters “K” and “J” on the first page on the left-hand side, and I am advised that the handwriting is unquestionably that of Defendants Keitel and Jodl. I quote the document in its entirety:

“On 9 October of this year the office of the Reich Protector
held an official conference in which State Secretary SS
Gruppenführer R. H. Frank spoke about the following . . . .”

SS Gruppenführer K. H. Frank, it may be noted, was Secretary of State under Defendant Von Neurath, who at the date of this report was the Protector of Bohemia and Moravia.

THE PRESIDENT: Who did you say Frank was?

CAPT. HARRIS: Frank was an SS Gruppenführer, and Secretary of State under Defendant Von Neurath. He is not the Defendant Hans Frank. At the date of this particular report Von Neurath, under whom K. H. Frank served, was the Protector of Bohemia and Moravia. Continuing the quotation:

“Since creation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia,
Party agencies, industrial circles, as well as agencies of the
central authorities of Berlin, have considered a solution for
the Czech problem.

“After ample deliberation, the Reich Protector expressed his
views about the various plans in a memorandum. In this three
ways of solution were indicated:

“a) German infiltration of Moravia and confinement of the Czech
nationals to a residual Bohemia. This solution is considered
unsatisfactory, because the Czech problem, even if in diminished
form, will continue to exist.

“b) Many arguments can be brought up against the most radical
solution, namely, the deportation of all Czechs. Therefore, in
the memorandum it is concluded that it cannot be carried out
within a reasonable period of time.

“c) Assimilation of the Czechs, that is, absorption of about
half of the Czech nationals by the Germans insofar as these are
of racial or otherwise valuable importance. This will also be
caused, among other things, by increased employment of Czechs in
the Reich territory (with the exception of the Sudeten German
border districts), in other words, by dispersing the
concentrations of Czech nationals.

“The other half of the Czech nationals must be deprived of their
power, eliminated, and shipped out of the country by all sorts
of methods. This applies particularly to the racially mongoloid
part and to the major part of the intellectual class. The latter
can scarcely be converted and would become a burden by
constantly making claims for the leadership over the other Czech
classes and thus interfering with a possible rapid assimilation.

“Elements which counteract the planned Germanization ought to be
handled roughly and eliminated.

“The above development naturally pre-supposes an increased
influx of Germans from the Reich territory into the
Protectorate.

“Having been reported, the Führer has chosen solution (c)
(assimilation) as a directive for the solution of the Czech
problem and decided that, while keeping up the autonomy of the
Protectorate on the surface, the Germanization will have to be
carried out in a centralized way by the office of the Reich
Protector for years to come.

“From the above no particular conclusions are to be drawn by the
Armed Forces. This is the line which has always been taken here.
In this connection I refer to my memorandum submitted to the
Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces, dated 12 July
1939, file number 6/39, top secret, entitled ‘The Czech Problem’
(attached as annex).

“The Representative of the Armed Forces with the Reich Protector
in Bohemia and Moravia.”—Signed—“Friderici, General of
Infantry.”

With the permission of Your Honors, I should like to comment further upon some parts of this memorandum. First, I invite your attention to solution (a). This solution would have called for German infiltration into Moravia and the forcible removal of the Czechs from that area to Bohemia. As Your Honors know, Moravia lies between Bohemia and Slovakia. Thus solution (a) would have involved the erection of a German State between Bohemia and Slovakia, and would have prevented effective inter-communications between the Czechs and the Slovaks. In this manner, the historic desire for unity of these two groups of peace-loving people and the continued existence of their Czechoslovakian State would have been frustrated. Solution (a), it may be noted, was rejected because the surviving Czechs, even though compressed into a “residual Bohemia”, would have remained to plague the conspirators.

Solution (b) which involved the forcible deportation of all Czechs was rejected, not because its terms were deemed too drastic, but rather because a more speedy resolution of the problem was desired.

Solution (c), as shown in the exhibit, was regarded as the most desirable and was adopted. This solution first provided for the assimilation of about one-half of the Czechs. This meant two things: a. Enforced Germanization for those who were deemed racially qualified and b. deportation to slave labor in Germany for others. “Increased employment of Czechs in the Reich territory” as stated in the exhibit meant, in reality, slave labor in Germany.

Solution (c) further provided for the elimination and deportation “by all sorts of methods” of the other half of the Czech population, particularly the intellectuals and those who did not meet the racial standards of the conspirators. Intellectuals everywhere were an anathema to the Nazi conspirators, and the Czech intellectuals were no exception. Indeed, the Czech intellectuals, as the conspirators well knew, had a conspicuous record of gallantry, self-sacrifice, and resistance to the Nazi ideology. They were, therefore, to be exterminated. As will be shown in other connections, that section of the top-secret report which stated “elements which counteract the planned Germanization are to be handled roughly and eliminated” meant that intellectuals and other dissident elements were either to be thrown in concentration camps or immediately exterminated.

In short, the provisions of solution (c) were simply a practical application of the conspirators’ philosophy as expressed in Himmler’s speech, part of which we have quoted in L-70, already presented in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-308. Himmler said that “either we win over any good blood that we can use for ourselves . . . or we destroy this blood.”

I now turn briefly to the conspirators’ program of spoliation and Germanization in the western occupied countries. Evidence which will be presented at a later stage of this proceeding will show how the conspirators sought to germanize the western occupied countries; how they stripped the conquered countries in the West of food and raw materials, leaving to them scarcely enough to maintain a bare existence; how they compelled local industry and agriculture to satisfy the insatiable wants of the German civilian population and the Wehrmacht; and finally how the spoliation in the western occupied countries was aided and abetted by excessive occupation charges, compulsory and fraudulent clearing arrangements, and confiscation of their gold and foreign exchange. The evidence concerning these matters which will be presented in great detail by the Prosecutor for the Republic of France is so overwhelming that the inference is inescapable that the conspirators’ acts were committed according to plan.

However, it will not be until after the Christmas recess that the evidence concerning the execution of the conspirators’ plans in the West will be presented to this Tribunal. Accordingly, by way of illustration, and for the purpose of showing in this presentation that the conspirators’ plans embraced the occupied Western countries as well as the East, we now offer in evidence a single exhibit on this aspect of the case, R-114, which is Exhibit Number USA-314. This document was obtained from the U.S. Counter-Intelligence branch. This exhibit consists of a memorandum dated 7 August 1942 and a memorandum dated 29 August 1942 from Himmler’s personal files. The former memorandum deals with a conference of SS officers and bears the title, “Directions for the Treatment of Deported Alsatians.” The latter memorandum is marked secret and is entitled, “Shifting of Alsatians into the Reich.” The memoranda comprising this exhibit show that plans were made and partially executed to remove all elements from Alsace which were hostile to the conspirators and to germanize the province. I quote from Page 1, lines 21 to 31, of the English text entitled, “Directions for the Treatment of Deported Alsatians.” These extracts contained in the German text at Page 1, the last 8 lines, and Page 2, lines 1 to 5. I now quote:

“The first expulsion action was carried out in Alsace in the
period from July to December 1940; in the course of it 105,000
persons were either expelled or prevented from returning. They
were in the main Jews, gypsies and other foreign racial
elements, criminals, asocial and incurably insane persons, and
in addition Frenchmen and Francophiles. The _patois_-speaking
population was combed out by this series of deportations in the
same way as the other Alsatians.

“Referring to the permission the Führer had given him to cleanse
Alsace of all foreign, sick, or unreliable elements, Gauleiter
Wagner has recently pointed out the political necessity of a new
deportation”—zweite Aussiedlungsaktion—“which is to be
prepared as soon as possible.”

I should like Your Honors to permit me to defer the remainder of this presentation until Monday. Mr. Justice Jackson would like to make a few remarks to the Tribunal.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal, I wish to bring to the attention of the Tribunal and of the Defense Counsel some matters concerning the case as it will take its course next week, in the belief that it will result in expediting our procedure if, over the weekend, our program can be considered.

Captain Harris’ presentation will take a short time longer on Monday; and when it has concluded, the presentation by the United States will have reached that part of the Indictment which seeks a declaratory judgment of this Tribunal that six of the organizations named therein are criminal organizations. They effect such a finding only that they may constitute such a basis for prosecution against individual members in other courts than this, proceedings in which every defense will be open to an accused individual, except that he may not deny the findings made by this Tribunal as to the character of the organization of which he was a member.

The United States desires to offer this evidence under conditions which will save the time of the Tribunal and advance the prosecution as rapidly as possible so that United States personnel can be released.

We also desire defendants’ counsel to have before them as much as possible of our evidence against organizations before the Christmas recess so that they may use that recess time to examine it and to prepare their defenses and that we may be spared any further applications for delay for that purpose.

The substance of our proposal is that all of the ultimate questions on this branch of the case be reserved for consideration after the evidence is before the Tribunal. The real question, we submit, is not whether to admit the evidence. The real question is its value and its legal consequences under the provisions of this Charter. All of the evidence which we will tender will be tendered in the belief that it cannot be denied to have some probative value and that it is relevant to the charges made in the Indictment. And those are the grounds upon which the Charter authorizes a rejection of evidence.

At the time we seek no advantage from this suggestion except the advantage of saving time to the Tribunal and to ourselves to get as much of the case as possible in the hands of the defendants before the Christmas recess and to urge the ultimate issues only when they can be intelligibly argued and understood on the basis of a real record instead of on assumptions and hypothetical statements of fact.

In offering this evidence as to the organizations, therefore, we propose to stipulate as follows:

Every objection of any character to any item of the evidence offered by the United States, as against these organizations, may be deemed to be reserved and fully available to Defense Counsel at any time before the close of the United States case with the same effect as if the objection had been made when the evidence was offered. All evidence on this subject shall remain subject to a continuing power of the Tribunal, on motion of any counsel or on its own motion, to strike, unprejudiced by the absence of objection. Every question as to the effect of the evidence shall be considered open and unprejudiced by the fact it has been received without objection.

Now we recognize the adherent controversial character of the issues which may be raised concerning this branch of the case. What this evidence proves, what organizations it is sufficient to condemn, and how the Charter applies to it are questions capable of debate, which we are quite ready to argue when it can be done in orderly and intelligible fashion. We had expected to do it in final summation, but we will do it at any time suggested by the Tribunal, after there is a record on which to found the argument; and we are willing to do it either before or after the defendants take up the case. But we do suggest that, if it is done step by step as the evidence is produced and on questions of admissibility, it will be disorderly and time-consuming. Piecemeal argument will consume time by requiring counsel on both sides to recite evidence that is either in the case, or to speculate as to evidence that is not yet in, to resort to hypothetical cases, and to do it over and over again to each separate objection. It will also be disorderly because of our plan of presentation.

Questions which relate to these organizations go to the very basis of the proposal made by President Roosevelt to the Yalta Conference, agreement upon which was the basis for this proceeding. The United States would not have participated in this kind of determination of question of guilt but for this or some equivalent plan of reaching thousands of others, who, if less conspicuous, are just as guilty of these crimes as the men in the dock. Because of participation in the framing of the Charter and knowledge of the problem it was designed to reach, I shall expect to reach the legal issues involved in these questions.

The evidence, however, will be presented by the lawyers who have specialized in the search for the arrangement of evidence on a particular and limited charge or indictment. Piecemeal argument, therefore, would not be orderly, but would be repetitious, incomplete, poorly organized, and of little help to the Tribunal. The issues deserve careful, prepared presentation of the contentions on both sides.

We will ask, therefore, upon these conditions, which we think protect everybody’s rights and enable the Defense as well as ourselves to make a better presentation of their questions because they will have time to prepare them, to lay before the Tribunal, as rapidly as possible next week and as uninterruptedly as possible, the evidence which bears upon the accusations against the organizations.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, have you yet communicated that to the defendants’ counsel in writing or not?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have not communicated it, unless it has been sent to the Information Center since noon.

THE PRESIDENT: I think, perhaps, it might be convenient that you should state what you have stated to us as to objections to the evidence in writing so they may thoroughly understand it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have prepared to do that and to supply sufficient copies for members of the Tribunal and for all defense counsel.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

HERR BÖHM: I represent the members of the S.A. who have volunteered to be questioned before the Tribunal. I understood the statement of Justice Jackson only partially. As Defense Counsel I have no one who can supply me with information and I cannot, under any circumstances, agree to give my views on statements which I do not know or which are made known to me in such a way that I am not in a position to get information.

I should like to ask first that I be supplied with a German translation of the statement which the Prosecution has made on the future course of the Trial, so that I can express my views on it. I do not represent here just one person but millions of people who will, after the Trial, come forward with all sorts of accusations against me, possibly even justified accusations. My own responsibility, as well as that of my colleagues who represent the organizations, is immense. I should therefore like to request, as a matter of principle, that anything which is presented in this Trial at all be submitted to me in the German language, because I am not in a position to have whole volumes of documents translated into German from one day to the next—documents which could quite easily be given to me in the German original. This is a circumstance which makes it dreadfully hard for me, as well as for a number of my colleagues, to follow the Trial at all.

Of the incriminatory evidence against the organizations, I have previously gathered little in the proceedings up to now. Since, according to today’s statements, however, the evidence against the organizations is to be presented shortly, I should like to ask emphatically that, if we are to continue to represent the organizations, the proceedings be conducted in such a way that, in a technical respect, too, we shall be in a position to carry on the defense in a responsible manner.

THE PRESIDENT: As you know or have been told, only those parts of documents which are read before the Tribunal are treated as being in evidence and therefore you hear through your earphones everything that is in evidence read to you in German. You know also that there are two copies of the documents in your Information Center which are in German. So much for that. That has been the procedure up to now.

In order to meet the legitimate wishes of German counsel, the proposal which Mr. Justice Jackson has just made is perfectly simple, as I understand it, and it is this:

That the question of the criminality of these organizations should not be argued before the evidence is put in; that the United States counsel should put in their evidence first, and that they hope to put the majority of it in evidence before the Christmas recess, but that the German counsel (defendants’ counsel) shall be at liberty at any time, up to the time the United States case is finished, to make objection to any part of the evidence on these criminal organizations. Is that not clear?

HERR BÖHM: Yes, that is clear.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you any objection to that procedure?

HERR BÖHM: Yes. The procedure as suggested is clear, but I think it is highly inadequate. I have as yet had no opportunity to get into my hands either of the two copies, which are said to be downstairs in Room 54, maybe because two copies are not sufficient for the purposes of 25 lawyers, especially if these copies are placed in Room 54 at 10:30 in the morning, when the session starts at 10:00 o’clock. It would not even suffice if these two copies for 25 of us were placed into our room on the day before, since it is not possible for all of us to make satisfactory use of these two copies in so short a time. Arrangements should therefore be made—just how the Prosecution will make them, I cannot say—to enable us to know at the proper time—and I emphasize again, in the German language—what the Prosecution expects of us, so that our work may be of avail to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: What you have just stated is a general objection to the procedure which has been adopted up to now and has nothing to do with the procedure which has been suggested by Mr. Justice Jackson with reference to these criminal organizations. His suggestion was that argument on the law of the criminal issue or the criminal nature of these organizations should be postponed until the evidence was put in and that the right of Counsel for the Defense should be to make objection at any stage or, rather, to defer their objections until the evidence had been put in; and it was hoped that the evidence would be completed or nearly completed by the Christmas recess. What you say about the general procedure may be considered by the Tribunal.

So far as the particular question is concerned, namely, the question of the procedure suggested by Mr. Justice Jackson, have you any objection to that?

HERR BÖHM: I have objections to this procedure only—and in this respect I reserve for myself all rights, for the sake of the great number of people I represent—if it handicaps or hinders me in any way in representing the interests of my many clients.

THE PRESIDENT: We are aware of that fact, but that does not seem to be material to the question whether the legal argument should be deferred until after the evidence is presented. The fact that you have millions of people to represent has nothing to do with the question whether the legal argument shall take place before, or in the middle of, or at the end of the presentation of the evidence. What I am asking you is: Have you any objection to the legal argument taking place at the end of the presentation of the evidence?

HERR BÖHM: I have no objection to these suggestions if they do not impair my defense in any way.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 17 December 1945 at 1000 hours._]

TRANSCRIBER NOTES

Punctuation and spelling has been maintained except where obvious printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document depending on the author; however, American spellings are the rule, hence, 'Defense' versus 'Defence'. Multiple occurrences of the following spellings which differ and are found throughout this volume are as follows:

cooperation co-operation
Sudeten Gau Sudetengau
Sudeten-Deutsche territory Sudeten-German territory
Sudeten German(s) Sudeten-German(s)

Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations between the German, English, Russian and French documents presented in the trial(s).

An attempt has been made to produce this ebook in a format as close as possible to the original document's presentation and layout.

[The end of _Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal: Nuremberg 14 November 1945-1 October 1946 (Vol. 3)_, by Anonymous.]