Chapter VIII: Section 3 (5)

My Lord, as I said, the purpose of that document is to show that the Deputy of the Führer was well aware of what was going on in the Eastern Occupied Territories and indeed was advocating even stronger measures than the Reich Minister of Justice was prepared to accept.

I turn then to give such evidence as I can upon the flight of the Defendant Hess to England on the 10th of May 1941.

On that evening he landed in Scotland, within 12 miles of the home of the Duke of Hamilton; and on landing he at once asked to be taken to the Duke of Hamilton, whom he wanted to see. He gave a false name and was shut up; and on the following day, the 11th of May, he had an interview with the Duke of Hamilton, a report of which is set out in the addendum to the document book, if the Tribunal would now turn to the small addendum to the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Has this been put in evidence yet or not?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I am putting it in evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it properly authenticated?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It is authenticated, and the original is certified as being a government report from the files of the Foreign Office in London. There are four reports altogether, which come from the Foreign Office file and which have been certified as reports from the Foreign Office.

The first one that I would refer to is Document Number M-116, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-269 and which is a report on the interview that he had with the Duke of Hamilton on the 11th of May 1941. I can summarize most of the contents of that report by saying that he introduced himself as Hess. He said that he had met the Duke of Hamilton at the Olympic Games in 1936, and that his old friend, Haushofer, under whom he studied at Munich University after the last war, had suggested that he, Hess, should make contact with the Duke of Hamilton.

And he said that, in order to do so, he had already tried to fly three times before, the first time being in December of 1940, the previous year. The reasons he then gave for his visit will be found on the second page of that document. I quote from the end of the fourth line.

I beg your pardon. Perhaps I ought to say really before that, he said that he had said, earlier in the interview, that Germany was willing to have peace with England; she was certain to win the war; and he himself was anxious to stop the unnecessary slaughter that would otherwise inevitably take place.

“He asked me if I could get together leading members of my party
to talk over things with a view to making peace proposals. I
replied that there was now only one party in this country. He
then said he could tell me what Hitler’s peace terms would be.
First, he would insist on an arrangement whereby our two
countries would never go to war again. I questioned him as to
how that arrangement could be brought about; and he replied that
one of the conditions, of course, is that Britain would give up
her traditional policy of always opposing the strongest power in
Europe.”

I think I need really read no more of that document, because he enlarges upon those proposals in the subsequent interviews that he had on the 13th, 14th, and 15th of May with Mr. Kirkpatrick of the Foreign Office.

I turn to Document Number M-117, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-270, which is another official report of the interview with Mr. Kirkpatrick on the 13th of May. Again I can summarize practically all of it.

He started off by explaining the chain of circumstances which led up to his present situation, which really involved a history of Europe from the end of the last war up to that time. He dealt with Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, saying in each case that Germany was justified and it was all England’s and France’s fault that they had had to get in it. He blamed England entirely for starting the war. He did say—and I quote one line which is of interest, dealing with Munich—he said: “The intervention of Mr. Chamberlain. . . .”

THE PRESIDENT: [_Interposing._] Where are you reading?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am reading from the fifth paragraph, my Lord. It starts off:

“The Czechoslovakian crisis was caused by the French
determination, expressed by the French Air Ministry, to make
Czechoslovakia an air base against Germany. It was Hitler’s duty
to scotch this plot. The intervention of Mr. Chamberlain and the
Munich conference had been a source of great relief to Hitler.”

If one remembers somewhere having heard in the course of this case, Hitler saying that he had of course no intention of abiding by that agreement at all, that that would never do. . . .

I go on with that document. He then says that Germany must win the war. He says that the bombing of England had only just started and only just started with the greatest reluctance. As he puts it at the top of Page 2, the German production of U-boats was enormous. They had enormous raw material resources in occupied territory, and the confidence in Hitler and in final victory in Germany was complete; and that there was no kind of hope for any revolution among the German people.

He gave his reasons for his flight, his personal reasons again, that he was horrified at the prospect of a long war. England could not win, and therefore she had better make peace now. He said the Führer entertained no designs against England. He had no idea of world domination, and he would greatly regret the collapse of the British Empire.

I quote from the last three lines of the large paragraph in the center of the page:

“At this point Hess tried to make my flesh creep by emphasizing
that the avaricious Americans had fell designs upon the Empire.
Canada would certainly be incorporated into the United States.

“Reverting to Hitler’s attitude, he said that only as recently
as May 3rd, after his Reichstag speech, Hitler had declared to
him that he had no oppressive demands to make of England.

“The solution which Herr Hess proposed was that England should
give Germany a free hand in Europe, and Germany would give
England a completely free hand in the Empire, with the sole
reservation that we should return Germany’s ex-colonies, which
she required as a source of raw materials. I asked, in order to
draw him on the subject of Hitler’s attitude to Russia, whether
he included Russia in Europe or in Asia. He replied, ‘In Asia’.
I then retorted that under the terms of his proposal, since
Germany would only have a free hand in Europe, she would not be
at liberty to attack Russia. Herr Hess reacted quickly by
remarking that Germany had certain demands to make of Russia
which would have to be satisfied either by negotiation or as the
result of a war. He added, however, that there was no foundation
for the rumors now being spread that Hitler was contemplating an
early attack on Russia.

“I then asked about Italian aims and he said that he did not
know. I replied that it was a matter of some importance. He
brushed this aside and said that he was sure that Italy’s claims
would not be excessive. I suggested that Italy scarcely deserved
anything, but he begged to differ. Italy had rendered
considerable services to Germany; and, besides, England had
compensated defeated nations like Romania after the last war.

“Finally, as we were leaving the room, Herr Hess delivered a
parting shot. He had forgotten, he declared, to emphasize that
the proposal could only be considered on the understanding that
it was negotiated by Germany with an English Government other
than the present British Government. Mr. Churchill, who had
planned the war since 1936, and his colleagues, who had lent
themselves to his war policy, were not persons with whom the
Führer could negotiate.”

My Lord, presumably when he came over he was not attempting to be funny. One can only conclude from these reports that at that time the people in Germany and the German Government really had no kind of idea of what the conditions in England were like at all; but throughout it appears that this man thought England was ruled by Churchill and a small war-mongering gang. It only needed him to come over and make a peace proposal for Churchill to be turned out in the course of two or three days.

I go on, then, to the next document, My Lord. I am afraid that it is now half past five. I have only the other reports and one further document to refer the Tribunal to.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better go on. We will finish tonight.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am sorry it has taken so long. I go on to the next interview of the 14th of May, which is Document Number M-118 and becomes Exhibit Number GB-271.

He started off that interview by making certain complaints about the treatment, asking for a number of things, including _Three Men in a Boat_, the book which perhaps is one of the few signs that any of these defendants have shown any kind of culture or normal feelings at all.

He described his flight to England, and then I quote from the third paragraph:

“He then passed to political questions. He said that, on
reflection, he had omitted to explain that there were two
further conditions attached to his peace proposals. First,
Germany could not leave Iraq in the lurch. The Iraqis had fought
for Germany and Germany would, therefore, have to require us to
evacuate Iraq. I observed that this was going considerably
beyond the original proposal that German interests should be
confined to Europe, but he retorted that, taken as a whole, his
proposals were more than fair. The second condition was that the
peace agreement should contain a provision for the reciprocal
indemnification of British and German nationals, whose property
had been expropriated as the result of war.

“Herr Hess concluded by saying that he wished to impress on us
that Germany must win the war by blockade. We had no conception
of the number of submarines now building in Germany. Hitler
always did things on a grand scale and devastating submarine
war, supported by new types of aircraft, would very shortly
succeed in establishing a completely effective blockade of
England. It was fruitless for anyone here to imagine that
England could capitulate and that the war could be waged from
the Empire. It was Hitler’s intention, in such an eventuality,
to continue the blockade of England, even though the island had
capitulated, so that we would have to face the deliberate
starvation of the population of these islands.”

I think I can leave then that interview. Nothing more was added and I turn to the next document, Document Number M-119, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-272 and which is the report of the interview of the 15th of May, the third and last interview with Mr. Kirkpatrick. I quote from the third paragraph and then there was some mention of Iraq at the beginning of the interview and then Mr. Kirkpatrick writes:

“I then threw a fly over him about Ireland. He said that in all
his talks with Hitler, the subject of Ireland had never been
mentioned except incidentally. Ireland had done nothing for
Germany in this war and it was therefore to be supposed that
Hitler would not concern himself in Anglo-Irish relations. We
had some little conversation about the difficulty of reconciling
the wishes of the South and North and from this we pass to
American interest in Ireland, and so to America.

“On the subject of America, Hess took the following line.

“1. The Germans reckoned with American intervention and were not
afraid of it. They knew all about American aircraft production
and the quality of the aircraft. Germany could outbuild England
and America combined.

“2. Germany had no designs on America. The so-called German
peril was a ludicrous figment of imagination. Hitler’s interests
were European.

“3. If we made peace now, America would be furious. America
really wanted to inhabit the British Empire.

“Hess concluded by saying that Hitler really wanted a permanent
understanding with us on a basis which preserved the Empire
intact. His own flight was intended to give us a chance of
opening conversations without loss of prestige. If we reject
this chance, it would be clear proof that we desired no
understanding with Germany and Hitler would be entitled—in fact
it would be his duty—to destroy us utterly and to keep us after
the war in a state of permanent subjection.”

My Lord, those reports show the substance and indeed the whole substance of the visit. His humanitarian reasons for coming, which sounded so well on the 10th or between the 10th and 15th of May, took on quite a different light when barely a little more than a month later Germany attacked the Soviet Union.

One cannot help remembering an exact parallel between this business and that which took place before Germany attacked Poland, when every effort was made to keep England out of the war and so let her fight her battle on one front only. Here the same thing appears to be happening; and what is more, we have it from himself in the course of those interviews that, at that time, Germany had no intentions of attacking Russia immediately at all. But that must be untrue, because it will be remembered and the evidence is set out in the trial brief, that so far back as November 1940 plans were being made, initial plans, for the invasion of Russia.

On the 18th of December 1940 a directive ordered preparations to be completed by the 15th of May 1941. On the 3rd of April 1941 orders were given delaying the “Case Barbarossa” for 5 weeks; and on the 30th of April 1941, 10 days before he arrived in England, D-Day was actually fixed for the invasion of Russia for the 22d of June.

Well now, in my submission, nobody who held the position that this defendant did at that time—in charge of the foreign organization, Deputy to the Führer, having been made designate successor Number 2 only a year ago—never in that position could he have been kept in ignorance of those preparations and of those plans.

My Lord, my submission, therefore, is that the only reason he came to England was not humanitarian at all, but purely, as I say, to allow Germany to fight her battle against Russia on one front only.

There is—and I hesitate to refer the Tribunal to any other document—but there is one document, which is a document of extreme interest from many points of view and has only just come to light. I did ask that it should be put in at the back of the Tribunal’s document book; but if it has not been, I have some spare copies which perhaps the clerk may now hand out.

It is Document Number 1866-PS, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-273, and it is an account of conversations between Ribbentrop and Mussolini and Ciano on the 13th of May 1941, signed by Schmidt.

It carries the question very little further, but of course the question has existed, and still does exist—the question, of course, as to whether or not the flight to England was undertaken with the knowledge and approval of Hitler, or any other members of the Government, or on his own initiative and in complete secrecy. He himself has always maintained that he did it secretly. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how he could have been planning it and practicing it for months before and having tried three times before, without anybody knowing.

This account of the conversations with the Italians casts little further light on it; but it does show anyway what Ribbentrop is saying to the Italians, their allies, three days later. I would ask the Tribunal to look at and read the first page of this document, and the paragraph of the next page:

“To begin with, the Reich Foreign Minister conveyed the Führer’s
greetings to the Duce.

“He would shortly propose to the Duce a date for the planned
meeting, which he would like to take place as soon as possible.
As the place for the meeting he would probably prefer the
Brenner. At the present moment he was, as the Duce could well
understand, still busy with the Hess affair and with a few
military matters.

“The Duce replied that he would agree with all the Führer’s
proposals. . . .”—and so on.

“The Reich Foreign Minister then said that the Führer had sent
him to the Duce in order to inform him about the Hess affair and
the conversations with Admiral Darlan. With regard to Hess’s
affair he remarked that the Führer and his staff had been
completely taken aback by Hess’s action and that it had been the
deed of a lunatic.

“Hess had been suffering for a long time from bilious attacks
and had fallen into the hands of magnetists and nature-cure
doctors who caused his state of health to become worse.

“All these matters were being investigated at the moment, as
well as the responsibility of the aides-de-camp who had known
about Hess’s forbidden flights. Hess had for weeks carried out
secret practice flights in an ME-110. Naturally he had acted
only from idealistic motives. Disloyalty towards the Führer was
utterly out of the question. His conduct had to be explained by
a kind of abstractness and a state of mind caused by his
illness.”

And it goes on, and the gist of it really is that Ribbentrop is emphasizing again that it was done without the authority of Hitler or without the knowledge of anybody else in Germany. I say he does not carry. . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Can’t you read the beginning of the next paragraph?

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: “Being sympathetically inclined towards
England, he had conceived the crazy idea of using Great
Britain’s fascist circles to persuade the British to give in. He
had explained all this in a long and confused letter to the
Führer. When this letter reached the Führer, Hess was already in
England. It was hoped in Germany that he would perhaps meet with
an accident on the way, but he was now really in England and had
tried to contact the former Marquis of Clydesdale, the present
Duke of Hamilton. Hess quite wrongly considered him as a great
friend of Germany and had flown to the neighborhood of his
castle in Scotland.”

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That is what Ribbentrop is saying to Mussolini. Ribbentrop, we know, is a liar, and indeed what he said later on in an interview proves it, and I would refer to Page 5—or rather to the bottom of Page 4—if the Tribunal would bear with me while I read that, because it would have been put in previously during this trial had this document been known of. And as I am putting it in now, perhaps I might be allowed to read this one paragraph which really concerns the Defendant Ribbentrop.

“The Duce returned to his remark concerning the united front of
Europe against England and the two countries, Spain and Russia,
that were absent from it, with the remark that to him it seemed
that it would be advantageous if a policy of collaboration with
Russia could be carried out. He asked the Reich Foreign Minister
whether Germany excluded such a possibility, that is,
collaboration with Russia. The Reich Foreign Minister replied
that Germany had treaties with Russia and that the relations
between the two countries were, by the way, correct. He
personally did not believe that Stalin would undertake anything
against Germany, but should he do so, or should he follow a
policy that was intolerable to Germany, then he would be
destroyed within three months. The Duce agreed to this. The
Führer would certainly not look for any quarrel, but he had
nevertheless taken precautions”—this is again, I think,
Ribbentrop speaking—“The Führer would certainly not look for
any quarrel, but he had nevertheless taken precautions for all
eventualities. He had in no way come to any decision, but as a
result of certain occurrences and want of clearness on the
Russian side, he had become suspicious. Thus for example, the
Russians had strengthened their forces along their western
frontier, which of course, caused Germany to reinforce her
troops too, but only after the Russians started it.”

It really must have been a remarkable position in the German Government if undoubtedly the Führer and the foreign secretary knew on the 13th of May 1941 that Germany was going to attack Russia a month later.

My Lord, that is the evidence which I have to present to the Tribunal on this matter. I regret that this should have taken so long. I am grateful to Your Honors for your patience.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 8 February 1946 at 1000 hours._]

FIFTY-FOURTH DAY
Friday, 8 February 1946

_Morning Session_

[Note.—Because citations were not required by the Tribunal for
documents quoted in the opening address of the Russian
Prosecution it has been impossible to verify the wording against
the text of the original documents. In the presentation of 8
February many of the quotations from documents originally in the
German and English languages have been translated into Russian
and then translated again into English for the record of the
Trial. For this publication these retranslations have been used
in some instances.]

THE PRESIDENT: I call on General Rudenko for the Soviet Union.

GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): May it please Your Honors, on delivering my opening statement, the last to be made at this Trial by the chief prosecutors, I am fully conscious of the supreme historical importance of these proceedings.

For the first time in the history of mankind is justice confronted with crimes committed on so vast a scale, with crimes which have entailed such grave consequences. It is for the first time that criminals who have seized an entire state and made this state an instrument of their monstrous crimes appear before a court of justice.

It is also for the first time that, by judging these defendants, we sit in judgment not only on the defendants themselves, but also on the criminal institutions and organizations which they created and on the inhuman theories and ideas which they promulgated with a view to committing crimes against peace and humanity, crimes which were designed by them far in advance of their perpetration.

Nine months ago, after having tortured for a number of years of bloody warfare the freedom-loving nations of Europe, Hitlerite Germany collapsed under the hammer blows of the combined armed forces of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition. On 8 May 1945 Hitlerite Germany was compelled to lay down her arms, having suffered a military and political defeat hitherto unequalled in history.

Hitlerism imposed upon the world a war which caused the freedom-loving nations innumerable privations and endless sufferings. Millions of people fell victims of the war initiated by the Hitlerite brigands who embarked on a dream of conquering the free peoples of the democratic countries and of establishing the rule of Hitlerite tyranny in Europe and in the entire world.

The day has come when the peoples of the world demand a just retribution and a severe punishment of the Hitlerite hangmen, when they demand severe punishment of the criminals.

All the outrages individually or jointly committed by the major Hitlerite war criminals, all together and each one individually, will be considered by you, Your Honors, with all the thoroughness and attention which the law, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, justice, and our conscience require.

We charge the defendants with the initiation, instigation, and direct execution, individually and through their agents, of the criminal plan of conspiracy. To the execution of this plan was committed the entire machinery of the Hitlerite State with all its governmental agencies and institutions, with its army, police, the so-called public agencies, as set out in the Indictment and particularly in Appendix B.

Before entering upon the examination of the concrete events and facts which lie at the foundation of the charges raised against the defendants, I think it necessary to dwell on certain general legal questions connected with the proceedings. This is indispensable, because the present Trial is the first one in history where justice is being done by an agency of an international legal system—the International Military Tribunal. This also becomes necessary, since special consideration was given to questions of law in both the written and oral motions made before the Tribunal.

The first and the most general legal problem which, in my opinion, has to be considered by the Tribunal is the problem of legality. Contrary to the system of fascist tyranny and arbitrary fascist practices, the great democracies which have established this Tribunal, as well as all democracies throughout the world, exist and act on a firm legal basis. But neither the concrete law nor the concept of law can be identical in the national and in the international meaning of these terms. _Lex_ in its meaning in national law is an act of legislative power of a state, clothed in a proper form. In its meaning in international law it is different. In the international field there never existed, nor now exist, any legislative bodies which are competent to pass laws which are binding on individual states. The legal system of international relations, which include those relations which are manifested in the co-ordinated effort to combat criminality, is based on different legal principles. In the international field the basic source of law and the only legislative act is a treaty, an agreement between states. Accordingly, just as duly promulgated laws passed by legislative bodies and properly published are an absolute and sufficient legal basis for the administration of national justice, so in the international field an international treaty is an absolute and sufficient legal basis for the implementation and the activity of agencies of international justice created by the signatories.

The International Military Tribunal was established for the trial and punishment of major war criminals on the basis of the London Agreement, dated 8 August 1945, signed by the four countries acting in the interests of all freedom-loving nations. Being an integral part of this agreement, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal is to be considered an unquestionable and sufficient legislative act, defining and determining the basis and the procedure for the trial and punishment of major war criminals. Provoked by fear of responsibility or, at best, by insufficient knowledge of the organic nature of international justice, the references to the principle _nullum crimen sine lege_, or to the principle that “a statute cannot have retroactive power,” are not applicable because of the following fundamental, decisive fact: The Charter of the Tribunal is in force and in operation and all its provisions possess absolute and binding force.

Pursuant to Article 6 of the Charter, the defendants are charged with Crimes against Peace, crimes committed in violation of rules and customs of war, and Crimes against Humanity. We must state with great satisfaction that in placing on such actions the stigma of criminality the Charter of the Tribunal has reduced to rules of law those international principles and ideas which for many years have been set forth in the defense of law and justice in the field of international relations.

First of all—criminal aggression. For a number of decades nations interested in strengthening the cause of peace have proclaimed and advocated the idea that aggression constitutes the gravest encroachment on the peaceful relations between nations, a most serious international crime. These hopes and demands on the part of nations found their expression in a series of acts and documents which officially recognized aggression as an international crime.

On 27 August 1928 the Kellogg-Briand Pact was signed in Paris:

“Persuaded”—proclaimed the agreement—“that the time has come
when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national
policy should be made . . . convinced that all changes in their
relations with one another should be sought only by pacific
means . . . the High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the
names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to
war for the solution of international controversies, and
renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their
relations with one another.”

In 1929—a year after the signing of the Paris Pact—at the Congress of the International Association of Criminal Law at Bucharest a resolution was passed which squarely raised the question of criminal responsibility for aggression. “Whereas war has been outlawed by the Paris Pact of 1928, and acknowledging the necessity of securing international order and harmony by means of effective sanctions. . .” the Congress considered imperative “the establishment of an international penal judicial system” as well as of the principle of criminal responsibility of states and single individuals for acts of aggression.

Thus long ago was proclaimed the principle of penal responsibility for criminal aggression, the principle which found its clear legal expression in Subparagraph (a) of Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal.

Consequently, the fascist aggressors, the defendants, knew that by their predatory attacks on other countries they committed the gravest Crimes against Peace. They knew it, and they know it now, and that is the reason why they attempted and are now attempting to camouflage their criminal aggression with lies about defense.

Furthermore, it has been repeatedly and authoritatively declared that violations of laws and customs of war established by international conventions must entail criminal responsibility.

In this connection it is necessary to note that the gravest outrages in violation of laws and customs of war committed by the Hitlerites—murder, violence, arson, and plunder—are considered punishable criminal acts by all criminal codes throughout the world. Moreover, the international conventions signed especially for the purpose of establishing laws and rules of war stipulate criminal responsibility for violation of these laws and rules. Thus Article 56 of the Hague Convention in 1907 declares:

“The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated
to religion, charity and education, the arts, and sciences, even
when state property, shall be treated as private property. All
seizure of, destruction, or willful damage done to institutions
of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science,
is forbidden, and shall be made the subject of legal
proceedings.”

Thus, the Hague Convention not only forbids the violation of rules of war, but also stipulates that these violations “should be made the subject of legal proceedings”, that is, must entail criminal responsibility.

Article 29 of the 1929 Geneva Convention states with still greater precision that:

“The Governments of the High Contracting Parties whose penal
laws may not be adequate shall likewise take or recommend to
their legislatures the necessary measures to repress in time of
war all acts in contravention of the provisions of the present
convention.”

Finally, the principle of criminal responsibility for all acts in violation of the laws and customs of war is expressed with the utmost precision in Article 3 of the provisions of the Washington Conference for the Reduction of Armaments and for the Pacific and Far Eastern Problems, which states that:

“The Contracting Powers, wishing to ensure the execution of
promulgated laws . . . declare that any person in the service of
any power who violates one of these rules, and independently of
the fact whether he is subordinated to an official personality
or not, will be considered a transgressor of the laws of war and
will be liable to be tried by civilian or military authorities.”

Consequently, according to the directives of the Hague and Geneva Conventions and according to the provisions of the Washington Conference, the enforcing of criminal responsibility for the violation of the laws and customs of war is not only possible, but is actually compulsory.

Thus, Subparagraph (b) of Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, concerning War Crimes, defined with greater precision and generalized the principles and rules contained in the international conventions previously signed.

The defendants knew that cynical mockery of the laws and customs of war constituted the gravest of crimes. They knew it, but they hoped that total war, by securing victory, would also secure their impunity. But victory did not arrive on the heels of the crimes. Instead came the complete and unconditional surrender of Germany, and with it came an hour of grim reckoning for all the outrages they had committed.

I myself, speaking on behalf of the Soviet Union, and my honored colleagues, the chief prosecutors of the United States of America, England, and France, we all accuse the defendants of having ruled over the entire German State and war machine through a criminal conspiracy and of turning the machinery of the German State into a mechanism for the preparation and prosecution of criminal aggression, into a mechanism for the extermination of millions of innocent people.

When several criminals conspire to commit a murder, every one of them plays a definite part. One works out the plan of murder, another waits in the car, and the third actually fires at the victim. But whatever may be the part played by any individual participant, they all are murderers and any court of law in any country will reject any attempts to assert that the first two should not be considered murderers, since they themselves had not fired the bullet.

The more complicated and hazardous the conceived crime, the more complicated and less tangible the links connecting the individual participants. When a gang of bandits commits an assault, responsibility for the raid is also shared by those members of the gang who did not actually take part in the assault. But when the size of the gang attains extraordinary proportions, when the gang happens to be at the helm of the ship of state, when the gang commits numerous and very grave international crimes, then of course, the ties and mutual relations among the members of the gang become entangled to the utmost. A highly ramified mechanism is here at work. It consisted of a whole system of links and blocks, (Zellenleiter, Blockleiter, Gauleiter, Reichsleiter, _et cetera_) extending from ministerial chairs to the hands of the executioners.

This is a consolidated and powerful mechanism, yet it is powerless to conceal the basic and decisive fact that at the core of the entire system operated a gang of conspirators who were setting in motion the whole organization which they had created.

When entire regions of flourishing countryside were turned into desert areas, and the soil was drenched with the blood of those executed, it was the work of their hands, of their organization, their instigation, their leadership. And just because the masses of the German people were made to participate in these outrages, because, prior to setting packs of dogs and executioners on millions of innocent people, the defendants for years had poisoned the conscience and the mind of an entire generation of Germans by developing in them the conceit of “the chosen,” the morals of cannibals, and the greed of burglars, can it be said on account of these facts that the guilt of the Hitlerite conspirators is any less great or any less grave?

Expressing the will of nations, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal has settled this question:

“Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating
in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or
Conspiracy”—against peace, against the laws and customs of
warfare, or against humanity—“to commit any of the foregoing
crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in
execution of such plan.” (Article 6)

For the purpose of successful execution of their criminal plans these conspirators—Göring, Hess, Rosenberg, Fritzsche, Schirach, and the other defendants—developed a fiendish theory of the superior or master race. By means of this so-called theory they had in mind to justify the claims of German fascism for the domination of other nations which were declared by their theory to be nations of inferior race.

It followed from this theory that Germans, since they belonged to the “master race,” have the “right” to build their own welfare on the bones of other races and nations. This theory proclaimed that German fascist usurpers are not bound by any laws or commonly accepted rules of human morality. The “master race” is permitted to do anything. No matter how revolting and shameless, cruel, and monstrous were the actions of those individuals, they were based on the idea of the superiority of this race.

Said Hitler:

“We want to make a selection for a class of new masters who will
be devoid of moral pity, a class which will realize that because
of its better race it has the right to dominate others, a class
that will be able to establish and maintain without hesitation
its domination over the masses.” (Otwalt, Ernst, _Deutschland
erwache!_, 1932, Page 353.)

This German fascist racial theory had at the same time to serve as a “scientific” basis for the preparation by the Hitlerites of an attack against democratic nations, as a justification for aggressive wars for which the Hitlerites made feverish preparation during the whole time of their domination of Germany. In such manner, the function of racism was to justify the conspiracy—to fulfill the predatory aims of the German imperialistic clique.

By order of the German fascist authorities, the racial doctrine was introduced into the educational plans as a most important and obligatory subject. In the hands of German fascism, the schools and universities became dangerous centers for the intellectual and moral mutilation of the people and, as such, the greatest menace to civilization. All branches of science were militarized. All aspects of art were subjected to the aims of aggression.

“We approach science unbiased by knowledge and scholarly
education.”—declared the fascist review _Politische
Wissenschaft_, Number 3 for 1934—“The student must come to
college with the demand that science be as soldierly as his own
bearing and that the professor possess the qualities of a leader
and the bearing of a soldier.”

“We want arms again!”—said Hitler—“Then indeed from the
child’s primer to the last newspaper, every theater and every
movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard—all
must be pressed into the service of this one great
mission. . . .” (Hitler, Adolf, _Mein Kampf_, Munich, 1933, Page
715.)

Geography became the instrument for propagating the “preeminent importance of the Germans in the world,” of their “right to dominate” other peoples. A feeling of racial superiority, arrogance, hatred, contempt, and cruelty toward other peoples was cultivated in the young.

These are the words of a German fascist song:

“If all the world lies in ruins,

What the devil do we care?

We still will go marching on

For today Germany belongs to us

And tomorrow the whole world.”

The German fascist ideology set loose the wildest and lowest instincts. The fascists made a principle of arbitrary actions, violence, and debasement of the people. They declared as dangerous for the “master races” the ideas of freedom, the ideas of enlightenment, and the demands of humanity. Said Hitler:

“I am freeing men from the wearisome restrictions of the mind,
from the dirty and degrading self-mortifications of a chimera
called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a
freedom and personal independence which a very few enjoy.”
(Rauschning, Hermann, _The Voice of Destruction_, New York,
1940, Page 225.)

In the spirit of such principles the entire German fascist system of education was built up with a view to adapting and preparing them to a blind obedience in the execution of all predatory plans and aims put before Germany by the Hitlerite rulers. As a result of fascist propaganda and the whole system of measures cultivated by the German State, the German mind was systematically poisoned by the fumes of chauvinism and hatred of mankind. The aggressive plans of German fascism ripened more and more with every year since the Hitlerites’ seizure of power until at last they led to war. This war was planned, worked out and started by the Hitlerites’ Germany as Blitzkrieg and should, according to the schemes of the conspirators, have resulted in a rapid and easy victory for the gang of Hitlerite cut-throats and in their domination over all the countries in Europe.

The criminal conspiracy aimed at the establishment of a predatory New Order in Europe. This New Order was a regime of terror by which, in the countries seized by the Hitlerites, all democratic institutions were abolished and all civil rights of the population were abrogated, while the countries themselves were plundered and rapaciously exploited. The population of these countries, and of the Slav countries above all others—especially Russians, Ukrainians, Bielorussians, Poles, Czechs, Serbians, Slovenes, Jews—were subjected to merciless persecution and mass extermination.

The conspirators failed to achieve their objective. The valiant struggle of the peoples of the democratic countries, led by a coalition of the three great powers—the Soviet Union, the United States of America, and Great Britain—resulted in the liberation of the European countries from the Hitlerite yoke. The victory of the Soviet and Allied armies wrecked the criminal plans of the fascist conspirators and liberated the peoples of Europe from the terrible threat of Hitlerite domination.

We, the Prosecutors, are obliged by law and duty before the peoples of the democratic countries and all mankind to formulate and present to the International Military Tribunal evidence proving the guilt of the defendants in committing the most grievous crimes.

Permit me to perform my duty, jointly with my colleagues, by presenting to the International Military Tribunal the evidence which, together with the materials already presented by the Prosecution on behalf of the United States of America, Great Britain, and France, will give a complete and exhaustive body of proof in this case.

The Defendants Göring, Hess, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Raeder, Rosenberg, Kaltenbrunner, Frank, Frick, Dönitz, Fritzsche, and others are charged with the organization of a conspiracy to establish by force the domination of German imperialism and the setting up of the fascist regime in all European countries and, later, throughout the world.

The core of this plan was the organization of aggressive wars and the rearrangement of the map of the whole world by use of force. In execution of this plan for aggression the criminal Hitlerite Government and the German General Staff prepared and executed the seizure of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, Poland, Greece, and Yugoslavia. They also prepared and undertook a predatory military campaign against the Soviet Union.

My colleagues of the American, British, and French Prosecution have already submitted to the Tribunal weighty and irrefutable evidence which establishes the fact of German aggression against their own countries, as well as against Belgium, Holland, Greece, and a number of the other states which had become victims of the predatory Hitlerite imperialism.

May it please Your Honors, I will now produce proofs of the monstrous crimes of the defendants in the preparation and initiation of aggressive wars against freedom loving peoples.

The document submitted in this case and known as “Fall Grün” contains a plan for an attack on the Czechoslovakian Republic. This directive, signed by Hitler, was distributed together with a covering note bearing the signatures of Keitel. The directive begins with “Political Prerequisites,” which read precisely as follows:

“My unalterable decision is that Czechoslovakia should be
smashed in the immediate future by means of a single military
operation. To abide the time and to create a suitable political
and military situation—this is the task of political
leadership. The inevitable development of conditions within
Czechoslovakia or other political events in Europe, which might
never again bring about such an unexpectedly favorable
situation, may force me to action even before the designated
date. The proper choice and the resolute exploitation of the
opportune moment are the surest guaranties of success.
Accordingly, all preparations should be made immediately.”

Turning to the exposition of the political possibilities and prerequisites regarding the initiation of the attack, Hitler cynically disclosed these prerequisites: a) A suitable military pretext and in this connection; b) a satisfactory political justification; c) a surprise action which should take the enemy, as far as possible, unawares.

It was Hitler’s idea that the most propitious moment, both from the military and political point of view, would be a lightning, secretly prepared, German attack under the pretext of some incident which could morally justify the use of military force, at least in the eyes of a certain portion of the public opinion of the world.

The directive envisaged the actual preparation for an attack on Czechoslovakia to be executed by certain branches of the Armed Forces. Thus the Directive Grün, which bears as early a date as May 1938, clearly and definitely testifies to the fact of a carefully planned preparation for the seizure of Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Prosecution will submit documents taken from the files of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs which reveal the criminal methods used by the Hitlerites in preparing for the seizure of Czechoslovakia.

You, Your Honors, as well as the entire world, well know how methodically and ruthlessly this criminal scheme was executed by the predatory imperialism of the Hitlerites.

Having set up in occupied Czechoslovakia an insufferable regime of terrorism, the Hitlerites drove into German slavery many thousands of Czechoslovak citizens, showing no mercy even to children, who were sent to industrial plants, farms, and mines. The youth of Czechoslovakia was deprived of all opportunities for education. When, in 1942, a Czech delegation appealed to Frank for permission to reopen the higher Czechoslovak educational institutions, he cynically replied, “Should the war be won by England, you will reopen your schools yourselves; should Germany win, then five-grade elementary schools will be enough for you.”

Everyone remembers the sanguinary reprisals of the Hitlerite hangmen committed against the Czechoslovak population. One of the numerous cases of such monstrous reprisals against the peaceful population was made public in the German newspaper _Der Neue Tag_ of 11 June 1942.

“During the search for the murderer of SS Obergruppenführer
Heydrich, it was incontestably proved that the inhabitants of
the village of Lidice, near Kladno, were aiding and abetting the
perpetrators of the crime. This has been proven in spite of the
fact that the population denies any such assistance. The
attitude of the population in regard to such crimes is also
evidenced by other hostile acts against the Reich. There were
discovered, for instance, subversive literature, stores of arms
and ammunition, as well as the existence of a radio transmitter
and a large quantity of rationed goods held in unlawful
possession. The entire adult male population was executed by
firing squads. Women were deported to concentration camps, and
children were sent to proper places for their further
upbringing. All buildings in this village were levelled to the
ground and the name of the village was done away with.”

The Prosecution has at its disposal official data collected by the Czechoslovakian Government on the shocking crimes which were perpetrated by the Hitlerite invaders on the territory of Czechoslovakia. In the report of the Czechoslovakian Government, which to a large extent is devoted to the description of the regime established by the Hitlerites in Czechoslovakia during the occupation, are cited numerous cases of terrorism: shooting of hostages, mass deportations to concentration camps, murder of women and children.

That is how Fall Grün worked.

On 1 September 1939 the fascist aggressors invaded Polish territory in treacherous violation of existing treaties. The Polish people were subjected to mass extermination, and their cities and villages were mercilessly destroyed. Official documents exposing this aggression have already been presented to the Tribunal by my colleagues. Among such documents we must mention in the first place a top-secret report on a conference, presided over by Hitler, which took place on 23 May 1939, and at which, besides Hitler and other persons, the Defendants Göring, Raeder, and Keitel were present.

At this conference Hitler made a lengthy statement concerning “the present situation and the political aims.” Hitler said:

“The Pole is in no way an additional enemy. Poland will always
be on the side of our opponents. It is not a question of Danzig
only; it is the question of Lebensraum in the East, the
safeguarding of our food supplies, and the solution of the
Baltic problem.

“Thus”—said Hitler—“sparing Poland is out of the question, and
the decision remains to invade her at the first opportunity. We
cannot expect the repetition of what we achieved in the case of
Czechoslovakia. This time it means war.”

Hitler then said:

“The important fact in the conflict with Poland, which will
begin with an attack on Poland, is that it can be successful for
us only if the West does not participate. If this should be
impossible, it would be better to attack the Western Powers and
at the same time destroy Poland.”

The second part of Hitler’s statement was specially devoted to a number of questions of military strategy connected with his decision to attack Poland. This is how the gangster assault of Hitler’s Germany on Poland was prepared in advance. It was put into execution in September 1939. We shall present documentary evidence of the monstrous crimes committed by the Hitlerites in Poland.

Yugoslavia was another Slav state which was the subject of a sudden attack on the part of Hitlerite Germany. It is well known that on numerous occasions Hitler’s Government had given false assurance to the effect that Germany had no aggressive intentions towards Yugoslavia. Thus, on 28 April 1939 Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag, stated that Germany was ready to give assurances to a number of states, and in particular to Yugoslavia, that Germany wished to maintain with them relations of mutual understanding, as she was bound to them by alliances and by “close ties of friendship.”

Even prior to this, on 28 April 1938, the Berlin News Agency (DNB) had announced:

“Confidential representatives have informed the Yugoslav
Government on Germany’s behalf that Germany’s intentions do not
extend beyond Austria and that the Yugoslav frontier will remain
inviolate.”

In spite of these repeated and categorical declarations, Hitler’s armies invaded Yugoslavia on 6 April 1941 and occupied this country. This attack was unexpected only by the victims, for the Nazi clique had carefully planned this assault in advance as it had done in the above-mentioned cases.

A top-secret directive issued from the Führer’s headquarters on 27 March 1941 and intended only for higher commanding officers of the German Army said:

“My intention is to invade Yugoslavia by powerful thrusts from
the area of Fiume-Graz and from Sofia in the general direction
of Belgrade and further to the south, with the objective of
inflicting on the Yugoslav army a decisive defeat as well as to
cut off the southern part of Yugoslavia from the rest of the
country and to turn it into a base for further operations of the
German-Italian forces against Greece. By proposing the return of
Macedonia and Banat, attempts will be made to bring about the
participation of Bulgaria and Hungary in the operations.

“The internal political crisis in Yugoslavia will be aggravated
by political guarantees promised to the Croats.”

Further on, the directive lays down a detailed strategic plan for the invasion of Yugoslavia and provides for actual participation in this aggression of the German Armed Forces, including the 10th Air Corps, which had to be transferred from Italy in order to take part in these operations.

Consequently, on the basis of the evidence supplied by original documents of the Hitlerite Government and High Command of the German Armed Forces, we can establish that all attacks by Hitlerite Germany on Slav states were based on a plan prepared in advance, a plan which was only a part of a common criminal conspiracy of the predatory German imperialism against freedom-loving nations.

Yugoslavia as well as Poland became a victim of the German fascist aggressors who covered this flourishing state with ruins, and its fields, gardens, and ploughed land with corpses of many thousands of Yugoslav patriots who fell in the heroic struggle against the foreign invaders and enslavers, in the struggle for the freedom and independence of their native land.

THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off for 10 minutes?

[_A recess was taken._]

GEN. RUDENKO: May it please the Tribunal, I will now describe the crimes committed by the Hitlerite aggressors against my own country, against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. On 22 June 1941 the U.S.S.R. was perfidiously attacked by Hitlerite Germany. However, it is not this date that should be considered as the actual beginning of the execution of Hitlerite Germany’s plan of aggression against the Soviet Union. What took place on 22 June 1941 was conceived, prepared, and planned long before that.

The Hitlerite conspirators pursued these preparations continuously. All Germany’s aggressive actions against a number of European states, during the period between 1938 and 1941, were actually only preliminary measures for the main blow in the East. For fascist Germany had conceived the criminal design of seizing the territory of the Soviet Union in order to plunder and to exploit the peoples of the U.S.S.R.