Various.

Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (Vol. II) online

. (page 1 of 119)
Online LibraryVariousNazi Conspiracy and Aggression (Vol. II) → online text (page 1 of 119)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


NAZI CONSPIRACY, AGGRESSION, VOL 2 ***




Produced by Larry Harrison, Cindy Beyer and the online
Distributed Proofreaders Canada team at
http://www.pgdpcanada.net with images provided by The
Internet Archives-US






[Cover Illustration]




NAZI CONSPIRACY
AND AGGRESSION

_VOLUME II_


_Office of United States_
_Chief of Counsel For Prosecution_
_of Axis Criminality_

[Illustration]

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON • 1946




Sold in Complete Sets
by the
Superintendent of Documents
U. S. Government Printing
Office
Washington 25, D. C.






A Collection of Documentary Evidence and Guide Materials Prepared by the
American and British Prosecuting Staffs for Presentation before the
International Military Tribunal at Nurnberg, Germany, in the case of

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED
KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF
SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS

—against—

HERMANN WILHELM GOERING, RUDOLF HESS, JOACHIM von RIBBENTROP,
ROBERT LEY, WILHELM KEITEL, ERNST KALTENBRUNNER, ALFRED
ROSENBERG, HANS FRANK, WILHELM FRICK, JULIUS STREICHER, WALTER
FUNK, HJALMAR SCHACHT, GUSTAV KRUPP von BOHLEN und HALBACH, KARL
DOENITZ, ERICH RAEDER, BALDUR von SCHIRACH, FRITZ SAUCKEL,
ALFRED JODL, MARTIN BORMANN, FRANZ von PAPEN, ARTUR
SEYSS-INQUART, ALBERT SPEER, CONSTANTIN von NEURATH, and HANS
FRITZSCHE, Individually and as Members of Any of the Following
Groups or Organizations to which They Respectively Belonged,
Namely: DIE REICHSREGIERUNG (REICH CABINET); DAS KORPS DER
POLITISCHEN LEITER DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN
ARBEITERPARTEI (LEADERSHIP CORPS OF THE NAZI PARTY); DIE
SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN
ARBEITERPARTEI (commonly known as the “SS”) and including DIE
SICHERHEITSDIENST (commonly known as the “SD”); DIE GEHEIME
STAATSPOLIZEI (SECRET STATE POLICE, commonly known as the
“GESTAPO”); DIE STURMABTEILUNGEN DER N.S.D.A.P. (commonly known
as the “SA”) and the GENERAL STAFF and HIGH COMMAND of the
GERMAN ARMED FORCES all as defined in Appendix B of the
Indictment,

Defendants.




C O N T E N T S


Page
Chapter XV. Criminality of Groups and Organizations 1
1. The Law Under Which Nazi Organizations are
Accused of Being Criminal 1
2. The Nazi Party Leadership Corps 23
3. The Reich Cabinet 91
4. The Sturmabteilung (SA) 133
5. The Schutzstaffeln (SS) 173
6. The Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) and
Sicherheitsdienst (SD) 248
7. The General Staff and High Command of the
Armed Forces 316
XVI. Individual Responsibility of Defendants 416
1. Hermann Wilhelm Goering 417
2. Rudolf Hess 466
3. Joachim von Ribbentrop 489
4. Wilhelm Keitel 528
5. Alfred Jodl 565
6. Ernst Kaltenbrunner 575
7. Alfred Rosenberg 593
8. Hans Frank 624
9. Wilhelm Frick 653
10. Julius Streicher 689
11. Walter Funk 715
12. Hjalmar Schacht 738
13. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach 774
14. Karl Doenitz 815
15. Erich Raeder 849
16. Baldur von Schirach 877
17. Martin Bormann 896
18. Franz von Papen 915
19. Artur Seyss-Inquart 956
20. Constantin von Neurath 1014
21. Hans Fritzsche 1035
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA 1055
1. Principal Officials of the Reich Government 1055
2. Principal Officials of the Nazi Party 1062
3. Heads of the Armed Forces 1063
4. Index of Individuals 1064
CODE NAMES AND WORDS USED BY THE GERMAN HIGH COMMAND FOR
OPERATIONS AND MEASURES DURING THE WAR 1078
DATA CONCERNING CAPTURE OF DEFENDANTS 1083
GLOSSARY OF COMMON GERMAN AND NAZI TITLES, DESIGNATIONS, AND
TERMS, WITH THEIR OFFICIAL ABBREVIATIONS 1084
TABLE OF COMMISSIONED RANKS IN THE GERMAN ARMY, NAVY, AND SS WITH
THEIR EQUIVALENTS IN THE AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES 1099




Chapter XV
CRIMINALITY OF GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS


1. THE LAW UNDER WHICH NAZI ORGANIZATIONS ARE ACCUSED OF BEING CRIMINAL

_The following argument on the law and policy involved in the
prosecution’s charge that certain Nazi groups and organizations should
be declared criminal, was delivered by Justice Jackson before the
Tribunal on 28 February 1946._

May it please the Tribunal:

The unconditional surrender of Germany created, for the victors, novel
and difficult problems of law and administration. Since it is the first
such surrender of an entire and modernly organized society, precedents
and past experiences are of little help in guiding our policy toward the
vanquished. The responsibility implicit in demanding and accepting
capitulation of a whole people must of necessity include a duty to
discriminate justly and intelligently between opposing elements of the
population which bore dissimilar relations to the policies and conduct
which led to the catastrophe. This differentiation is the objective of
those provisions of the Charter which authorize this Tribunal to declare
organizations or groups to be criminal. Understanding of the problem
which the instrument attempts to solve is essential to its
interpretation and application.

A. _The Problem of the Nazi Organizations._

One of the sinister peculiarities of German society at the time of the
surrender was that the State itself played only a subordinate role in
the exercise of political power, while the really drastic controls over
German society were organized outside its nominal government. This was
accomplished through an elaborate network of closely knit and exclusive
organizations of selected volunteers oath-bound to execute, without
delay and without question, the commands of the Nazi leaders.

These organizations penetrated the whole German life. The country was
subdivided into little Nazi principalities of about 50 households each,
and every such community had its recognized party leaders, party police,
and its undercover party spies. These were combined into larger units
with higher ranking leaders, executioners and spies. The whole formed a
pyramid of power outside the law, with the Fuehrer at its apex, and with
the local party officials as its broad base resting heavily on the
German population. The Nazi despotism, therefore, did not consist of
these individual defendants alone. A thousand little fuehrers dictated,
a thousand imitation Goerings strutted, a thousand Schirachs incited the
youth, a thousand Sauckels worked slaves, a thousand Streichers and
Rosenbergs stirred hate, a thousand Kaltenbrunners and Franks tortured
and killed, a thousand Schachts and Speers and Funks administered,
financed, and supported the movement. The Nazi movement was an
integrated force in city and county and hamlet. The party power
resulting from this system of organizations first rivaled, and then
dominated, the power of the State itself.

The primary vice of this web of organizations was that they were used to
transfer the power of coercing men from the government and the law to
the Nazi leaders. Liberty, self-government, and security of persons and
property do not exist except where the power of coercion is possessed
only by the State and is exercised only in obedience to law. The Nazis,
however, set up a private system of coercion, outside of and immune from
law, with party-controlled concentration camps and firing squads to
administer privately decreed sanctions. Without responsibility to law
and without warrant from any court, they were enabled to seize property,
take away liberty, and even take life itself.

These organizations had a calculated and decisive part in the barbaric
extremes of the Nazi movement. They served cleverly to exploit mob
psychology and to manipulate the mob. Multiplying the numbers of persons
in a common enterprise tends to diminish each individual’s sense of
moral responsibility and to increase his sense of security. The Nazi
leaders were masters of this technique. They manipulated these
organizations to make before the German populace impressive exhibitions
of numbers and of power. These were used to incite a mob spirit and then
riotously to gratify the popular hates they had inflamed and the
Germanic ambition they had inflated.

These organizations indoctrinated and practiced violence and terrorism.
They provided the systematized, aggressive, and disciplined execution
throughout Germany and the occupied countries of the whole catalogue of
crimes we have proven. The flowering of the system is represented in the
fanatical SS General Ohlendorf, who told this Tribunal without shame or
trace of pity how he personally directed the putting to death of 90,000
men, women, and children. No tribunal ever listened to a recital of such
wholesale murder as this Tribunal heard from him and from Wisliceny, a
fellow officer of the SS. Their own testimony shows the responsibility
of the SS for the extermination program which took the lives of five
million Jews, a responsibility the organization welcomed and discharged
methodically, remorselessly, and thoroughly. These crimes are
unprecedented ones because of the shocking numbers of victims. They are
even more shocking and unprecedented because of the large number of
persons who united to perpetrate them. All scruple or conscience of a
very large segment of the German people was committed to Nazi keeping,
and its devotees felt no personal sense of guilt as they went from one
extreme measure to another. On the other hand, they developed a contest
in cruelty and a competition in crime. Ohlendorf from the witness stand
accused other SS commanders, whose killings exceeded his, of
“exaggerating” their figures.

There could be no justice and no wisdom in an occupation policy which
imposed upon passive and unorganized and inarticulate Germans the same
burdens as it placed upon those who voluntarily banded themselves
together in these powerful and notorious gangs. One of the basic
requirements, both of justice and of successful administration of the
occupation responsibility of the victors, is a segregation of these
organized elements from the masses of Germans for separate treatment.

It seems beyond controversy that to punish a few top leaders but to
leave this web of organized bodies unscotched in the midst of German
postwar society, would be to foster the nucleus of a new Nazidom. The
members are accustomed to an established chain of centralized command;
they have formed a habit and developed a technique of both secret and
open cooperation. They still nourish a blind devotion to the suspended,
but not abandoned, Nazi program. They will keep alive the hates and
ambitions which generated the orgy of crime we have proved. They are
carriers, from this generation to the next, of the infection of
aggressive and ruthless war. The Tribunal has seen on the screen how
easily an assemblage that ostensibly is only a common labor force can be
in fact a military training unit drilling with shovels. The next war and
the next pogroms will be hatched in the nests of these organizations as
surely as we leave their membership with its prestige and influence
undiminished by condemnation and punishment.

The menace of these organizations is the more impressive when we
consider the demoralized state of German society. It will be years
before there can be established in the German State any political
authority that is not inexperienced and provisional. It cannot quickly
acquire the stability of a government aided by long habit of obedience
and traditional respect. The intrigue, obstruction, and possible
overthrow, which older and established governments fear from
conspiratorial groups, is a real and present danger to any stable social
order in the Germany of today and of tomorrow.

Insofar as the Charter of this Tribunal contemplates a justice of
retribution, it is obvious that it could not overlook these organized
instruments and instigators of past crimes. In opening this case, I said
that the United States does not seek to convict the whole German people
of crime. But it is equally important that this trial shall not serve to
absolve the whole German people except 22 men in the dock. The wrongs
that have been done to the world by these defendants and their top
confederates was not done by their will or by their strength alone. The
success of their designs was made possible because great numbers of
Germans organized themselves to become the fulcrum and the lever by
which the power of these leaders was extended and magnified. If this
trial fails to condemn these organized confederates for share of
responsibility for this catastrophe, it will be construed as their
exoneration.

But the Charter was not concerned with retributive justice alone. It
manifests a constructive policy influenced by exemplary and preventive
considerations. The primary objective of requiring that the surrender be
unconditional was to clear the way for reconstruction of German society
on such a basis that it will not again threaten the peace of Europe and
of the world. Temporary measures of the occupation authorities may, by
necessity, have been more arbitrary and applied with less discrimination
than befits a permanent policy. Under existing denazification policy, no
member of the Nazi party or its formations may be employed in any
position, other than ordinary labor, or in any business enterprise
unless he is found to have been only a nominal Nazi. Persons in certain
categories, whose standing in the community is one of prominence or
influence, are required to meet this standard, and those who do not may
be denied further participation in their businesses or professions. It
is mandatory to remove or exclude from public office, and from positions
of importance in quasi public and private enterprises, persons falling
within approximately 90 specified categories deemed to consist of either
active Nazis, Nazi supporters, or militarists. The property of such
persons is blocked.

It is recognized by the Control Council, as it was by the framers of the
Charter, that a permanent, long-term program should be based on a more
careful and more individual discrimination than was possible with
sweeping temporary measures. There is a movement now within the Control
Council for reconsideration of its whole denazification policy and
procedure. The action of this Tribunal in declaring, or in failing to
declare, the accused organizations criminal has a vital bearing on
future occupation policy.

It was the intent of the Charter to utilize the hearing processes of
this Tribunal to identify and condemn those Nazi and militaristic forces
that were so organized as to constitute a continuing menace to the
long-term objectives for which our respective countries have spent the
lives of their young men. It is in the light of this great purpose that
we must examine the provisions of the Charter.

B. _The Procedure for Condemning Organizations._

It was obvious that the conventional litigation procedures could not,
without some modification, be adapted to this task. No system of
jurisprudence has yet evolved any satisfactory technique for handling a
great multiplicity of common charges against a multitude of accused
persons. The number of individual defendants that fairly can be tried in
a single proceeding probably does not greatly exceed the number now in
your dock. Moreover, the number of separate trials in which the same
voluminous evidence as to common plan must be repeated is very limited
as a practical matter. Yet adversary hearing procedures are the best
assurance the law has evolved that decisions will be well considered and
just. The task of the framers of the Charter was to find a way to
overcome these obstacles to practicable and early decision without
sacrificing the fairness implicit in hearings. The solution prescribed
by the Charter is certainly not faultless, but not one of its critics
has ever proposed an alternative that would not either deprive the
individual of any hearing or contemplate such a multitude of long trials
as to be impracticable. In any case, it is the plan adopted by our
respective governments and our duty here is to make it work.

The plan which was adopted in the Charter essentially is a severance of
the general issues which would be common to all individual trials from
the particular issues which would differ in each trial. The plan is
comparable to that employed in certain wartime legislation of the United
States (_Yakus_ v. _United States_, 321 U. S., 414, 64 Sup. Ct. 660).
The general issues are to be determined with finality in one trial
before the International Tribunal. In this trial, every accused
organization must be defended by counsel and must be represented by at
least one leading member, and other individual members may apply to be
heard. Their applications may be granted if the Tribunal thinks justice
requires it. The only issue in this trial concerns the collective
criminality of the organization or group. It is to be adjudicated by
what amounts to be a declaratory judgment. It does not decree any
punishment, either against the organization or against the individual
members.

The only specification as to the effect of this Tribunal’s declaration
that an organization is criminal, is contained in Article 10 of the
Charter, which provides:

“In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by
the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory
shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for
membership therein before national, military or occupation
courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or
organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned.”

Unquestionably, it would be competent for the Charter to have declared
flatly that membership in any of these named organizations is criminal
and should be punished accordingly. If there had been such an enactment,
it would not have been open to an individual who was being tried for
membership in the organization to contend that the organization was not
in fact criminal. The framers of the Charter, at a time before the
evidence adduced here was available, did not care to find organizations
criminal by fiat. They left that issue to determination after relevant
facts were developed by adversary proceedings. Plainly, the individual
member is better off because of the procedure of the Charter, which
leaves that finding of criminality to this body after hearings at which
the organization must, and the individual may, be represented.

The groups and organizations named in the Indictment are not “on trial”
in the conventional sense of that term. They are more nearly under
investigation as they might be before a grand jury in Anglo-American
practice. Article 9 recognizes a distinction between _the declaration_
of a group or organization as criminal and “_the trial_ of any
individual member thereof.” The power of the Tribunal to try is confined
to “persons,” and the Charter does not expand that term by definition,
as statutes sometimes do, to include other than natural persons. The
groups or organizations named in the Indictment were not as entities
served with process. The Tribunal is not empowered to impose any
sentence upon them as entities, nor to convict any person because of
membership.

It is to be observed that the Charter does not _require_ subsequent
proceedings against anyone. It provides only that the competent national
authorities “_shall have the right_ to bring individuals to trial for
membership therein.”

The Charter is silent as to the form these trials should take. It was
not deemed wise, on the information available when the Charter was drawn
up, that the Charter should regulate subsequent proceedings. Nor was it
necessary to do so. There is a continuing legislative authority,
representing all four signatory nations, competent to take over where
the Charter leaves off. Legislative supplementation of the Charter is
necessary to confer jurisdiction on local courts, to define procedures,
and to prescribe different penalties for different forms of activity.

Fear has been expressed, however, that the Charter’s silence as to
future proceedings means that great numbers of members will be rounded
up and automatically punished as a result of a declaration of an
organization to be criminal. It also has been suggested that this is, or
may be, the consequence of Article II, 1(d) of Control Council Act No.
10, which defines as a crime “membership in categories of a criminal
group or organization declared criminal by the International Military
Tribunal.” A purpose to inflict punishments without a right of hearing
cannot be spelled out of the Charter, and would be offensive to both its
letter and its spirit. And I do not find in Control Council Act No. 10
any inconsistency with the Charter. Of course, to reach all individual
members will require numerous hearings. But they will involve only
narrow issues; many accused will have no answers to charges if they are
clearly stated, and the proceedings should be expeditious and
nontechnical.

But I think it is clear that before any person is punishable for
membership in a criminal organization, he is entitled to a hearing on
the facts of his case. The Charter does not authorize the national
authorities to punish membership without a hearing—it gives them only
the right to “bring individuals to trial.” That means what it says. A
trial means there is something to try.

As to trials of the individual members, the Charter denies only one of
the possible defenses of an accused: he may not relitigate the question
whether the organization itself was a criminal one. Nothing precludes
him from denying that his participation was voluntary and proving he
acted under duress; he may prove that he was deceived or tricked into
membership; he may show that he had withdrawn; or he may prove that his
name on the rolls is a case of mistaken identity.

The membership which the Charter and the Control Council Act make
criminal, of course, implies a genuine membership involving the volition
of the member. The act of affiliation with the organization must have
been intentional and voluntary. Legal compulsion or illegal duress,
actual fraud or trick of which one is a victim, has never been thought
to be the victim’s crime, and such an unjust result is not to be implied



Online LibraryVariousNazi Conspiracy and Aggression (Vol. II) → online text (page 1 of 119)