Naturally sexual contact between those people and Germans could not be prevented. This caused great concern among the guardians of the purity of the Nordic race and soon regulations were made up to punish these occurrences. Poles, Czechs and Russians, etc (civilians as well as prisoners of war) were punished for having had sexual intercourse with Germans.
If it was discovered that a foreign worker had intercourse with a German woman he was given a racial examination by RuSHA. If he was declaredly racially undesirable he was subjected to "special treatment," which in the language of the Nazis meant hanging, or sent to a concentration camp, a somewhat slower death. If the RuSHA field leader found the foreigners racial characteristics to his liking then his life was spared if the foreign worker agreed to be Germanized. Copies of all reports were sent to the Main Staff Office.
Eastern women who had intercourse with German men were frequently sent to concentration camps. The defendant Hildebrandt, Hofmann and Schwalm were all active in connection with this program, as was the Main Staff Office.
Hampering of Reproduction of Enemy Nationals.
In accordance with the entire program of stregthening Germany and weakening enemy nations no means was overlooked whereby the ultimate aim of annihilation of the Slay peoples could be accomplished.
In an effort to reduce the birth rate among those people, marriages between certain groups were prohibited. Very strict limitations were placed on marriages between other groups and the minimum age requirements were greatly increased. Of course this did not absolutely prevent reproduction and the Reich Commissar for the Strengthening of Germanism, VOMI and RuSHA all became greatly concerned. A conference was held to deal with the question of illegitimate Polish children and to determine ways and means of reducing the number of children being born. The defendant Brueckener attended this conference as a representative of VOMI, and RuSHA was also represented.
A memorandum,on this conference made by RuSHA's representative stated, in part, as follows:
"*** Because of the raising of the marriage age for Poles the number of legitimate children is reduced re suiting in an increase in the number of illegitimate children.
The information most recently obtained showed that the number of illegitimate children is increasing to an even greater extent that the number of legitimate children is decreasing.
It must be the purpose of the intended regulation to reduce the number of illegitimate children as far as possible, but in no way to cause a further increase.
* * * * * * "..... The demand of the SS Main Race and Settlement Of fice and the Volksddutsche Mittelstelle (Repatriation Office for Ethnic Germans) that German interests in an individual case must be determined by the competent higher SS and Police leader in each case, thereby resulting in a decisive intervention on the part of the Reichkommissar for the Strengthening of Germanism, was approved.
In deciding this matter, it must be determined whether this constitutes a desirable increase in population (Poles suitable for Germanization); this will then be determined by the
SSMain Race and Settlement Office.
* * * * * * "With regard to the question of reducing the number of illegitimate children, it was the general consensus of opinion to allow the unwed Polish mothers a minimum subsistence for the care of the child, the subsistence to be paid for by the Polish fathers and to be paid out only if the care of the child is not assured by either the unwed mother or her family.
This was to prevent any negligence.
Here it must be the primary principle not to spend one German penny for Polish welfare.
This method of putting the illegitimate, racially undesirable Polish child at a definite disadvantage, even though it will not, in general reduce the number of illegitimate children, will at least not encourage a rise in the number of illegitimate children.
The Main Race and Settlement Office suggested that the father of the illegitimate child be required to make especially large payments, but that the money become part of a general fund from which the necessary sums might then be paid out.
In case where the paternity cannot be established, all potential fathers will be equally liable to payment.
This measure is not likely to increase the pleasure of having an illegitimate child; * * *" Forced Deportations and Resettlement of Populations.
Of all the different phase of this program for the strengthening of Germany and destroying her neighbors, the cruelest, most far-reaching and the one which involved the greatest number of victims was that which dealt with forced deportations and resettlements of populations. In the resettlement phase of the program hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, some of whom were of German stock, but many of whom were not, and who lived and had their homes in the countries which had been occupied by the German armed forces, were required to register for resettlement in certain other parts of Europe. The idea behind this was to consolidate all of the people of Europe who were of German stock in a solid block. After these people had been registered they were then moved from their homes into camps in Germany. Some were made to stay in Germany as slave labor and others were resettled in the occupied territories. Most of these people were resettled in Poland and inasmuch as Poland was already thickly populated by Polish citizens it was necessary to expel the Polish families from their homes and farms so that the resettlers would have a place to live and a means of earning a livelihood.
Many of the Polish citizens who were expelled from their homes, such as the Jews, were murdered or sent to concentration camps and many were driven farther East. This forced evacuation and resettlement program was a crime both against those who were brought in to be resettled and against those who were expelled to make room for the resettlers. It was a crime against the first category because fraud, deceit and coercive measures were used to make the people of so-called German stock agree to leave their homes and their property and to be resettled. They were promised that they would be given lands and goods equivalent to that which they left behind but upon arriving in Germany many were forced to work in factories and never received homes or farm lands and many who were resettled in Poland did not receive goods and farms of the same value as that which they had relinquished. In addition to false promises, other and more stringent measures were used to get these so-called ethnic Germans to agree to be resettled. We quote from a letter written by the defendant Brueckner on 3 March 1943:
"Resettlement is not carried out as a result of voluntary reporting but is ordered by the RFSS.
Therefore, those ethnic Germans who refused to be resettled shall be deprived of their identification cards, etc."
To be deprived of their identification cards meant that they could get no ration cards, and therefore no food, and that they would be subjected to possible persecution by the Gestapo.
The second phase of this undertaking, the deportation of peoples to make room for the resettlers, was of course the worse. The record is filled with testimony and documentary proof of the horrors which took place when the Polish families were expelled from their homes to make room for the resettlers. The testimony of Dr. Klukowski of Poland concerning the Zamosc deportation showed how ruthless were the methods with which these deportations were carried out. Deaths as a result of these actions was a common occurrence.
This entire program of evacuations and resettlement was planned by the defendants Greifelt, Creutz, Mayer-Hotling and Schwarzenberger of the Main Staff Office. The defendants Lorenz and Brueckner corralled these so-called ethnic Germans and herded them from their homes into camps in Germany and later transported some of them into now settlement areas. The RuSHA defendants Hildebrandt, Hofmann and Schwalm were concerned with the selection of these people through racial examinations and also by racial examinations they decided which of the Poles were to be deported. All of the Main Staff Office defendants above named, as well as the defendant Huebner, also planned and actively participated in the actual resettlement in Poland and other places and consecquently actively participated in the expulsion action.
Forced Germanization of Enemy Nationals.
Forced Germanization was another undertaking involving hundreds of thousands of people and one in which each and all of the defendants participated. This program was carried out in connection with two types of enemy nationals. One procedure was for persons who were considered to be of "German stock". This was known as the DVL procedure, the German peoples List. Another program was what was known as re-Germanization and applied to Poles who were never considered to be of German stock but who had good racial characteristics. This was known as the WED.
The basic decrees concerning the procedure in connection with the German Peoples List originated in a joint action between the Main Staff Office and other Reich agencies. The actual work was coordinated by the Supreme Court for Ethnic Classifications. The defendants Greifelt, Hofmann and Hildebrandt were members of this court. The court was located on the premises of the Main Staff Office, which provided it with offices, personnel and other facilities. Many Polish citizens were coerced into signing the German Peoples List and thus made to become German citizens against their will.
One of the most cruel methods of coercion was the constant threat to take the children of those who refused to sign the register. If the parents would not agree to become Germanized under this procedure the children were taken away and brought up in Nazi institutions or in Nazi families where they were taught to become "good Germans". After the Poles and other nationals signed the German People List end agreed to become Germans, many, against their will, were taken to Germany and used as forced labor and many of them were conscripted into the German army. The Main Staff Office was responsible for the preparation of most of the decrees in connection with this procedure and supervised the entire program. The people who had been forced to become Germans were transferred by VOMI to Germany for forced labor. RUSHA made racial examinations of those who registered on the list and placed them in various groups.
The other procedure, that of selecting Poles who were definitely not of German stock but who had good racial characteristics, was directed by the Main Staff Office. RuSHA also played an important role for this office was in charge of racial selection of the persons to be Germanized. The defendant Hofmann was especially active. He organized the work of RuSHA in connection with this procedure, gave numerous instructions as to how to handle racial examinations and insisted on the great role his office had to play. The defendants Schwalm and Huebner was also active. Those people who were re-Germanized were not free to choose their place of work and they were not free to marry whom they wanted and were, under no circumstances, allowed to marry Poles who were not included in the re-Ger manization procedure. This procedure was also used in connection with the Slovenes and other citizens of Yugoslavia as well as with the peoples of Luxembourg, Alsace and Lorraine. The persons selected as racially valuable by RuSHA were evacuated from their native country. They were processed by the Main Staff Office and that office issued directives as to their treatment. They were transported from their homes by VOMI and kept in VOMI Camps.
Lebensborn was a party to forced Germanization on account of the children which it took from these countries and placed in German homos.
MR. SHILLER:Mr. Lamm will not continue for the Prosecution.
MR. LAMB:May it please the Tribunal, we have just discussed the participation of the defendants in Kidnapping, Abortions, Taking away Infants of Eastern Workers, Punishment for Sexual Intercourse, Hampering of Reproduction of Enemy Nations, and Forced Deportations and Resettlement of Populations, and Forced Germanization.
Look in the index.
We will now take up Slave Labor.
A great deal of the slave labor for which the Main Staff Office, RuSHA and VOMI are responsible was in connection with their program of forced Germanization. The people were to become Germanized while working in Germany as slave laborers. In addition to this, a special type of peonage which the Main Staff Office and RuSHA particularly indulged in was in connection with the woemn who they deported from Poland and other occupied territories and sent to Germany to be used as housemaids..
Lebensborn also took part in this program for it has been shown that many of the older children whom they brought into Germany were used simply as servants, and were actually being held in peonage.
Conscription of Non-Germans.
Conscription of non Germans into the Wehrmacht was another criminal result of forced Germanization just as slave labor was. The men of Poland, Luxembourg, Alsace, Lorraine end other countries were forced to accept German citizenship and then they were conscripted into the armed forces and compelled to fight against their allies. Our proof has shown that those who deserted rather than fight for Germany were frequently executed.
Plunder In the course of their execution of the program of genocide and Germanization, all of the defendants participated in the plunder of public and private property.
The Central Land Office, of which Meyer-Hetling was chief, participated in the confiscation of hundreds of thousands of acres of land. Church property was also taken. For example, on 18 November 1940 the Superior of a nunnery, Mother Salesia, complained to Cardinal Bertram in Breslau that the convent for sick and infirm sisters had been seized by an agent of the Reich Commissar for the Strengthening of Germanism.
When she protested that, the seizure was unlawful the agent replied: "For us no law exists. We yield only to force. I am using that force herewith and declare this building seized as of the 26th of this month. It is easier for 60 nuns to find shelter than it is for 500 racial Germans." This complaint was submitted to the defendant Greifelt who forwarded it to Himmler with the recommendation that the convent remain seized. Himmler suggested that rent be paid but Greifelt replied that a way was found to avoid even that.
The Main Staff Office also executed an order for the seizure of all cultural property of Poland. This undertaking was financed by the defendant Schwarzenberger, as Chief of Finance administration. The Main Staff Office and VOMI plundered property in Yugoslavia whom they deprived the expelled Slovenes of practically all their property. As will be shown, the Main Staff Office, VOMI and Lebensborn all participated in the plunder of Jewish property.
Persecution and Extermination of Jews The Main Staff Office participated in the final solution of the Jewish question, and Hofmann, representing RuSHA, attended the conference of 20 January 1942, where the bloody Heydrich laid bare the whole murder program.
In later conferences on this subject the Main Staff Office was represented by Dr. Stier. The Main Staff Office participated further in the Main solution of the Jewish question by bringing hundreds of thousands of Jews into the Government General and a special branch office of the Main Staff office was in charge of procurement of furniture and household goods from the Jewish Ghetto at Litzmannstadt. Moreover, the Main Staff Office supervised the destruction of this ghetto in the fall of 1944 after the last Jew had been sent to his death at Kuschwitz. RuSHA maintained a special card file on Jews and was particularly active in compelling part Jews to undergo sterilization.
Lebensborn was also involved in plunder of Jewish property and the persecution of the Jews. Many of the Lebensborn homes were established and equipped with the property taken from the Jews. For example, the defendants Ebner and Tesch, together with Sollmann, engineered the acquisition of a Jewish sanatorium at Nordrach, Baden in September 1942.
Euthanasia The defendant Hildebrandt is the only defendant charged with the crime of cut anasia and the proof shows that he reported to Himmler that a unit under him had murderedthousands of insane people in the area of Danzig.
This was done in order to make room in the hospitals for German soldiers.
MR. LAMB:We now come to Count III of the Indictment.
Count Three: Membership in the SS Under Count Three of the Indictment all of the defendants except Viermetz are charged with membership in the SS, an organization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal.
"Membership in categories of a criminal group or organization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal" is recognized as a crime by Article II (d) of Control Council Law No. 10.
The International Military Tribunal held the following with respect to the SS :
"The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the organi zation with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by article 6 of the Charter, or who were personally implicated as members of the organization in the com mission of such crimes, excluding, however, those who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to gave them no choice in the matter , and who had committed no such crimes.
The basis of this finding is the participation of the organization in war crimes and crimes against humanity connected with the war; this group declared criminal cannot include, therefore, persons who had ceased to belong to the organizations enumerated in the preceding paragraph prior to 1 September 1939."
1 Specifically included in this declaration of criminality were all members of the Allgemeine and Waffen SS.
According to their own testimony, all of the defendants charged under this Count were voluntary and officially accepted members of the SS and they remained members after the first of September 1939. There were vague and unconvincing insinuations by several of the defendants that they had been drafted into the positions which they held with theRKFDV. Even if this were true it could not excuse them for being members of the General or Allgemeine SS which was always entirely voluntary. Moreover, one who defends on the ground of having been drafted into the SS must show, according to the International military Tribunal holding, that it was done - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. Trial of the Major War criminals, Vol. 1, p. 273.
"by the State in such w way as to give them no choice in the matter, and who committed no such crimes."1 None of these defendants has even purported to set up this affirmative defense, nor has any one of them rebutted the overwhelming proof of personal complicity in SS crimes.
Thus , the only question that presents itself under Count Three is whether the defendants remained members of the SS with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, or whether they were personally implicated as members of the organization in the commission of such crimes. Theevidence in this case shows that they not only had knowledge that the SS was used for the commission of criminal acts, but also that they personally participated in their commission.
These defendants were active, full-time, professional SS men; it was their creed and career. Not only that, but as the principal leaders of the Main Staff Office, RuSHA and VOMI they were members of three of the most important Main Offices or Hauptamt of the Supreme Command (Reischfuehrung) of the SS, and as leaders of Lebensborn they were members of an important department in a Main Office, first RuSHA and later the Personal Staff of Himmler himself. The twelve Main Offices of the Supreme Command of the SS directed the activities of all the members of the SS much as the Supreme Command of an army directs its operations. The International Military Tribunal, in calling the Supreme Command of the SS the SS Central Organization, stated that it "supervised the activities of these various formations (that is, the Allgemeine SS, Waffen SS and police units) and was responsible for such special projects as the human experiments and 'final solution' of the Jewish question."2 We have already pointed out that the defendant Hofmann as Chief of RuSHA and Dr. Stier, representative of the defendant Greifelt and incidentally a witness in his behalf (in this very courtroom,) attended the meeting with Heydrich where the plans for the mass murder of Jews were laid. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. Trial of the Major War Criminals, Vol. 1, p. 273. 2. Ibid, pp. 271-2.
The defendants who were members of the Main Staff Office and VOMI, in an effort to beguile and confuse this Tribunal, have had the temerity to swear that these were not Main Offices of the Supreme Command of the SS. While this in no way constitures a defense to Count Three since these self-same defendants admit they were members of the SS and since the declaration of criminality by the International Military Tribunal is by no means limited to members of the Supreme Command, nevertheless, it is important to brand this statement as untrue. Prior to II June 1941, the Main Staff Office and VOMI -- although very much part of the Supreme Command of the SS -- had not been raised to the exalted positions of Main Offices, or, in the German, Hauptamter. But, on that date, Hitler, issued a decree in which he stated that:
"The two main Offices (that is, the Staff Main Office and VOMI) are as far as the SS is concerned on an equal level with the offices of the Supreme Command of the SS (SS Reichsfuehrung)".(Pros.
Ex. 70, NO-4057, Doc. Bk. II-B, p. 12) In his decree of 28 November 1941, Himmler refers to VOMI, RuSHA, RSHA and the Main Staff Office as "four Main Offices of the SS". (Pros.
Ex. 24, No-4237, Doc. Bk. II-B , p. 16). Precisely the same information is to be found in the organizational yearbook of the Nazi Party where the Lain Staff Office, RuSHA and VOMI are all designated as Main Offices of the SS, while Lebensborn is mentioned as a department of the Personal Staff Of Himmler. (Pros. Ex, 875, NO-2640, Rebuttal Book A, p. 126) . These offices were all named by high ranking SS officers and were carrying out SS tasks.
These defendants seek to support their statements on this point by allusions to the obvious fact that the activities of the Main Staff Office and VOMI were supported by State funds. If this were any criterion as between a Reich and an SS office, then there was no SS. By the beginning of the war, the SS had spread its tentacles into every branch of the Reich government. For example, the whole German police system was for all practical purposes absorbed by the SS, and directed first by Heydrich and then by Kaltenburnner as Chief of the RSHA, a Main Office of the Supreme Command of the SS if there ever was one.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Lamb, the Tribunal will recess at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT:Proceed with the argument.
MR. LAMB:We again take up the membership fo these defendants in the SS.
Whatever these defendants may say and however much they attempt to confuse the issue, the fact is incontrovertible that the Main Staff Office and VOMI were as much Main Offices of the Supreme Command of the SS as the RSHA, RuSHA or WVHA.
That each and every defendant well knew of the multitudinous criminal activities of the SS is proved beyond any shadow of a doubt by the evidence in this case. The International Military Tribunal found that knowledge of these activities was "general" among SS members and that "it is impossible to single out any one portion of the SS which was not involved in these criminal activitites." (Trial of the Major War Criminals., Vol. 1, pp. 271-2). If there were no proof in this case save the testimony of the defendants themselves, a conviction under Count Three would be mandatory. Their disgusting efforts to shift exclusive responsibility for their own crimes to the RSHA, the dead Himmler, or some other convenient scapegoat is proof itself that they knew the crimes were committed by the SS. They were all high ranking officers with very responsible positions.
But these defendants not only had guilty knowledge; they were active and important executioners of SS crimes. As we have already pointed out, the International Military Tribunal, singled out RuSHA. and VOMI as having been ultra-criminal Main Offices of the SS by holding that they "were active in carrying out schemes for Germanization of occupied territory according to the racial principles of the Nazi Party and were involved in the deportation of Jews and other foreign nationls."1 Our proof has conclusively demonstrated that the Main Staff Office was Hiramler's supervising agency for the whole criminal program. The Lebensborn defendants were without any question engaged in the atrocious business of kidnapping and making good Nazis out of children from the occupied countries.
These are established facts and conclusive proof of the guilt of all these defendants under Count Three of the Indictment.
THE CHARACTER OF PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY AND ORAL
The guilt of the defendants in this case has been proved by evidence of the highest known character. The Prosecution has relied almost entirely upon documentary evidence, the authenticity of which has only in the rarest of occasions been questioned by the defendants. In most instances the defendants have taken up the Prosecution's exhibits, document by document, discussed them in detail and admitted their genuineness. They have given various and sundry unconvincing excuses as to why these documents did not incriminate them but it was seldom, if over, claimed that a document was not authentic.
Here than enough documentary proof has been made a part of the record in this case to put beyond all doubt the criminal activities of these defendants and the offices which they led. Yet characteristically the defendants have from time to time complained that, dark as the picture is, a few documents which have not been found would dissipate this gloom of crime as if by magic, and the pure light of sunshine would bathe the courtroom and show the defendats in all their pristine purity. This veiled insinuation that all has not been said in their behalf which could have been said is a palpable absuridty . The proof documents of these defendants own making cannot be explained away. The guilt is there for all to see and the guilt of these defendants is written in clear and unambiguous language. It does not depend upon inference however compelling but rests upon the letters and memornada written by themselves. If they complain that other documents are not produced, we decline the blame. True it is that other documents once existed, which if now available, would perhaps give an - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Trial of the Major War Criminals, Vol.
1, p. 270.
even more detailed picture of the criminal program of these defendants. Be this as it may, it was the defendant Creutz, not the Prosecution, who burned the secret records of the Main Staff Office a short time before the Americans entered Schweikelberg, at that time the headquarters of the Main Staff Office. We hardly think the defendandants are in a position to complain if they find a few of their documents missing.
Fortunately, for the cause of truth, the Americans captured a few files that escaped Creutz's torch at Schweikelberg. Additionally, some of Himmler's files were captured, some files of VOMI, Lebensborn, RuSHA and the VOMI, Lebensborn, RuSHA and the WVHA. From these available sources our proof has come. In this way many first copies or originals have been found but naturally in some instances only a file copy of a document has been found. For instance, we have to rely on the copy of a secret order which Himmler sent to the Main Staff Office because Himmler's files were captured, but the files of the Main Staff Office, were the original should have been, were destroyed in the bonfire set by Creutz. The same could apply to other situations for often the files of the sender were captured and not those of the recipient. The defendants have seen fit to complain about these socalled copies as if they are somehow not very compelling proof. This is quite a mistaken notion. Those "copies" were retained in the file of the writer. They are authentic captured German documents and by reason of the fact that they complete the picture given by the other contents of the captured file, have high probative value. Moreover, Article 7 of Ordinance No. 7 provides that "copies of any document or other secondary evidence of any document (shall be deemed admissible) if the original is not readily available. and cannot be produced without delay." The Prosecution contends that these so-called copies are entitled to the highest probative value in view of the over-all proof offered in this case. There are none of those copies but that fit in by reference, or otherwise, with signed original documents which have been introduced.
Like a jug-saw puzzle, the many separate pieces of evidence fit together to form an irrefutable case.
Most of the Prosecution's exhibits are orders, letters, decrees, reports, directives and the like. Many of them are signed by the defendants themselves. This is the type of evidence which we have mainly relied on and which we think proves the guilt of all the defendants beyond every reasonable doubt. The few affidavits which we have introduced, including those of the defendants, merely clarify and corroborate what is contained in the other documents.
Several of the defendants found fault with their pre-trial.interrogations. But, for the most part, those self-same defendants assorted on the stand that the content of the affidavits they signed was true and correct. Schwalm, under questioning by the Tribunal, stated that his affidavit was "...in substance...correct". (R.3427-8) Huebner never contended the affidavit signed by him did not state the truth. Sollmann took issue with such important matters as whether the English translation of a word in his affidavit whould read "commissary" or "grocery store". Hofmann stated in his affidavit that it was one of his responsibilities to forward verdicts against Eastern workers who had forbidden sexual relations with Germans to the Reich Governor of Wuerttemberg and that he recalled fifteen to twenty-five cases where such persons were hanged. On the stand, Hofmann demurred to the figure fifteen to twenty-five and said that "actually, there were probably three to five cases only". (R. 3221) Whatever the truth of this "correction", the Prosecution is still inclined to view the crime as a serious one.
None of the affidavits which the defendants signed told any more than had already been told by the other documentary evidence which was submitted. The only thing these affidavits did was to gave a concise statement concerning certain activities of the defendants. For this reason we considered that the affidavits would be helpful to the Tribunal, but they said nothing that had not already been expressed in the other documents and by other witnesses and even by the defendants' own testimony.
In addition to the documentary evidence, the Prosecution we have introduced a number of witnesses who gave oral testimony. Those witnesses, generally speaking, were divided into two classes. First, there were those who had no connection with any of the offices involved in this case, no connection with any of the defendants and who, for the most part, were citizens of foreign countries who had witnessed or had first hand knowledge of the commission of some of these crimes and who obviously had no interest in tins case other than to see that justice was done. The second class of witnesses that were presented by the Prosecution consisted of a number of Germans, must of whom were members of the SS and had previously been connected in some way with one of the offices involved here and who had known most of the defendants personally. Those witnesses were introduced for the purpose of making more easily understood the documents which described the general organ ization of those offices, their functions and authority, and we think that their testimony served the purpose for which it was intended.
It was not expected, nor did we ask, that these witnesses, who were generally hostile to the Prosecution, implicate the defendants personally in the various crimes with which they are charged.
GENERAL CHARACTER OF DEFENSE As we have said, the case against these defendants has been proven by captured documents, many of them written by the defendants themselves.
Upon this evidence alone every defendant stands condemned They have admitted that these are genuine and authentic documents.
Most of these documents were written in plain, simple and direct language. Most of them are orders or directives or reports. They are concise, clear and complete. There is little room for misunderstanding in any of them and, again we quote the Tribunal, "the documents speak for themselves". Nevertheless, the defendants, realizing how incriminating these documents were, have tried in every conceivable way to brush them aside. The defendants all spent most of their time on the stand attempting to explain away document after document. Documents addressed to, or signed by, them were not read; or if read were not understood; or if understood were imperfectly understood. Official directives were never carried out or were secretly rescinded. Official duties assigned were never performed. Official reports contained in their files were full of factual mistakes. No one ever heard of or read any speeches by Himmler. Reports of conferences, which listed the defendants as having taken part, were in error. They were somewhere else that day.
Of all of these defendants who attended the Monday conferences of the Main Staff Office, where the entire work of the Main Staff Office and other agencies connected with the strengthening of Germanism was discussed, none knew what was discussed at these meetings. None of them ever gained an insight into the work of the Main Staff Office, and none of them knew what their own offices were doing much less any of the other offices connected with the Main Staff Office.
The defendants always blamed someone else, who had a higher position than they, such as Himmler, or some irresponsible subordinate. They would have us believe that Himmler personally attended to every thing connected not only with SS offices involved here but all of the twelve main SS offices over which he had control. They have all testified that they did not approve of Hitler or Himmler and that they did not approve of the objectives of the agencies here involved. But none resigned because of this.
Inasmuch as these defendants have denied absolutely all connection with the crimes here charged and have said that these documents which we have introduced do not mean what they say, we think a question of credibility is a principal issue before the Tribunal.