"..... A few weeks ago we had cause to voice our opinion of the outrageious incidents taking place in the east of Germany, above all in Silesia and the Sudetenland, where more than 10 million Germans have been brutally driven out of their ancestral homes, without investigations being made as to their personal guilt.
The pen cannot describe the dreadful misery prevailing there in violation of all principles of humanity and justice.
All these people are crammed together in the rest of Germany without any possessions, without the possibility to make a living.
It cannot be imagined how these masses, driven out of their homes, can avoid becoming restless and peace-disturbing elements."
In the meantime, more millions have been driven out by the use of force and undeterminably number of refugees -- very likely more than one million had died miserably without awakening the conscience of the world.
I felt obliged as early as during the trial before the IMT to discuss the legal questions arising from this fact and made the following statement in my Closing Brief for the Defendant Frank:
"The expatriation and resttlement, carried out in persuance to the Potsdam declaration of 2 August 1945 are insofar of importance for the present trial, as the resettlements are carried out on the basis of an agreement between the very signatory powers of the London agreement of 8 August 1945, are the authors of the charter for this Tribunal which forms the essential part of that agreement.
From these facts two conclusions may be drawn:
1. The execution of resettlements is either in accordance with the acknowledged principals of the general Inter national law, in which case the resettlements cannot be considered as constituting war crimes or crimes against humanity under the Statute of this Tribunal.
The evidence material submitted by the Prosecution is re ference to resettlements must then be considered as of no importance and it is then not necessary to go into the details of the charges under this Point of the Indictment.
2. Or, the execution of resettlements is a violation of principles, derived from the law of all civilized nations, and then, constitutes a criminal offence.
In this case the same conclusions must be drawn with reference to the jurisdiction, as I had to point out already in the case of the defendant Hess with respect to another but similar statement of facts.
In this case too, the Prosecutors (accusers) would make measures the subject of a judicial trial, which they themselves have propagated in the same manner and carried out.
And the Tribunal would make those measures the subject of its verdict, which the Signatory Powers in the agreement of Potsdam of 2 August 1945 considered as necessary, only to classify them 6 days later punishable in the IMT charter, as war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The matter at hand is not a case of merely subjecting formal legal facts to examination.
Such facts, on the contrary, raise the question of the bases of law and its usage.
The law is the epi ome of standards which at one and the same time cannot have a different meaning at different places.
What one considers today to be legal cannot have been a crime yesterday.
The law can only exist as an indivisable entirety or it cannot exist at all."
These statements before the IMT are still valid today and the events which have occurred in the meantime could only confirm the truth of this thesis.
Within the scope of Count V of the Indictment, the defendant Dr. Lammers is also charged with having participated in the program to exterminate all European Jews still alive. The evidence material submitted by the rosecution does not justify this charge.
In the trial before the IMT as well as during the various subsequent trials it could be ascertained with a considerable degree of certainty who the persons and agencies were who had been responsible for the execution of these measures in connection with the so-called final solution of the Jewish question. In this respect I refer to the statements of the SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Wisliceny and of the former commandant of the concentration camp Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoess, before the IMT.
The testimonies of these witnesses and numerous documents introduced by the Prosecution in the various trials show clearly that all of these measures were directed and carried out by Amt IV of the RSHA, and that these measures had long started when the 3 conferences in January, March and October 1942 took place, to which the Prosecution refers in order to prove the existence of a program for the extermination of European Jewry. The defendant Dr. Lammers did not take part in any of these conferences nor was a program according to the contention of the Prosecution established as is proven by the memoranda on these conferences, introduced by the Prosecution. The Prosecution even failed to prove that the Chief of the Reich Chancellery was subsequently informed about these memoranda. Moreover, the evidence has shown that not only did the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery not agree with the suggestions put forward in these conferences, but, on the contrary, opposed them.
In this connection I wish to refer to the testimonies of Dr. Lammers on the witness stand and to the statements of the witnesses Dr. Ficker, Dr. Boley, Dr. Leesener, Dr. Ehrensberger and Dr. Kettner. As a result of the evidence presented it can be regarded as an established fact regarding these counts that the defendant Dr. Lammers did not commit any act which might have been causal to the extermination measures carried out by the officials of the RSHA. Not only so, but the defendant Dr. Lammers on the contrary, submitted to the Fuehrer five reports on this matter and did everything which could be expected of him in consideration of the information then at his disposal.
W ithin Count V of the Indictment the defendant Dr. Lammers is also charged with having taken part in the enactment of laws providing the confinement in concentration camps of such members of the civilian population as were suspected of opposing the policy of the German occupational authorities. In support of this charge the Prosecution could furnish no moreproof then it could furnish for its other charge that the defendant Dr. Lammers, in his capacity as chief of the Reich Chancellery, had taken part in the drafting and implementing the so called "Night and Fog Decroe". As regards the latter, it has already been established before the IMT and in the course of two other trials, that this decree was issued upon a direct Hitler order, by the OKW. The Chief of the Reich Chancellery was in no way associated with its preparation and implementation. And as regards the arrest of members of the civilian population endangering the safety of the occupational authorities reference must be made to the relevant provisions of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 which explicitly give the occupying power the right to take all steps deemed necessary for the safety of the occup tion forces and the maintenance of public order. As a matter of fact after the unconditional surrender, the Allied occupying powers did not hesitate to intern for reasons of safety as pointed out - approximately one million German nations, who were suspect for political reasons.
In this connection we wish to call the attention of the Tribunal to Directive No. 38 of the Allied Control Council for Germany. This Directive deals with the arrest and surveillance of potentially dangerous Germans." According to chapter I, subsection Ic, the idea underlying this directive was to set up rules applicable to the whole of Germany "the internment of Germans who without being guilty of definite crimes, are to be regarded as a danger to the Allied cause, as well as regarding the control and surveillance of Germans who constitute a potential danger." That this is a political measure and that the reason for the arrest is the political conviction of the detainee is conclusively proven by Chapter 1, subsection 5 of that directive, which says literally:
"A distinction should be made between imprisonment of war criminals and similar offenders for criminal conduct and internment of po tentially dangerouspersons who may be confined because their free dom would constitute a danger to the Allied Cause.
.. " In appraising the evidential value of this directive and its suitability as a means of interpreting Control Council Law No. 10 it is essential to consider the date of its promulgation.
It was promulgated on 12 October 1946, i.e. nearly one year and a half after the cessation of hostilities.
Count VI of the Indictment charges the defendant Dr. Lammers with having committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by participating in the spoliation of public and private property and the exploitation of the territories under German occupation. The evidence introduced by the Prosecution fails to show that the ex-Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery displayed any initiative of his own in this direction. All he did in this connection was to arrange the communication between the Fuehrer and the individual Reich ministries without possessing any jurisdiction or responsibility in the matter itself. As regards the laws, ordinances and Fuehrer decrees co signed by him too the above comments will apply. These directives do not in themselves contain anything which might constitute a war crime or a crime against humanity. For the rest, it must be pointed out in this connection as well that the act of robbery and spoliation, as a delict under International Law, is not less vague and disputed than the "exploitation of occupied territories", as put forward by the Prosecution.
A valuable contribution towards the interpretation of the relative provisions of the IMT charter and Centrol Council Law No. 10 is furbished by the dismantling policy in Germany adopted after Germany's unconditional surrender and prior to the conclusion of a peace treaty and are being carried out to this day by the occupation powers. It is no exaggeration to say that the measures taken in pursuit of this policy of dismantling , more fittingly described as policy of devastation, - dwarf everything which was don by German troops and occupation authorities in the way of confiscations in the occupied territories. In this connection it can at least be said in defense of the measures taken in the territories under German military occupation that Germany at that time was involved in a war endangering the very life of the whole nation, of which fact, at least since the Casablanca declaration of January 1943, there can be no doubt.
Count VII of the Indictment charges the ex-Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery with having participated in a program which concerned the deportation of members of the civilian population in the occupied territories. Here, too, the Defense must deny that the evidence introduced by the Prosecution indicates an initiative in this direction on the part of the defendant Dr. Lammers himself. While it is true that the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery in almost all the other cases also co-signed the Fuehrer decree through which Gauleiter SAUCKEL was appointed Plenipotentiary-General for the Mobilization of Labor on 21 March 1942, the fact of his having jointly signed this decree does not establish a factual responsibility on the part of the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery in this case any more than it does in any other; his signature only served as certification.
For the rest, this decree, too, contains no provision constituting the fact of a war crime or a crime against humanity. The PlenipotentiaryGeneral for the Mobilization of Labor was directly responsible to the Fuehrer and the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery had no right, either on the strength of the above mentioned decree or of any other regulations, to issue instructions to him or exercise any official control over him.
The indictment also mentions a conference of the chiefs which took place on 11 July 1944, with the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery in the chair, which dealt with questions of labor allocation. The memorandum on this conference introduced by the Prosecution gives no correct account of what happened during this conference. The defense witness Dr. BOLEY who drafted this memorandum gave a detailed explanation of the reasons which actuated him in drafting this incomplete and unfinished version of the memorandum and, - like various other witnesses, - gave an account of what actually happened during that conference. The evidence showed that the conference was held for the purpose of discussing the complaint put forward by various Chiefs of the administration in the occupied territories against the agencies of the Plenipotentiary-General for the Mobilization of Labor and that the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, in his capacity as a mediator between the parties involved, did not take any initiative towards an intensified mobilization of conscripted foreign manpower. No regulations were taken as a result of those discussions, and the authorities directly concerned with the matter - not including the Reich Chancellery were subsequently left to deal with the matter.
As regards the facts of "deportation for forced labor", what is to be said in regard to various other war crimes and crimes against humanity alleged by the Prosecution, applies to this count as well. In this question, too, it must be assumed that the signatory powers of the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 and Control Council Law No 10 have taken a different view, or also the secret records of the resolutions of the chiefs of government of Great Britain, the U.S.A. and the USSR at the Yalta conference of 1 February 1945 would not made sense. Subsection 2 of this secret record lays down that reparations are to be demanded of Germany, in triple form, as follows:
"a) Within a period of two years after the capitulation of Germany or after cessation of organized resistance, wholesale dismantling of German-owned property inside and outside Germany.
. ."
b) annual deliveries from current production of merchandise during a period to be determined after the end of the war.
c) Employment of German manpower." The Tribunal cannot possibly disregard this agreement and the practice actually adopted by the occupation powers in their interpretion of Control Council Law No. 10, unless at the risk of violating a generally recognized principle of International Law: Whoever disregards a provision of International Law cannot demand that another person respect it.
Besides, it would be completely wrong to assume that the legal fact of a war crime or crime against humanity is unequivocally established. Numerous writers have adduced weighty reasons to prove that there is no such thing as an independent fact of crime against humanity. They correctly point out that it is only possible to talk of a crime against humanity if it is proven that the act was a "crime" according to the law in force at the time of its commission. In judging this, the crime against humanity merely appears as the sum of already existent penal facts with a qualified punishment. But in general, the following is still to be added to this question:
There can never be a crime within the meaning of Art. II 1-C of Control Council Law No. 10 in a case where the contrary behavior would itself have been a crime.
The correctness of this sentence follows directly from the maxim of contradiction. The deeper sense of the established thesis is the following: What is a"crime" and what therefore, under special conditions, is a "crime against humanity" must be judged according to uniform and generally valid principles. It is not possible to regard something as a crime on the one hand which is not a crime on the other hand and vice versa. That would violate the international principle of equality which must be applied, as to every law, so also to Control Council Law No. 10 and its interpretation. I would like to quote here the words of a famous English legal theorist. HOLLAND, in "The Element of Jurisprudence" (13th edition, Oxford 1924. It says on page 11: "Principles of geology elaborated from the observation of England alone hold good all over the globe, in so far as the same substances and forces are everywhere present; and the principles of Jurisprudence, if arrived at entirely from English data, would be true if applied to the particular laws of any other community of human beings". The submect matter of our proceedings are alleged crimes which were committed by Germans in the course of a war waged by Germany. The fact of such a war may be a regrettable circumstance but in how far there exists and existed any "guilt" in it and its origin, need not be discussed here. The fact of the war is a given fact; but such a war is a state of things which International Law takes into consideration and subjects to special principles. The national laws occupy themselves with it too. It is an internationally recognized maxim that the individual national in it has to keep faith with his own country. I do not refer here to conscious and deliberate violations of the laws for waging war. But after all, a behavior of the individual in time of war which runs against the interests of his own country is regarded as a "crime" everywhere in the world. Therefore, as a matter of principle, whatever he does in order to bring about the victory of his own country, cannot on the other hand be charged against him as a crime, even if in peacetime it would be subject to different judgment.
Thus for example the British law to which the quoted utterance of Holland refers, recognizes treason against one's own country in time of war as the biggest crime punishable by death. If we apply this to our case, it would mean: Every case of support of the "enemy" in time of war would have been a "crime" for a German and it must therefore be a suitable defense against the charge of crime if it is proven that the expected behavior would in itself have been such a support of the enemy. Whereever such a proof is furnished and the Defense has furnished such proof - and wherever there is a case of a measure necessary for one's own waging of war, there can be no "crime against humanity" even if in peacetime such behavior would be reprehensible. After all, even the killing of the enemy is licit, may ordered, in time of war, whereas in peacetime it is one of the biggest crimes.
In answering the question which principles are to be applied in the interpretation of Control Council Law No. 10, we must start from the fact that, at the time of their acts, the defendants were subject to German law; the measure of their responsibility was defined by it and even today one must justly assess it according to that period of time. That applies to the question of the obligation of the officials to the law as well as to the defensive assertion to have acted on orders.
In several trials before the US Military Tribunals it has already been recognized that a state of emergency is a genuine reason for precluding guilt. These prerequisites surely also apply to the former Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery who was bound to the instructions of the Fuehrer and - as has been proved by the evidence, - at least during the war had no possibility of resigning from his office.
Beyond that, it is recognized in jurisprudence and in legal literature that the "general public", the "state" too may be in a state of emergency so that interventions which are meant to serve, and do serve, the elimination of this state of emergency may become exempt from punishment.
The national self-defense as well as the national state of emergency are legal institutions recognized in the literature on International Law, whereby national state of emergency may be defined as an emergency in regard to vital interests of the state and the general population which cannot be eliminated in any other way. As far as it is conceded to act according to it, there is not only a reason for the preclusion of guilt to be assumed, but in that case it is a genuine justifying reason. It is unnecessary to prove in any special manner, during these proceedings, that at least from 1941 onward Germany was in such a state of national emergency which threatened the very foundations of her existence. The last doubts in that respect must have been eliminated by the demands for the unconditional surrender of Germany, raised at the Casablanca conference in 1943.
Beside the general state of national emergency, the literature on International Law also recognizes a special state of war emergency. According to it certain acts are licit "in self-defense and in a state of emergency" which violate the laws of war and therefore, in themselves, would be contrary to International Law. The emergency in which the life and the possibility of development that is self-preservation and self-development of the threatened state are at stake, according to the general principles as recognized in the intra-statal law of all civilized nations too, justifies the violation of every maxim of International Law, hence also the legal maxims of the laws of war. Applying therefore the concepts of self-defense and emergency as recognized in International and in Penal Law, the illegality of the committed violations is precluded if the state was in a situation which threatened its existence and was not to be eliminated by any other means.
May it please the Tribunal!
Within the national structure of the Third Reich, the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery had to fulfill essentially formal tasks. The Reich Chancellery was not by any means an authority with its own factual competency as for instance a Reich Ministry. Its Chief was bound to the instructions of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor and had no right to give instructions in his own name to the Reich Ministers and chiefs of other supreme Reich authorities, nor did he have any official supervisory function over them. This has been unequivocally proven beyond any doubt by the evidence in this trial.
But the evidence has also shown something else: It has proven that the defendant Dr. LAMMERS, in his capacity as Chief of the Reich Chancellery, in spite of his small political influence has tried at all times to preserve the concept of the legal state and to prevent wrong wherever he got to know about it and wherever it was possible for him to do so. He fulfilled the duties of his difficult office at a time when the foundations of the existence of the whole nation were at stake. He could not leave his post as Reich Minister at a time when every simple laborer and soldier was asked to fulfill his duty to the last in order to avert the downfall of the Reich.
THE PRESIDENT:That concludes your argument. Now we come to the final argument of Schwerin-Krosigk. Dr. Fritsch, are you ready to proceed?
DR. FRITSCH:Mr. President, I brought along with me a number of English copies containing the necessary corrections of the translation. I have arranged that in order to avoid the necessity of delay in COURT.
THE PRESIDENT:You may proceed.
Your Honors, The purpose and length of this final plea have been fixed, on the one hand, by the possibility of submitting a closing brief dealing in detail with the things under consideration here, and on the other hand, by the time available for this final plea.
For that reason I shall content myself with pointing out the most important points of the evidence and with giving a summary of the events which were the essential factos that led to the actual occurrences or, at least, influenced them considerably.
As during all trials held before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals, so also in this case, the Defense has again and again pointed out the legal obstacles opposing a judgment by this Tribunal and has set forth the legal principles preclusing the applicability of the laws which are taken as a basis, particularly Control Council Law No. 10. The Counsel for the Defense of Graf SCHWERIN von KPOSIGK does not intend to discuss these problems here again, still less to expand them, be it the question of the inadmissibility of the retroactive application of laws, a principle which was disregarded by the Control Council Law, or the problem of the responsibility of an individual for the actions of a soverign state, or again the question of whether proceedings in which the victor sits in judgment upon the vanquished still have anything to do at all with an unbiased administration of justice, or, finally, the problem which was likewise mentioned in this trial, that the Control Council Law and the agreements of the victorious powers on which it is based, beginning with the Moscor Declaration up to the Potsdam Agreement, cannot be taken as a legal foundation, if only for the reason that mong the partners to these various agreements there were powers which themselves participated in the alledgedly criminal acts which are under discussion here.
The Counsel for the Defense of Graf Schwerin von Krosigk is convinced that with regard to the charges brought against Graf Schwerin the applicability of Control Council Law No. 10 will be a matter of no consequence, if only for the reason that in view of the actual situation there is no question of any unlawful and thus possibly punishable acts. Moreover, I can refer to the comments made by my colleagues on this matter, in order to avoid reiterations. Your Honors, at this point, on Pages 2 through 5, I deal with a question which has already been discussed when the Defendant was on the witness stand. That is the question as to the effects of the elimination of the Central Government upon the arrest of the Defendant. In view of some other interpolations which became necessary as a result of the Prosecution's final argument, I propose to eliminate the reading of this problem at this time; and I shall leave it to Your Honors' discretion to be good enough to read these pages for yourselves, as discussed in Pages 2 through 5 of my final argument. I shall therefore continue my reading on Page 5. Your Honors:
After this brief of the legal poisition I should like to proceed to the discussion of the actual course of events in Germany which form the background of this trial, a point which, in the opinion of the Defense, is of particular importance. Titus Livius said: I quote:
"There are times, men and events, on which history alone can pronounce the final judg ment."
(end of quotation) This sentence does not apply to historiography alone, it is even more relevent if it is not only a question of judging the manifestations of events and the activities of men from the viewpoint of history, but of making them the object of a criminal investigation. The objection which is to be expected, i.2. that the judgment of allegedly criminal acts admits of no delay, cannot be valid in view of the nature of the proceedings under discussion. Even if the original motives which had grown out of the impression of war and enmity have changed considerably, even if the legal viewpoints have come more to the fore, at bottom the question to be decided in this trial are of political importance and have but little to do with the usual legal deliberations. Under such circumstances the Counsel for the Defense may have the particular obligation not only to comment on the allegations of the Prosecution in detail, but also to give a clear survey of the occurrence forming the background of the events under discussion. Only if all these occurrences are clearly understood and the background of stage is fully lit up, the actions of the persons who played a part in this drama can be judged accordingly. The Counsel for the Defense is particularly concerned about this. It is therefore necessary to make the attempt of summarizing the developments, both mental and factual on the basis of the documents submitted and, above all, of the examination of Graf Schwerin von Krosigk.
It is even now a wide-spread error that the development of Hitler's dictatorship is clearly traceable in all its stages.
By assuming this one does Hitler and his able propaganda chief an injustice. The Tribunal is informed about the catastrophic situation which existed in the German Reich after the First World War. It would be superfluous to repeat here the complaints which, beginning with Graf Brockdorff-Rantzau's reply to the draft of the Vers illes Treaty, were again and again lodged by German statesmen about non-observance of the promises made by President Wilson in his 14 points. It was tragic for Germany and the world that within a period of 15 years one did not succeed in eliminating by a revision of the Versailles Treaty those provisions which though explicable by the atmosphere of hatred prevailing after the termination of the war, were, however, recognized as untenable right from the outset by men like Lloyd George and Smuts and were bound to endanger the peaceable development of the world. The whole tragedy of this problem is described in two comments. In his book, "War, Peace and Change" Foster Dulles in 1939 expresses his strong disapproval of the fact that Article 29 of the Statute of the League of Nations dealing with the amendment of untenable provisions of treaties was never applied. The second comment submitted as S.v.K. Exhibit 67 in Document Book II - is Stresemann's complaint that despite Locarmo, no concessions were ever made to him. He says, I quote:
"Germany's youth which we could have won over for the cause of peace and a new Europe, we have thus lost for either cause.
That is my tragedy and crime."
End of the quotation. This foreign political situation was aggravated by the despair on account of conditions prevailing inside Germany.
Cout IV Case XI It is not my task to waste the time of the Tribunal by a detailed, description of these conditions.
In order to appreciate the actual situation which civil servants like Graf Schwerin von Krosigk had to face, one must, however, realize these things and one must consider what it would, for instance, mean, for the United States if there were more than 40 political parties vehemently fighting each other. The ever increasing discontent and the well-nigh desolate situation of most classes resulted in a spreading of radical tendencies and finally in National-Socialism.
It is unnecessary even to discuss the skilful propaganda methods of the Nazis, which in view of the prevailing plight naturally found a lively response. It also shows a completely wrong conception of the actual events if one were to content that tod y even during the time when they strove for power they revealed their slogans of hate which were laid on so loudly proclaimed. At that time they did not shout: "hang the Jews"; they promised to find work and bread of those in distress. In this situation, in which the political parties were fighting each other, and at a moment when the Reichswehr was not in a position to take up the fight against both the right and left wing simultaneously, was a fact which stated by the former Major in the Reich War Ministry Ott, who was examined by me before this court, the lawful Head of the State appointed the leader of the strongest party Reich Chancellor, according to democratic principles. It is wrong to ask Graf Schwerin von Krosigk now, as the Prosecution does: why did you not refuse to join this National-Socialist government. The question should read like this: Why should the official, Graf Schwerin von Krosigk have refused to join the government at that moment?
The defendant was certainly right in his opinion - that at that time every kind of development was possible for a peaceable stablization as well as a dictatorship with all its dangers. Of course, Graf Schwerin von Krosigk could not base his decision on whether to keep his post as Minister or not, on that knowledge of developments as we possess it today, developments which then could by no means be foreseen; he could only act on the basis of deliberations which could be made at that time. In my Closing Brief I have once more set forth in detail the reasons stated clearly and at great length by the defendant during his examination. It will be sufficient to point out the fact here that in view of the conditions prevailing at that time his attitude was understandable and from his point of view quite commendable. At the end of my plea I shall also comment briefly on the reasons which induced the defendant Graf Schwerin von Krosigk, to remain in his office up to the indeed bitter end. Before dealing with the individual Counts of the Indictment, may I at this point be allowed to discuss the basic structure and organization of the Ministry of Finance, since only on the basis of knowledge of these facts can the question as to the responsibility for the acts charged in the indictment be answered.
For the sake of simplification I have submitted an affidavit of the former Oberregierungsrat Dr. Eckhardt. The witness who, as an expert on the development, position and sphere of tasks of the Reich Ministry of Finance made his depositions under oath, has given an appropriate description of the development of the Reich Ministry of Finance. This description agrees fully with the testimony given by the defendant in the stand. May I, in order to make plain this development, be allowed to set forth the following:
The original Reich Treasury (Reichsschatzamt) of the imperial area became first an agency kept going by controbutions of the Laender and developed later as a result of the so-called "Financial Reform Ersberger", into an institution of the Reich which had primacy over the Laender. Nevertheless, the Reich Ministry of Finance has a very limited sphere of activity. It does not have, end will never get, jurisdiction within the National Socialist regime for economic questions in general, particularly for questions of foreign currency or for German currency and the problems connected with it. But it has a relatively strong position, which is expressed particularly in the so-called Right of Veto, a provision protecting the Reich Minister of Finance from being overruled by the cabinet in questions of finance, whenever the Reich Chancellor sided with the Reich Minister of Finance, and above all is it provided with the protection by parliament. Not only the defendant in the witness box, but also the Undersecretary of State, Reinhardt, who certainly must be regarded a follower of the National-Socialist regime, testified here uniformly that parliament was the most effective protection of the Reichminister of Finance in maintaining order and cleanliness in financial matters, and Reinhardt stated literally the following:
"During my time as State Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Finance I desired a budgetary com mittee or auditing committee of the Reichstag.
I frequently told men close to me that the position of the Reich Minister of Finance would be quite different if we have a Reichstag that was active.
For Hitler finances were strictly a technical matter concerning funds.
Goering coined the ex pression, "Money is of no significance" and Himm ler spoke about the pen pushers in the Reich Minis try of Finance."
As to formalities, therefore, the National Socialist regime hardly may have brought something new, as to substance, however, many things were now changed. The various problems referring to budget expenditure, will be treated in the discussion of Count I and II. Here I wish to emphasize the following facts established by the evidence. By the abolition of the protection offered by parliament and the committees, which naturally conformed to a large extent with the wishes of the Reichsminister of Finance, particularly in regard to an economical administration of the budget, the always existing endeavours of the various departments to secure means for themselves are facilitated. The only pillar able to protect the Reichsminister of Finance against such attempts, was the Reich Chancellor. Quite apart from the fact that Hitler personally hardly had any understanding of financial questions, as shown by the defendan's testimony, it is inheerent in the nature of a dictator to consider these things as of secondary importance, and furthermore to make concession to his followers, who formed the majority of his other departmental chiefs. Yet there was something else. Between the guiding directive of Hitler and its execution in the departments of the various Ministers there were interpolated superior agencies which on their part held authority to issue directives to the various Ministers. In this manner the Reichminister of Finance was still more removed from the center where the decisive policies were shaped, and he became an instrument executing the will of superior agencies. How these interpolations occurred in the course of time will be described at the proper place in the discussion of the individual Counts. Now I urn only referring to the various agencies, for example the Commissioner for the Four-Year Plan, the Ministerial Council for Reich Defense, and the several Plenipotentiaries General.
These agencies which Hitler himself had created and vested with legislative powers could not only force the departmental Ministers to issue certain administrative directives, but could themselves issue such directives under their own authority, and could deal over the head of the departmental Minister directly with his subordinated agencies. There may have been many different reasons for this distribution of authority, but one of them certainly was to keep the powers of the individual officials as smell as possible. This development was especially marked in the case of the Reichministry of Finance. In this connection I wish to refer to the statements of the witness Eckhardt. The result of this development as described by the witness was unavoidable and demoted the Reichminister of Finance to a mere administration executive expecially since he had been deprived of every means exercising political influence, f.i. by the loss, to all intents and purposes, of his Right of Vote. Just how far this political importance went, is strikingly illustrated by a testimony given by Undersecretary of State Reinhardt. He has testified before Judge Crawford that he as well as the defendant heard about Hitler's intention on 1 September 1939 to read a proclamation on behalf of the Government, only on the morning of that day shortly before the session, and that neither he, nor the Minister himself, had any previous knowledge of that intention or of the contents of this proclamation. Constitutionally Hitler's position had such that he united in his hand alone the whole authority of the state - as the IMT found in its Judgment -- and that in this way the Ministers, particularly those of non-political departments, had become more chiefs of administration.