In the case of Steimle, the documentary material produced by the evidence militates for the defendant and supports his deposition on the stand so unambiguously, that it is impossible to deem the defendant guilty, particularly under counts one and two. I am convinced that the Court will roach the same conclusion.
I shall now tackle count three of the indictment, viz. the membership in criminal organizations. The SD has been declared a criminal organization by the IMT; this also includes office VI of the Reich Main Security Office. It has been established beyond any doubt that in 1936 Steimle voluntarily joined the SD, an organization of the SS, and that the later entered the Office VI of the Reich Main Security Office, again on a voluntary basis. It may be mentioned cursorily that Steimle was never a member of the general SS, but that his activities were restricted to his work in a special SS organization, viz. the SD. These facts have been stated by the defendant from the outset and they have been confirmed by the evidence. Prior to the discussion of those considerations which have caused the IMT to declare the SD a criminal organization in the above sense, I feel it is indicated to give you a character-study of the defendant Steimle, as resulting from the documents produced by the defense. Only if this entire picture is taken into consideration, a proper verdict can be rendered on this count. In this connection, I re-iterate that it is indispensable to consider the actual conditions as they then existed and to make them your starting point. It will then be revealed that the activities of the defendant Steimle in the East followed the same trends in which he had been brought up, as a human being, even before 1933, and to which he had adhered during his SD activities in Stuttgart and in the Office VI of the Reich Main Security Office.
1.) The affidavits submitted by me as Documents No. 1-8, exhibits No. 1-8, unanimously describe the defendant as an honorable man of innate decency, striving to propagate this decency in his surroundings and trying for his part to ensure that the political leadership of the State conformed with this attitude.
The motive causing him to enter the SD was that this job gave him an opportunity of counteracting abuses in the Party and unjustified measures of the authorities. May I point out that it was one of the characteristics of the Nazi regime to eliminate every trace of criticism of measures taken by the Party and the State. The SD alone offered a possibility for cautious criticism (later on even developing into unveiled frankness); at the same time, it offered a safeguard from the consequences otherwise automatically incurred by such a rash act. The fact that within the scope of his activities Steimle availed himself fully of this opportunity for criticism, is made particularly clear, i.e. by the document Steimle No. 3, Exh. No. 3, in which a former executive of the Wuerttemberg Ministry of the Interior furnishes detailed facts concerning Steimle's criticisms and their extent.
At the same time, these affidavits, taken as a whole, show the intrinsic sincerity of the defendant, who intervened on behalf of all those whom he found decent and worthy themselves. If such persons, not being party members, criticized the measures of the Third Reich, he did not feel himself called upon to persecute them; on the contrary, he was instrumental in stopping or neutralizing such persecutions. When individual cases were submitted to him, in which persons had been put into concentration camps, he never grudged his assistance. This clearly shows that he endeavored to prevent sinister and unjustified measures initiated by other quarters or to have them rescinded. The fact that Steimle was far from advocating unjustified political measures, is made particularly clear by his attitude toward the Jewish problem. According to the documents submitted by me, he more than once lent his assistance to persecuted Jews, and it is an established fact that he took no part in the anti-Jewish program of November 1938. This is repeatedly proved by Exh. No. 6, Doc. Steimle No. 6. In particular, I would like to stress the document Steimle No. 5, Exh. No. 5. It contains actual facts which clearly illustrate that Steimle was by no means one of those fanatics who adhere to any policy whatsoever without any qualms and who lack any convictions of their own.
As far as possible under the conditions prevailing, he surely was an idealist devoted to, and working for, a cause which he considered right, and he was not in a position to foresee the final outcome.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
We would not do justice to him if we disregarded these facts. At the time when STEIMLE joined the organization, even foreign countries did not profess a negative attitude toward the Nazi regime; the defendant STEIMLE then had no reason to disbelieve the often re-iterated public slogans calling for integrity within the state. As to the Jewish problem, he never knew of the final solution actually planned, because the plitical leadership of the state kept this plan absolutely secret. Personally, he believed in the possibility of a solution similar to the solution at present sponsored by the United Nations. In this connection, reference is made to doc. No. 5, Exh. 5. Had he been a fanatic unscrupulously backing any police whatsoever against the Jews, he would never have dreamt of making the slightest move when asked to help a Jew to be released from the concentration camp. This attitude toward the Jewish problem, proved by acts, makes it again understandable that STEIMLE did not implement this part of the Fuehrer-Decree while in charge of the Sonderkommandos. V) With regard to the specific groups of actions which caused the I.M.T.
to declare the S.D. a criminal organization, and to include the office VI into this ruling, it must be stated that STEIMLE never co-operated in any of these actions.
It was not the task of the SD to find out political refractories and to initiate their deten tion in a concentration camp.
At the time of the persecution of the Jews in November 1938, the defendant was not even in Germany.
He did not know that Einsatzgruppen had been formed in order to follow the Wehrmacht when it entered Czechoslovakia, and to take charge of political security in that country; it is, therefore, a priori impossible that he took part in these activities.
Of the fact that prior to the Polish campaign members of the SD had been misused in order to provoke faked incidents on the German-Polish border, he could not even form the remotest idea, because in Germany this was treated as a secret until the end of the war.
If it has been established that some of the branches of the SD took part in Court No. II, Case No. IX.
the slave labor program and its implementation, it must be stated that neither during his stage in Stuttgart nor during his activities in the office VI STEIMLE was ever concerned with this matter.
The same applies to the finding of the I.M.T. that the SD took part in the commission of war crimes by ill treatment and murder of prisoners of war.
It is the gist of these arguments to point out that the de fendant STEIMLE was at the time in question not in a position to form the impression that either the SD as such or the office VI were misused for the commission of crimes.
In order to reach a proper decision, the circumstances prevailing at that period must be con sidered.
As far as STEIMLE, while serving with the Einsatzgruppen (an organization not forming a branch of the SD as such), heard of crimes committed by other Einsatz-and Sonderkommandos, he was not in a position to surmise that the full responsibility for them would be ascribed to the SD as such.
It must also be kept in mind that the Fuehrer-Decree was considered of the same binding effect as a law.
This fact is important because it implied without any doubt whatso ever that those who implemented the Fuehrer-Decree could never be subject to criminal prosecution by the German authorities.
Today, we are relieved from the pressure of dictatorship.
Today, it is easy to claim that compliance with the Fuehrer-Decree ought to have been refused, because it purported the commission of common murder.
At that time, however, the position was different, and the defendant STEIMLE himself was not even confronted with this dilemma, as the conditions prevailing enabled him throughout to divert his activi ties into another direction.
With regard to the activities of the defendant STEIMLE in the office VI of the Reich Main Security Office (first in group VI B, Western Europe, and later on in the group for military affairs), they, too, could in STEIMLE's mind not result in the assumption that this organization was misused for criminal purposes.
As to Court No. II, Case No. IX.
the scope of his activities in these positions, reference is made to the documents STEIMLE No. 9, No. 9, and STEIMLE No. 10, exh.
No. 10. He was then concerned with the gathering of information.
He made use of these activities in order to prevent the continuation of the war by paving the way for contact with the enemy powers, and in order to confront the Reich leadership by special reports with the real aspects of the situation which was increasingly deteriorating.
This, too, is not in line with a criminal mentality as ascribed to the SD by the I.M.T. On the contrary, it again reveals the endeavors of the defendant to ensure even at this juncture the in tegrity of the leadership in public affairs and honesty in the hand ling of public opinion.
The defense feels that it has been demonstrated sufficiently for which reasons and in which spirit the defendant STEIMLE was a member of the SD and of the office VI. The decision on whether or not he is guilty under count three must be left with the court. But a general remark seems indicated: The leadership of the Nazi regime deliberately deceived a large number of people in order to exploit their idealistic convictions. I leave it undecided to which extent this may constitute individual guilt. It remains a fact that the defendant STEIMLE was a member of the SD and of the Office VI of the Reich Main Security Office. But even if the attitude of the defendant which I have explained fully should not be considered a justification in the legal sense, it must at least be condired on attenuating circumstance, as far as Count three is involved. Another indication pointing in the same direction is the finding of the I.M.T. that after the outbreak of the war the members of theSD were not free any longer to choose their assignment and that they were at the same time barred from resigning the SD membership. In these circumstances, the personal guilt of the defendant under count three can only be found in the fact that he voluntarily joined the SD in 1936, in other words at a time in which he was not at all in a position to foresee which duties would be assigned to individual SD members by the leadership of Court No. II, Case No. IX.
the state. I reiterate: It must be left to the court to reach a just verdict.
Your Honors, I have reached the end of my address, but I don't want to conclude without a reiterated appeal for the application of your vast experience and your usual diligence to the decision of this case. I do know that you are facing a difficult task. But I do also know that your professional ability and your experience are devoted not to the cause of revenge, but to the ideal of justice, and that the decision is in the most capable hands. Your verdict will ensure that an individual a man who in the position assigned to him successfully tried to assert his personal decency - does not suffer for the monstrous guilt of the regime.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Hoffmann, if you don't mind, we will let Dr. Bergold begin the first thing Monday morning because, as you know, he has an engagement elsewhere. That will be agreeable to you?
DR. HOFFMANN:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:And then, Dr. Lummert, you, of course, will follow, The Tribunal will now be in recess until Monday morning at ninethirty o'clock.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 9 February 1948, at 0930 hours.)
COURT NO. II, CASE NO. IX.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Otto Ohlendorf, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 9 February 1948, 0930-1630, Justice Musmanno, presiding
THE MARSHAL:The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT:You may proceed, Dr. Bergold.
DR.BERGOLD (Attorney for the Defendant Biberstein):
Mr. President, Your Honors!
"In February 1934; mentally disturbed by the event of the National-Socialist revolution, I retired to a quiet mountain village high in the Bavarian Alps. The form of German democracy, existing at the time, which seemed to me until then correct and just, appeared suddenly as questionable and wrong, not because National-Socialism in my opinion could have justified and proved itself, but because of its Inherent character. It seemed, as if the right of democracy, the way in which it existed at the time, had changed and become a make-belief. It is my hobby to write poetry, because a real man should cultivate hobbies to widen his horizon. Tearing myself from deep reflection on right and wrong under German democracy of the time, I indulged in this hobby in February 1934. and wrote the verse with which I would like to preceed my statements concerning the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The verse reads as follows:
"'Can just beginnings turn to unjust ends?' I would like to remind the Tribunal, that I have already pointed out in the case against Oswald Pohl, during the "defense of Horst Klein, that it seemed to me, as if in the course of history Your Courts have lost the moral justifi cation to speak for humanity.
I have said that before the London Conference.
Since this conference has failed, I believe, the legal position of Your Courts has changed so fundamentally, that they have now actually lost their formal competency.
Tribunal IV, which passed sentence in the Flick case, claimed that, according to Control Council Law No. 10 it is competent, basing its competency on the fact that the Control Council is the highest executive authority in Germany.
The Court has not examined, on which legal basis the Control Council is entitled to decree a law.
In the world at large, there exist only two fundamental reasons for the execution of Governmental power; force and agreement.
"Force, Your Honors, never means Justice. You, yourself have justly stated so, with reference to agree ments, which the German government imposed on occupied countries at the time.
The Control Council can therefore only then rightly exercise power in Germany and decree laws, if it can claim an agreement with the defeated Ger man People.
This the allied powers are doing now. They justify exercising of power with the unconditional surren der of Germany.
"Every agreement, and unconditional surrender is an agreement, every pact is based on certain fundamental conditions, which result in agreement.
Thus the unity of the allied powers was one of the decisive circumstances and a basis on which Germany had declared unconditional surrender, I would like to point out, that at first the former German government wanted to surrender uncondition ally only to the so-called Western Powers.
The so-called "Western Powers have rejected such a surrender, made to them alone, by pointing out that they are Russia's allies, and are bound by a treaty and would accept surrender only, if it was made to all Allied Powers, including Russia.
The German people, the German government, have accepted this declaration and have submitted to the will of the Allied armed forces.
Therefore, the unity of the Allied Powers became a basis for the agreement of unconditional surrender.
Otherwise, the then already well known plan of Germany's partition into zones would not have seemed acceptable, since the Great Four have always declared, that Germany should remain an entity, in conformity with the inalienable, inherent rights of all people.
"Even if unconditional surrender gives victorious powers a free hand in the treatment of a country, it does not grant them the right, in the age of purified inter national law, to exercise this power arbitrarily and un justly or even to violate the very essence of a people, its unity and its uniform administration.
"If international law claims to be ethical, then the right of free discretion in such a case is limited, namely to the extent that it should only be exercised in a justifiable manner.
This legal principle is already incorporated in civil law.
But today, where international law and civil law merge, it is necessary that nations are being treated as if they were individuals, and internation al law must be adapted to" civil law, if the term of a new and more compelling international law is not only to be an empty phrase, which is used to persecute individual members of defeated nations.
The partition of Germany into Zones and their administration by a Control Council is only then just an appropriate if the Allied powers are "in agreement and achieve a truly cooperative administration, which has the welfare of the German people at heart.
Through discord however, such a measure becomes unaccept able and unfair for the people concerned; moreover, it be comes unjust and illegitimate.
"At the moment we have reached the point where the victorious powers are divided into two camps, of which each pursues its own ideas and interests.
I do not in tend to examine, whether this constitutes guilt and who is to bear the responsibility for such guilt.
Neither do I intend to examine, whether one of the camps pursues unjustifiable interests, I have no right to pass judge ment in this respect.
However, we Germans, are entitled to observe, that the fasis for unconditional surrender, namely the unity amongst the Allied and their cooperation with regard to the welfare of the German people does no longer exist to the same extent as had been originally proclaimed by the Allied and assumed by us.
Therefore the Allied powers have robbed the agreement of uncondition al surrender of its very basis, and as a result, right turns into wrong, Mo agency exists in Germany, which, can protect the rights of the German people against the Allies.
Thus it becomes the task of every individual. In this case I, as counsel for the defense, must raise the objection that neither the Allies nor the Control Council are com petent to exercise power in Germany due to violation of basic conditions for unconditional surrender.
"Therefore this deprives the Control Council of the right to decree laws.
Likewise Control Council Law No. 10 loese its binding force before the eyes of justice, and the Courts which base their jurisdiction on the Control Council law lose their compentence to judge.
At the time, when "you, Your Honors, opened the present case for the first time, a legal aspect, as I have mentioned above, seemed in conceivable panta rel.
Everything changes, even the law.
But it always depends - and this is an ancient legal maxim on the nature of the legal situation, at the time, when sentence is passed.
I think, that to-day, after the fiasco of the London conference, your jurisdiction, based on Control Council Law No. 10, is no longer valie, unless the claim of force is put forward."
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Bergold, I am sorry to inter rupt you and I intend to let you, naturally, complete your argument in any way you desire, but I can't help but be struck by the use of the words, "fiasco of the Lon don conference."
Tell me in one word why you call the London conference a "fiasco," That is a rather strong word to use in connection with an international agreement.
DR. BERGOLD:I consider the London conference has failed, because it could not bring about a unified final administration for the entire Germany.
We Germans have been waiting for such a long time for a unified admini stration ....Oh, I see, there is an error there, I mean the London conference of 1947, the recent one, which took place in London.
THE PRESIDENT:Oh, I thought you were referring to the London agreement.
DR. BERGOLD:No, no. It can be seen from my final plea that I am referring to the conference which took place recently, because I said that only after the London con ference can I make this speech and before that I could not have said anything.
THE PRESIDENT:Proceed.
DR. BERGOLD:Thus in my opinion a formal jurisduction has to be determined. However, a person who searches for justice is aware of the fact, that there exists an actual jurisdiction for a court, apart from a formal one.
"A court may not be competent to judge a case if the law to be applied, by its very nature, lacks the inner justification and possibility to judge a certain case. Actual jurisdiction is lacking where the case has happened in an atmosphere which has a wholly different concept of law than that upon which the law is based by which the court is to pass sentence.
"I would like to give an example, which is purposely exaggerated, in order to clarify what I mean. Assuming that an American court would undertake to sentence a national of an Oriental state for bigamy, who with several of his wives has somehow been brought before the court. If in such a case the Court would not consider the fact, that according to the law of an Oriental State, polygamy is permissible, but would only judge in conformity with American laws, one would have every reason to speak about an abuse of the law.
"I believe that our trial presents a similar case. This trial consists actually of two trials, firstly the trial concerning the so-called Fuehrer order, which supposedly demanded the extermination of a certain group of people without trial and only because they belonged to a certain race or had a certain political opinion. And secondly the trial concerning the execution of persons only on the strength of police measures, persons, who had committed unlawful acts, which were permitted under certain circumstances, such as sabotage, espionage, being in "possession of arms, and ambushing military personnel; that means crimes, which all nations at war, while occupying a country, consider a punishable offense, a fact which has been proved by the orders of the American armed forces during the occupation of Germany.
As far as dealing with the so-called Fuehrer order is concerned, I shall not dis cuss this in this trial, since it has been proved, that Defendant Biberstein had nothing to do with the so-called Fuehrer order.
I shall leave the questions with regard to the so-called Fuehrer order to my colleagues, who have already made several statements on the subject.
"With reference to the trial concerning executions for crimes against certain military laws, executions which were effected only on the strength of police measures, I am of the opinion, that this Tribunal lacks actual juris diction, because this case refers to events, which hap pened solely in the war between Germany and Russia.
We deal here with a specific legal situation, which, in Your concept of law cannot be fully understood and appreciated.
Already in my opening speech in this trial, I have clearly pointed out, that the statements of the prosecution with regard to competency of the Court show an uncertainty at heart, which is a sign, that the legal claim which has been put forward does not conform with the true principle.
of justice.
"In the case at hand a just sentence can only be passed, if the legal relations which exist solely between Germany and Russia are strictly and precisely taken into consideration, and furthermore if legal usage and concepts are applied, which are valid in these two countries and which can deviate considerably from the legal usage and concepts of Your country and actually do so.
"Firstly it must be pointed out, that no international agreement with regard to treatment of the civilian population existed between Russia and Germany. I have submitted to the Tribunal document No. 1 Exhibit No. 1 the interrogation of the former Reich Foreign Minister Freiherr von Neurath, which shows that in 1918 respectively 1919 the the present Russian Government expressly cancelled all agreements which had bean made by the former Russian Czarist Government, which also included the Hague convention on land warfare I have already pointed out several times, particularly in the Milch Trial, the significance of such a cancellation of a codification of international law. It means, that between such states International Law does no longer exist at all. I would like to remind the Tribunal of my former arguments, which you as Judges in the Milch case will undoubtedly still remember, "Thus Germany was actually free to carry out criminal proceedings for violation of prescribed military laws and to choose any type of procedure she thought proper under the circumstances.
She was therefore fully entitled to put the prosecution of these crimes into the hands of the police, as long as the most primitive right of a defendant, namely the right to be heard and the examination of evidence was preserved.
"Even if one wishes to put forward, that without the existence of international law, Germany should have respected the national customs of the civilian population by analogous application of Article 43 of the provisions of the Hague convention on land warfare, i.e. by carrying out criminal proceedings in the same manner as was customary in Russia, then the police procedure, as adopted and prescribed by Germany, would still have been lawful, "Of importance here are legal usage and concepts which were valid in both Russia and Germany and which differ so decisively from these of Your country, that from Your concept of law an actual understanding of the legal situation seems impossible.
Your country, Your Honors, stands outside of Europe. Although it is an offspring of Europe it has developed completely independently in a way of its own, The case at hand however deals with Germany and Asiatic Russia, two worlds, which attract each other and which sometimes influence one another in an inexplicable manner, even if they subscribe to utterly different ideologies. Russia has very little in common with Europe proper, far less so with America; it always leaned more towards Asia. From Russia the Asiatic mode of living flows into Europe, just as much as the European mode of living infiltrates into Asia.
"If we examine in particular the legal manner in which criminal procedure is carried out in Russia:, we must recognize that she has two methods. The one is the form which is used in lesser important criminal cases and in great public trials, which are similar to Western procedure, i.e. the public trial, with judges, prosecutors and Counsel for the Defense. The other one is the secret procedure, where the prosecution of crimes is in the hands of the police alone, where the police alone passes sentence, Without a regular Court, a procedure which admits only documentary evidence. The defendant and the witnesses are heard, evidence is submitted, but there is no specially appointed Defense Counsel, no special prosecutor and no special Judge. In short it is a procedure which arrives at its sentences by way of documents.
"This procedure is evidently somehow in keeping with the Russian ideology In Russia this procedure has been developed and elaborated on in great detail and was the normal political procedure even under Czarism. Already at that time there were political cases, where the Secret Police, the Ochrana, played the part of prosecution and judge. Soviet Russia has developed and promoted the procedure of the Secret Police on a large scale. The literature of all countries contains many references to it and it also contains frequent passionate protests against such a development of legal measures. But all this does not really belong here. The sole issue here is to determine what was customary in Russia and what is also valid there to-day. In this connection I would like to refer the Tribunal to the statements by witness Mae concerning the methods of the NKWD, formerly famed as the GPU. I am much obligated to the prosecution for submitting document 5855, Document Book 5 3, Exhibit No. 241. This report dated 31 August 1931 and written by Dr. Mahnke, concerning the fate of a certain Walter Vetter, shows that the latter had been arrested and sentenced to death by the NKWD because of his German origin and his correspondence with his brothers and sisters. This document proves beyond doubt the post and present methods of the NKWD in Russia.
Turning to Germany we may say that the Gestapo adopted methods frequently similar to those of the GPUNKWD. When I recall that in Germany there is a rumor, that prior to 1941 Senior Gestapo Officers had absolved training courses in Russia, when I consider that a procedure like the ill-famed Nacht-und-Nebel (Night and Fob) decree has been in use in Russia for many years, a "procedure under which men were arrested and vanished into the vast wilderness of Siberia and never again were heard of, it seems almost justified to conclude that the Supreme Gestapo Command was imitating Russian methods, when introducing police proceedings.
One thing is certain, that is, that the Gestapo had developed a procedure which in all formal aspects was the exact replica of the usual Russian police procedure.
Thus it has been proven that for the prosecution of crime, both countries developed a police procedure, which thus became customary and the application of which does not constitute a violation of International Law, because this procedure is a valid form of law in both countries.
I am aware, Your Honors, that you condemn such a procedure on the basis of the prevalent views of Your country. Am I not justified in adapting the word of Pilatus, thus asking: "What is right?" Your Honors, in Your country a book has been published, which gives a valuable answer to this question, which has been given by one of Your highest and best known judges, and which deserves deep reflection. I am referring here to the book "A free man's life" which is the biography of Judge Brandeis, judge at the Supreme Court. This book has been reviewed in the "Amerikanische Rundschau" of October 1907, 15th volume, 3rd edition in a report by a certain Mr. Alphons Mason. This article has appeared under the heading "Holmes and Brandeis stimmen dagegen" (Holmes and Brandeis objected et it. This article quotes two statements by Judge Holmes, Judge at the Supreme Court. The first one reads as follows: I sincerely doubt that we know what constitutes good and bad laws. Thus I have only one practical criterion. What does the majority demand? Butt I take any bet, that the majority, would not demand what it does, if it nevi better; but that is irrelevant here."
The second quotation reads as follows: "The characteristic of a good government is that it expresses the will of the greatest concentration of power, whether the will of the majority be unreasonable or reasonable". Thus this high Judge of Your country, Your Honors, takes the point of view that there is no absolute law which rises above public opinion, but that law in only that which conforms to the opinion of the majority of a people.
If one takes this into account, then the procedure customary in Germany and Russia is largely to be regarded as a genuine law, the application of which renders no one punishable.
I need not state, that for a long period, Hitler and National Socialism certainly enjoyed the support of the majority of the German people We do not want to dispute here whether this was intelligent and sensible whether the majority knew enough to judge correctly. Holmes too declared that this is unimportant, that what matters chiefly is the fact that the majority decided in favour of a certain ideology. It is thus unimportant whether and how large a minority suffers from and opposes such an ideology At any rate, by the fact that the majority of the German people decided in favour of the totalitarian regime, its laws and methods of police procedures became legally valid.
This statement applies even more so to Russia, I have already mentioned, that similar procedures were in use by the secret political police during the regime of the Czar. When the Czarist regime ceased to exist after the majority of the Russian people rejected it in 1917. the majority of the Russian people decided at first in favour of the Bolshevist regime which is likewise totalitarian This system again established a secret police which is even more powerful and far reaching than that of the Czarist regime had been, and a special police procedure was again perfected. In Russia too, the will of the majority supports this system and its inherent laws and these are undoubtedly also a justification of the Hitler regime.
In this connection, may I ask you, -
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Bergold, before we get into the discussion of evidence, may I ask you one question, please. You say here that the majority of the German people approved of the German Police measures, that is to say, the National Socialist Police Measures, because the German people approved of the Hitler Regime.