And here I add that, according to Hoess' statement, the only man left alive who is familiar with this question, it is a proven fact that only about two to three hundred people know of that dreadful order of Himmler's which was given during a conference which lasted for ten or fifteen minutes, the order on the basis of which more than four million people were exterminated.
And I add that about those things, a nation of eighty million could have known little or probably nothing, natters which happened in the southeast of the Reich during the war. cussing the Jewish question declared:
"It is the greatest nonsense; all the Jews should be released, that is my personal opinion. But in spite of all this, the fundamental question is raised for the problem of guilt: may a high official and the director of an influential office, whose subordinates in a far-reaching hierarchy continuously commit crimes against humanity and against the rules of international law, assume such an office at all or remain in such an office, although he condemns these crimes. But is it perhaps a different case, if this man has the intention of doing all that is humanly possible to break the chain of crimes and thereby finally to become a benefac* of humanity? The last question is in my opinion to be answered in the affirmative. It is to be appraise d solely from the standpoint of the highest ethic principles.
My further thought in this connection is the following: he who invoke his philanthropic intention is free of guilt if, from the first day of his taking over such an office, he refuses all active participation in the direct commission of injustice and even going beyond this, however, uses every conceivable possibility nay, seeks it out, in order to achieve the elimination of unjust orders and their execution through his never ending resistance and every kind of human cunning. these things. On account of the importance of thequestion I should like to refer to his interrogation:
"Question: I ask you whether there was a possibility that you might have brought about a change after having gradually learned the conditions in the Secret State Police and in the concentration camps, etc. If this possibility existed, will you then say that an alleviation, i.e. an improvement, was brought about in the conditions in these fields due to your remaining in office?
Kaltenbrunner says: "I repeatedly applied for service at the front. But the most burning question which I had to decide for myself was whether the conditions would be thereby improved, alleviated or changed. Or is it your duty to do all that is possible in this position to change all the conditions that have here been so severely criticized? As my repeated demands to be sent to the front were refused, all I could do, therefore, was to make a personal attempt to change a system, the ideological and legal foundations of which I could no longer change, which has been illustrated by all the orders presented here from the period before I was in office; I could only try to moderate these methods in order to help to eliminate them definitely.
"Question: And so, did you consider it consistent with your conscience to remain in spite of this?
"Answer: In view of the possibility of constantly using my influence on Hitler, Himmler and other people, I could not in my opinion reconcile it with my conscience to give up this position. I considered it my duty to take a personal stand against injustice." decide, whether this conscience, taking into consideration duty towards one's own country but also towards the community of manking has failed or not. exists in itself for every human being, regardless of his position. This duty is expressly affirmed by Kaltenbrunner also. He who holds a state-office, must in the first place be able to prove that he contributed toward abolishing the gigantic injustice which occurred in Europe as soon as he learned of it, if he does not want to become guilty. Has Dr. Kaltenbrunner presented sufficient proofs? The answer to this question I leave to your judgment. But one thing I should like to express as my opinion: This man was no conspirator, but rather he was exclusively a man acting under orders and under compulsion.
Himmler's order was to take over the Main Reich Security Office. Is it tight that a given order should change the fundamental aspect of the problem? This question is of the highest importance. The Charter of this Tribunal has forbidden appealing to orders for the purpose of avoiding punishment. The reasons given for this by the American chief prosecutor proceeded from the presumed knowledge of the crimes or their background in the minds of the higher leaders which, therefore, prevented him from appealing to orders given. Like a red thread the fact runs through this trial that hardly one high official in whatever position of public life he may have been, was put into office without the order of the highest representative of the legal authority of the state; for in the last three years of the war the already clearlydistinguishable inevitable destiny of the Reich meant for the holder of a high office the renunciation of that part of life which many people say makes life worthwhile.
Even during the duration of the war, orders held the office holder fast in his position as with an iron ring. There is also no doubt that he who refused to obey an order, especially in the last years of the war, had to fear his own death, and possibly also the extinction of his family. 1933, the appeal to the above-mentioned state of necessity ought not to be denied to the defendant, because that principle of necessity, which exists also in the German criminal code and which probably exists in the criminal codes of all civilized nations, is based on the freedom of the individual being necessary for the affirmation of any guilt.
deprives him of this liberty by endangering his life, then, on principle, he is not guilty. I do not want at this instant, to examine whether in the German world of reality of the last years such a direct immediate danger for one's own life always existed, an encroachment upon the freedom of the man receiving orders existed in smaller or larger dimension without doubt. It seems certain to me that Himmler would have interpreted a refusal of Kaltenbrunner to take over the direction of the Reich Security-Main Office as sabotage and would, as a necessary conclusion, have eliminated him. has over known. Many even affirm the duty to kill such a monster, so as to guarantee for millions of human beings the right of freedom and life. At these trials the most different points of view with regard to the "Putsch especially the killing of the tyrant, have been preferred by witnesses and defendants. I cannot recognize the duty, but the right is certainly not contestable. If the oppression of human freedom occurs by means of a clearly unjust, because misanthropic, order, the scales in the now ensuing conflict between obedience and freedom of conscience will be turned to the side of the latter. Also the so-called oath of allegiance could not justify a different point of view because, as everybody feels, the obligation to allegiance presupposes duties of both partners so that he who treads under foot the obligation to respect human conscience in the person of his subalterns loses, at the same moment, the right to expect obedience. The tortured conscience is freed and breaks the tics which the oath had created. Perhaps some persons will not agree with my point of view on this problem and will point at the necessity of an orderly state of community and the wholesomeness of obedience especially in the interest of this orderly state, or they will point at the prudence of those in command and at the impossibility of knowing and evaluating all such orders as the person in command can, they will point to patriotism and many more other points of view. And although all that may be correct, it remains the absolute duty, to resist an order, the purpose of which, clearly recognizable for a subaltern, contains the realization of evil and violates unequivocally the sound sentiments for humanity and peace among peoples and individuals.
The phrase "In the fight of a people for life or death there is no question of legality", is not thought out to the end. could not induce me to change my conviction. Dr. Kaltenbrunner would not deny that he who stands at the heed of on office of great importance to the community is obliged to sacrifice also his life under the above-mentioned provisions. If, however the direct present danger for his own life and that of his family cannot excuse him, it does moderate his culpability. Kaltenbrunner only means to point to this moral and legal evaluation of his position. Thus he emphasizes a fact, historically proven, which was one of the deeper reasons for the collapse of the Reich; for no living man can bring liberty, peace, and welfare to a country who himself carries chains reluctantly and has lost that freedom which is the decisive characteristic of all human beings. I believe Kaltenbrunner would like to be reborn and I know that he would fight for that freedom with his life's blood. Kaltenbrunner is guilty; but he is less guilty than he appears to be for the Prosecution. He will await your judgement as the last representative of an ominous symbol of a period of the Reich, darker and more laden with anguish than any other period and yet he was a man, one could not meet without a feeling of pathos.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken).
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Thoma.
DR. THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): May it please the Tribunal: The documentary file which was shown in this room and which was supposed to illustrate the Rise and Fall of National Socialism begins with a speech delivered by Rosenberg concerning the development of the Party up to the taking over of power. He also describes the Munich insurrection and says that in the morning of 9 November 1923 he saw police cars with meaning-guns assembling in the Ludwigstrasse in Munich and he knew that the march to the Feldherrnhalle was imminent. Nevertheless he marched in the first lines. Today, also, my client takes the same position in face of the Indictment formulated by the Prosecutors of the United Nations. He does not want to be pictures as though nobody paid any attention to his books, his speeches and his publications. Even today he does not want to appear as another person than he was once before, a fighter for Germany's strong position in the world, namely a German Reich in which national freedom should be linked to social justice.
speak Russian as a young boy, passed his examination in Moscow after the Technical College in Riga moved to Moscow during the first world war, took an interest in Russian literature end art, had Russian friends, and was puzzled by the fact that the Russian nation, defined by Dostoyevsky as "the nation with God in its heart" was overcome by the spirit of materialistic Marxism and he considered it inconceivable and unjust that the right of self determination had often been promised indeed but never voluntarily granted to many nations of Eastern Europe which had been conquered by Tsarism as late as the 19th century.
not directed against certain temporary political phenomena only, but against the whole national tradition, against the religious faith and against the old rural foundations of the Eastern European nations, and generally against the idea of personal property. At the end of 1918, he came to Germany and saw the danger of a Bolshevistic revolution in Germany too; he saw the whole spiritual and material civilization of the Occident endangered, and believed to have found his life-work in the struggle against this danger as a follower of Adolf Hitler. It was a p o l i t i c a l struggle against fanatic and well-organized opponents who disposed of inter national resources and international backing and who acted according to the principle: "Hit the Fascists wherever you can." But as little as one can deduce from the latter slogan that the Soviet entertained intentions of military aggression against Fascist Italy just as little one can say that the struggle of the NationalSocialists against Bolshevism meant a preparation for a war of aggression against the USSR. Soviet Union, especially a war of aggression against the latter, seemed as likely or as unlikely as to any German or foreign politician who had read the book Mein Kampf. It is not right to maintain that he was initiated in some way in plans of aggression against the Soviet Union; he rather publicly advocated proper relations with Moscow (Document Rosenberg 7b, Page 147). Rosenberg never wanted a military intervention against the Soviet Union. However, he feared, in turn the entry of the Red Army into the border state and then into Germany. the Man-Aggression Pact between the German Reich and the Soviet Union--he was as little informed about the preliminary discussions as he was about the other foreign political measures taken by the Fuehrer--he might have gone to see the Fuehrer and protested against it. He did not do it and he did not object to it with a single word, which, the witnesss Goering confirmed as being a statement of Hitler's.As a witness Rosenberg himself described (Transcript of 16 April 1946, Page 789) that he was then suddenly called to Hitler at the beginning of April 1941, who told him that he considered a military clash with the Soviet Union as inevitable.
Hitler offered two reasons for it:
1) The military occupation of Rumanian territory, namely Bessarabia and North Bukowina.
2) The tremendous increase of the Red Armies along the line of demarcation and on Soviet-Russian territory in general, which had been going on for a long time. sued the appropriate military and other orders and he said that he would appoint Rosenberg in some way as a political advisor. As he further states as a witness, Rosenberg found himself confronted with an accomplished fact, and even the sole attempt to talk about it was cut short by the Fuehrer with the remark that the orders had been issued and that hardly anything could be changed in this matter. There upon Rosenberg called some of his closest collaborators together because he did not know whether the military event would take place very soon or later on, and he also had some plan made concerning the treatment of the political problems. On 20 April 1941, Rosenberg received from Hitler the preliminary order to establish a central office to deal with questions concerning the East and to contact the competent highest Reich authorities with respect to these matters (Document Number PS 865, USA - 143). to refute the assertion made by the prosecution according to which Rosenberg is "personally responsible for the planning and execution of the war of aggression against Russia"--(Brudno, on 9 January 1946, page 2278 of the Transcript)--and was aware of the "aggression predatory, character of the imminent war"--(Rudenke, on 17 April 1946, Page 8016 of the Transcript)--if, above all, one does not want to admit that Rosenberg was convinced of an imminent aggressive war waged by the Soviet Union against Germany, I would like to bring up four more points in order to prove the correctness of the statements made by the defendant.
at the Reich Chancellery on 10 November 1937 ("Hossback Document" Document Number PS 386, USA-25)--when Hitler disclosed for the first time his intentions of waging war. This was at the time when Rosenberg still had political influence, or at least seemed to have it. If ever, he should have played the part of the intimate political instigator then. this Tribunal that Hitler took all important decisions all by himself; thus, also the decision concerning the war against Russia-(Transcript Page 7363).
Third, upon my question about Rosenberg's influence with respect to Hitler's decisions concerning foreign policy, Goering replied before this Tribunal, on 16 March 1946: "I think that after the accession to power the Fuehrer did not consult the Office of Foreign Affairs of the Party a single time about questions concerning the foreign policy, and that it was created only for centrally taking care of certain questions concerning the foreign policy which came up within the party. As far as I know, Rosenberg was certainly not consulted about political decisions after the accession to power." This was also confirmed by the witness Neurath on 26 June 1946, in this court room. "Brief report concerning the activity of the Office of Foreign Affairs of the NSDAP." (Document Number 003-PS, USA-603). Brief mention is made in it of the "Near East" in such a harmless manner that no word has to be said about it. Also, in the confidential reports 004-PS and 007-PS, nothing is said about any preparations against the Soviet Union.
procedure, if one would say: aggression, and therefore anything the German Administration has done there was criminal; Eastern Territories Rosenberg was the responsible minister and therefore he must be punished for all crimes which have occurred there, at least for what happened within the scope of the jurisdiction and authority of the administrative bodies. I will have to demonstrate that this conception is not correct for legal and factual reasons.
Rosenberg was the organizer and the highest authority of the administration in the East.
On 17 July 1941, he was appointed as Reich Minister for the occupied Eastern territories. According to instructions, he performed before that time, preparatory work on questions concerning East-Europe by contacting the Reich agencies concerned. He planned and set up his office for dealing centrally with questions concerning Eastern Europe. He had provisional instructions for the Reich Commissars drawn up--(Doc. No. 1030-PS)-- he delivered the program speech of 20 June 1941, and, above all, he took part in the Fuehrer Conference of 15 July 1941. Hitler said at that time that the real aims of the war against Russia should not be made known to the whole world, that these present should understand clearly that "we will never withdraw from the now Eastern territories; whoever offers any opposition will be exterminated; never again must a military power develop west of the Ural; nobody but a German shall ever wear a weapon." Hitler proclaimed the subjection and the exploitation of the Eastern Territories, and in making these statements he was in opposition to what Rosenberg had told him before--without being contradicted by Hitler--concerning his plans for the East. ploitation. this: Before Rosenberg took over his ministry he know Hitler's aims for the East; namely, (1) to rule it; (2) to administer it; (3) to exploit it. Therefore, he is not only an accomplice in a crime of conspiracy against peace, he is also jointly responsible for the crimes against humanity perpetrated in the Eastern Territories, since Rosenberg held complete power, the highest authority in the East. Rosenberg's automatic responsibility in his capacity as supreme Chief of the Eastern Territories. First I would like to consider the question of his individual responsibility.
One could refer to two reasons:
(a) because he allegedly participated in the preparation of the war of aggression against the Soviet Union -- I have already states that this assertion is not correct that Rosenberg has neither ideologically nor actually participated in the preparations of the war of aggression ; (b) because he supported Hitler's plan of conquest by making plans, delivering speeches, and organizing the administration. the Chief of State, elaborates plans or takes preparatory measures of an organizational nature for events which might happen later, this activity cannot be considered as criminal even when thereby the interests of other countries are affected, and even when the plans, preparations and measures are intended for war. Only when the minister or general in question directs his activity towards things which have to be considered as criminal, according to sound common-sense and an international sense of decency and justice, can he be held individually responsible. Rosenberg has continuously proved in words and deeds that the traditional conceptions of right are his conceptions also, and that he is willing to stand up for them. His position was particularly difficult indeed, since the supreme chief finally moved beyond the limits in his ideas, aims and intentions, and since other strong forces also like Bormann, Himmler and Gaulieter Kech were involved which prevented and sabotaged Rosenberg's good and fair intentions. Thus we witness the strange spectacle of a minister who governs but with partly cannot understand, partly cannot approve, partly does not knew at all, the intentions of the Chief of State, and on the other hand that of a chief of State who appoints a minister to take office who is certainly an old and loyal political fellowcombatant but with whom he has no spiritual contact whatsoever anymore.
It would be wrong to judge without further examination such constellations according to the democratic conceptions of the responsibility of a minister. Rosenberg could not simply resign, but he also felt inwardly the duty of fighting for the opinion which appeared to him as being right and decent. the Germans to consider that Germany should not have to fight every 25 years for her holdings in the East. He by no means, however, desires the extermination of the Slavs, but the advancement of all the nations of Eastern Europe, and the advancement, not the annihilation, of their national independence. He demanded (Doc. No. 1058-PS, USA-147), "Friendly sentiments" towards the Ukrainians, a guarantee of "national and cultural existence" for the Caucasians; he emphasized that, even with a war on, we were not enemies of the Russian people", whose great achievements we fully recognize. He advocated "the national right of self-determination of the people" -- one of the first points of the whole Soviet revolution. This was his idea, tenaciously defended till the end. The speech in question also contains the passage, of which the prosecution acuses him in particular, that the feeding of the German people during these years willbe placed at the top of German demands in the East, and that the southern territories and North Caucasus would have to make up the balance in feeding the German people. Then, Rosenberg continues literally: "We do not see at all why we should be compelled to feed the Russian people also from these surplus regions.
We know, that this is a bitter necessity which lies beyond any sentiment. Without a doubt an extensive evacuation will be necessary, and there are very hard years ahead for the Russians. To what extent industries are to be kept up there, is a question reserved for future decision." This passage comes quite suddenly and all by itself in the long speech. One feels distinctly that it has been squeezed in, it is not Rosenberg's voice: Rosenberg does not proclaim here a program of his own, but only states facts which lie beyond his will.
In the first directives of the East ministry (Doc. No. 1056-PS, USA-605) the feeding of the population is shown to be especially urgent, as well as its supplying with all medical necessities, On the contrary, the true Rosenberg emerges in the conference of 16 July 1941, when in response to Hitler's plans, he called attention to the university of Kiev, and to the independence and cultural advancement of the Ukraine, and when he took stand against the full power of the police and above all against the appointment of Gauleiter Erich Koch in the Ukraine. (Doc. No. L-221).
One willsay: What is the use of opposition and protests,what is the use of secret reservations and of feigned agreement with Hitler's intentions, Rosenberg did cooperate all the same. Therefore he is responsible too. Later on, I willoutline in detail how and to what extent Rosenberg did adhere to the policy in the East, what things he did not do, and how he opposed them, grave charge of being responsible for the alleged exploitation and enslavement of the East. Here, I would like to point out the following: It was in no way a hopeless task to begin by accepting even Hitler's most passionate statements without contradiction in the hope and with the intention of attaining nevertheless a contrary result later on. In opposition to Hitler's statement, which said that :"No other than a German may ever bear weapons in the East", it was not long, for example, before, on Rosenberg's recommendation legions of volunteers were formed from the peoples of the East, and in opposition to Hitler, an edict of tolerance was issued at the end of 1941 for the churches of the East (Doc. No. 1517-PS.) Eastern nations, he still adhered to his plans for the future in this respect too. First he took care of the urgent agrarian question. An agrarian order was drawn up, which it was possible to present to the Fuehrer on 15 February 1942, and which was authorized by him in its unadulterated form. It was not an instrument of exploitation, but an act of liberal formation of the agrarian constitution in the midst of the most terrible of wars. Right in one middle of the war the eastern countries not only received a new agrarian constitution but also Agricultural machines. The witness Professor Dencker, in his affidavit, has born witness to the following deliveries to the occupied Soviet territories including the former border states:
Miscellaneous (hand equipment, tools, driving-belts etc.)
about 15,000,000.-an exploitation. So, in this, too, Rosenberg accomplished a piece of constructive work that was really a blessing.
In the following, I will first treat the question of Rosenberg's automatic responsibility as minister for the Eastern territories and then his criminal liability on the grounds of his official position. occupied Eastern territories. Two Reich commissariats were set up as supreme territorial authorities: "Ostland " (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and White-Ruthenia) under the Reich Commissioner Lohse and Ukraine under Reich commissioner Koch. The Reich commissariats were divided into general districts and regions. Right from the beginning, the East Ministry was not conceived as an administrative authority built on a large scale, but as a central office and supreme authority, which was to confine itself to overall instructions and fundamental directives, and in addition was to ensure the reinforcing of material and personnel. The actual government was the duty of the Reich commissioner; he was the sovereign in his territory.
the East was not at the head of the whole Eastern administration, but that several top authorities existed at the same time. Goering, who was plenipotentiary for the four-year plan, was responsible for the control of the economy in all occupied territories, and in this respect had authority over the minister for the East, for Rosenberg could only issue economic decrees with Goering's permission. The chief of the German police Himmler was solely and exclusively competent for the security of the occupied Eastern territories as far as police authority was concerned; there was no police division at all in the ministry for the East, neither in the Reich commissariats. Rosenberg's competence was furthermore undermined by Himmler the Reich commissioner for the preservation of German nationality", and by Speer, on behalf of whom a fuehrer-decree detached all technical matters from the East administration. It was further weakened by Goebbels who claimed for himself the control of propaganda in the occupied Eastern territories as well. Later on I shall come to the important question of labor employment which was put under the authority of Sauckel. occupied Eastern territories. In this respect, the following must be emphasized: in this trial, Rosenberg is not made responsible from the political standpoint, since the high tribunal is no parliament; neither is he made responsible from the point of view of constitutional law, for the High Tribunal is not a Supreme Court of Judicature. The liability of the defendant with respect to civil law is not in question either; but only his penal liability, his responsibility for his own alleged crimes and for the crimes of others. I do not need to outline in more detail that for a penal liability and condemnation, it must be proved that the defendant culpably and illegally committed acts forming a case which is punishable by law, and that he may only be punished for a non-action, i.e. a commission, if he had the legal duty to act, and if it was due to his inaction that the criminal result occurred, i.e. if he had the factual possibility of preventing the criminal result. for the occupied Eastern territories, but not a sovereign. The Reich commissioners were sovereigns of the gigantic territories "Ostland" and "Ukraine."
The lines along which these territories were to be constitutionally remodelled were not visible yet, but one thing was certain:
The Reich Commissioner was the highest authority. For instance, it was he, who in the most important measures, like the shooting of inhabitants of a region for acts of sabotage, had the right to make the ultimate decision. In practice, in these cases,the police had exclusive competence. The Reich, i.e. partly the East ministry and partly other authorities, detained the right to make fundamental legislation and give overall supervision. By a slight change in the well known remark of Benjamin Constant, the French professor of constitutional law: "Le roi regne, mais il ne gouverne pas", one may define in the following way Rosenberg's position as minister for the occupied territories of the East: "Le ministre gouverne, mais il ne regne pas". As in certain dominions of the British empire, there existed a sovereignty of the Reich Commissioner with a central over-all supervision on the part of the minister for the East, as in certain districts of the British Empire. Today, nobody would think of summoning the competent English minister before a tribunal, because a governor in India had allowed native villages to be bombed and burned down. And so I come to my conclusion, that in Rosenberg's case there exists no automatic, penal responsibility for the non-prevention of crimes in the East, because although he had the authority of supervision he was not sovereign, the two Reich Commissioners had the supreme authority.
is individually responsible, i.e. individually guilty of criminal exploitation and enslavement of the nations of the East and, may be, of further crimes. What was his attitude, what were the general lines and general trends of his policy, what did he positively do and what did he prevent or at least try to prevent?
In the Baltic countries, national administrations (directorates) were installed under German supervision. The German administration was compelled by the Reich minister for the occupied territories of the East, to show the greatest understanding for all desires which could be gratified and strive for a good relationship with the Baltic countries; the Baltic countries had a free legal, educational and cultural system and were only limited with respect to questions concerning politics, economy and the police. After the war of 1914-1918 agrarian reform in the Baltic states was carried out at the expense of the 700 years old German property. Nevertheless, Rosenberg as minister for the East, made a law giving back to private owners the farms which had already been collectivized in past by the Soviet Union after 1940, and in this restitution of the soil which had once been taken away from the German proprietors, showed the greatest goal will conceivable on the part of the German Reich. confirmed by witness Riecke (Transcript Page 8032). was initiated under Reich Commisser Kube. The "White Ruthenia Central Committee" wasf ounded, furthermore a White Ruthenian relief system and a White Ruthenian youth organization. When a White Ruthenian youth delegation returned from a visit to Germany, Kube said, that he would continue to act as a father to the White Ruthenian youth and the following night he was murdered, but his policy was not changed. -- I should like toobserve in passing that the actual Russian territories between Narwa and Leningrad and around Smolensk had remained all the time under military administration. Likewise the districts around Kharkov and the Crimes.
as possible, on extensive central self-administrative sovereignty, similar to the directorates in the Baltic states and pledged to a definite advancement of the fultural and educational needs of the people. After Rosenberg had originally thought that he could assume. Hitler agreed to this idea, another conception came to prevail, namely that all forces should be directed towards the war economy. Rosenberg only managed to achieve and carry through one thing: The now agrarian, order of 15 February 1942 which provided for a transition from the collective economy of the Soviet Union to personal exploitation, and then to ownership by the peasants. On 23 June 1943 the property decree was issued as a complement to this. At first, it was not possible to carry it out because of Reich Commissar Koch's resistance, but then, military events brought everything to an end. A further fundamental decree was based on a general Adjustment of the school system, which Rosenberg had ordered to be worked out, because the Reich Commissioner of the Ukraine declined to do it himself. Rosenberg provided for elementary schools and higher technical schools, the Reich Commissioner protested against this. On account of the conflict which became more and more acute between Rosenberg and Reich Commissioner Koch, Hitler issued, in June 1943, the following written instruction: The Reich Commissioner had no right to make any obstructions, but the Reich Minister for the occupied territoriesof the East should confine himself to essential questions, and when issuing any orders should make it possible for the Reich Commissioner of the Ukraine to take up his position beforehand, which practically meant Koch's coordination along with Rosenberg.
During his examination of 8 April 1946 (Transcript P.7374) the witness Lammers describe Rosenberg's peculiar constitutional position as Reich Minister for the occupied territories of the East, and his political position which became weaker and weaker. I would like to emphasize the following striking and especially important declarations made by the witness: the authority of the Reich Minister for the occupied territories of the East was undermined by the Wehrmacht, by Goering as plenipotentiary for the four-year plan, by Himmler as chief of the German police, by Himmler as Reich Commission or for the preservation of German nationality (resettlement measures), by Sauckel as general plenipotentiary for Labor utilization, by Speer in the field, of armaments and technique and finally through differences of opinion with propaganda minister Goebbels.