This was described by the defendant Keitel as the real start of the large-scale rearmament program which followed.
I will give the official reference in the Reichsgesetzblatt, year 1935, volume 1, teil 1, page 369; and the reference in the transcript, pages 454 and 455.
The fourth point was the remilitarization of the Rhineland. The Rhineland was reoccupied on the 7th of March 1936. I remind the Tribunal of the two complementary documents, 2289 PS, U.S. Exhibit 56, the announcement of this action by Hitler, and C.139, U.S. Exhibit 53, which is the "Operation Schulung," giving the military action which was to be taken if necessary. Again the reference to the transcript is page 458 to page 464. These were the acts for which the defendant shared responsibility from his position and from the steps which he took, but a little later he summed up his views on the actions detailed above in a speech before Germans abroad made on the 29th of August, 1937, of which I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice, as it appears in Das Archiv, 1937, at page 650. But I quote a short portion of it that appears on page 72 of the document book:
"The unity of the racial and national will created through Nazism with unprecedented elan has made possible a foreign policy through which the bonds of the Versailles Treaty were slashed, freedom to arm regained and the sovereignty of the whole nation reestablished. We have again become master in our own home, and we have produced the means of power to remain henceforth that way for all times. The world should notice from Hitler's deeds and words that his aims are not aggressive war."
The world, of course, had not the advantage of seeing these various complementary documents of military preparation which I have had the opportunity of putting before the Tribunal.
The next section - and the next point against this defendant - is that both as Minister of Foreign Affairs and as one of the inner circle of the Fuehrer's advisers on foreign political matters, this defendant participated in the political planning and preparation for acts of aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia and other nations.
If I might first put the defendant's policy in a sentence, I would say that it can be summarized as breaking one treaty only at a time.
He himself put it - if I may so - slightly more pompously, but to the same effect in a speech before the Academy of German Law on the 30th of October 1937, which appears in Das Archiv, October 1937, page 921, and which the Tribunal will find in the document book on page 73. The underlining is mine:
"Out of the acknowledge of these elementary facts the Reich Cabinet has always interceded in favor of treating every concrete international problem within methods especially suited for it, not to complicate it unnecessarily by amalgamation with other problems and as long as problems between only two powers are concerned to choose the way for an immediate understanding between these two powers. We are in a position to state that this method has fully proved itself good not only in the German interest, but also in the general interest."
The only country whose interests are not mentioned are the other parties to the various treaties that were dealt with in that way; and the working unto that policy can really be shown by looking in tabular form at the actions of this defendant when he was Foreign Minister or at his immediate successor when he still purported to have influence.
In 1935 the action was directed against the Western Powers. That action was the rearmament of Germany. When that was going on another country had to be reassured. At that time it was Austria, with the support of Italy - which Austria still had up to 1935. And so you get the fraudulent assurance, the essence of the technique in that case, given by Hitler, on the 21st of May 1935. And that is shown clearly to be false, by the document which Mr. Alderman put in - I give the general reference to the transcript on pages 534 to 545. Then, in 1936, you have still got the action necessary against the Western Powers in the occupation of the Rhineland. You still have a fraudulent assurance to Austria in the Treaty of the 11th of July of that year, and that is shown to be fraudulent by the letters from the Defendant von Papen, United States Exhibit 64 and 67, one of which my fri end Major Barrington has just referred to.
Then, in 1937 and 1938, you move on a step and the action is directed against Austria. We know what that action was. It was absorption, planned, at any rate, finally, at the meeting on the 5th of November, 1937, and action taken on the 11th of March, 1938.
Reassurance had to be given to the Western Powers, so you have the assurance to Belgium on the 13th of October, 1937, which was dealt with by my friend Mr. Roberts. The Tribunal will find the references in pages 1100 to 1126 of the transcript.
We move forward a year and the object of the aggressive action becomes Czechoslovakia. Or I should say we move forward six months to a year. There you have the Sudatenland obtained in September; the absorption of the whole of Bohemia and Moravia on the 15th of March, 1939.
Then it was necessary to reassure Poland, so an assurance to Poland is given by Hitler on the 20th of February, 1938, and repealed up to the 26th of September, 1938.
The falsity of that assurance was shown over and over again in Colonel Griffith-Jones's speech on Poland, which the Tribunal will find in the transcript at pages 966 to 1060.
Then finally, when you want the action as directed against Poland in the next year, for its conquest, assurance must be given to Russia, and so a non-aggression pact is entered into on the 23rd of August, 1939, as shown by Mr. Alderman, at pages 1160 to 1216.
With regard to that tabular presentation, one might say, in the Latin tag,"res ipsa loquitur."
But a quite frank statement from this Defendant with regard to the earlier part of that can be found in the account of his conversation with the United States Ambassador, Mr. Bullitt, on the 18th of May, 1936, which is on page 74 of the document book, document L-150, United States Exhibit 65, and if I might read the first paragraph after the introduction saying that they called on this Defendant, Mr. Bullitt says:
"Von Neurath said that it was the policy of the German Government to do nothing active in foreign affairs until "the Rhineland had been digested.
' He explained that he meant that, until the German fortifications had been constructed on the French and Belgian frontiers, the German Government would do everything possible to prevent rather than encourage an outbreak by the Nazis in Austria and would pursue a quiet line with regard to Czechoslovakia.
'As soon as our fortifications are constructed and the countries of Central Europe realize that France cannot enter German territory at will, all those countries will begin to feel very differently about their foreign policies and a new constellation will develop,' he said."
I remind the Tribunal, without citing it, of the conversation referred to by my friend, Mr. Barrington, a short time ago, between the Defendant von Papen as Ambassador and Mr. Messersmith, which is very much to the same effect.
Then I come to the actual aggression against Austria, and I remind the Tribunal that this Defendant was Foreign Minister.
First: during the early Nazi plottings against Austria in 1934.
The Tribunal will find these in the transcript at pages 475 to 489, and I remind them generally that that was the murder of Chancellor Dolfuss and the ancillary acts which were afterwards so strongly approved.
Secondly: when the false assurance was given to Austria on the 21st of May, 1935, and the fraudulent treaty made on the 11th of July, 1936.
References to these are TC-26, which is GB-19, and TC-22, which is GB-20.
The reference in the transcript is at pages and 545.
Thirdly: when the Defendant von Papen was carrying on his subterranean intrigues in the period from 1935 to 1937.
I again give the references so the Tribunal will have it in mind:
document 2247-PS, United States Exhibit 64--letter dated 17 May, 1935--and United States Exhibit 67, document 2246-PS-1 September, 1936.
The references in the transcript are pages 492, 516-18, 526-545 and 553-4.This Defendant von Neurath was present when Hitler declared, at the Hoszbach interview on the 5th of November, 1937, that the German question could only be solved by force, and that his plans were to conquer Austria and Czechoslovakia.
That is document 386-PS, United States Exhibit 25, which the Tribunal will find at page 82.
If you will look at the sixth line of page 82, after the heading, you will see that one of the persons in attendance at this highly confidential meeting was the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs, Freiherr von Neurath.
Without reading a document which the Tribunal have had referred to them more than once, may I remind the Tribunal that it is on page 86 that the passage about the conquest of Austria occurs, and if the Tribunal will look at "Case 3," the second sentence is, "For the improvement of our military political position, it must be our first aim in every case of entanglement by war to conquer Czechoslovakia and Austria simultaneously, in order to remove any threat from the flanks in case of a possible advance westwards."
That is developed on the succeeding page. The important point is that this Defendant was present at that meeting, and it is impossible for him after that meeting to say that he was not acting except with his eyes completely open and with complete comprehension as to what was intended.
Then the next point. During the actual Anschluss he received a note from the British Ambassador dated the 11th of March, 1938.
That is document 3045-PS, United States Exhibit 127. He sent the reply contained in document 3287-PS, United States Exhibit 128.
If I might very briefly remind the Tribunal of the reply, I think all that is necessary--and of course the Tribunal have had this document referred to them before--is at the top of page 93.
I wish to call attention to two obvious untruths.
The Defendant von Neurath states in the sixth line, "It is untrue that the Reich used forceful pressure to bring about this development, especially the assertion, which was spread later by the former Chancellor Schuschnigg, that the German Government had presented the Federal President with a conditional ultimatum.
It is a pure invention."
According to the ultimatum, he had to appoint a proposed candidate as Chancellor to form a Cabinet conforming to the proposals of the German Government.
Otherwise the invasion of Austria by German troops was held in prospect.
"The truth of the matter is that the question of sending military or police forces from the Reich was only brought up when the newly formed Austrian Cabinet addressed a telegram, already published by the press, to the German Government, urgently asking for the dispatch of German troops as soon as possible, in order to restore peace and order and to avoid bloodshed.
Faced with the immediately threatening danger of a bloody civil war in Austria, the German Government then decided to comply with the appeal addressed to it."
Well, as I said, my Lord, these are the two most obvious untruths, and all one can say is that it must have, at any rate, given this Defendant a certain macabre sort of humor to write that when the truth was as the Tribunal know it from the report of Gauleiter Rainer to Buerckel, which has been put in before the Tribunal as document 812-PS, United States Exhibit 61, and when they have heard, as they have at length, the transcripts of the Defendant Goering's telephone conversations with Austria on that day, which is document 2949-PS, United States Exhibit 76, and the entries of the Defendant's Jodl's diary for the 11th, 13th and 14th of February, which is document 1780-PS, United States Exhibit 72.
In this abundance of proof of the untruthfulness of these statements the Tribunal may probably think that the most clear and obvious correction is in the transcripts of the Defendant Goering's telephone conversations, which are so amply corroborated by the other documents.
The Prosecution submit that it is inconceivable that this Defendant who, according to the Defendant Jodl's diary -may I ask the Tribunal just to look at page 116 so that they have this point quite clear?
It is page 116 of the document book, the entry in the Defendant Jodl's diary for the 10th of March.
It is the third paragraph, and it says:
"At 13.00 hours General Keitel informs Chief of Operational Staff and Admiral Canaris.
Ribbentrop is being detained in London.
Neurath takes over the Foreign Office."
I submit that it is inconceivable when this Defendant had taken over the Foreign Office, was dealing with the matter and, as I shall show the Tribunal in a moment, co-operating with the Defendant Goering to suit the susceptibibilities of Czechs, that he should have been so ignorant of the truth of events and what really was happening as to write that letter in honor and good faith.
His position can be shown equally clearly by the account which is given of him in the affidavit of Messersmith, document 2385-PS, United States Exhibit 68.
If the Tribunal will look at page 175 of the document book, I remind them of that entry which exactly describes the action and style of activity of this Defendant at this crisis.
Two-thirds of the way down the page the paragraph beings:
"I should emphasize here in this statement that the men who made these promises were not only the dyed-in-the-wool Nazis, but more conservative Germans who already had begun to willingly lend themselves to the Nazi program.
"In an official dispatch to the Department of State from Vienna, dated October 10, 1935, I wrote as follows.
"'Europe will not get away from the myth that Neurath, Papen and Mackensen are not dangerous people and that they are diplomats of the old school.
They are in fact servile instruments of the regime, and just because the outside world looks upon them as harmless they are able to work more effectively.
They are able to sow discord just because they propagate the myth that they are not in sympathy with the regime.
'" THE PRESIDENT:
The Tribunal will adjourn now.
(Whereupon at 17.00 hours the Hearing of the Tribunal adjourned, to reconvene on 24 January, 1946, at 10.
00 hours.)
Official transcript of the International Military Tribunal, in the matter of:
The United States of America, the French Republic, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, against Hermann Wilhelm Goering, et al, Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 24 January 1946, 1000-1245; Lord Justice Lawrence presiding.
CAPTAIN PRICEMAN:If it pleases your Honor, the Defendant Streicher and the Defendant Kaltenbrunner are absent this morning due to illness.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, before the Tribunal adjourned, I was dealing at the time with the share of the Defendant Neurath in the aggression against Austria. Before I proceed with the next stage, I should like the Tribunal, if it be so kind, to look at the original exhibit from which I will read, Document 3287-PS, and I would like to state it is Exhibit 128, which is the letter from this Defendant to Sir Neville Henderson, who was then the British Ambassador. The only point in which I would be grateful is if the Tribunal would note page 92 of the Document Book - When I say original, that is a certified copy certified by the British Foreign Office, but the Tribunal will see that the heading is from the President of the Secret Cabinet Council. That is the point that the Tribunal will remember. The question was raised as to the existence or activity of that body and the letterhead is from the Defendant in that capacity.
The next stage in the Austrian aggression is that at the time of the occupation of Austria, this Defendant gave the assurance to M. Mastny, the Ambassador of Czechoslovakia to Berlin, regarding the continued independence of Czechoslovakia. That is one document at page 123, TC-27, which I have already put in as Exhibit GB-21. It was from Lord Halifax, who was then Foreign-Secretary; and if I may read the second paragraph just to remind the Tribunal of the circumstances in which it was written, M. Masaryk says:
"I have in consequence been instructed by my Government to bring to the official knowledge of His Majesty's Government the following facts: Yesterday evening (the 11th March) Field-Marshal Goering made two separate statements to M. Mastny, the Czechoslovak Minister in Berlin, assuring him that the developments in Austria will in no way have any detrimental influence on the relations between the German Reich and Czechoslovakia, and emphasising the continued earnest endeavor on the part of Germany to improve those mutual relations."
And then there are the particulars in which way it was put to Defendant Goering, which have been brought to the Tribunal's attention, and I shall not do it again. The 6th paragraph begins: "M. Mastny was in a position to give him definite and binding assurances on this subject, that is, to give the Defendant Goering on the Czech mobilisation - and then it goes on: "and today spoke with Baron von Neurath, who, among other things, assured him on behalf of Herr Hitler that Germany still considers herself bound by the German-Czechoslovak Arbitration Convention concluded at Lorcarno in October 1925."
In view of the fact that the Defendant von Neurath had been present at the meeting on the 5th of November, four months previously, he had heard Hitler's views on Czechoslovakia, and that it was only six months before that really negotiated treaty was disregarded at once. That paragraph is, in my opinion, an excellent example on the technique of which this Defendant was the first professor.
I now come to the aggression against Czechoslovakia. On 28 May 1938 Hitler held a conference of important leaders including Beck, von Brauchitsch, Raeder, Keitel, Goering and Ribbentrop, at which Hitler affirmed that preparations should be made for military action against Czechoslovakia by October, and it is believed though not - I say frankly - confirmed that the Defendant von Neurath attended. The reference of that meeting is in the transcript of page 742 and 743.
THE PRESIDENT:Sir David, is there any evidence?
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFE: No. Your Lordship will remember the documents, a long series of them, and it doesn't state who was present; therefore, I express that and put it with reserve.
On the 4th of September 1938 the Government of which von Neurath was a member, enacted a new "Secret Reich Defense Law" which defined various official responsibilities in clear anticipation of war.
This law provided, as did the previous Secret Reich Defense Law, for a "Reich Defense Council" as a supreme policy board for war preparations.
If the Tribunal will remember that, I have already referred them to Document 2194-PS, U.S. Exhibit 36, showing these facts. Then there came the Munich agreement of 29 September 1938, but in spite of that, on the 14th March 1939, German troops marched into Czechoslovakia; and the Proclamation of Hitler to the German people and the Order to the Wehrmacht is Document TC.50, Exhibit GB-7, which the Tribunal will find at page 124, which has already been referred to and I shan't read it again.
On the 16th March 1939, the German Government, of which von Neurath was still a member, promulgated the Decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor on the Establishment ofthe Protectorate "Bohemia and Moravia". That date is the 16th of March. That is at page 126 of the Document Book, TC.51, Exhibit GB-8.
If I may leave that for the moment, I will come back to it in dealing with the setting up of the Protectorate. I will come back in a moment and read Article 5: but taking the events in the order of time, the following week, the defendant von Ribbentrop signed a Treaty with Slovakia, which is at page 129, and the Tribunal may remember Article 2 of that Treaty, which is:
"For the purpose of making effective the protection undertaken by the German Reich, the German armed forces shall have the right at all times to construct military installations and to keep them garrisoned in the strength they deem necessary, in an area delimited on its western side by the frontiers of the State of Slovakia, and on its eastern side by a line formed by the eastern rims of the Lower Carpathians, the White Carpathians, and the Javornik Mountains.
"The Government of Slovakia will take the necessary steps to assure that land required for these installations shall be conveyed to the German armed forces. Furthermore, the Government of Slovakia will agree to grant exemption from custom duties for imports from the Reich for the maintenance of the German troops and the supply of military installations."
The Tribunal will appreciate that the ultimate objective of Hitler's policies disclosed at the meeting at which this Defendant was present on the 5th of November 1937. That is the resumption of the "Drang of lebensraum in the East". It was obvious from the terms of this Treaty, as it has been explicit in Hitler's statement.
Then we come to the fifth of this criminality. By accepting and occupying the position of Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, the Defendant von Neurath personally adhered to the aggression against Czechoslovakia and the world. He further actively participated in the conspiracy of world aggression and he assumed a position of leadership in the execution of policies involving violating the laws of war and the commission of crimes against humanity.
The Tribunal will appreciate that I am not going to trespass on the ground covered by my colleagues and go into the crimes. I want to show quite clearly to the Tribunal the basis for these crimes which was laid by the legal position which this Defendant assumed.
The first point. The Defendant von Neurath assumed the position of Protector under a sweeping grant of powers. The a ct creating the Protectorate provided: If the Tribunal would be good enough to turn back on page 126 in the Document Book and look at Article V of the Act, it reads as follows:
"1. As trustee of Reich interests the Leader and Chancellor of the Reich, shall nominate a 'Reich Protector in Bohemia and Moravia.' His seat of office will be Prague.
"2. The Reich Protector, as representative of the Leader and Chancellor of the Reich and as Commissioner of the Reich Government, is charged with duty of seeing to the observance of the political principles laid down by the Leader and Chancellor of the Reich.
"3. The members of the Government of the protectorate shall be confirmed by the Reich Protector, The confirmation may be withdrawn.
"4. The Reich Protector is entitled to inform himself of all measures taken by the Government of the protectorate and to give advice.
He can object to measures calculated to harm the Reich and, in case of danger, issue ordinances required for the common interest.
"5. The promulgation of laws, ordinances and other legal announcements and the execution of administrative measures and legal judgements shall be annulled if the Reich Protector enters an objection."
At the very outset of the Protectorate, the Defendant von Neurath's supreme authority was implemented by a series of basic decrees of which I ask the Tribunal to take Judicial notice. They established the alleged legal foundation for the policy and program which resulted, all aimed towards the systematic destructions of the national integrity of the Czechs.
1. By granting the "Racial Germans" In Czechoslovakia a supreme order of citizenship; and I give the official reference to the Decree of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor concerning the Protectorate to which I just referred; and then, 2. An Act concerning the representation in the Reichstag of Greater Germany of German Nationals Resident in the Protectorate:
13 April 1939.
3. An order concerning the acquisition of German citizenship by former Czechoslovakian citizens of German origin, 20 April 1939.
Then there was a series of decrees that granted "Racial Germans" in Czechoslovakia a preferred status at law and in the courts.
1. An order concerning the Exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, 14 April 1939.
2. An order concerning the Exercise of Jurisdiction in Civil Proceedings, 14 April 1939.
3. An order concerning the Exorcise of Military Jurisdiction on the 8th May 1939.
Then the orders also granted to the Protector broad powers to change by decree the autonomous law of the Protectorate. That is contained in the Ordnance on Legislation in the Protectorate, 7 June 1939.
And finally the Protector was authorized to go with the Reich Leader SS and the Chief of the German Police "to take, if necessary, such (police) measures which go beyond the limits usually valid for police measures."
In view of the form of the order itself, the Tribunal, if it cares to listen and to take judicial notice of this, in the Reichsgesetzblatt we have found inserted that one in the Document book at page 131, which rather staggers the imagination to know what can be police measures even beyond the limits usually valid for police measures when one has seen police measures in Germany between 1933 and 1939, but if such increase was possible, and presumably it was believed to be possible than an increase was given by the defendant von Neurath, and used by him for coercion of the Czechs.
The declared basic policy of the Protectorate was concentrated upon the central objective of destroying the identity of the Czechs as a nation and absorbing their territory into the Reich, and, if the Tribunal will be good enough to turn to page 132, they will find in Document No. 862-PS, USA Exhibit No. 313, and I think that has been read to the Tribunal, still the Tribunal might bear with me so that I might indicate the nature of the document to them.
This memorandum is signed by Lt. Gen. of Infantry Friderici. It is headed "The Deputy General of the Armed Forces with the Reich Protector in Bohemia and Moravia". It is marked "Top Secret" dated 15 October 1940. That is practically a year before this defendant von Neurath went on leave, as he puts it, on 27 September 1941, and, it is called the "Basic Political Principles in the Protectorate," and there are four copies. It also had gone to the defendant Keitel and the defendant Jodl, and it begins: "On the 9 October of this year--" that is 1940:
"On 9 October of this year the office of the Reich protector held an official conference in which State Secretary SS Lt. General K. H. Frank."
That is not the defendant Frank. It is the other K. H. Frank. "--spoke about the following:
Since creation of the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, party agencies, industrial circles, as well as agencies of the central authorities of Berlin have had difficulties about the solution of the Czech problem.
After ample deliberation, the Reich Protector expressed his view about the various plans in a memorandum.
In this, three ways of solution were indicated:
A) German infiltration of Moravia and reduction of the Czech na tionality to a residual Bohemia.
This solution is considered as unsatisfactory, because the Czech pro blem, even if in a diminished form, will continue to exist.
B) Many arguments can be brought up against the most radical solution, namely, the deportation of all Czechs.
Therefore the memorandum comes to the conclusion that it can not be carried out within a reasonable space of time.
C) Assimilation of the Czechs, i.e. absorption of about half of the Czech nationality by the Germans, insofar as this is of importance by being valuable from a racial or other standpoint.
This will take place among other things, also by increasing the Arbeitseinsatz of the Czechs in the Reich territory, with the exception of the Sudeten German border district, in other words, by dispersing the closed Czech nationality.
The other half of the Czech nationality must be deprived of its power, eliminated and shipped out of the country by all sorts of methods.
This applies particularly to the racially mongoloid part, and to the "major part of the intellectual class.
The latter can scarcely be converted ideologically, and would represent a burden by constantly making claims for the leadership over the other Czech classes, and thus interfering with a rapid assimilation.
Elements which counteract the planned Germanization are to be handled roughly and should be eliminated.
The above development naturally presupposes an increased influx of Germans from the Reich territory into the Protectorate.
After a discussion, the Fuehrer has chosen Solution C (assimilation) as a directive for the solution of the Czech problem, and decided that, while keeping up the autonomy of the Protectorate on the sur face, the Germanization will have to be carried out in a centralized way by the office of the Reich Protector for years to come.
From the above no particular conclusions are drawn by the armed Forces.
This is the direction which has always been represented from here.
In this connection, I refer to my memorandum which was sent to the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, dated 12 July 1939, entitled 'The Czech Problem'." and that is signed, as I said, by the Deputy Lt. General of the Armed Forces.
That view of the Reich Protector was accepted and formed a basis of his policy. The result was a program of consolidating German control over Bohemia and Moravia by the systematic oppression of the Czechs through the abolishment of civil liberties, and the systematic undermining of the native political, economic, and cultural structure by a regime of terror, which will be dealth with by my Soviet Union colleagues. They will show clearly, I submit, that the only protection given by this defendant was a protection to the perpetrators of innumerable crimes.
I have already drawn the attention of the Tribunal to the many honors and rewards which this defendant received as his worth, and it might well be said that Hitler showered more honors on von Neurath than on some of the leading Nazis who had been with the Party since the very beginning. His appointment as President of the newly created Secret Cabinet Council in 1938 was in itself a new and singular distinction. On September 22, 1940, Hitler awarded him the War Merit Cross 1st Class as Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia. That is in the Deutsches Nachrichten - Buero, (22/9/1940), 22 September 1940, He was also awarded the Goldene Badge of the Party, and was promoted by Hitler personally from the rank of Gruppenfuehrer to Obergruppenfuehrer in the SS, on June 21, 1943.
And I also inform the Tribunal that he and Ribbentrop were the only two Germans to be awarded the Adlerorden, a distinction normally reserved for foreigners. On his seventieth birthday, February 2, 1943, it was made the occasion for most of the German newspapers to praise his many years of service to the Nazi regime. This service, as submitted by the prosecution, may be summed up in two ways:
"1) He was an internal fifth columnist among the Conservative political circles in Germany.
They had been anti-Nazi but were converted in part by seeing one of themselves, in the person of this defendant, wholeheartedly with the Nazis.
2) His previous reputation as a diplomat made public opinion abroad slow to believe that he would be a member of a cabinet which did not stand by its words and assurances.
It was most important for Hitler that his own readiness to break every treaty or commitment should be concealed as long as possible, and for this purpose he found in the defendant von Neurath his handiest tool."
That concludes the presentation against the defendant von Neurath.
THE PRESIDENT:In view of the motion which was made yesterday by counsel for the defendant Hess, the Tribunal will postpone presentation of the individual case against Hess, and will proceed with the presentation of the case by Counsel for France.
M.DUBOST (Counsel for France): If the Tribunal please, in the development of the exposure of charges which now weigh upon the defendants, my associates, the British and American Colleagues, brought the evidence that these men formed and executed a plan and plot for the domination of Europe. They have shown you what crimes against peace these men have committed themselves and made themselves guilty of in the launching of unjust wars. They have shown you that all this time the Nazi-Germany had premeditated unjust wars, and had participated in the conspiracy.
Next, my Colleagues and friends of the French Delegation have submitted documents establishing that the defendant chiefs in various degrees of Nazi-Germany are responsible for repeated violations of laws and customs of war committed by men of the Reich in the course of military operations. Their treatment, however, is for us to present the atrocities of which men, women, and children of the occupied countries of the West have been victims.
We intend to bring here the proof that the defendants in their capacity as chief of Hitler's Germany have systematically practised a policy of extermination, whose cruelty grew from day to day to the final defeat of Germany. That these atrocities were conceived and were prescribed by the Defendants as part and parcel of a system which was to permit them to accomplish and carry out a political design.
This political plan in the net which closely binds all the facts that we shall present to you, the crimes against persons and property as presented thus far by my colleagues of the French prosecution who were closely con-nected with the war.
Therefore, added to that very clear character of war crimes in this sense were those that I shall present to you, that is, by their meaning and by their scope.
They entered into the plan of a policy of domination and expansion beyond the war itself. Thus, Hitler himself gave the definition of this policy in one of his speeches on 16 May 1926. He deceived his listeners on that day as to the dangers of France, and the Ruhr country of no more than forty million inhabitants. As to the danger that France could constitute for Germany, a country highly industrialized and having a population of seventy million men, on that day Hitler said, "There is only one way for Germany to escape this encirclement, that is, the destruction of the State, and that is to destroy its mortal enemy, namely, France. When the people see this entirely distinct menace of the enemy, it must have only one aim; namely, annihilation of their enemy."
During the first month that followed their victory, the Germans seemed to have abandoned their plan of annihilation, but this was only a tactic. They hoped to drag into their way England, then again the Union of the Soviet Republic, or nations of the West, which they had enslaved. Combining also future violations, they attempted to bring these nations of the West into the path of collaboration, but the people resisted.
Then the defendants abandoned their tactics and returned to their major project, the annihilation of districts of conquered people, in order to create in Europe a place necessary for two-hundred million Germans, whom they hoped to establish there in the course of generations to come.
This destruction, this annihilation -- I repeat the very words of Hitler in his speech -- was undertaken on various projects, the elimination of inferior, or Mongoloid races, and the extermination of Bolshevism; the destruction of Judeo-Masonic influences hostile to a new pseudo-European order, in reality, of its destruction. This elimination, this extermination, turned out to be the liquidation of the allied sons, or living forces that were conflicting with Nazism. They attended to the reduction of fellow nations of people. All of this was done, as I shall demonstrate to you, in the execution of a deliberate plan, whose existence was crude, among others, by the repetition of the constancy of the things in all the occupied countries. Before this repetition, and this constancy, it is no longer possible to claim that only the one who executed the crime was guilty. This repetition and constancy proved the same criminal will, put together by the members of the German Government and by the defendants of the German Reich. It is out of this common will that was born the official policy of terrorism, and the extermination which directly places the executioners themselves for having participated in the formation of this common will that each one of the defendants here present has been placed in the rank of major war criminals. I shall return to this when having finished my presentation I shall have to remark about the juridical traditions of my country in giving a juridical classification of their crimes.
I shall give you now some indication as to the manner in which, with your authorization, I intend to continue my presentation. The facts are, I must prove to you the result from many kinds of testimony. We might have brought innumerable witnesses to the stand. Their declarations have been gathered by the French Office of Research of War Crimes. It seems to us that it would be, to simplify the session, to abbreviate this, to summarize them, and to give you only extracts from the testimony that we have received in writing.
I think, with your authorization, I shall limit myself to reading passages of the written testimony gathered in France by official organizations empowered to investigate the war crimes. However, if in the course of the presentation it appears necessary to call certain number of witnesses, we shall proceed to do so.
That, with the constant presentation, will in no way cause the slowing of the sessions of the trial, and the bringing of the evidence to the trial as quickly as possible. It is what our people expect.
The whole question of atrocities is dominated by the German terrorist policy. In this aspect it is not with precedent in the Germanic practice of war. We have only to remember the execution of hostages during the war of 1914, the execution of hostages of Salnice. But not from within have they perfected this terrorist policy; for Nazism, terror is a means of subjugating. We all remember the film that was shown, the propaganda film that was shown on Austria, and particularly at the time of the invasion of Norway.
For Nazism, terror is a means of subjugating all enslaved people, to subject them to the end of their policy. The first vision of this terroristic policy during the invasion is vivid in the memory of all Frenchmen. They saw this terrorism appearing within the smallest period, only a few months after the signing of the Armistice, red-black edged posters announcing the first killing of hostages.
We know mothers who have witnessed the execution of their sons. These executions were carried out by the occupant after anti-German incidents. These incidents were the response of the French people to the official policy of collaboration. This resistance, the resistance against this policy, stiffened, became organized, and with it the repressive measures grew in intensit until 1944, the culminating point of German terrorism in France and in the countries of the west.
At this time the Army, the Police and the SS no longer spoke of executions of hostages; they organized veritable reprisal expeditions organized in the course of which entire villages were put to flame; thousands of civilians were killed or arrested and deported. But before reaching this stage, the Germans tried to justify their criminal exactions in the eyes of public opinion, and they published, as we shall show, a real code of hostages, and pretended merely to impose respect for their law each time they proceeded to carry out reprisal executions.