Another document that has already been put in evidence, PS-3254, U.S.704, is Seyss-Inquart's statement of 10 December 1945, when he mentions that he held meetings with Goering and Hess in 1936.
On the morning that German troops eventually marched into Austria, 12 March 1938, Hess and Himmler, together, were the first of the leaders of the German Government to appear in Vienna, and they were there by midday on that day.
It was Hess who signed the law of 13 March, the next day, for the reunion of Austria with the German Reich, and the Tribunal will, no doubt, remember the occasion, which was described fully by Mr. Alderman, of the shocking celebrations which were held in anniversary of the murder of Dollfus, the celebrations being held the 24th of July, 1938, when the highlight of the occasions was a speech by Hess.
I would refer the Tribunal to a document which appears on page 165 of the document, which throws some light in his own words, both on his activity as far as Austria was concerned and also with Czechoslovakia. This was a speech that he made on 28 August 1938 at the annual meeting of the Foreign Organization. It is 3258 P S. It is already in as 262 GB. I quote from the third but last paragraph on Page 165 of the document book.
"At the close of his talk Rudolf Hess recalls the days last year in Stuttgart, when German men and women, German boys and girls in their native costumes appeared here in Stuttgart aglow with enthusiasm for the ideal of greater Germany. Patiently removed from National Socialism, but nevertheless outwardly 'Volksdeutsche' Germans of foreign citizenship.
'Today', Rudolf Hess continued, 'they also stand openly in our ranks. Proudly and happily they will march in the formation of the National Socialist movement past their Fuehrer in Nuremberg. Withall our hearts we rejoice as we see them. They have fought a long and tough battle, a battle against a treacherous and mendacious enemy.'" --and so on.
And then on the next page, 166, where he turns to discuss the struggle of the Sudeten Germany:
"The German people looks at the German racial comrades in Czechoslovakia with the profoundest sympathy for their suffering. No one in the world who loves his own people and is proud of his own people will find faults with us if from this place here we also turn our thoughts to the Sudeten German. If we say to them, that filled with admiration, we see how they are maintaining an iron discipline, despite the worse chicanery, despite terror and murder.
If it had in general required a proof."
I don't think, perhaps, it's necessary for me to read any more of that document, but it shows his interest in Czechoslovakia, and by Document 3061-PS, which has already been put in as US-126, it has been shown that during the summer of 1938--that speech was made in August of 1938--during the whole of that summer continuous conversations were being held between Henlein and Hitler, Hess, and Ribbentrop, informing the Reich Government of the general situation in Czechoslovakia. That document has been read into the transcript as page 932 of the transcript but, if anything, condemns Hess as participating in this action. It is a letter dated the 27th of September, 1938, which was a letter. It will be read. The Tribunal has had it before them. It was written by Keitel to Hess, asking for the Party's participation in the secret mobilization, which was intended to take place without even issuing the code word for mobilization. That was on the 27th of September 1938 that letter was written. It is 388-PS, and has been put in as US-26 and it appears on page 30 of the Tribunal's document book.
I would refer the Tribunal to one short document on page 120 of the document book, on which begins another speech by the defendant, a speech he made on the 7th of November 1938 on the occasion of the initiation of the Sudeten German Party into the NSDAP.
"If we had to defend our rights, then they would have really got to know us, we, the National Socialist Germans. 'The Fuehrer", he declared amidst the ringing cheers of the masses, 'learned his lessons. He armed at a speed that no one would have believed possible. When the Fuehrer has gained the power and, more specially, since the Fuehrer has awakened the resolution of the German people to put their strength behind their rights, then Germany's right will be conceded."
One might wonder what all those rights were at that time, November, 1938, when already Hitler had said on the 26th of September that he had no more territorial demands, at any rate, to make in Europe.
I turn then to his part of some fragment of evidence of the part he played in the waging of aggressive war against Poland.
On page 16 of the document book there is a report of a speech that he made on the 27th of August, 1939, which shows at least that he was taking part in the official propaganda that was being thrown at the world in those days, two days before the war was declared. I quote from the second paragraph:
"Rudolph Hess, constantly interrupted with strong applause from the German citizens living abroad as well as fellow countrymen from the District of Styria, stressed the unexampled forbearance shown by Germany towards Poland in the magnanimous offer of the Fuehrer that had endured peace between Germany and Poland. An offer that Mr. Chamberlain seems to have forgotten for he says he has heard nothing of Germany's having tried to solve certain acute present day questions by peaceful discussion. What else was the German offer then, if it was not such an attempt?"
Then he goes on to accuse Poland of agitating for war and so on.Poland's lack of responsibility is England. In view of the time, I shall quote no more of that. The document is in evidence and it becomes GB-266.
After the conquest of Poland, it was Hess that signed the decree incorporating Danzig into the Reich, decree of the 1st of September 1939, a decree incorporating Polish territories into the Reich on the 8th of October, 1939, and on the 12th of October, 1939, a decree for the administration of Polish territory, in which it was stated that regulations were to be made for the planning of German Lebensraum and economic scope. Those are all decrees in the Reichsgesetzblatt. I regret that the last two that I mentioned are not actually included in the Tribunal's document book, but the effect of them is set out in the trial brief. That, in view of the evidence that has been given as to his fifth column organization, is all that I propose to offer in respect of Poland. It must be clear that my submission will be that he was deeply involved both in the planning and in the preparation for aggressive war.
I turn to an example of his participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity. I refer only to two documents; one which appears as set out on page 18 of the trial brief, PS-3245, which becomes GB-267.
It was an order issued by Hess through the Party chancellory demanding support from the Party for recruiting members for the Waffen SS; and one paragraph which is set out in the trial brief I quote:
"The units of the Waffen SS, consisting of National Socialists, are more suitable than other armed units for the specific tasks to be solved in the occupied eastern territories due to their intensive National Socialist training in regard to questions of race and nationality."
But, in view of what was happening and what was going to happen in the occupied eastern territories by the Waffen SS, we haven't, I know, forgotten the part they played in the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto. I suggest that the inference that can be drawn from that letter is damning.
There is one further document. That document, I might say, will be found on page 121 of the Tribunal's document book. The other document that I would refer to in this respect is R-96, which becomes GB-268, and again that will be found on page 175 of the document book. It's a letter written by the Reich Minister of Justice to the Chief of the Reich Chancellor on the 17th of April, 1941, and it is discussing proposed penal laws for Jews and Poles in the occupied territories. It shows quite clearly that Hess has been involved in discussions on this subject because it refers to certain proposals that he himself has made. Lord, I would venture to draw the attention of the Tribunal to one or two passages. I quote from the beginning of that letter on page 175.
"It has been my opinion from the outset that special conditions prevailing in the annexed eastern territories require special measures of penal law and penal procedure against Poles and Jews."
And then I go on to the second paragraph, the first two lines.
"The aim to create a special law for Poles and Jews in the eastern territories was pursued further according to plan by the Ordinance dated 6 June 1940. By this Ordinance German penal law, which had been used in the eastern territories already from the outset was formally made applicable.
There I skip three lines.
"The procedure for enforcing a prosecution has been abrogated for it seems intolerable that Poles or Jews should be able to force the German public prosecutor to instigate an indictment.
Poles and Jews have also been deprived of the right to prosecute in their own names or join the public prosecutor in an action. In addition in this special law in the sphere of procedure, some special conditions have been included in Article 2 of the introductory Ordinance. These provisions were established in agreement with the Reich Minister of Interior on the basis of needs which had made themselves felt. From the beginning it was intended to augment the special conditions in case of need. This need which had been apparent in the meantime was to be met by an executive and supplementary order which was added to the original ordinance and which was referred to in the letter from the Fuehrer's deputies."
I turn to the next page, top of the page:
"Later I was informed of the express wish of the Fuehrer. As a matter of principle, Poles, and I presume the Jews, are to be treated differently from the Germans within this sphere of penal law. After preliminary discussions, et cetera, I drew up the enclosed draft concerning criminal law and procedure against Poles and Jews."
I skip to the next paragraph: "The draft represents altogether special law, both in the sphere of penal law and penal procedure.
"The suggestions of the Deputy Fuehrer have been taken into consideration to a far-reaching extent. Number 1: Paragraph 3 contains a general crime formula on the basis of which any Pole or Jew in the Eastern territory can in future be prosecuted an any kind of punishment can be inflicted on him for any attitude or action which is considered punishable and is directed against Germans."
Then I go on to the next paragraph:
"In accordance with the opinion of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, I started from the point of view that the Pole is less susceptible to the infliction of ordinary imprisonment."
And a few lines further down, "Under these new kinds of punishment prisoners are to be lodged outside prisons in camps and are to be forced to do heavy and heaviest labor."
I go to the next page, second paragraph:
"The introduction of corporal punishment, which the Deputy of the Fuehrer has brought up for discussion, has not been included in the draft. I cannot agree to this type of punishment because its infliction does not, in my opinion, correspond to the cultural level of the German people."
My Lord, as I said, the purpose of that document is to show that the Deputy of the Fuehrer was well aware of what was going on in the Eastern occupied territories and indeed was advocating even stronger measures than the Reich Minister of Justice was prepared to accept.
I turn then to give such evidence as I can upon the flight of the defendant Hess to England on the 10th of May 1941.
On that evening he landed in Scotland, quite close, within 12 miles of the home of the Duke of Hamilton, and on landing he at once asked to be taken to the Duke of Hamilton, whom he wanted to see. He gave a false name and was shut up, and on the following day, the 11th of May, he had an interview with the Duke of Hamilton, a report of which is set out in the addendum to the document book, if the Tribunal would now turn to the small addendum to the document book.
THE PRESIDENT:Has this been put in evidence yet or not?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES:My Lord, I am putting it in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT:Is it properly authenticated?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES:It is authenticated, and the original is certified as being a Government report from the files of the Foreign Office in London. There are four reports altogether, which come from the Foreign Office file and which have been certified as reports from the Foreign Office.
The first one that I would refer to is M-116, which becomes GB-269, and is a report on the interview that he had with the Duke of Hamilton on the 11th of May 1941. I can summarize most of the contents of that report by saying that he introduced himself as Hess. He said that he had met the Duke of Hamilton at the Olympic Games in 1936, and that his old friend, Haushofer, under whom he studied at Munich University after the last war had suggested that he, Hess, should make contact with the Duke of Hamilton.
He said that in order to do so he had already tried to fly three times before, the first being in December of 1940, the previous year.
The reasons he then gave for his visit will be found on the second page of that document. I quote from the end of the fourth line.
I beg your pardon. Perhaps I ought to say really before that, that he said that he had said earlier in the interview that Germany was willing for peace with England; that she was certain to win the war; and he himself was anxious to stop the unnecessary slaughter that would otherwise inevitably take place.
"He asked me if I could get together leading members of my party to talk over things with a view to making peace proposals. I replied that there was now only one party in this country. He then said he could tell me what Hitler's peace terms would be:
"First, he would insist on an arrangement whereby our two countries would never go to war again. I questioned him as to how that arrangement could be brought about, and he replied that one of the conditions of course is that Britain would give up her traditional policy of always opposing the strongest power in Europe."
I think I need really read no more of that document, because he enlarges upon those proposals in the subsequent interviews that he had on the 13th, 14th, and 15th of May with Mr. Kirkpatrick of the Foreign Office.
I turn to M-117, which becomes 270, which is another official report of the interview with Mr. Kirkpatrick on the 13th of May. Again I can summarize practically all of it.
He started off by explaining the chain of circumstances which led up to his present situation, which really involved a history of Europe from the end of the last war up to that time. He dealt with Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, saying in each case that Germany was justified and it was all England's and France's fault that they had had to get in it. He blamed England entirely for starting the war. He did say--and I quote one line which is of interest, dealing with Munich. He said "The intervention of Mr. Chamberlain-
THEPRESIDENT: (Interposing) Where are you reading?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: I am reading from the fifth paragraph, my Lord.
It starts off:
"The Czechoslovakian crisis was caused by the French determination, expressed by the French Air Ministry, to make Czechoslovakia an air base against Germany. It was Hitler's duty to scotch this plot. The intervention of Mr. Chamberlain and the Munich conference had been a source of great relief to Hitler."
If one remembers somewhere having heard in the course of this case Hitler saying that he had of course no intention of abiding by that agreement at all, that that would never do.
I go on with that document. He then says that Germany must win the war. He says that the bombing of England had only just started, and only just started with the greatest reluctance. As he puts it at the tope of page 2, the German production of U-Boats was enormous. They had enormous raw material resources in occupied territory, and the confidence in Hitler and in final victory in Germany was complete; and that there was no kind of hope for any revolution amongst the German people.
He gave his reasons for his flight, his personal reasons again, that he was horrified at the prospect of a long war. England could not win, and therefore she had better make peace now. He said the Fuehrer entertained no designs against England. He had no idea of world domination, and he would greatly regret the collapse of the British Empire.
I quote from the last three lines of the large paragraph in the center of the page:
"At this point Hess tried to make my flesh creep by emphasizing that the avaricious Americans had fell designs on the Empire. Canada would certainly be incorporated in the United States.
"Reverting to Hitler's attitude, he said that only as recently as May 3rd after his Reichstag speech, Hitler had declared to him that he had no oppressive demands to make of England.
"The solution which Herr Hess proposed was that England should give Germany a free hand in Europe, and Germany would give England a completely free hand in the Empire, with the sole reservation that we should return Germany's ex-colonies, which she required as a source of raw materials.
I asked, in order to draw him on the subject of Hitler's attitude to Russia, whether he included Russia in Europe or in Asia.
He replied 'In Asia.' I then retorted that under the terms of his proposal, since Germany would only have a free hand in Europe, she would not be at liberty to attack Russia.
Herr Hess reacted quickly by remarking that Germany had certain demands to make of Russia which would have to be satisfied either by negotiation or as the result of a war.
He added, however, that there was no foundation for the rumors now being spread that Hitler was contemplating an early attack on Russia.
"I then asked about Italian aims and he said that he did not know them.
I replied that it was a matter of some importance. He brushed this aside and said that he was sure that Italy's claims would not be excessive.
I suggested that Italy scarcely deserved anything, but he begged to differ.
Italy had rendered considerable services to Germany, and besides England had compensated defeated nations like Rumania after the last war.
"Finally, as we were leaving the room, Herr Hess delivered a parting shot.
He had forgotten, he declared, to emphasize that the proposal could only be considered on the understanding that it was negotiated by Germany with an English Government other than the present British Government.
Mr. Churchill, who had planned the war since 1936, and his colleagues who had lent themselves to his war policy, were not persons with whom the Fuehrer could negotiate."
My Lord, presumably when he came over he was not attempting to be funny.
One can only conclude from these reports that at that time the people in Germany and the German Government really had no kind of idea of what the conditions in England were like at all, but throughout it appears that this man thought England was ruled by Churchill and a small war-mongering gang.
It only needed him to come over and make a peace proposal for Churchill to be turned out in the course of two or three days.
I go on, then, to the next document, my Lord. I am afraid that it is now half past five.
I have only the other reports and one further document to refer the Tribunal to.
THE PRESIDENT:I think you had better go on. We will finish tonight.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am sorry it has taken so long.
I go on to the next interview of the 14th of May, which is M-118 and becomes 271.
He started off that interview by making certain complaints about the treatment, asking for a number of things, including, "Three Men in a Boat," the book which perhaps is one of the few signs that any of these Defendants have shown any kind of culture or normal feelings at all.
He described his flight to England, and then I quote from the third paragraph.
"He then passed to political questions. He said that, on reflection, he had omitted to explain that there were two further conditions attached to his peace proposals.
First: Germany could not leave Iraq in the lurch.
The Iraquis had fought for Germany and Germany would, therefore, have to require us to evacuate Iraq.
I observed that this was going considerably beyond the original proposal that German interests should be confined to Europe, but he retorted that, taken as a whole, his proposals were more than fair.
The second condition was that the peace agreement should contain a provision for the reciprocal indemnification of British and German nationals, whose property had been expropriated as the result of war.
"Herr Hess concluded by saying that he wished to impress on us that Germany must win the war by blockade.
We had no conception of the number of submarines now building in Germany.
Hitler always did things on a grand scale and devastating submarine war, supported by new types of aircraft, would very shortly succeed in establishing a completely effective blockade of England.
It was fruitless for anyone here to imagine that England could capitulate and that the war could be waged from the Empire.
It was Hitler's intention, in such an eventuality, to continue the blockade of England, even though the island had capitulated, so that we would have to face the deliberate starvation of the population of these islands."
I think I can leave then that interview. Nothing more was added.
I turn to the next document, M-119, which becomes 272, and which is the report of the interview of the 15th of May, the third and last interview with Mr. Kirkpatrick.
I quote from the third paragraph.
There was some mention of Iraq at the beginning of the interview, and then Mr. Kirkpatrick writes.
"I then throw a fly over him about Ireland. He said that in all his talks with Hitler, the subject of Ireland had never been mentioned except incidentally.
Ireland had done nothing for Germany in this war and it was therefore to be supposed that Hitler would not concern himself in Anglo-Irish relations.
We had some little conversation about the difficulty of reconciling the wishes of the South and North and from this we passed to American interest in Ireland, and so to America.
"On the subject of America, Hess took the following line. The Germans reckoned with American intervention and were not afraid of it.
They knew all about American aircraft production and the quality of the aircraft.
Germany could outbuild England and America combined.
"Germany had no designs on America. The so-called German peril was a ludicrous figment of imagination.
Hitler's interests were European.
"If we made peace now, America would be furious. America really wanted to inherit the British Empire.
"Hess concluded by saying that Hitler really wanted a permanent understanding with us on a basis which preserved the Empire intact.
His own flight was intended to give us a chance of opening conversations without loss of prestige.
If we rejected this chance, it would be clear proof that we desired no understanding with Germany, and Hitler would be entitled, in fact it would be his duty, to destroy us utterly and to keep us after the war in a state of permanent subjection."
My Lord, those report show the substantial and indeed the whole substance of the visit.
His humanitarian reasons for coming, which sounded so well between the 10th and 15th of May, took on quite a different light when barely a little more than a month later Germany attacked the Soviet Union.
One cannot help remembering an exact parallel between this business and that which took place before Germany attacked Poland when every effort was made to keep England out of the war and so let her fight her battle on one front only.
Here the same thing appears to be happening, and what is more, we have it from himself in the course of those interviews that at that time Germany had no intentions of attacking Russia immediately at all.
Well, that must be untrue, because it will be remembered, and the evidence is set out in the trial brief, it will be remembered that so far back as November 1940 there had been plans being made, initial plans, for the invasion of Russia.
On the 18th of December 1940 directive ordered preparations to be completed by the 15th of May, 1941.
On the 3rd of April 1941 orders were given delaying the Barbarossa action for five weeks, and on the 30th of April 1941, 10 days before he arrived in England, D-day was actually fixed for the invasion of Russia for the 22nd of June.
Well, now, in my submission, nobody who held the position that this defendant did at that time, in charge of the foreign organization, Deputy to the Fuehrer, only been made designate successor number two a year ago -nobody in that position could have been kept in ignorance of those preparations and of those plans.
My Lord, my submission, therefore, is that the only reason he came to England was not humanitarian at all, but purely, as I say, to allow Germany to fight her battle against Russia on one front only.
There is -- and I hesitate to refer the Tribunal to any other document -but there is one document, which is a document of extreme interest from many points of view and has only just come to light. I did ask that it should be put in at the back of the Tribunal's document book, but if it has not been I have some spare copies which perhaps the clerk may now hand out.
It is Document PS-1866, which becomes 273, and it is an account of conversations between Ribbentrop and Mussolini and Ciano on the 13th of May 1941, signed by Schmidt.
It carries the question very little further, but there has existed and still does exist the question of course as to whether or not the flight to England was undertaken with the knowledge and approval of Hitler or any other members of the Government or on his own initiative and in complete secrecy. He himself has always maintained that he did it secretly. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how he could have been planning it and practising it for months before and having tried three times before without anybody knowing.
This account of the conversations with the Italians cast little further light on it, but it does show anyway what Ribbentrop is saying to the Italians, their allies, three days later. I would ask the Tribunal to look at and read the first page of this document, and the paragraph of the next page.
"To begin with the Reich Minister conveyed the Fuehrer's greetings to the Duce.
"He would shortly propose to the Duce a date for the planned meeting, which he would like to take place as soon as possible.
As the place for the meeting he would probably prefer the Brenner. At the present moment he was, as the Duce could well understand, still busy with the Hess affair and with a few military matters.
"The Duce replied that he would agree with all the Fuehrer's proposals," and so on.
"The Reich foreign minister then said that the Fuehrer had sent him to the Duce in order to inform him about the Hess affair and the conversation with Admiral Darlan about the Hess affair. He remarked that the Fuehrer had been completely taken aback by Hess's action, and that it had been the action of a lunatic.
"Hess had been suffering for a long time from a bilious complaint and had fallen into the hands of magnetists and nature-cure doctors who allowed his state of helath to become worse.
"All these matters were being investigated at the moment as well as the responsibility of the aides-de-camp who had known about Hess' forbidden flights. Hess had for weeks carried out secret practice flights in an ME 110. Naturally he had acted only from idealistic motives. His being unfaithful to the Fuehrer was utterly out of the question. His conduct had to be explained by a kind of mysticism and a state of mind caused by his illness."
And it goes on, and the gist of it really is that Ribbentrop is emphasizing again that it was done without the authority of Hitler or anyone else in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT:Can't you read the beginning of the next paragraph?
SIRGRIFFITH-JONES: "Being sympathetically inclined towards England Hess had conceived the crazy idea of using Great Britain's Fascist circles to persuade the British to give in. He had explained all this in a long and confused letter to the Fuehrer. When this letter reached the Fuehrer, Hess was already in England. It was hoped in Germany that he would perhaps have an accident on the way, but he was now really in England and had tried to contact the former Marquis of Clydesdale, the present Duke of Hamilton. Hess quite wrongly considered him as a great friend of Germany and had flown to the neighborhood of his castle in Scotland."
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
SIR GRIFFITH JONES:That is what Ribbentrop is saying to Mussolini. Ribbentrop, we know, is a liar, and indeed what he said later on in an interview proves it, and I would thus refer to page five -or rather to the bottom of page four -- if the Tribunal would bear with me while I read that, because it would have been put in previously during this trial had this document been known of. And as I am putting it in now, perhaps I might be allowed to read this one paragraph which really concerns the defendant Ribbentrop.
"The Duce returned to his remark concerning the united front of Europe against England and the two countries, Spain and Russia, that were absent from it, with the remark that to him it seemed that it would be advantageous if a policy of collaboration with Russia could be carried out. He asked the Reich Foreign Minister whether Germany excluded such a possibility, that is, collaboration with Russia. The Reich Foreign Minister replied that Germany had treaties with Russia, and that the relations between the two countries were in other respects correct. He personally did not believe that Stalin would undertake anything against Germany, but should he do so, or should he carry out a policy that was intolerable to Germany then he would be destroyed within three months.The Duce agreed to this. The Fuehrer would certainly not look for any quarrel, but he had nevertheless taken precautions" -- this is again, I think, Ribbentrop speaking -"The Fuehrer would certainly not look for any quarrel, but he had nevertheless taken precautions for all eventualities. He had in new way come to any decision, but as a result of certain occurrences and want of clearness on the part of the Russians, he had become suspicious. Thus, for example, the Russians had strengthened their forces along their western frontier, which of course, caused Germany to reinforce her troops too, but only after theRussians started it."
It really must have been a remarkable position in the German Government if neither the Fuehrer nor the foreign secretary knew on the 13th of May 1941 that Germany was going to attack Russia a month later.
My Lord, that is the evidence which I have to present to the Tribunal on this matter.
I regret that this should have taken so long. I am grateful to Your Honors for your patience.
(Whereupon at 1800 hours the Court adjourned to reconvene at 1000 hours 8 February 1946). Official transcript of the International Military Tribunal, in the matter of:
The United States of America, the French Re public, the United Kingdom of Great Bri tain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, against Hermann Wilhelm Goering, et al,Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 8 February 1946, 1010-1245, Lord Justice Lawrence presiding.
THE PRESIDENT:I call on General Rudenko for the Soviet Union.
GENERAL RUDENKO:May it please your Honors, in entering upon the delivery of my opening statement, the last to be made at this trial by the chief prosecutors, I am fully conscious of the utmost historical importance of these proceedings.
For the first time in the history of mankind is justice confronted with crimes committed on such a scale, with crimes which have entailed such grave consequences.
It is for the first time that before a court of justice appear criminals who, having taken possession of a whole state, made this state an instrument of their monstrous crimes.
It is, also, for the first time that by judging these defendants, we sit in judgment not only on the defendants themselves, but also on the criminal institutions and organizations which they created, and over the fiendish "theories" and "ideas" which they spread with the view to commit crimes against peace and humanity, crimes which were designed by them far in advance of their perpetration.
Nine months ago after having tortured for a number of years of bloody warfare the freedom-loving nations of Europe, Hitlerite Germany collapsed under the hammering blows of the combined armed forces of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition. On 8 May 1945, Hitlerite Germany was compelled to lay down its arms, having suffered a military and political defeat hitherto unequalled in history.
Hitlerism imposed upon the world a war which caused the freedom-loving nations innumerable privations and endless sufferings. Millions of people fell as victims of the war, initiated by the Hitlerite brigands, who embarked on a dream of conquering the free peoples of the democratic countries and of estab lishing the rules of Hitlerite tyranny in Europe and in the entire world.
The day has come, when the peoples of the world demand a just retribution and a severe punishment of the Hitlerite hangmen; when they demand severe punishment of the criminals.
All the outrages individually or jointly committed by the major Hitlerite war criminals, all together and each one individually, shall be considered by you, your Honors, with all the thoroughness and attention which the law, the charter of the International Military Tribunal, justice and our conscience require.
We charge the defendants with the initiation, instigation, and direct execution, individually or through their agents, of the criminal plan of conspiracy. To the execution of this plan, was committed the entire machinery of the Hitlerite state, with all its governmental agencies and institutions, with its army, police, the so called public agencies, as set out in the indictment and particularly in Appendix B.
Before entering upon the examination of the concrete events and facts, which lie at the foundation of the charges raised against the defendants, I think it necessary to dwell on certain general legal questions, connected with the proceedings. This is indispensible, because the present trial is the first one in history, where justice is being done by an agency of an International legal system - the International Military Tribunal. This also becomes necessary since special consideration was given to questions of law in both the written and oral motions made before the Tribunal.
The first and the most general legal problem which, in my opinion, has to be considered by the Tribunal, is the problem of legality. Contrary to the system of fascist tyranny, and arbitrary fascist practices, the Great Democracies, which have established this Tribunal, as well as all democracies throughout the world, exist and act on a firm legal basis. But neither the positive law, nor the concept of law can be identical in the national and the international meaning of these terms. Lex in the meaning of national law is an act of legislative power of a state, clothed in a proper form. In the meaning of international law, it is different. In the international field, there never existed, nor do now exist, any legislative bodies which are competent to pass laws which are binding on individual states.
The legal system of inter-
national relations, which includes those relations which are manifested in the coordinated effort, to combat criminality, is based on different legal principles. In the international field the basic source of law and the only lawsetting act is a treaty, an agreement between states. Accordingly in the same ways as the duly promulgated laws passed by legislative bodies and properly published are an absolute and sufficient legal basis for the administration of national justice, so in the international field an international treaty is an absolute and sifficient legal basis for the implementation and the activity of agencies of international justice, created by the signatories.
The International Military Tribunal was established for the trial and punishment of major war criminals on the basis of the London Agreement dated August 8, 1945, signed by the four countries which acted in the interests of all freedom-loving nations. Being an integral part of this Agreement, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, is to be considered an unquestionable and sufficient legislative act, defining and determining the basis and the procedure for the trial and punishment of major war criminals. Provoked by fear of responsibility or, at best, by insufficient knowledge of the organic nature of international justice, the references to the principle "nullum crimen sine lege" or to the principle that "a statute cannot have retroactive power", are not applicable because of the following fundamental decisive fact: The Charter of the Tribunal is in force and in operation and all its provisions possess absolute and binding force.
Pursuant to Article 6 of the Charter, the Defendants are charged with crimes against peace, crimes committed in violation of rules and customs of war, and crimes against humanity. We must state with great satisfaction, that, in placing on such actions the stigma of criminality, the Charter of the Tribunal reduced to rules of law those international principles and ideas, which for many years were set forth in the defense of law and justice in the field of international relations.
First of all, the criminal aggression. For a number of decades, nations interested in strengthening the cause of peace were proclaiming and advocating the idea that aggression is the gravest encroachment on the peaceful relations between nations, a most serious international crime.