The Nuremberg Trial

941

Albert Speer: NOT GUILTY ON COUNTS ONE AND TWO; GUILTY ON COUNTS THREE AND FOUR

(Justice Francis Biddle)

speer

THE DEFENDANT SPEER

Speer is indicted under all four Counts. Speer joined the Nazi Party in 1932. In 1934, he was made Hitler’s architect and became a close personal confidant. Shortly thereafter he was made a department head in the German Labor Front and the official in charge of capital construction on the staff of the Deputy to the Fuehrer, positions which he held through 1941. On February 15, 1942, after the death of Fritz Todt, Speer was appointed Chief of the Organization Todt and Reich Minister for Armaments and Munitions (after September 2, 1943, for Armaments and War Production). The positions were supplemented by his appointments in March and April 1942 as Plenipotentiary General for Armaments and as a member of the Central Planning Board, both within the Four-Year Plan. Speer was a member of the Reichstag from 1941 until the end of the war.

Crimes against Peace

The Tribunal is of opinion that Speer’s activities do not amount to initiating, planning, or preparing wars of aggression, or of conspiring to that end. He became the head of the armament industry well after all of the wars had been commenced and were under way. His activities in charge of German armament production were in aid of the war effort in the same way that other productive enterprises aid in the waging of war; but the Tribunal is not prepared to find that such activities involve engaging in the common plan to wage aggressive war as charged under Count One, or waging aggressive war as charged under Count Two.

War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity

The evidence introduced against Speer under Counts Three and, Four relates entirely to his participation in the slave labor program. Speer himself had no direct administrative responsibility for this program. Although he had advocated the appointment of a Plenipotentiary General for the Utilization of Labor because he wanted one central authority with whom he could deal on labor matters, he did not obtain administrative control over Sauckel. Sauckel was appointed directly by Hitler, under the decree of March 21, 1942, which provided that he should be directly responsible to Goering, as Plenipotentiary of the Four-Year Plan.

As Reich Minister for Armaments and Munitions and Plenipotentiary General for Armaments under the Four-Year Plan, Speer had extensive authority over production. His original authority was over construction and production of arms for the OKH. This was progressively expanded to include naval armaments, civilian production, and finally, on August 1, 1944, air armament. As the dominant member of the Central Planning Board, which had supreme authority for the scheduling of German production and the allocation and development of raw materials, Speer took the position that the board had authority to instruct Sauckel to provide laborers for industries under its control and succeeded in sustaining this position over the objection of Sauckel. The practice was developed under which Speer transmitted to Sauckel an estimate of the total number of workers needed; Sauckel obtained the labor and allocated it to the various industries in accordance with instructions supplied by Speer.

Speer knew when he made his demands on Sauckel that they would be supplied by foreign, laborers serving under compulsion. He participated in conferences involving the extension of the slave labor program for the purpose of satisfying his demands. He was present at a conference held during August 10-12, 1942, with Hitler and Sauckel, at which it was agreed that Sauckel should bring laborers by force from occupied territories where this was necessary to satisfy the labor needs of the industries under Speer’s control. Speer also attended a conference in Hitler’s headquarters on January 4, 1944, at which the decision was made that Sauckel should obtain “at least 4 million new workers from occupied territories” in order to satisfy the demands for labor made by Speer, although Sauckel indicated that he could, do this only with help from Himmler.

Sauckel continually informed Speer and his representatives that foreign laborers were being obtained by force. At a meeting of March 1, 1944, Speer’s deputy questioned Sauckel very closely about his failure to live up to the obligation to supply 4 million workers from occupied territories. In some cases, Speer demanded laborers from specific foreign countries. Thus, at the conference of August 10-12, 1942, Sauckel was instructed to supply Speer with “a further million Russian laborers for the German armament industry up to and including October 1942.” At a meeting of the Central Planning Board on April 22, 1943, Speer discussed plans to obtain Russian laborers for use in the coal mines and flatly vetoed the suggestion that this labor deficit should be made up by German labor.

Speer has argued that he advocated the reorganization of the labor program to place a greater emphasis on utilization of German labor in war production in Germany and on the use of labor in occupied countries in local production of consumer goods formerly produced in Germany. Speer took steps in this direction by establishing the so-called “blocked industries” in the occupied territories which were used to produce goods to be shipped to Germany. Employees of these industries were immune from deportation to Germany as slave laborers and any worker who had been ordered to go to Germany could avoid deportation if he went to work for a blocked industry. This system, although somewhat less inhumane than deportation to Germany, was still illegal. The system of blocked industries played only a small part in the overall slave labor program, and Speer urged its cooperation with the slave labor program, knowing the way in which it was actually being administered. In an official sense, he was its principal beneficiary and he constantly urged its extension,

Speer was also directly involved in the utilization of forced labor as chief of the Organization Todt. The Organization Todt functioned principally in the occupied areas on such projects as the Atlantic Wall and the construction of military highways, and Speer has admitted that he relied on compulsory service to keep it adequately staffed. He also used concentration camp labor in the industries under his control. He originally arranged to tap this source of labor for use in small out-of-the-way factories; and later, fearful of Himmler’s jurisdictional ambitions, attempted to use as few concentration camp workers as possible.

Speer was also involved in the use of prisoners of war in armament industries, but contends that he only utilized Soviet prisoners of war in industries covered by the Geneva Convention.

Speer’s position was such that he was not directly concerned with the cruelty in the administration of the slave labor program, although he was aware of its existence. For example, at meetings of the Central Planning Board, he was informed that his demands for labor were so large as to necessitate violent methods in recruiting. At a meeting of the Central Planning Board on October 30, 1942, Speer voiced his opinion that many slave laborers who claimed to be sick were malingerers and stated: “There is nothing to be said against SS and Police taking drastic steps and putting those known as slackers into concentration camps.” Speer, however, insisted that the slave laborers be given adequate food and working conditions so that they could work efficiently.

In mitigation it must be recognized that Speer’s establishment of blocked industries did keep many laborers in their homes and that in the closing stages of the war he was one of the few men who had the courage to tell Hitler that the war was lost and to take steps to prevent the senseless destruction of production facilities, both in occupied territories and in Germany. He carried out his opposition to Hitler’s scorched earth program in some of the Western countries and in Germany by deliberately sabotaging it at considerable personal risk.

Conclusion

The Tribunal finds that Speer is not guilty on Counts One and Two, but is guilty under Counts Three and Four.

942

Konstantin von Neurath: GUILTY ON ALL FOUR COUNTS

(Justice Henri Donnedieu de Vabres)

vneurath

THE DEFENDANT VON NEURATH

Von Neurath is indicted under all four Counts. He is a professional diplomat who served as German Ambassador to Great Britain from 1930 to 1932. On 2 June 1932, he was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Von Papen Cabinet, a position which he held under the Cabinets of Von Schleicher and Hitler. Von Neurath resigned as Minister of Foreign Affairs on 4 February 1938, and was made Reich Minister without Portfolio, President of the Secret Cabinet Council, and a member of the Reich Defense Council. On 18 March 1939, he was appointed Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia and served in this capacity until 27 September 1941. He held the formal rank of Obergruppenfuehrer in the SS.

Crimes against Peace

As Minister of Foreign Affairs, Von Neurath advised Hitler in connection with the withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and the League of Nations on 14 October 1933; the institution of rearmament; the passage, on 16 March 1935, Of the law for universal military service; and the passage, on 21 May 1935, of the secret Reich Defense Law. He was a key figure in the negotiation of the Naval Accord entered into between Germany and England on 18 June 1935. Von Neurath played an important part in Hitler’s decision to reoccupy the Rhineland on 7 March 1936, and predicted that the occupation could be carried through without any reprisals from the French. On 18 May 1936, he told the American Ambassador to France that it was the policy of the German Government to do nothing in foreign affairs until “the Rhineland had been digested,” and that as soon as the fortifications in the Rhineland had been constructed and the countries of central Europe realized that France could not enter Germany at will, “all those countries will begin to feel very differently about their foreign policies and a new constellation will develop.”

Von Neurath took part in the Hossbach conference of 5 November 1937. He has testified that he was so shocked by Hitler’s statements that he had a heart attack. Shortly thereafter, he offered to resign, and his resignation was accepted on 4 February 1938, at the same time that Von Fritsch and Von Blomberg were dismissed. Yet with knowledge of Hitler’s aggressive plans, he retained a formal relationship with the Nazi regime as Reich Minister without Portfolio, President of the Secret Cabinet Council, and a member of the Reich Defense Council. He took charge of the Foreign Office at the time of the occupation of Austria, assured the British, Ambassador that this had not been caused by a German ultimatum, and informed the Czechoslovakian Minister that Germany intended to abide by its arbitration convention with Czechoslovakia. Von Neurath participated in the last phase of the negotiations preceding the Munich Pact but contends that he entered these discussions only to urge Hitler to make every effort to settle the issues by peaceful means.

Criminal Activities in Czechoslovakia

Von Neurath was appointed Reich Protector for Bohemia and Moravia on 18 March 1939. Bohemia and Moravia were occupied by military force. Hacha’s consent, obtained as it was by duress, cannot be considered as justifying the occupation. Hitler’s decree of 16 March 1939, establishing the Protectorate, stated that this new territory should “belong henceforth to the territory of the German Reich,” an assumption that the Republic of Czechoslovakia no longer existed. But it also went on the theory that Bohemia and Moravia retained their sovereignty subject only to the interests of Germany as expressed by the Protectorate. Therefore, even if the doctrine of subjugation should be considered to be applicable to territory occupied by aggressive action, the Tribunal does not believe that this proclamation amounted to an incorporation which was sufficient to bring the doctrine into effect. The occupation of Bohemia and Moravia must therefore be. considered a military occupation covered by the rules of warfare. Although Czechoslovakia was not a party to the Hague Convention of 1907, the rules of land warfare expressed in this Convention are declaratory of existing international law and hence are applicable.

As Reich Protector, Von Neurath instituted an administration in Bohemia and Moravia similar to that in effect in Germany. The free press, political parties, and trade unions were abolished. All groups which might serve as opposition were outlawed. Czechoslovakian industry was worked into the structure of German war production, and exploited for the German war effort. Nazi anti-Semitic policies and laws were also introduced. Jews were barred from leading positions in government and business.

In August 1939, Von Neurath issued a proclamation warning against any acts of sabotage and stating that “the responsibility for all acts of sabotage is attributed not only to individual perpetrators but to the entire Czech population.” When the war broke out on 1 September 1939, 8,000 prominent Czechs were arrested by the Security Police in Bohemia and Moravia and put into protective custody. Many of this group died in concentration camps as a result of mistreatment.

In October and November 1939, Czechoslovakian students held a series of demonstrations. As a result, on Hitler’s orders all universities were closed, 1,200 students imprisoned, and the nine leaders of the demonstration shot by Security Police and SD. Von Neurath testified that he was not informed of this action in advance, but it was announced by proclamation over his signature posted on placards throughout the Protectorate, which he claims, however, was done without his authority.

On 31 August 1940, Von Neurath transmitted to Lammers a memorandum which he had prepared dealing with the future of the Protectorate, and a memorandum with his approval prepared by Karl Hermann Frank on the same subject. Both dealt with the question of Germanization and proposed that the majority of the Czechs might be assimilated racially into the German nation. Both advocated the elimination of the Czechoslovakian intelligentsia and other groups which might resist Germanization, Von Neurath’s by expulsion, Frank’s by expulsion or “special treatment.”

Von Neurath has argued that the actual enforcement of the repressive measures was carried out by the Security Police and SD who were under the control of his state secretary, Karl Hermann Frank, who was appointed at the suggestion of Himmler and who, as Higher SS and Police Leader, reported directly to Himmler. Von Neurath further argues that anti-Semitic measures and those resulting in economic exploitation were put into effect in the Protectorate as the result of policies decided upon in the Reich. However this may be, he served as the chief German official in the Protectorate when the administration of this territory played an important role in the wars of aggression which Germany was waging in the East, knowing that war crimes and crimes against humanity were being committed under his authority.

In mitigation it must be remembered that he did intervene with the Security Police and SD for the release of many of the Czechoslovaks who were arrested on 1 September 1939, and for the release of students arrested later in the fall. On 23 September 1941, he was summoned before Hitler and told that he was not being harsh enough and that Heydrich was being sent to the Protectorate to combat the Czechoslovakian resistance groups. Von Neurath attempted to dissuade Hitler from sending Heydrich, and when he was not successful offered to resign. When his resignation was not accepted he went on leave, on 27 September 1941, and refused to act as Protector after that date. His resignation was formally accepted in August 1943.

Conclusion

The Tribunal finds that Von Neurath is guilty under all four Counts.

943

Hans Fritzsche: NOT GUILTY

(Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence)

fritzsche

THE DEFENDANT FRITZSCHE

Fritzsche is indicted on Counts One, Three, and Four. He was best known as a radio commentator, discussing once a week the events of the day on his own program, “Hans Fritzsche Speaks.” He began broadcasting in September 1932; in the same year he was made the head of the Wireless News Service, a Reich Government agency. When on May 1, 1933, this agency was incorporated by the National Socialists into their Reich Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, Fritzsche became a member of the Nazi Party and went to that Ministry. In December 1938, he became head of the Home Press Division of the Ministry; in October 1942, he was promoted to the rank of Ministerial Director. After serving briefly on the Eastern Front in a propaganda company, he was, in November 1942, made head of the Radio Division of the Propaganda Ministry and Plenipotentiary for the Political Organization of the Greater German Radio.

Crimes against Peace

As head of the Home Press Division, Fritzsche supervised the German press of 2,300 daily newspapers. In pursuance of this function, he held daily press conferences to deliver the directives of the Propaganda Ministry to these papers. He was, however, subordinate to Dietrich, the Reich Press Chief, who was in turn a subordinate of Goebbels. It was Dietrich who received the directives to the press of Goebbels and other Reich Ministers, and prepared them as instructions which he then handed to Fritzsche for the press.

From time to time, the “Daily Paroles of the Reich Press Chief,” as these instructions were labelled, directed the press to present to the people certain themes, such as the leadership principle, the Jewish problem, the problem of living space, or other standard Nazi ideas. A vigorous propaganda campaign was carried out before each major act of aggression. While Fritzsche headed the Home Press Division, he instructed the press how the actions or wars against Bohemia and Moravia, Poland, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union should be dealt with. Fritzsche had no control of the formulation of these propaganda policies. He was merely a conduit to the press of the instructions handed him by Dietrich. In February 1939 and before the absorption of Bohemia and Moravia, for instance, he received Dietrich’s order to bring to the attention of the press Slovakia’s efforts for independence, and the anti-Germanic policies and politics of the existing Prague Government. This order to Dietrich originated in the Foreign Office.

The Radio Division, of which Fritzsche became the head in November 1942, was one of the 12 divisions of the Propaganda Ministry. In the beginning Dietrich and other heads of divisions exerted influence over the policies to be followed by radio. Towards the end of the war, however, Fritzsche became the sole authority within the Ministry for radio activities. In this capacity, he formulated and issued daily radio “paroles” to all Reich propaganda offices, according to the general political policies of the Nazi regime, subject to the directives of the Radio-Political Division of the Foreign Office, and the personal supervision of Goebbels.

Fritzsche, with other officials of the Propaganda Ministry, was present at Goebbels’ daily staff conferences. Here they were instructed in the news and propaganda policies of the day. After 1943, Fritzsche himself occasionally held these conferences, but only when Goebbels, and his state secretaries were absent. And even then, his only function was to transmit Goebbels’ directives relayed to him by telephone.

This is the summary of Fritzsche’s positions and influence in the Third Reich. Never did he achieve sufficient stature to attend the planning conferences which led to aggressive war; indeed, according to his own uncontradicted testimony he never even had a conversation with Hitler. Nor is there any showing that he was informed of the decisions taken at these conferences. His activities cannot be said to be those which fall within the definition of the common plan to wage aggressive war as already set forth in this Judgment.

War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity

The Prosecution has asserted that Fritzsche incited and encouraged the commission of war crimes, by deliberately falsifying news to arouse in the German people those passions which led them to the commission of atrocities under Counts Three and Four. His position and official duties were not sufficiently important, however, to infer that he took part in originating or formulating propaganda campaigns.

Excerpts in evidence from his speeches show definite anti-Semitism, on his part. He broadcast, for example, that the war had been caused by Jews and said their fate had turned out “as unpleasant as the Fuehrer predicted.” But these speeches did not urge persecution or extermination of Jews. There is no evidence that he was aware of their extermination in the East. The evidence moreover shows that he twice attempted to have publication of the anti-Semitic Der Stuermer suppressed, though unsuccessfully.

In these broadcasts Fritzsche sometimes spread false news, but it was not proved he knew it to be false. For example, he reported that no German U-Boat was in the vicinity of the Athenia when it was sunk. This information was untrue; but Fritzsche, having received it from the German Navy, had no reason to believe it was untrue.

It appears that Fritzsche sometimes made strong statements of a propagandistic nature in his broadcasts. But the Tribunal is not prepared to hold that they were intended to incite the German people to commit atrocities on conquered peoples, and he cannot be held to have been a participant in the crimes charged. His aim was rather to arouse popular sentiment in support of Hitler and the German war effort.

Conclusion

The Tribunal finds that Fritzsche is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged by the Marshal when the Tribunal presently adjourns.

944

Martin Bormann (in absentia): NOT GUILTY ON COUNT ONE; GUILTY ON COUNTS THREE AND FOUR

(Justice Gen. Iona T. Nikitchenko)

bormann

THE DEFENDANT BORMANN

Bormann is indicted on Counts One, Three, and Four. He joined the National Socialist Party in 1925, was a member of the Staff of the Supreme Command of the SA from 1928 to 1930, was in charge of the Aid Fund of the Party, and was Reichsleiter from 1933 to 1945. From 1933 to 1941 he was Chief of Staff in the office of the Fuehrer’s Deputy and, after the flight of Hess to England, became Head of the Party Chancellery on 12 May 1941. On 12 April 1943, he became Secretary to the Fuehrer. He was political and organizational head of the Volkssturm and a general in the SS.

Crimes against Peace

Bormann, in the beginning a minor Nazi, steadily rose to a position of power and, particularly in the closing days, of great influence over Hitler. He was active in the Party’s rise to power and even more so; in the consolidation of that power. He devoted much of his time to the persecution of the Churches and of the Jews within Germany.

The evidence does not show that Bormann knew of Hitler’s plans to prepare, initiate, or wage aggressive wars. He attended none of the important conferences when Hitler revealed piece by piece these plans for aggression. Nor can knowledge be conclusively inferred from the positions he held. It was only when he became head of the Party Chancellery in 1941, and later in 1943 Secretary to the Fuehrer, when he attended many of Hitler’s conferences, that his positions gave him the necessary access. Under the view stated elsewhere which the Tribunal has taken of the conspiracy to wage aggressive war, there is not sufficient evidence to bring Bormann within the scope of Count One.

War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity

By decree of 29 May 1941, Bormann took over the offices and powers held by Hess; by decree of 24 January 1942, these powers were extended to give him control over all laws and directives issued by Hitler. He was thus responsible for laws and orders issued thereafter. On 1 December 1942, all Gaue became Reich defense districts, and the Party Gauleiter responsible to Bormann were appointed Reich Defense Commissioners. In effect, this made them the administrators of the entire civilian war effort. This was so not only in Germany, but also in those territories which were incorporated into the Reich from the absorbed and conquered territories.

Through this mechanism Bormann controlled the ruthless exploitation of the subjected populace. His order of 12 August 1942 placed all Party agencies at the disposal of Himmler’s program for forced resettlement and denationalization of persons in the occupied countries. Three weeks after the invasion of Russia, he attended the conference of 16 July 1941 at Hitler’s field quarters with Goering, Rosenberg, and Keitel; Bormann’s report shows that there were discussed and developed detailed plans of enslavement and annihilation of the population of these territories. And on 8 May 1942, he conferred with Hitler and Rosenberg on the forced resettlement of Dutch personnel in Latvia, the extermination program in Russia, and the economic exploitation of the Eastern territories. He was interested in the confiscation of art and other properties in the East. His letter of 11 January 1944 called for the creation of a large-scale organization to withdraw commodities from the occupied territories for the bombed-out German populace.

Bormann was extremely active in the persecution of the Jews not Only in Germany but also in the absorbed or conquered countries. He took part in the discussions which led to the removal of 60,000 Jews from Vienna to Poland in cooperation with the SS and the Gestapo. He signed the decree of 31 May 1941 extending the Nuremberg Laws to the annexed Eastern territories. In an order of 9 October 1942, he declared that the permanent elimination of Jews in Greater German territory could no longer be solved by emigration, but only by applying “ruthless force” in the special camps in the East. On 1 July 1943, he signed an ordinance withdrawing Jews from the protection of the law courts and placing them under the exclusive jurisdiction of Himmler’s Gestapo.

Bormann was prominent in the slave labor program. The Party leaders supervised slave labor matters in the respective Gaue, including employment, conditions of work, feeding, and housing. By his circular of 5 May 1943 to the Leadership Corps, distributed down to the level of Ortsgruppenleiter, he issued directions regulating the treatment of foreign workers, pointing out they were subject to SS control on security problems, and ordered the previous mistreatment to cease. A report of 4 September 1942 relating to the transfer of 500,000 female domestic workers from the East to Germany showed that control was to be exercised by Sauckel, Himmler, and Bormann. Sauckel by decree of 8 September directed the Kreisleiter to supervise the distribution and assignment of these female laborers.

Bormann also issued a series of orders to the Party leaders dealing with the treatment of prisoners of war. On 5 November 1941, he prohibited decent burials for Russian prisoners of war. On 25 November 1943, he directed Gauleiter to report cases of lenient treatment of prisoners of war. And on 13 September 1944, he ordered liaison between the Kreisleiter with the camp commandants in determining the use to be made of prisoners of war for forced labor. On 29 January 1943, he transmitted to his leaders OKW instructions allowing the use of fire arms and corporal punishment on recalcitrant prisoners of war contrary to the rules of land warfare. On 30 September 1944, he signed a decree taking from the OKW jurisdiction over prisoners of war and handing them over to Himmler and the SS.

Bormann is responsible for the lynching of Allied airmen. On 30 May 1944, he prohibited any police action or criminal proceedings against persons who had taken part in the lynching of Allied fliers. This was accompanied by a Goebbels propaganda campaign inciting the German people to take action of this nature, and the conference of 6 June 1944 where regulations for the application of lynching were discussed.

His counsel, who has labored under difficulties, was unable to refute this evidence. In the face of these documents which bear Bormann’s signature it is difficult to see how he could do so even were the defendant present. Counsel has argued that Bormann is dead and that the Tribunal should not avail itself of Article 12 of the Charter which gives it the right to take proceedings in absentia. But the evidence of death is not conclusive, and the Tribunal, as previously stated, determined to try him in absentia. If Bormann is not dead and is later apprehended, the Control Council for Germany may, under Article 29 of the Charter, consider any facts in mitigation, and alter or reduce his sentence, if deemed proper.

Conclusion

The Tribunal finds that Bormann is not guilty on Count One, but is guilty on Counts Three and Four.

945

Wiener Kurier (October 1, 1946)

ZWEITE AUFLAGE

Göring, Ribbentrop, Neurath, Keitel, Jodl, Rosenberg in den vier Anklagepunkten schuldig

Papen, Schacht und Fritzsche freigesprochen

Nürnberg (WK.) - In der heutigen Morgensitzung begann Lordrichter Lawrence mit der Verlesung der Urteilsbegründung über die 22 Angeklagten. Göring, Ribbentrop, Rosenberg, Neurath, Keitel und Jodl wurden in allen vier Anklagepunkten schuldig befunden. Raeder wurde in den ersten drei Punkten der Anklageschrift für schuldig befunden, während der vierte Punkt - Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit - auf ihn keine Anwendung findet.

Schacht, Fritzsche und Papen wurden von allen Anklagepunkten freigesprochen. Nachstehend veröffentlichen wir die Urteilssprüche für alle Angeklagten:

Göring: In allen vier Punkten schuldig.

Hess: In Punkt 1 und 2 schuldig, in Punkt 3 und 4 freigesprochen.

Ribbentrop: In allen vier Punkten schuldig.

Rosenberg: In allen vier Punkten schuldig.

Frick: In Punkt 1 freigesprochen, in Punkt 2, 3 und 4 schuldig.

Funk: In Punkt 1 freigesprochen, in Punkt 2, 3 und 4 schuldig.

Schacht: In allen vier Punkten freigesprochen.

Speer: In Punkt 1 und 2 freigesprochen, in Punkt 3 und 4 schuldig.

Sauckel: In Punkt 1 und 2 freigesprochen, in Punkt 3 und 4 schuldig.

Seyß-Inquart: In Punkt 1 freigesprochen, in Punkt 2, 3 und 4 schuldig.

Schirach: In Punkt 1 freigesprochen, in Punkt 2 und 3 nicht angeklagt, in Punkt 4 schuldig.

Keitel: In allen vier Punkten schuldig.

Jodl: In allen vier Punkten schuldig.

Raeder: In Punkt 1, 2 und 3 schuldig, in Punkt 4 nicht angeklagt.

Dönitz: In Punkt 1 freigesprochen, in Punkt 2 und 3 schuldig, in Punkt 4 nicht angeklagt.

Papen: In allen vier Punkten freigesprochen.

Neurath: In allen vier Punkten schuldig.

Frank: In Punkt 1 freigesprochen, in Punkt 2 nicht angeklagt, in. Punkt 3 und 4 schuldig.

Kaltenbrunner: In Punkt 1 freigesprochen, in Punkt 2 nicht angeklagt, in Punkt 3 und 4 schuldig.

Streicher: In Punkt 1 freigesprochen, in Punkt 4 schuldig, Punkt 2 und 3 nicht angeklagt.

Fritzsche: In allen vier Punkten freigesprochen.

Bormann (in Abwesenheit): In Punkt 1 freigesprochen, in Punkt 2 nicht angeklagt, in Punkt 3 und 4 schuldig.

Die vier Punkte der Anklage:

Die 4 Punkte der Anklage gegen die Einzelangeklagten sind:
1. Verschwörung gegen den Frieden,
2. Vorbereitung und Führung eines Angriffskrieges,
3. Verbrechen gegen das Kriegsrecht,
4. Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit.

946

Die Begründung der Freisprüche von Schacht und Papen

Nürnberg (AP.) - Der Gerichtshof erklärte in bezug auf Dr. Schacht: „Er war zwar an der deutschen Wiederaufrüstung anfänglich beteiligt, war jedoch einem Angriffskrieg abgeneigt und trat im Jahre 1937 zurück, als es klar wurde, daß Hitlers Absichten auf einen Krieg gerichtet waren. Schacht beteiligte sich nicht an der Planung auch nur eines einzigen Angriffskrieges und war keinesfalls als Mitglied des inneren Kreises um Hitler zu betrachten. Im Gegenteil, dieser Personenkreis betrachtete ihn mit unverhohlener Feindseligkeit. Die Zeugenaussage Speers bewies, daß Schachts Verhaftung am 23. Juli 1944 auf Hitlers Feindschaft gegenüber Schacht zurückzuführen war, die in seiner Haltung vor dem Kriege begründet Hegt und darüber hinaus auch von dem Verdacht genährt war, daß Schacht an dem Bombenattentat beteiligt gewesen ist.“

Papen wurde von der Anklage, Hitlers Aufstieg zur Macht durchgesetzt und den Anschluß Österreichs und andere diplomatische Winkelzüge durchgeführt zu haben, freigesprochen. Der Gerichtshof erklärte: „Das Beweisverfahren läßt keinen Zweifel, daß Papens Hauptziel als deutscher Gesandter in Österreich darin lag, das Schuschnigg-Regime zu unterhöhlen und den österreichischen Nazi zwecks Durchsetzung des Anschlusses zu stärken. Zu diesem Zwecke bediente er sich sowohl der Intrige als auch der Einschüchterung, doch betrachtet die Charta des Gerichtshofes solche Verstöße gegen die politische Moral nicht als verbrecherisch.“

947

Nürnberg schafft Grundlagen für neue Weltordnung

Rückblick auf die einzelnen Phasen des Prozesses

Nürnberg, im September (AND.) - Am 30. September 1946 wird durch den Urteilsspruch des Internationalen Gerichtshofes in Nürnberg nicht nur der Schlußstrich unter zwölf Jahre grausamer Nazidiktatur gezogen, sondern auch der Grundstein für den Aufbau einer künftigen Weltordnung, die die Anzettelung jedes Krieges als Verbrechen verurteilen wird, gelegt.

Die schriftlichen Beweise der nazistischen Grausamkeiten

Rund 2600 Dokumente, die zum großen Teil aus den Geheimarchiven der Nazi stammen, dienten den Anklägern der vier Nationen in Nürnberg als Beweismaterial für ihre Anschuldigungen. Angefangen von der jahrelangen Vorbereitung des Krieges bis zu den grauenhaften Verbrechen in den Konzentrationslagern und dem Völkermord stellen sie die schriftlichen Beweisstücke einer Entwicklung dar, deren Auswirkungen heute nicht nur Deutschland, sondern eine ganze Anzahl vom Kriege heimgesuchter Völker verspürt. Vom Führerbefehl bis zur privaten Aktennotiz eines Blockleiters ist nun jede dieser Urkunden zu einem erdrückenden Beweis gegen die ehemaligen Nazigrößen geworden. Jeder Punkt der Anklage konnte sich auf eine Anzahl derartiger Dokumente stützen.

Diese Dokumente waren die tatsächlichen Grundlagen der vier Anklagepunkte: der Vorbereitung des Angriffskrieges, die aus bereits 1937 gehaltenen Ansprachen Hitlers an seine Oberkommandierenden hervorging; der Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, die die Aussagen der Leiter der Konzentrationslager bewiesen und die durch Zeugenaussagen erhärtet wurden; der Kriegsverbrechen und des Völkermordes, durch den unter dem Vorwand der Partisanenbekämpfung ganze Bevölkerungsteile ausgerottet wurden. Neben der Unzahl der in Nürnberg gesichteten und sortierten Dokumente aber legten das verwüstete und verarmte Europa, die Massengräber im Osten und die Krematoriumsschornsteine der Konzentrationslager deutlicher noch als alle juristischen Beweismittel gegen den Nationalsozialismus Zeugnis ab.

Diese Erkenntnis, der sich auch die Angeklagten nicht verschließen konnten, bestimmte die Grundlinie der Verteidigung. Die Verantwortung für die begangenen Verbrechen wurde auf den toten Nazi oder auf die anonyme Masse der Helfershelfer in der SS, der Gestapo und dem SD geschoben. Die militärischen Führer auf der Anklagebank machten sich die Sache am leichtesten. Keitel, Dönitz, Raeder und Jodl beriefen sich auf ihre soldatische Gehorsamspflicht gegenüber dem Oberbefehlshaber der deutschen Wehrmacht Adolf Hitler. Sie sprachen viel vom „unpolitischen Soldatentum“ und von „Loyalität trotz innerer Bedenken“ und erklärten immer wieder, daß Hitler keine Widerrede duldete und daß sie sich als deutsche Generale nicht mit Politik befaßten.

Von einer erschütternden Tiefe des menschlichen und geistigen Niveaus waren die Zeugenaussagen der drei adeligen Diplomaten auf der Anklagebank; von Ribbentrop, von Papen und von Neurath, die zwölf Jahre lang die Aushängeschilder des Dritten Reiches waren. Von Neurath machte den Eindruck eines gebrochenen alten Mannes, der sich in ausführlichen Schilderungen der deutschen Innen- und Außenpolitik von 1918 ab erging. Seine Antworten auf die schweren Anschuldigungen, die der britische Ankläger Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe wegen seiner Tätigkeit in Böhmen und Mähren gegen ihn erhob, machten einen fast hilflosen Eindruck.

Ribbentrop - ein Meister des Vergessens

Ein wahrer Meister im Vergessen war jedoch der ehemalige Reichsminister Joachim von Ribbentrop, den sein Gedächtnis jedesmal völlig im Stich ließ, wenn er von dem Ankläger an die zahlreichen von ihm abgegebenen Friedensversicherungen gegenüber den neutralen Staaten erinnert wurde, denen dann in kurzem Abstand ein deutscher Überfall zu folgen pflegte. Ließ sich aber gar nicht mehr bestreiten, daß Ribbentrop an bestimmten Vorgängen beteiligt war, so versteckte er sich hinter seinem Führer, der dem Reichsaußenminister vorschrieb, was er von der außenpolitischen Lage zu halten habe.

Franz von Papen, der ehemalige Reichskanzler und spätere Vizekanzler und Botschafter Hitlers in Wien und Ankara, versuchte, sich als den ehrenhaften Diplomaten alter Schule darzustellen, der von Hitler getäuscht und hintergangen wurde. Er erklärte, nicht für die Nationalsozialisten, sondern für „das andere Deutschland“ zu sprechen. Darum war der Eindruck um so kläglicher, den er im Kreuzverhör des britischen Anklägers machte, der nachwies, daß von Papen seinem „Führer“ bis zum letzten Tage des Krieges diente, obwohl schon 1934 seine nächsten Freunde und Mitarbeiter im Zusammenhang mit dem Röhm-Putsch ermordet wurden.

Mehr und mehr wurde im Verlauf der Verteidigung die Tendenz der Angeklagten offenbar, sich als harmlose Werkzeuge auszugeben, die von ihren Führern, die heute nicht mehr aussagen können, mißbraucht wurden. Artur Seyß-Inquart, ehemals Reichstatthalter der Ostmark und Reichskommissar in den besetzten Niederlanden, versuchte den Verrat, an seiner österreichischen Heimat, mit seiner Gehorsamspflicht als Nationalsozialist zu entschuldigen und seine Verantwortung für die in Holland begangenen Massenmorde und Grausamkeiten auf die Schultern Himmlers, Heydrichs und Bormanns abzuschieben.

Der ehemalige Innenminister Wilhelm Frick, der selber nicht, in den Zeugenstand trat, war, wie sein Verteidiger das Gericht glauben machen wollte, nur ein pflichttreuer deutscher Beamter, der die Vernichtung der Geisteskranken und die Bekämpfung der Juden auf Befehl seines Staatsoberhauptes durchführte.

Walter Funk, der von den Millionenwerten, die die SS ihren jüdischen Opfern abnahm und in den Gewölben der von ihm geleiteten Reichsbank aufbewahren ließ, nichts geahnt haben will, Fritz Sauckel, der „stets nur das Wohl der in- und ausländischen Arbeiter im Auge hatte“ und sich, wie er behauptete, den Zwangsmaßnahmen zur Anwerbung ausländischer Arbeitskräfte zunächst Widersetzte; Alfred Rosenberg, der wohl zugab, als Reichskommissar für die besetzten Ostgebiete die Zwangsverschleppung Hunderttausender veranlaßt zu haben, aber nur, um „den Führer“ zu beruhigen, der „so sehr auf strengere Maßnahmen im Osten drängte“, sie alle vereinigten sich in ihren Beschuldigungen gegen den SD und die Gestapo und damit gegen Kaltenbrunner, der als Leiter des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes diese Organisationen unter sieh hatte.

Dieser Mann jedoch, über dessen Beteiligung an der Ermordung von Millionen von Menschen und an der Errichtung des nazistischen Terrorsystems dem Gericht zahllose Beweise vorlagen, bestritt nicht nur seine Verantwortung für diese Daten, sondern behauptete darüber hinaus, sich stets für Freiheit, Recht und Menschlichkeit eingesetzt zu haben.

Auch Julius Streicher, der sich einst mit Stolz den Titel „Judenhetzer Nr. 1“ zulegte, versuchte in seinen Aussagen, sich als einen unschuldigen Propheten und Schriftsteller hinzustellen, der „seinen jüdischen Mitbürgern eine neue Heimat schaffen wollte“, der nie meinte, was er sagte und der über nichts orientiert war.

Fritzsche fühlt sich betrogen

Der Dritte unter den angeklagten „Propagandisten“, Hans Fritzsche, machte einen wesentlich besseren Eindruck. Mit einer fast vollkommenen Beherrschung der sprachlichen und technischen Mittel führte er seine Verteidigung, die jedoch im Prinzip nach dem bekannten Schema aufgebaut war. Er, der jahrelang das deutsche Nachrichtenwesen leitete, erklärte, daß er von den Vorgängen in und um Deutschland nichts gewußt habe und von Hitler und Goebbels betrogen worden wäre.

Betrogen und hintergangen fühlt sich auch Schacht, und es ist merkwürdig, daß gerade er und Fritzsche, zwei Männer mit offensichtlich überdurchschnittlicher Intelligenz, die Schlüsselstellungen des Dritten Reiches besetzten, sich auf diese Entschuldigungen beriefen. Schacht, der behauptete, seit dem Jahre 1937 ein erbitterter Feind Hitlers und seiner „verbrecherischen Finanzpolitik“ gewesen zu sein, erklärte, wie Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe nachwies, noch im November 1938: „Es gibt kein deutsches Finanzwunder. Es gibt nur das Wunder der Wiedererweckung des deutschen Geistes und das verdanken wir unserem Führer.“

Schachts Gegenspieler, Hermann Göring, der „zweite Mann im Reich“, erklärte zu Beginn seiner acht Tage währenden Zeugenaussagen mit zynischem Stolz die „volle Verantwortung“ für den Anschluß Österreichs, die Verletzung des Versailler Vertrages und den Aufbau der deutschen Luftwaffe tragen zu wollen. Im Laufe seiner Aussage zog er sich jedoch mehr und mehr von der anfangs übernommenen Verantwortung zurück und versuchte, die Schuld an den gegen die Juden begangenen Verbrechen und die Zustände in den von ihm- gegründeten Konzentrationslagern - wie seine Mitangeklagten - Himmler, Goebbels und Bormann in die Schuhe zu schieben.

948

Nürnberg enthüllte maßlose Schuld der Naziorganisationen

Nürnberg, im September (AND.) - Die einheitliche Linie der Verteidigung wurde anscheinend nur von zwei Angeklagten unterbrochen, die ausführliche „Schuldbekenntnisse“ ablegten; Frank und Schirach. Aber auch sie, obwohl sie Reue und Schuldbewußtsein äußerten, versuchten, als schwere Anschuldigungen gegen sie erhoben wurden, sich hinter die Schatten Hitlers und Himmlers zu verkriechen. Immerhin erklärte Frank: „Auf die Frage, ob ich an der Vernichtung der Juden teilgenommen habe, sage ich ja, weil ich es mit meinem Gewissen nicht verantworten könnte, die Schuld auf die kleinen Leute abzuwälzen. Die furchtbare Verantwortung, die Hitler auf Deutschland wälzte, trifft auch mich. Tausend Jahre werden vergehen müssen, um diese Schuld von Deutschland wegzunehmen.“ Schirach sagte; „Das ist meine Schuld, die ich vor Gott und unserer Nation trage, daß ich die Jugend im Glauben Adolf Hitler erzog, den ich für unantastbar hielt Ich allein trage diese Schuld. Die deutsche Jugend ist schuldlos, denn sie wuchs in einem antisemitischen Staat auf, in dem die Rassenpolitik Gesetz war. Wenn aber ein Auschwitz möglich war, dann muß das das Ende der Rassenpolitik und des Antisemitismus sein. Wer nach Auschwitz noch daran festhält, der macht sich schuldig.“

Der einzige Angeklagte, der in seiner Aussage nicht allein an sich und seine Bewertung durch die Geschichtsschreibung, sondern an die deutschen und ausländischen Opfer der Machtpolitik Hitlers dachte, war der Rüstungsminister Albert Speer. „Es gibt, im Staatsieben zwei Verantwortungen“, sagte er „Die erste gilt dem eigenen Sektor, für den man voll verantwortlich ist. Darüber hinaus aber gibt es für entscheidende Dinge im Staat eine Gesamtverantwortung derer, die anführender Stelle sind. Denn wer soll sonst alles das auf sich nehmen, was in Deutschland geschah, wenn nicht die Männer, die um den Führer waren?“

Speer erhob im Verlauf der Verhandlung die heftigsten Anschuldigungen gegen den „Führer“. „Im Jänner 1945“, erklärte Speer, „mußte ich die entsetzliche Feststellung machen, daß Hitler bewußt die Lebensmöglichkeiten des deutschen Volkes zerstören wollte, daß er das Schicksal Deutschlands mit dem seinen identifizierte, und nicht sich selbst, sondern das ganze deutsche Volk für den Ausgang des Krieges verantwortlich machte.“

Die Entlastungszeugen

Höhepunkte des Verteidigungsabschnittes im Nürnberger Prozeß waren neben den Aussagen der Angeklagten die der Entlastungszeugen. Besonders eindrucksvoll waren die Schilderungen des schwedischen Ingenieurs Birger Dahlerus, der das Scheitern der britischen Friedensbemühungen im Sommer 1939 schilderte, des ehemaligen Gestapo-Beamten Hans Bernd Gisevius, der einen Einblick in das Intrigenspiel im Dritten Reich und in die Vorgeschichte der Verschwörung des 20. Juli vermittelte, und des ehemaligen Kommandanten des Konzentrationslagers Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoeß.

Mit einer ungeheuren Fülle belastender Dokumente konnte die Anklagebehörde im Kreuzverhör der Angeklagten und Entlastungszeugen die Nichtigkeit fast aller von den Angeklagten vorgebrachten Entschuldigungen und Ausflüchte nachweisen.

Daher versuchte Professor Hermann Jahreis, der im Namen aller Verteidiger ein äußerst scharfsinniges, grundlegendes Plädoyer hielt, in erster Linie die juristischen Grundlagen des Prozesses anzugreifen, indem er erklärte, daß das Statut des internationalen Tribunals völlig neue Rechtsbegriffe beinhalte, die zur Zeit der von den Angeklagten begangenen Taten nichtgeltendes Recht gewesen seien. Nachdem die übrigen Plädoyers im wesentlichen die bereits während der Beweisaufnahme eingeschlagene Linie verfolgten und die Verantwortung auf die wenigen toten Naziführer abschoben, brachte im Rahmen des Schlußplädoyers der vier Hauptanklagevertreter Sir Hartley Shawcross eine Entgegnung auf die Ausführung Professor Jahreis. Den formaljuristischen Erwägungen des deutschen Gelehrten hielt er die Rechtsgrundlagen aller zivilisierten Völker entgegen, nach deren Gesetzen jeder der Angeklagten wegen der Täterschaft, Beihilfe oder Anstiftung zu gemeinen Verbrechen wie Raub, Mord, Freiheitsberaubung und Brandstiftung verurteilt werden könnte.

Der amerikanische Ankläger Robert H. Jackson gab in seinem Schlußplädoyer noch einmal einen Überblick über die Entwicklung des Nazismus von den ersten Konzentrationslagern bis zum Völkermord, während Charles Dubost im Namen Frankreichs und General Roman Rudenko im Namen der Sowjetunion die Verantwortlichkeit der Angeklagten und gegen alle Todesstrafe beantragten.

Der Schuldbeweis gegen die Organisationen

In den letzten Julitagen begann mit der Beweisaufnahme zur Entlastung der angeklagten Naziorganisationen, der SS, des SD und der Gestapo, eine neue Phase des Prozesses, die sich in ihrer Grundlinie jedoch wenig von der vorangegangenen Verteidigung der Einzelangeklagten unterschied. Keiner der Verteidiger war in der Lage, die von der Anklage nachgewiesenen Verbrechen zu widerlegen oder abzuschwächen. Einige der vorgeladenen „Entlastungs“-Zeugen enthüllten vielmehr bisher unbekannte grauenvolle Taten, die den Naziorganisationen zur Last gelegt werden müssen.

Nachdem der britische Ankläger Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe in einer umfassenden Beweisführung zu den Argumenten der Verteidigung Stellung genommen hatte, erklärte Thomas Dodd im Rahmen seiner Schlußrede über die Organisationen: „Sie alle waren ein wesentlicher Bestandteil des von Hitler geplanten und von seiner Clique zur unbeschränkten Gewaltherrschaft vervollkommneten Polizeistaates, der Furcht, und Schrecken über Deutschland und Tod und Grauen über die ganze Welt verbreitete. Sein Körper war das Korps der Politischen Leiter, das Reichskabinett war sein Kopf, seine mächtigen Arme waren Gestapo und SA, und als er durch Europa marschierte, waren die Wehrmacht und die SS seine Beine.“

Keiner darf sich hinter dem Wort „Zwang“ verschanzen

Zu der von der Verteidigung vorgebrachten Entschuldigung, die Mitgliedschaft bei den Organisationen sei nicht freiwillig gewesen, erklärte Dodd: „Man muß Charakter haben, sich dem Bösen. entgegenzustellen. Man muß Demütigungen ertragen und Opfer bringen können, wenn es gilt, die bösen Angebote eines bösen Herrn abzulehnen. Aber die Verantwortlichkeit für die Verbrechen dieser Organisationen darf nicht durch die Anwendung des technischen und bedeutungslosen Begriffes ‚Zwang‘ umgangen werden. Die Menschheit soll wissen, Verbrechen bleiben nicht straflos, weil sie im Namen einer politischen Partei oder eines Staates begangen wurden, über Verbrechen wird nicht hinweggesehen, weil sie gar zu groß sind und Verbrecher werden ihrer Strafe nicht entgehen, weil ihrer gar zu viele sind.“

Auch der französische Ankläger Henri Champetier de Ribes und der russische General Roman Rudenko forderten im Namen ihrer Staaten die Verurteilung sämtlicher angeklagten Organisationen.

Die Schlußworte der Angeklagten, die von den meisten zur Wiederholung ihrer Rechtfertigungsversuche benutzt wurden, brachten eine Sensation mit dem Auftreten des Angeklagten Rudolf Heß, der, nachdem er sich geweigert hatte, zu seiner Entlastung im Zeugenstand auszusagen, zum erstenmal mit einer längeren Rede vor das Gericht trat. Seine Ausführungen, die außerordentlich verworren waren und unklare Beschuldigungen enthielten, schienen aber nur den Antrag seines Verteidigers, ihn auf seinen Geisteszustand zu untersuchen, zu rechtfertigen.

949

Defendant Hermann Wilhelm Goering, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you have been convicted, the International Military Tribunal sentences you to DEATH BY HANGING.

950

Defendant Rudolf Hess, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE.

951

Defendant Joachim von Ribbentrop, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to DEATH BY HANGING.

952

Defendant Wilhelm Keitel, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to DEATH BY HANGING.

953

Defendant Ernst Kaltenbrunner, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to DEATH BY HANGING.

954

Defendant Alfred Rosenberg, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to DEATH BY HANGING.

955

Defendant Hans Frank, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to DEATH BY HANGING.

956

Defendant Wilhelm Frick, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to DEATH BY HANGING.

957

Defendant Julius Streicher, on the Count of the Indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to DEATH BY HANGING.

958

Defendant Walther Funk, on the Counts of the Indictment an which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE.

959

Defendant Karl Doenitz, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to TEN YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT.

960

Defendant Erich Raeder, on the Counts of the Indictment on which you have been convicted, the Tribunal sentences you to IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE.