The Nuremberg Trial

Denny: Self-pity

By Ludwell Denny

HERFORD, Germany – The attitude of typical Germans today toward the Nuernberg trials was a strange combination of indifference and resentment.

Indifference because they have long expected punishment of the Nazi leaders. Resentment because they do not like to be reminded of crimes for which they refuse to take any responsibility.

Certainly the Nuernberg trials did not make national martyrs of Goering and the others to the average German. They were heroes only so long as they were successful.

As the tide of war turned against Germany and Allied bombing brought retribution, the public began lose faith in Nazi bigshots they once worshiped. After defeat, the public generally assumed they should be and would be executed forthwith.

The fact that the leaders were given a long public trial instead of being shot impressed Germans not as a judicial process but as a publicity stunt at Germany’s expense. So it is the Germans as a nation rather than Nuernberg defendants who are being martyred, according to the warped mentality here.

This strange phenomenon is easier to report than explain. But psychologists seem to think it is clear enough. Apparently the traditional German tendency to authoritarianism and personal submissiveness carries with it a tendency to shoulder the individual’s faults on others – to seek scapegoats.

Murder dismissed as propaganda

Just as the Nazi leaders could easily make Jews the scapegoats for Germans, so now the Nazi leaders themselves have become scapegoats for the German who wants to forget his personal and joint responsibility for crimes of Nazism.

Naturally, Germans today do not defend the worst crimes of Nazi terrorism. On the contrary, they say that the crimes should be punished. They insist, however, that the crimes were the exception rather than the rule.

Even now, after all the gruesome proof of wholesale murder in concentration camps, most Germans still dismiss this as Allied propaganda.

Few Germans understand if you tell them they should have known what was happening under their Nazi heroes and should have tried, at least, to do something about it. This assumption that the citizen or the community has responsibility or can challenge the misdeeds of a strong government is foreign language here.

Since the opposite assumption is commonplace – namely, that the citizen’s duty is not to think or judge but to obey – the average German’s sense of innocence of Nazi guilt is quite sincere.

Even former Nazi party members say, “But what else could we do? We only did what we were told.”

Germans steeped in self-pity

While the typical German resents the Nuernberg expose of German barbarism as an unjust reflection on a cultured, kindly, German people, he is almost incapable of any sense of war guilt. To him, the crimes of the Nuernberg defendants are not that they plotted and waged aggressive war, but that in so doing they brought defeat, suffering, and humiliation on Germany.

One hears bitter comment about what the Nazi leaders did to Germany, but never a word about what they did to other nations.

Germans are so steeped in self-pity they have no comprehension of suffering elsewhere resulting from German aggression. They talk of Russian atrocities, and if you ask them about German atrocities in Russia, they deny all or simply look blank.

Any idea that Germany brought suffering upon herself and upon the world is furtherest from the people’s thought here. They blame the British and Americans for their destroyed cities and hunger.

They blame Russia and France for plots and brutalities against them. They blame Nazi leaders for failing. They blame everybody and everything except themselves.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (October 1, 1946)

Today and tomorrow…
Judgment of Nuernberg a new beginning

By Walter Lippmann

The judgment of Nuernberg is not the end but a new beginning – a solemn affirmation that the sovereignty of states is subject to universal law, higher than the decisions of any government and binding upon all persons everywhere, whatever their titles, their rank, and their local authority. This law has been found, declared, and is being enforced, by the deliberate and conscious and unanimous act of all the governments to which the peoples of the world owe allegiance, and this is the law for them as it is for the German criminals who have been tried and convicted under it.

This law, like all law, may again be defied, evaded, or subverted. But to plan, prepare, and do these things is not a sovereign national right but a criminal act, and anyone who participates in the conspiracy is personally accountable forever after to the organized judgment of mankind. No state can repeal this law, or by the exercise of the sovereign right of veto place itself or its rulers above or beyond this law.

The principle of unanimity still obtains in respect to these matters on which there is as yet no settled and universal law. But in those matters, on those issues for those acts which have been judged by the tribunal at Nuernberg, there is universal law based on universal consent, interpreted by unanimous judgment, enforced by unanimous action, and established therefore as a precedent which transcends all national rights and privileges that conflict with it.

Henceforth, the charter of the United Nations is to be construed in accordance with the judgment which, by their considered action, the United Nations have caused to be rendered.

In all countries men are seeking a new approach to the settlement of the war and the keeping of the peace. They are aware that somehow and somewhere the governments have lost the way they promised and intended to take, and have become entangled in a snarl of vicious contentions.

They lost their way when they undertook to begin the settlement of the World War by dealing first, not with the central issues, but with the peripheral and secondary issues. As all of us should have foreseen, as all must now see, it has been impossible to settle the World War at Trieste or in the Balkans, or in Iran. The failure to do what every previous peace conference has done – namely to deal first with the principal enemy states – has resulted inevitably in an endless series of insoluble minor crises, in the practice by the leading powers of a kind of guerrilla diplomacy, in more and more stubbornness and recrimination about ever narrower issues.

The fixation of the minds and feelings of men upon the secondary, incidental and peripheral issues has had profoundly evil consequences. The central issues have become malignant. For more than a year diplomatic relations among the victors have, at the highest level of authority, been in fact suspended. We have been brought to the idiotic and fantastic condition where the British and American governments have to guess about the policy of Russia by deciphering, as if it were a cross-word puzzle, an interview by Stalin to a British newspaper. Whereas Churchill and Roosevelt insisted on talking with Stalin, even if they had to go to Moscow, Tehran, or Yalta to talk with him, Mr. Attlee and Mr. Truman do not talk with anybody, and Mr. Bevin and Mr. Byrnes have been reduced to talking with Mr. Molotov.

The fact that they talk only to Mr. Molotov is itself the proof that they are not discussing the real issue. And they will not get beyond Mr. Molotov until they insist on talking about the issues that only Stalin can talk about, that Stalin must talk about. It is quite true, as Field Marshal Smuts has just said, that the heads of states must find a way to talk “man to man.” But they will find that way only when they decide to talk about the issues that because they are vital and compelling, heads of states must talk about.

These issues are now beginning to emerge out of the fog, the dust, and the smoke that have obscured them since the death of Roosevelt and the fall of Churchill. They are the future of Germany in Europe, of China and Japan in Eastern

They all raise the same fundamental problem, which is how an agreement, which is mutual, can be reached which protects the vital interests of all. The profound disagreement which divides the great powers arises out of the fact that they expect war, and are seeking to settle the German, the Middle Eastern, and the Far Eastern questions for their own strategic advantage in that war. They are not trying to neutralize Germany; they are contending for the control of Germany. They are at each other in the Middle East in the knowledge that this is the place where decisive blows can most certainly be dealt either way. They are entangled in China, unable to let the Chinese resolve their own civil conflict, because they believe that whichever power does not control China in its own interest will have China controlled against its interest.

The new approach that men are asking for would have to consist in approaching these basic conflicts directly, nakedly and at the highest levels of authority. They have to be approached and seized and forced into discussion and negotiation. They cannot be evaded either by appeasement and retreat or by beating around the bush – while we beat our breasts toughly and rhetorically and pedantically.

The formula which we have forgotten in the making of peace is that a world war can be settled only by men of the highest authority dealing with the main issues. When we return to that elementary formula, the greatness of the issues which are at stake will revive in the minds of men, now so frustrated and frightened and bored, the great conceptions of the peace, which the judgment of Nuernberg reflects, and that almost all men everywhere, when they are not diverted, still cherish and yearn for in their hearts.

The Indian Express (October 2, 1946)

Nuremburg judgment:
Goering & confederates found guilty
Schacht, Papen and Fritzsche discharged

GERMAN HIGH COMMAND AND GENL. STAFF NOT CONVICTED

NUREMBERG, OCTOBER 1: Lord Justice Lawrence, President of the War Crimes Tribunal, opened the Court’s final session shortly after 8:30 a.m. (G.M.T.) today.

All the 21 accused were in the dock by 7:30 a.m. and the Court was packed to capacity with spectators and officials.

The Tribunal pronounced the following verdicts individually on the Nazi leaders tried:

Goering was found guilty on all four counts namely conspiracy, crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Of Hess the Court found he was an informed and willing participant in German aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Hess was found guilty on counts one and two (conspiracy and crimes against peace) and not guilty on counts three and four (war crimes and crimes against humanity).

Keitel and Ribbentrop were found guilty on all the four counts.

Kaltenbrunner was found not guilty on count one but guilty on counts three and four.

Rosenberg was found guilty on all counts.

Frank was found not guilty on count one but guilty on counts three and four.

Dr Schacht was found not guilty on all counts and was discharged.

Streicher was found not guilty on count one but guilty on count four.

Doenitz was found not guilty on count one but guilty on counts two and three.

Schirach was found not guilty on count one but guilty on count four.

Sauckel was found not guilty on counts one and two but guilty on counts three and four.

Frick and Funk were found not guilty on count one but guilty on counts two, three and four.

Raeder was found guilty on counts one, two and three.

Bormann tried in his absence was found not guilty on count one but guilty on counts three and four.

Seyss-Inquart was found not guilty on count one but guilty on counts two, three and four.

Von Papen was found not guilty and was discharged.

Speer was found not guilty on courts one and two but guilty on counts three and four.

Von Neurath was found guilty on all counts.

Fritzsche was found not guilty and was discharged.

Jodl was found guilty on all counts.

After announcement of the verdicts the Tribunal adjourned for ten minutes.

Monday’s Proceedings

NUREMBERG, SEPTEMBER 30: The Tribunal of the United Nations, opening the judgment today of Hermann Goering and 20 other Nazi leaders, declared with firm unambiguity that an aggressive war had been established beyond all doubt as the Nazi Party’s objective since its formation. The Tribunal rejected defence pleas that a common plan could not exist because Hitler was a dictator, declaring he could not make an aggressive war without the cooperation of statesmen, military leaders, diplomats and businessmen.

All of these were to be found in the dock. Sitting motionless and intent, they heard the Allied judges pull down, one by one, the main pillars of their defence.

Towards the end, Rudolf Hess, apparently suffering from severe headache, began hitting his forehead with the right. hand. Goering sitting at his right, beckoned to a guard who summoned an interpreter. A few minutes later, Hess began swaying in his seat, then rose and left the court, apparently with the permission of the Chief Security Officer who stood near/by. After a short interval, Hess returned carrying a book and a blanket and smiling broadly.

Matching in importance and significance for the accused men of these findings was a revelation that the Tribunal has declined to declare “criminal” the German General Staff and High Command, the Reich Cabinet and the million-strong S.A. by which Hitler rose to power.

“Certain groups” of the Nazi Party’s political leadership, the Corps S.S. and its Counter-Intelligence Branch S.D., and the Gestapo have been found “criminal groups.” This decision affects about one-and-a-half to two million Germans, a number of whom under this decision may brought before the National Military or Occupation Courts.

The S.A., more than one million strong at the outbreak of the war, is “acquitted” because, after the purge of 1934, it became “relatively unimportant”, and the Reich Cabinet because after 1937, it never really acted as a group or organisation.

War of aggression a crime even prior to U.N. Charter

The final stages of the greatest war crimes trial in history opened at 10:04 a.m. local time - 8:04 a.m. (G.M.T.) - today when Lord Justice Lawrence, British President of the Court, began reading the indictment against the accused.

First of the 21 accused to enter the dock were Admirals Doenitz and Raeder. Next to enter were Von Schirach, and the men exchanged nods and smiles with the German defence counsel. Julius Streicher - chewing as he has been throughout the trial - and Walter Funk and Dr. Schacht followed.

They took their seats in the front row and sat blinking under the glare of arclights.

Film cameras were turning and photographers’ flash lights went off intermittently.

In threes, the architects of Nazism filled the dock - Frank, Rosenberg and Frick, Speer, Von Neurath and Fritzsche.

Goering - pale and quickly putting on sun glasses - took his old corner seat, followed by Hess and Ribbentrop.

As the dock filled, so did the court room - the prosecutors, world famous personalities occupying the coveted “ring side” seats and officials. Two hundred and fifteen journalists from more than 20 nations were sitting in the Press gallery.

Lord Justice Lawrence opened reading of the judgment, quietly and without ceremony, by referring to the making of the Agreement and Charter of August 1945 between Britain, America, France and the Soviet Union. He then outlined the Charter provisions dealing with the constitution, jurisdiction and functions of the tribunal.

He reviewed the history of the trial going into detail on dates and recalling the 403 open sessions.

He dealt with the question of aggressive war and the law relating to it, recalling that the Law of the Charter was binding on the Tribunal; so it was not necessary to consider whether and to what extent aggressive war was a crime before the execution of the London Agreement.

But because the questions of law involved were so important, the Tribunal expressed its view on questions of law, which had been raised. The making of the Charter was a legitimate exercise of sovereign legislative power by the countries to which the German Reich surrendered unconditionally.

Nazi programme ended in war

Lord Justice Lawrence leaned forward slightly as he traced the history of the Nazi Movement in a quiet impassive voice. The tribunal, he said, dealt with the Nazi Party programme finding judgment in these words: “The demand for unification of all Germans in Greater Germany was to play a large part in the events preceding the seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia; abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles was to become the decisive motive in attempting to justify the policy of the German Government; the demand for land was to be the justification for acquisition of living space at the expense of other nations; the expulsion of Jews from membership of the race of German blood was to lead to atrocities against the Jewish people and the demand for a national army was to result in a measure for rearmament on the largest possible scale and ultimately to war.”

As for the constitution of the court, Lord Justice Lawrence continued, all that the accused were entitled to ask was to receive a fair trial on facts and law in accordance with principles of justice.

The defence’s main argument, he recalled, had been that no sovereign power made aggressive war at the time the alleged criminal acts were committed, that no statute had defined aggressive war, that no penalty had been fixed for its commission and no court had been created to try and punish the offenders. In these circumstances, it was said that to punish the defendants for the crime of aggressive war was to indulge in ex-post facto legislation - which was abhorrent to the law of all civilised nations.

Lord Justice Lawrence then declared that, in the Tribunal’s judgment, these contentions of the defence ignored the true nature of International Law, which is continually developing, adapting itself to the needs of a changing world as wisdom and experience of succeeding generations dictate.

The Hague Convention contained no statement that breach of its provisions was a crime, nor was there any mention of a court in which offenders would be tried. Yet, acts outlawed in The Hague Convention are recognised to be crimes as fully as though they had been expressly defined as such. Thus, the Kellogg Pact of 1928, which outlawed war as an instrument of national policy, necessarily involves the proposition that such a war is illegal in International Law and that those who planned and waged such war with its inevitable and terrible consequences were committing a crime.

So, war of aggression was outlawed by the Pact since it was included in war for solution of international controversies.

Heads of state not immune

Countering the contention that Heads of State should be free by virtue of their official position from responsibility and the contention that International Law did not apply to individuals, the tribunal declared that this doctrine of immunity of Heads of State had no application where a State had violated International Law. Evidence proved that the seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia were acts of naked aggression.

The judgment recalled Hitler’s Berlin speech of September 26, 1938, after Mr. Chamberlain had flown to Germany to meet the Fuehrer for talks about Czechoslovakia, in which Hitler said, “I assured him that when this problem is solved there will be no more territorial problems for Germany in Europe.”

Soon afterwards, Hitler issued a directive counter-signed by Keitel which, in dealing with future tasks of the armed forces, used these words, “Liquidation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia. It must be possible to smash up in time the remainder of Czechoslovakia if her policy should become hostile to Germany.” And on May 23, 1939, Hitler announced he declarations, the Tribunal entertains no doubt that the war against Poland was an aggressive war and, therefore, a crime within the meaning of the Charter.

Lord Justice Lawrence outlined the part played by Goering, Schacht and Von Papen in the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor in 1933 and gave the Tribunal’s judgment on the burning of the Reichstag which followed Hitler’s seizure of power, declaring, “This fire was used by Hitler and his Cabinet as a pretext for suspending the constitutional guarantees of freedom. The persecution of other political parties and the use of concentration camps, the forming of the Gestapo as secret police, the elimination of political opponents and the reduction of powers of regional and local governments throughout Germany were all designed to keep absolute political power in the hands of the German Government.

War crimes and crimes against humanity

The judgment referred to the overwhelming evidence relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity. War crimes had been committed on a vast scale never before seen in the history of war. Most of them arose from the Nazi conception of total war and for the most part they were the result of cold and criminal calculation. Some of them were planned long in advance. Plunder of Soviet territories to be occupied and ill-treatment of civilian population had been settled in minute detail before the attack began.

Among the crimes, which were the result of direct orders circulated from the highest to the lowest official channels, were slave labour, murder of prisoners recaptured after escaping and cruel medical experiments on prisoners.

The judgment said: “The invasions of Denmark and Norway were aggressive wars made in violation of existing treaties and assurances. When plans for attacking Norway were made, evidence showed they were not made for the purpose of forestalling an imminent Allied landing, but at most that they might prevent Allied occupation at some future date. Norway was occupied to gain bases from which a more effective attack on England and France might be made, pursuant to plans made long in advance of any Allied plans.

The judgment proceeded to list the German attacks on Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia and Greece as Acts of Aggressive War.

The fact that Lord Justice Lawrence called on his alternate Mr. Justice Birkett to take part in reading the judgment indicates that all the eight judges will take part.

Stating that the attack on Russia was a war of aggression the judgment said: “Plans for economic exploitation of the U.S.S.R. for wholesales removal of masses of population, for murder of Commissars and political leaders were all part of a carefully prepared scheme, which was launched without a shadow of legal excuse.”

Hitler not the only man responsible

The Tribunal rejected the threadbare excuses of Nazi leaders that Hitler was responsible for everything. Hitler could not make an aggressive war by himself. He had to have the cooperation of statesmen, military leaders, diplomats and businessmen. When, with the knowledge of his aims, they gave him their cooperation, they made themselves’ parties to the plan he initiated.

Dealing with the practice of keeping hostages, the judgment said that an order by Keitel spoke in terms of 50 or 100 lives from occupied countries for one German life. The policy was carried to the logical conclusion in the destruction of entire towns such as Lidice in Czechoslovakia.

Concentration camps became places of organised mess murder, where millions of people were destroyed. Evidence of widespread starvation in Poland indicated the ruthlessness with which exploitation of occupied territories was carried out. German armies were fed out of Soviet territory, even if this meant many millions were starved to death. The slave labour policy was in flagrant violation of the Hague Convention. It was estimated that 5,000,000 people were taken to Germany. Of these, Sauckel, Plenipotentiary for Labour, said in March 1944, “not even 200,000 came voluntarily.”

Conscription of labour was often put through by the most drastic and violent methods - manhunts in streets, cinemas and churches. Houses were sometimes burnt down and families taken as hostages.

The Tribunal descried the Nazi persecution of Jews as a record of consistent and systematic inhumanity. Frank had said, “a thousand years will pass and this guilt of Germany will still not be erased.” Adolf Eichmann, Director of the Jewish Extermination Programme, had estimated that the policy resulted in killing 6,000,000 Jews.

When the session ended tonight many of the men in the dock showed signs of feeling the strain of the trial’s longest day. Goering was fidgety and nervous. So was Von Schirach who twisted round several times to look at the clock during the last few minutes of the session. Doenitz and Raeder seemed stolid and impassive. So at the other end of the dock did Schacht and Papen. Shifting uneasily in their seats were Frick and the usually self-possessed Keitel.

Goering’s will be the first of the individual judgments to be given tomorrow morning. Individual verdicts are expected to take the whole morning. (Reuter)

Wiener Kurier (October 2, 1946)

Zu dem Nürnberger Urteil:
USA-Ankläger stimmt an Teil dem russischen Protest zu

Washington (AND.) - Der als amerikanischer Hauptankläger bei den Nürnberger Verhandlungen tätig gewesene Oberrichter R. H. Jackson erklärte gestern, das vom Nürnberger Gerichtshof gefällte Urteil unterstütze und verwirkliche den Grundsatz, daß der Angriffskrieg ein Verbrechen darstellt, für welches die schuldigen Staatsmänner persönlich bestraft werden können. Die Erklärung wurde in Nürnberg veröffentlicht, wohin Jackson als amerikanischer Vertreter bei der Urteilsverkündung kürzlich zurückgekehrt war.

Jackson gab seinem Bedauern darüber Ausdruck, daß Schacht und von Papen freigesprochen wurden und der Generalstab nicht als verbrecherische Organisation erklärt wurde; die Urteilssprüche und Bestrafungen seien jedoch von sekundäre: Bedeutung, verglichen mit der wichtigen Tatsache, daß vier Mächte den Angriffskrieg sowie die religiösen, rassischen und politischen Verfolgungen von Minderheiten übereinstimmend als Verbrechen brandmarkten.

Wortlaut der Erklärung Jacksons

„Im Namen aller Völker ersuchten wir Anklagevertreter die Mitglieder des Gerichtshofes um ein gewissenhaftes und unabhängiges Urteil über die Schuld der Angeklagten Männer und Organisationen. Und dieses Urteil haben wir jetzt bekommen.

Das Urteil, welches an dem Grundsatz festhält und ihn zur Anwendung brachte, daß der Angriffskrieg ein Verbrechen ist, für welches die Staatsmänner individuell bestraft werden können, ist sehr befriedigend. Es ist ein für den Weltfrieden verheißungsvolles Zeichen, daß die Vertreter der großen Mächte sich alle über diesen Rechtsgrundsatz einig sind und sich durch dieses Urteil auf eine solche Haltung festgelegt haben. Die anderen Gesichtspunkte zu diesem Urteil sind zu schwieriger Natur, als daß sie ohne ein Studium des Wortlautes - zu dem bisher die Zeit noch fehlte - gewürdigt werden könnten.

Bedauern über die Freisprüche

Ich bedaure, daß sich der Gerichtshof verpflichtet fühlte, Schacht und von Papen freizusprechen, und daß er es nicht für richtig hielt, den Generalstab als verbrecherisch zu erklären. Die Argumente, die wir für deren Schuldigsprechung vorbrachten und die uns Anklagevertretern durchaus überzeugend erschienen, scheinen auf den Gerichtshof nicht denselben Eindruck gemacht zu haben. Die Wirkung dieser Freisprüche auf die künftige strafrechtliche Verfolgung von Industriellen und Militaristen wird sich erst aus der Reaktion der öffentlichen Meinung ermessen lassen.

Ich selber bin jedoch der Meinung, daß der Schuldspruch und die Verurteilung der Einzelpersonen von untergeordneter Bedeutung ist, im Vergleich zur Bedeutung, die der Tatsache zukommt, daß sich die vier großen Mächte auf den Grundsatz festgelegt haben, daß Angriffskriege ein Verbrechen sind und daß auch die Verfolgung von Minderheitsgruppen auf Grund ihrer Zugehörigkeit zu einer bestimmten Rasse, Religion oder politischen Überzeugung ein Verbrechen ist.

Diese Rechtsgrundsätze werden die künftige Gestaltung des Weltgeschehens auch dann noch beeinflussen, wenn die persönlichen Schicksale der einzelnen feigst vergessen sind.“

Die Erklärungen des russischen Richters

Nürnberg (WK.) - Das russische Mitglied des Nürnberger Tribunals, Generalmajor I. T. Nikitschenko, bezeichnet den vom Gerichtshof freigesprochenen Hjalmar Schacht in einer gestern abend in Nürnberg ausgegebenen Erklärung als „Schwindler.“

Schacht hätte verurteilt werden sollen, weil er „die Nazipartei bewußt und wohlüberlegt unterstützt und bei der Machtergreifung in Deutschland durch die Faschisten aktiven Beistand geleistet, hat.“

Papen unterstützte die Nazipläne mit aller Macht

Von Papen, der zweite freigesprochene Nazi, so heißt es in der Erklärung, sei der Schuld überwiesen worden, den Nazi behilflich gewesen zu sein, zur Macht zu kommen, und habe „seine Beziehungen dazu verwendet, Hitlers Terrorregime in Deutschland zu festigen. Er diente Hitler bis zum Schluß treu, indem er die Naziangriffspläne mit all seinen Fähigkeiten und seinem diplomatischen Geschick unterstützte. Daraus folge, daß von Papen eine beträchtliche Verantwortung für die Verbrechen des Hitlerregimes trage. Es sei nicht möglich, seine Rolle als ‚Agent provocateur‘ zu ignorieren.“

Mit Bezug auf Fritzsche, den dritten freigesprochenen Nazi, erklärte Nikitschenko: „Das Urteil widerspricht sowohl den vorgelegten Beweisen, als auch dem tatsächlichen Stand der Dinge. Man könne unmöglich annehmen, daß die Beherrscher dös Reiches einen Mann auf den Posten eines Leiters der Radiopropaganda berufen hatten, den sie für zweitrangig gehalten hätten. Ich betrachte die Verantwortlichkeit Fritzsches als voll erwiesen.“ In bezug auf Heß sagte General Nikitschenko: „Wenn man in Betracht zieht, daß unter den politischen Führern Hitlerdeutschlands Heß seiner Bedeutung nach der dritte war und eine entscheidende Rolle bei den Verbrechen des Naziregimes spielte, kann ich in diesem Fall nur die Todesstrafe als gerechtes Urteil ansehen.“

Hinsichtlich des Freispruches der Naziorganisationen führte Nikitschenkos Erklärung folgendes aus: „Ich glaube, es besteht aller Grund, die Hitlerregierung für eine verbrecherische Organisation zu Erklären. Die Tätigkeit des Reichskabinettes rief den Krieg hervor, der Millionen von Menschenleben vernichtete und unschätzbare Schäden an Eigentum und Leiden hervorrief.“

Englands Ankläger betont festgelegte Ächtung des Angriffskrieges

Die Bedeutung des Grundsatzes der individuellen Verantwortlichkeit für Angriffe, wie sie im Urteil des Nürnberger Kriegsverbrecherprozesses festgelegt wurde, wurde in einer gestern abend von der britischen Anklagevertretung herausgegebenen Erklärung mit Nachdruck betont: „Der Grund, warum das Urteil ein historisches Dokument von höchster Wichtigkeit ist, liegt darin, daß es endgültig und klar als Grundsatz des internationalen Rechtes verkündet hat, ein Angriffskrieg oder ein Krieg auf Grund eines Vertragsbruches stelle ein internationales Verbrechen dar, für das eine persönliche und individuelle Verantwortlichkeit besteht.

Angesichts dieser grundlegenden Erkenntnis sind die Entschlüsse, zu denen der Gerichtshof in Fällen einzelner Personen gelangte, in gewisser Hinsicht eine Angelegenheit von nur vorübergehendem Interesse.“

Frankreichs Ankläger mit dem Urteil einverstanden

Der französische Anklagevertreter Champetier de Ribes erklärte gestern abend in Nürnberg: „Ich habe zu den Entscheidungen des Tribunals, vor denen ich mich tief verbeuge, nichts zu bemerken. Ich ersuche jedes Mitglied der Presse ausdrücklich, die Tatsache, daß es zwischen den russischen und den anderen alliierten Richtern zu abweichenden Meinungen gekommen ist, nicht zu überschätzen.“

Erstes Weltecho zum Nürnberger Urteilsspruch

Moskau (UP.) - „Moskau war bei Bekanntwerden der Nürnberger Urteile zuerst ungläubig, dann aber zutiefst schockiert“, schreibt ein amerikanischer Korrespondent aus der russischen Hauptstadt.

„Das ist das größte aller Verbrechen“, rief ein Moskauer aus, als er in der Untergrundbahn von dem Nürnberger Urteil erfuhr. In Rußland hatte man nie daran gezweifelt, daß alle 21 Hauptkriegsverbrecher gehängt werden würden.

„Der Durchschnittsrusse empfindet es als eine ungeheuerliche Ungerechtigkeit“, schreibt der Korrespondent weiter, „daß auch nur einer der Hauptkriegsverbrecher, die doch alle mitschuldig waren, daß Millionen von unschuldigen Menschen ihr Leben verloren, sein Leben retten sollte. Die Enttäuschung ist allgemein.“

Auch Polen ist enttäuscht

Warschau (UP.) - Die polnische Presse zeigt über die in Nürnberg gefällten Urteile unverhohlene Enttäuschung. Die Blätter aller politischen Richtungen unterstreichen übereinstimmend die Tatsache, daß ein Land wie Polen, das schwerste getroffene Opfer der deutschen Aggression, unmöglich verstehen könne, daß in Nürnberg derart milde Urteile gefällt wurden.

Frankreichs Internierte und Zwangsverschickte protestieren

Paris (WK.) - Namens der Vereinigung früherer Zwangsverschickter und internierter Gefangener protestierte Louis Henri Sampaix gegen die Nürnberger Urteile als Gesamtheit, die er „eine Beschimpfung des Andenkens der in den Konzentrationslagern gemarterten und hingemordeten Kameraden“ nannte.

Er erklärte Pressevertretern gegenüber: „Das Urteil bestätigt, daß das Zeitalter der Verfolgung ermutigt und nicht beendet worden ist und daß es auf die Familien, die noch immer ihre Toten beweinen, einen peinlichen Eindruck machen werde.“

Eine Stimme aus Amerika

New York (WK.) - Das demokratische Kongreßmitglied Sol Bloom, Vorsitzender des Ausschusses für Auswärtige Angelegenheiten im amerikanischen Repräsentantenhaus, erklärte in New York: „Man kann die Strafe nicht zu streng bemessen. Die Leute müssen lernen, daß sie keine Scheußlichkeiten wie die während des letzten Krieges begangenen verüben können und dann davonkommen.“

Ruhige Aufnahme in Berlin

Berlin (WK.) - Die Freisprüche von Papens, Schachts und Fritzsches haben einen lebhaften Protest seitens des Komitees der „Opfer des Faschismus“ in Berlin verursacht. Da nur ein Drittel der Berliner Bevölkerung Radioapparate besitzt, wurde die Nachricht vom Nürnberger Urteilsspruch in der Stadt nur langsam bekannt. Die heutigen Morgenzeitungen brachten auf ihrer Titelseite lange Berichte über den Verlauf der gestrigen Sitzung. Von den vier Nachmittagsblättern haben gestern, drei ihr Erscheinen verzögert, um die neuesten Berichte über die Urteile in Nürnberg bringen zu können. Im allgemeinen herrschte in der Stadt Ruhe und es werden keine Demonstrationen oder Zwischenfälle erwartet.

Der frühere Reichstagspräsident Paul Loebe sagte in Berlin: „Die Alliierten haben die Angeklagten mit einer Humanität behandelt, die keiner von ihnen jemals seinen Opfern gegenüber an den Tag gelegt habe.“

Der Kommentator von Radio Berlin erklärte gestern abend: „Die Leute sind über den Freispruch von Papen, Schacht und Fritzsche enttäuscht. Viele Stimmen verlangen eine Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens gegen die drei Freigesprochenen. Es gibt keinen anständigen Deutschen, der der Ansicht wäre, daß die drei freigesprochenen Männer jetzt als Gentlemens zu betrachten seien.“

Die ersten Pressestimmen aus England

London (Reuter) - Die „Times“ erklärt: „Die Verbrechen der 19 verurteilten Angeklagten sind unauslöschlich in das Bewußtsein unserer Generation übergegangen und keine noch so geschickte Verteidigung konnte die Wirkung, die die Enthüllung dieser schrecklichen Taten hatte, vermindern. Auf den Nürnberger Richtern lag eine ganz besondere Verantwortung. Eine noch größere Verantwortung und Verpflichtung liegt aber jetzt auf den Völkern und den Regierungen, nämlich jenen in Nürnberg vertretenen Grundsätzen der Gerechtigkeit zu internationaler Geltung zu verhelfen.“

Der konservative „Daily Telegraph“ schreibt.: „Es ist vielleicht schwierig, den Grund für die Unterschiede in den Urteilen zu finden. Wir wissen jedoch, daß die Richter erst nach sorgfältigster Erwägung der Ergebnisse des Beweisverfahrens diese Urteile aussprachen.

Die einzige Überraschung an den Verdikten war, abgesehen von den Freisprüchen, die Tatsache, daß man Heß für genügend geistig gesund hielt, um den Vorgängen folgen zu können. Unter dieser Annahme wird auch der Einspruch des russischen Richters verständlich.“

Die ebenfalls konservative „Yorkshire Post“ erklärt in einem Kommentar zu den drei Freisprüchen: „Für jene unter uns, die die Laufbahn und die Tätigkeit dieser Männer verfolgt haben, ist es etwas schwer, zu glauben, daß sie nicht zumindest manchen von Hitlers Verbrechen sympathisch gegenüberstanden und daß sie nicht bis zu einem gewissen Ausmaß an der Verschwörung, Deutschland zum Herrn der Welt zu machen, teilnahmen.“

Hinrichtungen sollen am 16. Oktober in Nürnberg stattfinden

Österreich verlangt Auslieferung Papens und Schirachs

Berlin (INS.) - Ein amtlicher Sprecher des Alliierten Kontrollrates teilte gestern abend mit, daß die zum Tode verurteilten Kriegsverbrecher am 16. Oktober in Nürnberg hingerichtet werden.

Der Sprecher lehnte es jedoch ab, den genauen Zeitpunkt und Ort der Hinrichtung bekanntzugeben, da der Alliierte Kontrollrat jede Mitteilung darüber aus „Sicherheitsgründen“ verboten habe.

Der Alliierte Kontrollrat wird in den nächsten Tagen zur Überprüfung und Erledigung eingereichter Gnadengesuche zusammentreten.

Oberhenker Pierrepoint wird die Naziverbrecher hinrichten

Nürnberg (WK.) - Der bekannte britische Oberhenker Henry Pierrepoint wird die Hinrichtungen an den elf zum Tode verurteilten Naziführern vollstrecken. Den Verurteilten wird es noch einmal gestattet sein, einen Besuch ihrer Angehörigen zu empfangen und an einem Gottesdienst teilzunehmen. Sie werden in ungezeichneten Gräbern an einer geheimgehaltenen Stelle bestattet werden.

Berufungen und Gnadengesuche

Dr. Alfred Seidel, der Verteidiger von Heß und Frank, wird im Falle Heß die Aufhebung des Urteiles beantragen, da dieser seiner Meinung nach auf Grund der Urteilsbegründung nicht mit der vom Gericht verhängten Strafe belegt werden dürfe.

Der Verteidiger Schirachs und Funks, Dr. Fritz Sauter, erklärte, er wolle jetzt noch kein Gnadengesuch einreichen, da er vor allem im Falle Schirach das Urteil für außerordentlich weise, richtig und mäßig halte. Wenn er überhaupt ein Gnadengesuch einreichen werde, so wolle er dies zu einem viel späteren Zeitpunkt tun.

Dr. Otto Kranzbühler, der Verteidiger von Dönitz, wird das Urteil nach Möglichkeit angreifen, da zehn Jahre Gefängnis „noch zu viel seien für einen Mann, den man für unschuldig hält.“

Dr. Stahmer, der Göring verteidigt hatte, beabsichtigt erst mit seinem Klienten zu sprechen, ob Göring ein Gnadengesuch wünscht. Das gleiche trifft für Dr. Marx, den Verteidiger Streichers, zu, der von seinem Klienten bis jetzt den Eindruck hat, daß dieser den Tod einer langen Freiheitsstrafe vorziehe.

Speer will Berufung einlegen

Der Verteidiger Speers will im Namen seines Mandanten sobald wie möglich gegen das Urteil Berufung einlegen. Auch Dr. Bergold, der Bormann verteidigte, will ein Gesuch um Revision des Todesurteils einbringen.

Schacht, Papen und Fritzsche enthaftet

Die drei freigesprochenen Angeklagten Schacht, von Papen und Fritzsche wurden kurz nach dem Urteil durch den Internationalen Militärgerichtshof auf freien Fuß gesetzt.

Die drei Freigesprochenen werden vermutlich vor der „Entnazifizierungskammer“ in der amerikanischen Zone erscheinen müssen, um sich dort zu verantworten. Die Maximalstrafe, die diese Kammer verhängen kann, beträgt zehn Jahre Zwangsarbeit und Konfiskation des privaten Eigentums.

Schacht und Papen wollen in die britische Zone Deutschlands

Wie gestern spätabends bekannt wurde, erwägen Schacht und von Papen zufolge der gestrigen Erklärung des bayrischen Ministerpräsidenten Dr. Wilhelm Högner, daß das deutsche Volk jeden der freigesprochenen Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor ein Gericht stellen werde, um freies Geleit nach der britischen Zone anzusuchen.

Die Wünsche Österreichs

Wien (APA.) - Zu den Nürnberger Urteilen erfahren wir aus dem Bundesministerium für Justiz: Vier von den 22 Angeklagten des Nürnberger Kriegsverbrecherprozesses stehen auf der Auslieferungsliste, die von der österreichischen Bundesregierung dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof übergeben wurde. Die Namen dieser Angeklagten sind: Seyß-Inquart, Baldur von Schirach, Kaltenbrunner und Papen. Von diesen vier Angeklagten wurden Kaltenbrunner und Seyß-Inquart zum Tode verurteilt. Das Auslieferungsbegehren ist damit in diesen beiden Fällen hinfällig geworden. Dagegen bleibt das Auslieferungsverlangen bei dem zu 20 Jahren Gefängnis verurteilten Baldur von Schirach und bei dem freigesprochenen Franz von Papen aufrecht.

Die Stimme AMERIKAS

Zum Nürnberger Urteil

Die Nürnberger Schuldsprüche finden in den amerikanischen Zeitungen fast einmütige Zustimmung, viele Blätter fragen sich jedoch, ob sie sich als genügend wirksames Abschreckungsmittel gegen künftige Aggressoren bewähren werden.

„New York Sun“: „Die Welt steht jetzt vor der Frage, warm und wo sie vielleicht Ursache haben wird, Zeuge einer Wiederholung dieses Dramas zu sein.“

„Saint Louis Post Dispatch“: „Eine Lücke in der Entscheidung des Gerichtshofes besteht darin, daß der deutsche Generalstab nicht verurteilt wurde.“

„Cleveland Press“: „Die Überraschung war der Freispruch von drei Angeklagten und die Gefängnisstrafen für weitere sieben. Ob die Schuldsprüche und das Strafausmaß einen künftigen Angriffskrieg verhüten können, muß die Zukunft lehren.“

„Chicago Sun“: „Nur die Geschichte wird entscheiden, ob dieser Prozeß vor einem internationalen Gerichtshof die Idee der Gerechtigkeit gefördert hat.“

„Baltimore Sun“: „Man wird sich vielfach wundern, daß Papen und Schacht freigesprochen wurden, doch muß man dabei in Betracht ziehen, daß diese beiden Männer es stets geschickt vermieden, sich allzusehr zu exponieren.“

The Evening Star (October 2, 1946)

Lawyers to seek Nazis’ execution by firing squad

Attorneys for 11 war criminals preparing appeals to council

NUERNBERG, Germany (AP) – Lawyers for the 11 condemned German war criminals disclosed today they planned to appeal to the Allied Control Council to change the death sentences from hanging to shooting if all other pleas for clemency failed.

The last court of resort for Hermann Goering, Joachim von Ribbentrop and the others from the ignominy of the hangman’s rope was formed of the four Allied generals sitting in Berlin as occupation authorities for the four zones of Germany. A 12th German, Martin Bormann, was sentenced in absentia to be hanged.

As attorneys drew their petitions, the four power commission representing the Allied Council held an all-day session on arrangements and details for the executions October 16 in Nuernberg, once the festival city of the Nazi Party. They talked also of transporting seven of the war criminals to Berlin to start their prison terms.

A redoubled force of American soldier guards surrounded the ancient courthouse and jail where the convicted men were held, and they had orders to shoot to kill on provocation.

Schacht lacks money

All three men acquitted in the history-making international trial, which established planning aggressive war as a supreme crime, remained in jail overnight. They had no other place to go immediately. Hjalmar Schacht, the truculent former finance minister, planned to remain in jail at least another night, saying he had no money, ration card nor home.

Franz von Papen asked for a visa to the French zone, in which he has two castles near the Rhine. Hans Fritsche may have to return to the Russian zone, whence he came for trial as a prisoner of war.

German lawyers for Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel and Col. Gen. Alfred Jodl, both relegated to the gallows, led the legal staff in making appeals for clemency, and for shooting rather than the rope if mercy is denied.

The doomed militarists were reported making a special request for a firing squad, which they considered a more honorable death for a soldier.

A lawyer for Fritz Sauckel, condemned labor leader, attached to his application for commutation hundreds of letters from Germans. Other attorneys said they were obtaining similar documents to bolster their appeals.

Will be hanged October 16

Here in the enclosure of the old courthouse of this city, which stood as a major symbol of Nazi power in the days of Adolf Hitler, the Fuehrer’s teammates of warmaking days – Goering, Von Ribbentrop, Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Alfred Rosenberg, Julius Streicher, Sauckel, Jodl and Arthur Seyss-Inquart – will be hanged unless the Allied Control Council overrules the tribunal.

There appeared to be little likelihood of such a reversal by the four-power group.

A spokesman for the Council said in Beilin that the condemned men would have until midnight Saturday to file their appeals and that such appeals would be “acted upon speedily.”

The other seven convicts, who drew prison terms ranging from 10 years to life, will serve their time in a four-power jail in Berlin, the name of which was not disclosed “for security reasons.” For the same reason, no announcement was made as to when those men – Rudolf Hess, Walther Funk, Erich Raeder (all life-termers), Baldur von Schirach, Albert Speer (20 years each), Constantin von Neurath (15 years) and Karl Doenitz (10 years) – would be taken to Berlin.

Further action uncertain

The question of whether any, or all, of the acquitted men would face action by German denazification boards still was unsettled. Fritzsche defiantly told yesterday’s news conference that he hoped to go before such a board and clear his name with the German people.

Von Papen said he couldn’t see any reason why he should have to do such a thing and Schacht said belligerently he would wait for someone to accuse him before he offered any defense.

And it appeared he might have the chance. Dr. Wilhelm Hoegner, minister-president of Bavaria, said that any of the three acquitted men remaining in the American zone would be placed before a denazification board promptly, which he said would “certainly” mean “several years at hard labor.”

Hoegner called the acquittal of Von Papen “astounding,” and said he thought of the greying diplomat as “the real instigator of the Third Reich.”

Execution being arranged

Arrangements are proceeding for the execution of the tribunal’s death sentences. A four-power commission made up of four military commanders, appointed by the Council in Berlin to be responsible for the executions, was in Nuernberg today.

The Council, which has authority to reduce or alter the sentences, but not to increase them, has always acted by unanimous vote in its decisions and it was assumed that unanimous vote would be required for any clemency.

In addition to the turmoil stirred up by the tribunal’s acquittal of Schacht, Von Papen and Fritzsche, there was considerable questioning of the court’s refusal to brand the German General Staff and High Command as criminal organizations. The Russian judge dissented from that refusal in strong language.

Legal officials in the American military government in Berlin said the Russian dissents from the acquittals, in the general staff is sue and against the life sentence of Hess probably would mean there will be no more four-power war crimes trials in Germany.

They predicted future trials might be held on a zonal basis, with each occupying power conducting its own trials of prisoners in their custody.

Papen acquittal astounding

It had been believed earlier that if a second international trial were held, the defendants likely would be German industrialists and financiers, but Justice Robert H. Jackson, head of the American prosecution staff, said the Schacht acquittal put a new light on such prosecutions, and added that the tribunal’s actions in the case of the general staff would raise similar problems in trying other militarists.

But to the German public, at least in Nuernberg, the most astounding thing about the trial was the acquittal of Von Papen.

Random interviews around the court house this morning showed that the trend of German thinking about the trial is about as follows:

  • They think forced labor for life would be better than death sentences for those condemned to die.

  • They are astonished that Von Papen was freed.

  • They are disappointed that Speer, the munitions minister who designed the great Nuernberg Stadium where the Nazi Party rallies were held in the days of Nuernberg’s glory, should have received such a heavy sentence. He got 20 years.

World press hails Nuernberg judgment against Nazi chiefs

By the Associated Press

The press of both Allied and former enemy countries today acclaimed the principle laid down by the International Military Tribunal that the waging of aggressive war is criminal and punishable by death.

But in Rome, Il Buonsenso, organ of Italy’s uomo qualunque (common man) movement, which often has been accused of Fascist tendencies, declared that Hermann Goering and 10 other Nazi chieftains would go to the gallows only because they lost a war.

The press of the Soviet Union expressed surprise and perplexity, and the newspapers of France and occupied Germany reflected outright anger at the acquittals of three of the 21 Nazi leaders in the dock. But while dissatisfaction was shown with certain aspects of the judgment of the sentences the common man paper was alone in its contention that vengeance rather than justice presided at Nuernberg.

“Who among the judges was without sin?” the Roman newspaper demanded.

It said the defendants “were prosecuted for an imposing total of crimes from which, however, the essential crime was missing – that of having lost.”

Better war preparations seen

“The gallows of Nuernberg,” Il Buonsenso (good sense) said in its editorial, “will serve only to induce the leaders of every nation to prepare their wars better, to prosecute them with greater energy and speed, to initiate them when they are in possession of still more fearful weapons which guarantee victory – since it has now been proved that only the failure to win leads to punishment.”

The Soviet government newspaper Izvestia said that despite the shortcomings of the verdict, it would “play its role in the cause of the moral and political defeat of fascism and in cleansing the earth of its poisonous roots.”

“Diverse protectors of fascism – from inmates of the Vatican to the hired pens of the Hearst newspaper concern – mobilized all their forces in defense of the accused,” the editorial said, “but justice held the upper hand over lawlessness and a just cause was victorious.”

Izvestia said the judges showed “surprising softness to four master criminals” in letting Rudolf Hess off with a life sentence and acquitting Hjalmar Schacht, Hans Fritzsche and Franz von Papen. It expressed regret at the court’s failure to declare the German High Command a criminal organization.

History’s verdict

The Communist Party newspaper Pravda hailed the convictions as “history’s verdict,” despite the acquittals. An editorial broadcast by the Moscow radio supported the dissenting opinion on the acquittals by Soviet Justice I. T. Nikitchenko, but added that even with the acquittals, “it must be stressed that the sentence passed on these murderers at Nuernberg will be appraised by all honest people throughout the world as a positive achievement.”

The French press commented sharply on the acquittals. The Paris newspaper Combat said the acquittals would shock public opinion in Germany because Germans were well aware of “the sins of that particular social class” to which the three defendants belonged. The newspaper Franc Tireur said without Schacht’s counsel the Nazis never could have attained power. Figaro indicated general approval of the trial.

In Germany, newspapers licensed by the United States and Britain as well as the Soviet-controlled press maintained that the three acquitted men were guilty in the eyes of the German people. All the papers praised the tribunal for conducting a fair trial, but they differed with the judges on the acquittal and Soviet-licensed papers criticized some of the prison sentences as too lenient.

In defeated Japan, where her war leaders now are on trial for similar crimes, both the defense and the prosecution hailed the Nuernberg decisions as evidence of the ability of such a court to arrive at fair decisions.

The press in the United States almost unanimously hailed the results of the trial as the prime example of the “kind of justice we had hoped would prevail in a world in which free men had triumphed” and as confirming “a verdict long since returned by the judgment of outraged humanity.”

Many editors viewed the death penalties meted out to 12 of the Nazi leaders and the long jail sentences given seven others as establishing a possible deterrent to future aggressors, but others expressed misgiving regarding the acquittal of three of the defendants.

The four-nation tribunal, according to the New York Times “meted out what it was supposed to mete out – stern and exact justice, but justice, not vengeance. It has punished crime, it has refused to engage in an extermination campaign.”

This, too, was the theme of the editorial of the Richmond Times-Dispatch which declared: “Even the Nazis should be impressed by the validity and fairness of the judicial process, as practiced in the democratic nations, and as concretely evidenced in these proceedings.”

Precedent for war guilt seen

“The comfort of the Nuernberg example is the enactment there of the kind of justice we had hoped would prevail in a world in which free men had triumphed,” said the San Francisco Chronicle.

The New York Herald-Tribune observed that it is “as foolish as it is irrelevant to say that this process will set up a precedent which will entitle some future victor to punish his victims. Hie new precedent which has been established on the precedent of a fair and just assessment of ‘war guilt.’”

The New York Daily News said “the trial and the verdicts were all based on the proposition that it is an international crime to start a war. That is something new in world history and this trial sets a precedent which should have some most interesting consequences in future wars.”

Mercy tempers justice in Nuernberg sentencing

By Newbold Noyes Jr., Star staff correspondent

This is a complete description of the sentencing of the Nazis, parts of which were published in yesterday’s early editions.

NUERNBERG, Oct. 1 – Justice was strongly tempered with mercy in this afternoon’s 40-minute climax to the unprecedented international trial which has been in progress here since last November 20. The proceedings were packed with drama, as much for what did not happen as for what did.

One by one 18 of Hitler’s henchmen were brought to face the judgment the world imposed on them. Not one gave evidence of the terrible tension which each must have felt in his 30-second appearance.

Each entered the prisoner’s dock through elevator doors at the rear and stood quietly to listen to Lord Chief Justice Lawrence’s words through earphones. Most did not realize that they would hear only one brief sentence and therefore failed to remove the headset when the judgment had been pronounced. Military guards then signaled that the ordeal was finished and the condemned men took off the earphones and went quietly back into the elevator.

Significance in proceedings

What happened here today had a significance in comparison to which the actual defendants meant little. In this courtroom the conscience of a world sick of tyranny and the war it breeds asserted its right to judge and to punish duly constituted rulers who have done it violence.

The spectators who packed into the courtroom at the Palace of Justice witnessed a parade of men who stood for all the things the world must overcome if it is to succeed in its quest for peace. They were ill there, the big ones and the less big, the gentlemen and the thugs, the smart ones and the stupid. Each had his function in the system that was Nazism. Each in his way was in indispensable ingredient of Hitler’s terrible brew.

Just before three o’clock the doors at the rear of the prisoners’ dock opened to admit two American military police who took up positions on either side of the entrance. A moment later, Hermann Goering walked into the room.

The former Reichsmarshal successor-designate to Hitler, Luftwaffe chieftain and president of the Reichstag, whose fabulous ambitions, acquisitions, failures and crimes have made his name infamous in the earth’s farthest corners – hesitates for a moment, standing alone.

This was the man who in 1938 spurred on the workers in German aircraft factories by telling them he wanted bombers big enough to stop those “arrogant mouths” in New York and Washington.

Thought he was strong

That he failed to get them is not the point. The point is that Goering elected, while the rest of the world sought peace, to argue with bombs and tanks instead of with words and ideas – not because he was stupid, but because he thought he was strong.

This man was Hitler’s right hand. He has been singing psalms in his cell of late, but much of the old arrogance, the swaggering misguided courage, is still with him at this moment. As soon as he has put on his earphones, Justice Lawrence starts reading the sentence, Goering stops him with a wave of the hand. His headset is not working.

Apparently perfectly calm he stands by for a full two minutes while soldiers tinker with the apparatus. At last the difficulty is straightened out and Justice Lawrence’s words, in German translation, come through to Goering: “On the counts of the indictment on which you have been convicted, the International Military Tribunal sentences you to death by hanging.”

Rudolf Hess next

Next to be brought to the dock is Rudolf Hess, the man who, in his day, followed Hitler more closely and blindly than all the rest. Two months ago he told this court, “If I were once more at the beginning I should act once more as I did act even though I knew that at the end I should meet death on a bonfire.”

If Hess is not crazy, he is a great actor. He could be either – or both. This heavy-browed, frizzle-haired man of 47, with his sickly pallor and permanent 5 o’clock shadow condition, gave the war one of its most dramatic episodes in his 1941 flight to Britain.

He gave this trial its most dramatic episode when he told a shocked courtroom last December 30 that his “hysterical amnesia,” attested to by some of the world’s foremost physicians, had been faked for “tactical” reasons. Whatever his present condition – officially, he is adjudged sane – Europe is where it is today, among other reasons, because men like Hess could be swayed to put blind trust in other men forsaking all thought of principle.

Hess has a fanatic’s faith. He also has a highly developed sense of drama which is still functioning. Hess steps to the front of the dock and assumes a stance looking at the visitors’ gallery. Twice the guards try to get him to put on earphones – twice he brushes them angrily aside. He does not hear when the president announces his sentence: Life imprisonment. He walks casually out of the box without having bothered to find out what is to become of him.

Joachim von Ribbentrop, as they bring him in, still looks more like a champagne salesman, which he used to be, than like a foreign minister, which he became. There is no distinction to this man – it is hard to picture him dealing in destiny. Now he is pale as milk and there are black circles under his eyes. This man was the direct agent of Hitler’s designs against the outside world. Death, says Justice Lawrence.

Keitel a fine figure

Next to take the stage is a fine figure of a man, handsome, erect, substantial, gray-haired and gray-mustached Wilhelm Keitel, former field marshal, former chief of the Wehrmacht’s high command, to serve as Hitler’s self-confessed tool on the field of battle, he had to compromise drastically with his own concept of a soldier’s honor.

From his orders stemmed atrocities which sickened the world.

“I believe I erred,” he told the court. “That was my guilt.”

For his guilt, Prussian Soldier Keitel, standing stiffly at attention, now learns the penalty – death. He leaves silently.

It is the turn of Ernst Kaltenbrunner, deputy to the suicided Himmler as boss of the Security Police and sadistic brain behind Nazi concentration camps and death factories. He looks the part. At 43, he stands 6 feet 4 inches in height. The angular, ugly head with its long nose and hollow eyes, is seamed with scars.

This is the man who, according to testimony, laughed heartily at executions in the Nazi murder mills. He did not? join the other defendants in the dock until December 10 – he suffered a stroke on the eve of the trial, after having wept hysterically for several weeks. A capillary let go in the lining of his brain, causing blood to seep into his spinal fluid. He recovered, but still does not look his jovial best as he stands stiffly bowing to the court. Now the slouching triggerman who did Hitler’s dirtiest work hears the world judgment, spoken by Justice Lawrence – death. He makes another deeper bow before leaving.

Looks like professor

The fatal doors now open for Alfred Rosenberg. He is handsome, intelligent-looking and suave. At 53 he looks as if he might have gone far as a professor. The Nazis’ official ideologist and anti-Semitic theorist, he edited the Voelkischer Beobachter for Hitler and wrote a book called “Myth of the Twentieth Century.” He was one of the Fuehrer’s earliest associates.

This man’s active brain contributed to a project which would have destroyed the Slav race by forced abortions, compulsory birth control and the depopulation of cities through mass epidemics. His sentence is death.

Rosenberg takes off his earphones so quickly he musses his hair. Then he is gone.

Frank is smiling when he comes in. He adjusts his head set, bites his lip and nods as the president starts reading. On Frank’s conscience is the murder of an estimated 2,300,000 Poles and Jews during his tyrant tenure as Nazi governor general of Poland. He is repentant. He probably most repents the fact that he kept a 38-volume diary. Three times before this trial began, he tried to commit suicide. He looks tough – and he was.

It is Frank who said, In his diary, “One cannot kill all lice and Jews in a year.” It is also he who said, later, “A thousand years will pass and this guilt of Germany will not be erased.” Justice Lawrence says “death.”

Frank looks up at the celling a moment, then removes the earphones and nods to a guard while leaving.

Wilhelm Frick now stands stiffly at the bar of justice. He was Hitler’s minister of the interior. His face is craggy and sour and almost as gray as his crewcut hair. He wears a loud sports jacket. Frick’s counsel has depicted him as a bureaucrat who knew nothing of what was going on. Dr. Robert Kempner, the American prosecuting his case – a former German citizen whom Frick once threw into a concentration camp – saw it somewhat differently. He described his one-time oppressor as the administrative genius behind Hitler’s machine which Frick lubricated with the blood of millions of victims. Justice Lawrence is reading: Death by hanging. Dr. Kempner sits quietly watching as Wilhelm Frick starts back to his cell.

Stretcher generally hated

It is lucky for the next Nazi that he is not a sensitive man. Jew-baiting, pornography-collecting, gum-chewing Julius Stretcher, gauleiter of Franconia and editor of Der Stuermer, is so generally regarded as a stinker that not even his 20 co-defendants have had anything to do with him.

Yet his entry is pompous and he clicks his heels and haughtily lifts his eyebrows when a soldier hands him the earphone. Justice Lawrence intones his sentence – death.

Somebody in the courtroom whistles, and a flicker of surprise seems to cross Streicher’s absurd piglike face. Then he was led back to the jail, where no one is likely even to ask him how he fared. He is not useful to those with brains anymore.

Now we have Walther Funk, Hitler’s finance minister, short, bald, soft looking, smart looking, with deep pouches beneath his eyes and a lopsided twist to his mouth. How did he know those jewels in the Reichsbank came from victims of the Nazi gas chambers and that much of the gold was from their teeth?

He cried when he saw the horror movies. It was a big surprise to him to learn what the men were – the Nazis with whom he worked, as one of their number, for 13 years. Funk apparently is also surprised by the sentence he now receives – life imprisonment – for he turns back toward the bench as though he had something to say, before the guards lead him out.

Still come the men who sought and created war. Two admirals, Karl Doenitz and Erich Raeder, receive sentences of 10 years and life imprisonment, respectively. They are accused of building and directing Hitler’s navy in violation of existing treaties. Doenitz receives his sentence with a tiny twitch of apparent relief at the corners of bis tight drawn mouth. Raeder, however, scowls at the judges’ bench before making his exit.

The elevator yields up a handsome young man – Baldur von Schirach, Nazi youth leader whose face is grave as he takes his place. He is another of the repentants. He only tried, he has said, to teach Hitler’s youth the “good” parts of the Nazi doctrine, and he is sorry things turned out so badly.

The tragedy of Von Schirach’s position is that he can now no longer be a harm even to the millions of young fanatics who learned his bitter lesson so well. He folds his hands meekly while Justice Lawrence reads his sentence – 20 years’ imprisonment. But before he leaves, his lip curls in a slow and deliberate sneer.

Fritz Sauckel, who follows him, had charge of enslaved foreign workers during the war. Despite his lengthy titles, this bald, round-headed little man with his Hitleresque mustache was definitely a small fry in the Nazi hierarchy – almost as small as Stretcher. All through the trial he has been torn between protesting his innocence and revealing his inner elation at the thought that at last he is receiving recognition as a big shot.

Now Sauckel learns the form his hard-won recognition will take. “Death,” says Justice Lawrence.

So it goes. A third generation Prussian military professional, Alfred Gustav Jodl, who planned and waged the Fuehrer’s war with ruthless, dishonorable cunning, gets death. So does Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who helped turn over Austria to Hitler and ruled the beaten Netherlands.

Albert Speer, Nazi armaments minister, bows deeply as the court lets him off with 20 years. Constantin von Neurath, top flight diplomat who was “protector” of Bohemia and Moravia, glares angrily at his 15-year sentence. He is 73 years old.

Acquitted trio absent

The three defendants whom the court had earlier ruled innocent and ordered released – Hjalmar Schacht, Franz von Papen and Hans Fritzsche – were absent in this final lineup before the bar of justice. They had listened impassively before the court recessed as the judges summarized their cases during agonizingly suspenseful moments, and at the news that they were free men had concealed their inner feelings to an astounding degree.

It was Von Papen’s acquittal that caused the biggest stir in the courtroom as well as in the prisoners’ dock. As the reading of his judgment started, this 67-year-old diplomatic gentleman, to whom people and nations have always simply been things to do things with, riveted his eyes on the back of Rosenberg’s neck. He never took them away while the reading went on. His face was a sickly yellow, but it was completely impassive.

He had told the court he worked only for peace. He had been working, for his kind of peace for a long time. He was a spy in the United States during World War I and was identified in connection with the Black Tom explosion. He is the man who is said to have offered Texas to Mexico if Mexico joined the war on Germany’s side.

At last Justice Lawrence reaches the end of his reading, announcing that the court finds Papen not guilty and orders the marshal to release him. At these words, Von Papen’s sleek silver head jerks involuntarily but almost imperceptibly backward and forward several times, but he does not look up, though almost every member of the prisoners’ dock turns to look at him.

Schacht received the news like one who expected it but was relieved that his judges had sufficient intelligence to recognize his innocence. The world well knows the tall spare figure, the choking collar, the wizened mouth, the conscious air of superiority of this money genius who put Germany on her economic feet in the critical days when Nazism was taking hold and starting to rebuild the German war machine. Schacht, who thought Hitler might be a useful tool in the hands of a man of his intelligence, outlived his usefulness as a tool in Hitler’s hands and wound up in Dachau. He settles back contentedly in his seat when the court announces his innocence.

The third acquitted Nazi, Fritsche, head of the Propaganda Ministry’s radio division and editor in chief of DNB, a German news agency, claimed through the trial he was a nonentity. He looks like one. He was in the dock only because Goebbels was not. Without men like him, Hitler could not have succeeded. He and his associates, smart men with the gift of gab who considered journalism a service to their bosses rather than to the people, twisted into knots the mind of a whole nation.

Von Papen engineered Austria’s downfall, lawyer charges

By Dr. Julius G. Gauss

The background of Franz von Papen’s activities in Austria, which may lead to a demand by the Austrian government that he be turned over for trial, was outlined here yesterday by Dr. Julius Christopher Gauss, international lawyer and politician, who fled Vienna in 1938 just before the Nazis moved in.

Dr. Gauss, now an American citizen, indicated that he would be a willing witness if called by the prosecution. He prepared this statement for The Star.

After the assassination of Dr. Dollfuss by the Nazis in July 1934, Hitler appointed Franz von Papen as new ambassador to Vienna because his former ambassador was one of the instigators of the Nazi Putsch which resulted in the assignation and the murdering of many Austrian patriots throughout all the Austrian countries.

Hitler formally denied that he and his government were implicated in the uprising and murdering of the Austrian Prime Minister Dr. Dollfuss, and excused himself by saying that everything was organized by Dr. Franz Rinterien who was a former member of the Dollfuss government and Austrian ambassador to Rome.

After Von Papen took his office as Austrian ambassador in Vienna, he continued where his predecessor left off, but in a more careful and better organized form.

He organized, together with Dr. Seyss-Inquart and Dr. Fishback – who was wanted by the Netherlands government for crimes committed by him during the Netherlands occupation by the Nazis – the S.A. and S.S. in all Austrian provinces. Von Papen supplied Austria Nazi underground with money. With Dr. Fishback and Dr. Seyss-Inquart, he organized Nazi unions in the factories which worked for the German rearmament in Austria, so that with all his activities, he built up in Austria a Nazi underground which was instrumental in the Nazi occupation of Austria.

He further recruited from the Austrian Nazis thousands of young men who took their place in the Austrian Legion, which had headquarters in Munich and which threatened during the years to invade Austria and to take the Austrian government by surprise. The Austrian government was forced during the years of 1934 and 1938 to occupy the Austrian and German borders by military forces and to watch out that the Austrian Legion should not provoke a forceful invasion by the Nazis.

He conspired also with the members of the Viennese police department.

Hitler, on February 11, 1938, delivered an ultimatum to Dr. Schuschnigg to come to Berchtesgaden and either accept his ultimatum or be invaded by the Nazis. Hitler threatened Dr. Schuschnigg that an Austrian Legion of 80,000 was ready to march into Austria with a complete underground of S.A. and S.S. They wanted to organize Austria in a Nazi state, and Ambassador Von Papen affirmed that he knew from his own experience as Austrian ambassador how strong an underground organization there was in Austria and pretended he knew that the Austrian Nazis were so strong they could, in case of a plebiscite, decide the Anschluss for the Nazis.

Forced abdication

Dr. Schuschnigg wanted to forestall a further increase of the Nazis in Austria by setting a plebiscite for March 13, but on March 11, Von Papen again entered into the picture by submitting a new ultimatum from Hitler, and forced Schuschnigg to abdicate.

After Schuschnigg abdicated, the first deed of Von Papen was to use his underground which he built up for four years, to plunder and loot the Austrian economy, to arrest thousands of Austrian patriots and order the assassination of many thousands of good Austrian citizens, and to arrest Dr. Schuschnigg and deliver him to the Gestapo.

News blackout thrown around Nuernberg jail

NUERNBERG (AP) – The Army threw a news blackout around the Nuernberg courthouse and jail today.

Col. B. C. Andrus, chief of the security detail, refused even to see reporters.

The atmosphere was so tense one nervous military policeman made a threatening gesture with an automatic pistol when Associated Press photographer B. I. Sanders attempted to make a picture of Franz von Papen.

Andrus referred all question to the public relations office of the International Military Tribunal. Public relations said it had no information on any details and that Col. Andrus refused to give them any.

German attorneys floating in and out of court started a wealth of rumors, none of which could be confirmed or denied by official source. One report was that Col. Andrus had ordered all condemned Nazis manacled each to a military policeman in his cell to safeguard any last-minute suicide attempt.

Goering is a phony, Nuernberg prison psychologist says

NUERNBERG (AP) – The Nuernberg prison psychiatrist and psychologist agreed today that while the doomed Hermann Goering likes to think of himself as a gallant, devil-may-care type of man, he actually is a “phony through and through.”

Lt. Col. William Dunn of New York, the psychiatrist, said it was the thinning former Reichsmarshal’s pleasure to regard himself as a gallant air force officer, romantic and a protector of women.

But Dr. Gustav Gilbert, the psychologist, said “Goering is a phony through and through and all the other defendants know it.”

Editorial: The condemned

The only real surprise in the historic news from Nuernberg is that Franz von Papen, Hjalmar Schacht and Hans Fritzsche – with the Russian judge dissenting – have been completely acquitted. As for the rest of the tried, the world at large will be pretty much agreed that their punishment, ranging from varying prison terms to death by hanging, is in keeping with the western concept of justice and with the nature of their crimes.

As far as the guilty themselves are concerned, they now amount to little or nothing, except as symbols. The worst of them, the ones who are to die, will be remembered for generations as men who were less than men in the sense that they lived by the law of the jungle – ruthlessly, savagely, amorally, in a way that offended earth and heaven and brought immeasurable agony to mankind. If they have made any contribution whatever to civilization, they have made it at this late date only by passing into history to be immortalized there as a black warning to the future – a warning that the nations can never again afford to appease criminal nihilism when it weds power and calls itself government.

This condemned group – Goering, Von Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Jodi, Streicher, Seyss-Inquart and the rest – represented evil of a magnitude that is difficult to comprehend even to this day. As individuals they have long since been broken, and their rule in Germany has crumpled with them. Yet it is important to the future never to forget that they came close to realizing their dark designs. They were young men once who had an ideology, but the ideology was twisted and vicious, and when they came to power that power absolutely corrupted them. Cold-bloodedly, systematically, by deceit and terrorism, with truncheons, guns, whips, gallows, brass knuckles, headsman’s ax and colossal lies, they first seduced and enslaved their own country, and then cut loose with their enormous crimes against humanity at large. The story is too familiar to need retelling. It is enough to say that this cream of the Nazi leadership profaned all the decencies of civilization and left a black legacy that has upended our world.

How could men descend so low? What thing in them made them such fine tools of the devil? Why did the people of Germany hand themselves over to them? What made the world fail to stop them before they started? Someday the theologians, the sociologists, the philosophers and the historians may be able to agree on precise answers. But whether the answers are forthcoming or not, it is clear that in Goering and his group there was so terrible a synthesis of evil and power that mankind can tolerate its like again only at the risk of self-destruction.

This is the one possible contribution that the condemned will have left behind when the hangman is done with them: That the sound of their names may be like a tocsin from now on, and that the civilized world’s shuddering remembrance of them may be deep enough and lasting enough to insure that the great new Nuernberg law against aggressive war will take root and flourish as the years roll on.

This Changing World

By Constantine Brown

By a strange coincidence, the verdict of the Nuernberg international tribunal against the Nazi war criminals was given at a time when Turkey and Greece, two full-fledged members of the United Nations, were making representations in Washington and London that their territorial integrity was being threatened.

Whether the verdicts, ranging from hanging to long terms of imprisonment against men whose names only a few years ago made smaller nations tremble, will serve as an object lesson to present would-be emulators of the Nazis’ mailed-fist policy remains to be seen.

Some of the headings in the indictment such as aggressions against weak powers like Greece, murder and ill treatment of civilians, pillage of public and private property, slave labor policy and concentration camps fit perfectly not only the doomed men at Nuernberg but also a number of highly placed persons who are sitting at the Peace Conference in Paris or at the United Nations meetings in New York.

While the gallows are being prepared to hang, for crimes against humanity, the once leading Nazi officials who unleashed the most catastrophic war known in history, the Ankara and Athens governments and their peoples are sitting on pins and needles fearing an aggression from overwhelmingly strong neighbors.

They look to the United States – and, to a lesser degree, to Britain – to use her still strong position in the world to prevent a repetition of acts such as have occurred since 1938 when the great European powers threw Czechoslovakia to the dogs.

Of the two Eastern Mediterranean countries which feel that their national life is now threatened, Turkey is the least nervous. She has been expecting Soviet demands on her territories since the outbreak of the World War. It is recalled that in the fall of 1939 the then Turkish Foreign Minister Sukru Saracoglu went to Moscow to sign a pact with the USSR – then an associate of Germany – and returned empty-handed because the Russian government demanded that Soviet troops be allowed to garrison the straits together with Turkish contingents in order to safeguard the neutrality of that waterway.

As a matter of fact, Turkey and Russia have been periodically at war for more than two centuries. The Czars wanted to occupy Istanbul and the adjacent territories in the name of Christianity. The present Russian government, in the name of security, wants more than the European side of the Turkish republic. The present quarrel between Ankara and Moscow turns on whether the new status of the Dardanelles will be decided by the signatories of the Montreux agreement – as the Turks desire – or by bilateral discussions between Russia and her Black Sea satellites.

But the real issue is whether Turkey Is to become a Russian satellite or continue to enjoy her sovereignty. The strategic importance of the Dardanelles in these days of powerful long-range planes and atom bombs is only relative. The Turks and the Russians knew this well. If Turkey became, by persuasion or by force, a Soviet satellite, the Russian domination of the entire Middle East, which contains the vital oil reserves for the western world, would become unchallengeable.

The Turks are determined to fight it out with the Russians, regardless of how much pressure is put on them. They are willing to comply with any decision taken by all interested powers regarding the future status of the Dardanelles. But they will not yield to the Soviet demand that they deal with Russia alone.

The Turkish Army is a defensive force which is capable of making things hot for any invader. The Germans refrained from attacking Turkey when they were at the height of their military power in 1942 because the German general staff reported to Hitler that it would take at least 65 combat divisions to subdue the Turks. Today Turkey is the only country left in Europe and Asia where there is no fifth column and the only existing ideology is to defend the country against any poacher.

Ever since the Turkish republic was established after the First World War, its slogan has been “live and let live.” Turkey has no demands on territories of any of its neighbors. It is a large country with a small population and the policy of its government is to develop its enormous natural resources fully. But while it has no expansionist ambitions, its population is fanatically determined to preserve its full independence.

The Ankara government has put its cards on the table in Washington, London and Moscow. It is anxious to cooperate with the U.N. and live up to the standards for which that organization has been created. But it has informed all concerned that it is determined to repel any aggressor without waiting for the cumbersome machinery of the Security Council to take action in the event of an invasion.

The Turks have informed the State Department that they want peace but are ready to defend their independence with arms. Since V-E Day their military establishments, and particularly the aviation and the motorization of the army, have been improved. Their planes are not the most modern type but are good enough to assist the Turkish Army, which, in the event of an aggression, has the advantage of fighting in its own country on a terrain which lends itself admirably for defense. Because of this overt military preparation, the Ankara government hopes that any aggressor will think twice before it decides to start operations.

Moley: Justice at Nuernberg

By Raymond Moley

Cynical views over the years that the Kellogg-Briand pacts had no teeth have, after nearly two decades, been answered. Basically, the verdict at Nuernberg goes back to a conspiracy to destroy the peace of the world and subject to Nazi tyranny a number of nations whose major interest between the wars was to keep out of war. The verdict is a justification of the plan of prosecution decided upon by Justice Jackson and his fellow prosecutors.

There was much dissent over this plan. Some of the Allied nations wanted a simpler course which would have involved fixing responsibility for lesser crimes than conspiracy. This would have made for a shorter trial. Some Americans who were active in the early stages of preparation withdrew because of differences of opinion with Jackson. But Jackson stuck to the major point in his case, despite the great difficulty of proof and the inevitable decline of public interest in a protracted and complex trial. Jackson held throughout that the defendants were not being tried for losing a war, but for starting a war.

And he proved his point. Nineteen guilty defendants at Nuernberg are feeling the unmistakable teeth in the Kellogg-Briand pacts, in which Germany, among other nations, “solemnly” renounced war as an instrument of national policy. It is the principle of these pacts that the Nuernberg trial puts into the relations of nations. Nothing more constructive has been established in centuries of agony and bloodshed.

The Second World War, says the court, was due to “planned aggression.” And the guilty defendants did the planning and must suffer. The record reveals how meticulously this plan was made.

The record shows another point, vigorously contested by the defendants and their lawyers. They tried, over and over, to put all the guilt on Hitler the dictator. But they were not the mere puppets of the Fuehrer. As the court points out, a plan of such scope could not exist solely in the will and determination of Hitler. The objectives of Hitler were no secret to the defendants. In the presentation of evidence, incident after incident was proved in which the defendants were present when Hitler was discussing and perfecting his plans to tear up treaties and subject Europe to his will. No compulsion caused these men to go along with Hitler. They accepted high offices gratefully and they enthusiastically gave their aid to the master plan. Without this cooperation, Hitler’s ambitions, the court said, would have been “academic and sterile.”

Two points concerning this trial and judgment need constant reiteration in the face of doubts still entertained by many American lawyers. The first is that the defendants were found guilty of violating law which existed before the commission of the acts charged. The court and the rules of procedure were created after the acts. Thus, the court was ex post facto; the law was not. The second point is that the trial rested not on Anglo-American jurisprudence, but on a charter created by the Allied nations which participated in the trial. The essential point is that the defendants were tried for violations of law to which Germany was a party and they were given all the elements of a fair trial.

It may be true that Napoleon and Bismarck – even the Kaiser – would have been guilty of violating treaties and might, before this court, have been condemned. But their nations had not renounced war. Modem Germany had done so under the Kellogg pact, and for that reason these responsible leaders are condemned. In this respect, humanity has made a forward step from the darkness of the past.

The Pittsburgh Press (October 2, 1946)

More Nazis face trial as war criminals

11 doomed leaders confer on appeals

NUERNBERG (UP) – Informed sources indicated today, amid preparations for the execution of Adolf Hitler’s top flight aides, that another group of high Nazis held for war atrocities might be put on trial in November.

Plans for the trial of more high Nazis gained momentum even as Hermann Goering and his 10 doomed colleagues conferred with their lawyers on appeals for clemency, with no more than a microscopic hope of success. Some indicated they would make no appeals.

Socialists demonstrate

In Berlin, several crowds of Germans marched with red banners through the downtown streets, denouncing the Nuernberg verdicts as too soft. They were on the way to a mass protest meeting sponsored by the Socialist Unity Party, upon which the Soviets look benevolently.

The Ministry of Justice in Vienna said that Austria will demand that Franz von Papen and Baldur von Schirach be turned over within two months for trial on war crimes charges. Von Papen was acquitted at Nuernberg. Von Schirach received a 20-year sentence.

Those acquitted, Franz von Papen, Hjalmar Schacht and Hans Fritzsche, left the prison where they spent the night for safety’s sake, but at midafternoon still were in Nuernberg. Officials said their transport and escort to the British occupation zone had been arranged.

President may speak

Informed quarters said President Truman was expected to make an announcement on the trials of German industrialists, financiers, lower-ranking Nazi leaders, and men implicated in SS atrocities after he confers with Justice Robert H. Jackson, chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuernberg.

Responsible sources named as prospective defendants when further trials are scheduled:

  • Alfred Krupp, son of Gustave Krupp, one of the original defendants in the just concluded trial who was excused because of his age and health.

  • Hans Lammers, members of Hitler’s chancellery and of the Nazi inner circle.

  • Otto Meissner, fabulous figure who served through a score of German upheavals from the era of Kaiser Wilhelm to the Hitlerian debacle.

Appeals studied

The 11 men under death sentence, and the seven who received prison terms, have until Saturday night to enter appeals. The twelfth man sentenced to hang, Martin Bormann, has never been captured and is believed to have died in the Nazi flight from Berlin.

An anti-suicide watch was placed on the doomed men as they began their final two weeks of life under rigid prison discipline.

Editorial: The Nuernberg verdicts

Formal pronouncement of Nazi Germany’s guilty on charges of ruthless, aggressive war has been made by the International War Crimes Tribunal at Nuernberg.

This confirms a verdict long since returned by the judgment of outraged humanity.

The trial now concluded serves largely to build a documented record of crimes unparalleled in history – and does it while the pertinent evidence remained available.

Since Nazi Germany was guilty of premeditated, unprovoked mass murders and other revolting crimes, it follows that the leaders of Nazi Germany were responsible – under orders they promulgated, carried out or condoned.

So there need be no sympathy for any of the defendant wretches, whether they were sentenced to long prison terms, extending up to life, or given the death penalty. They are the surviving leaders of a gang as brutal and sadistic as ever disgraced civilization.

Posterity, however, must assess the full import of these historic proceedings in the light of future developments.

Precedents established at Nuernberg will be applied as long as war continued to be an instrument of national policy by any state. It must be assumed that some of these precedents may be distorted and misused. Varying concepts of justice exist in the world, and laws are interpreted by men.

Having established the right of the victor to sit in judgment on the vanquished, there can be no assurance of uniform justice. Many military men view this precedent with grave misgivings.

Now that the doctrine of immunity of heads of states has been declared null and void, leaders of governments may think more carefully before committing their nations to aggressive wars. But an unsuccessful defensive war could be just as dangerous to statesmen and generals,

With the principle established of individual responsibility for crimes committed in the name of or by the authority of a nation, it has become more than ever unsafe to be on the losing side in war.