dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. STAHMER: The rest of the examination of evidence has made it clear beyond doubt that Goering was against a special treatment of enemy terrorist airmen who had been shot down and that he opposed Hitler's order. The witness Colonel Bernd von Brauchitsch pointed out during his interrogation on 12 March 1946 that in the spring of 1944 there was a sudden increase in losses among the civilian population through machine gun attacks by enemy airmen. These attacks by enemy airmen were directed, within Germany, against civilians working in the fields, secondary railway lines without any military importance, and against pedestrians and cyclists. This constituted a gross violation of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare, according to which any combat act against the noncombatant population of the country is prohibited; and any attack or shelling of open cities, villages, residences, or buildings is forbidden. According to the opinion of the witness Von Brauchitsch, this behavior, which quite evidently violated international law, caused Hitler to order specific measures against these aviators, besides general defensive measures. In this regard Hitler advocated, as far as it is known to the witness, the most severe measures; lynch action was to have a free run. This attitude of Hitler toward the violations of international law by enemy aviators, however, did not meet with the approval of the Armed Forces, especially not with that of Reich Marshal Goering and his Chief of Staff, General Korten. Both of them did condemn to the utmost the attacks of enemy aviators, which were exclusively directed against the defenseless civilian population. However, they nevertheless opposed the handing over of defenseless, shot-down aviators to the aroused mob for lynch action; and they did not consider such measures to be an appropriate means of combating this conduct, however much in violation of international law. The witness General Koller expressed himself to the same effect.
DR. STAHMER: Early in June 1944 General Korten informed this witness of the fact that the Fuehrer intended to decree an order to the effect that terrorist aviators were to be surrendered to public fury. In the course of repeated conversations the witness Holler and General Korten arrived at the opinion that the conception of the Fuehrer must be rejected. They certainly considered the direct attacks of low-flying enemy planes on individual civilians, women and children, concentrations of civilians, school classes and kindergartens out on walks, farmers at work in the fields, as well as attacks on public passenger trains and hospitals, to be ruthless. However, the two did not see a way out or a solution of the difficult problem in the Fuehrer's order. They were of the opinion that such an order was contrary to basic military conceptions, the Articles of War, and international law, and that it would give rise to numerous evils through which both enemy and German crews would come to harm. And finally such an order might exercise, by its effects, a harmful influence on the morale of German crews. All these reasons caused the Armed Forces to reject Hitler demand, and their attempts were now directed toward preventing the conception of Hitler from being put into practice. The witness Von Brauchitsch credibly states that the Armed Forces now looked for a way out finally found in the fact that the higher command levels were deceived by measures which were not actually carried out. The witness Von Brauchitsch was ordered by Reich Marshal Goering to define in discussions with the OKW the concept of terrorist aviators. In the subsequent discussions and exchanges of correspondence those cases were mentioned which represented violations of international law and which were to be considered criminal acts. By this definition of the concept, lynch law was to be prevented. The exchange of correspondence, which lasted for quite a long period of time, showed the tendency of the office to protract the matter as much as possible.
DR. STAHMER: The witness Koller is justified in emphasizing that this exchange of correspondence shows every sign of a "delaying action to gain time," that is, those concerned either did not want any decision or at least wished to postpone it as long as possible. In particular the marginal note on Document D-785, Exhibit GB-318, "No answer to be obtained from Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force," admits of the conclusion that the Reich Marshal purposely wanted to prolong the matter. Furthermore Reich Marshal Goering, as can be clearly seen from the letter of 19 June 1944, maintained the opinion that in every instance he considered legal procedure against terrorist aviators as definitely necessary. Where it is stated in a subsequent document of 26 June 1944, "The Reich Marshal agrees with the formulation as communicated defining the concept of terrorist aviators and with the suggested procedure," such agreement with the procedure refers exclusively to the procedure of publication suggested in the final paragraph of the letter of 15 June 1944, for which Reich Marshal Goering's approval had been requested. That Reich Marshal Goering until the end of the war maintained the old aviator standpoint, according to which enemy aviators, once they have been shot down, are to be considered and treated as comrades, was not only expressly deposed by the witness Field Marshal Milch, but is also emphasized by General Koller in the following words: "Notwithstanding occasional expressions of displeasure, the attitude of the Reich Marshal always remained correct and chivalrous in accordance with the flying tradition which he had retained from the first World War and frequently emphasized.
DR. STAHMER: In understandable anger about great difficulties in air defense, and pressed by the Fuehrer, he perhaps once in a while used harsher words which were quickly forgotten."-And the witness does not know of any case-"in which such a fit of ill-humor caused the Reich Marshal to take incorrect or harsh measures against members of the enemy air forces." The behavior of the Air Force as a whole was also correct and humane at all times. To fight chivalrously was a matter of honor with the German aviators. The Air Force as well as the Defendant Goering retained this point of view, although as Koller expressly mentioned, the flying personnel felt extremely bitter over the strafing attacks on German crews suspended on parachutes and individual hotheads spoke of equal measures as reprisals. The best testimonial for the exemplary comradely behavior of the Air Force even toward an enemy who did not observe the rules of warfare can be seen clearly from the description of the witness Koller about the establishment of a maritime life-saving service of the Air Force, which brought aid to Germans and enemies in equal measure and which carried on despite enemy attacks in violation of international law. It can thus be said that the Armed Forces and the Defendant Goering rejected lynch law, as well as all procedure against the terrorist aviators not in accordance with legal regulations, and did not issue any orders to troops under their command; in no case have enemy aviators been shot by the Air Force or by the Army, or handed over to the Security Service (SD). The Prosecution accuses the Defendant Goering of having established a reign of terror in Prussia immediately after 30 January 1933 in his capacity as Prussian Minister of the Interior and soon afterward as Prussian Prime Minister, in order to suppress all opposition against the Nazi program.
DR. STAHMER: In order to carry out his plans he had used the Prussian police, which he had ordered as early as February 1933 to protect the new government by proceeding ruthlessly against all political opponents without consideration of the consequences. In order to safeguard and consolidate power, he had created the dreaded Secret State Police and established concentration camps as early as the spring of 1933. To these accusations the following is to be said: All this was only natural and cannot serve as an accusation against the defendant; rather would it have been a severe violation of the duties entrusted to him, if he had not devoted himself with all his strength to the safeguarding of the new government and taken every imaginable precaution in order to make any attack on this new government impossible from the very beginning. In order to achieve this goal, the first step concerned the police institutions. It only remains to be examined whether the means which the defendant considered it necessary to apply were objectionable. The question must be answered in the negative because of the following considerations: In every state the police is the inner-political instrument of power; in every state its task is to support the government, to protect it in every direction and to render the disturber of the peace and the violator of the law harmless, if necessary, by force of arms. The defendant assigned these tasks to the police under his direction, whom he ordered, in the speech mentioned by the Prosecution, to act energetically and to fulfill their duties conscientiously. Why such an appeal for the performance of duty should not be permissible is incomprehensible. In his interrogation the Defendant Goering described expressly for what reasons and along which lines he considered a reorganization of the police necessary, and these directives cannot be objected to. I should like to point out in this connection that according to the prevailing rules of international law a sovereign state has a right to regulate its internal affairs as it deems fit.
DR. STAHMER: The reform of the police is an exclusively internal affair. The violation of generally recognized rules of international law is, therefore, out of question in this respect. A political police was also in existence in Prussia before the assumption of power. Before 30 January 1933 it was called Police Department Ia, which among other things had to watch and to combat political adversaries, at that time the National Socialists and Communists in particular. Such a police, dealing with the same tasks, was also needed after the assumption of power in order to protect the new state against attacks which threatened it, in particular from the very strong Communist Party. In order to make clear that this department of the police was charged exclusively with safeguarding the state against enemies of the state it was named "Secret State Police." As long as the Defendant Goering was head of the Police-this was, in fact, the case only until 1934, when Himmler was put in charge-he strictly confined himself to the tasks prescribed to him and did not transgress his authority, and no misuse of power worth mentioning occurred. Nor has the evidence produced shown anything against the Defendant Goering for this period of time. Should, at a later date, the Secret State Police have transgressed their authority and committed illegal acts, the defendant had no knowledge of it and did not approve of it. For mistakes and crimes committed by his successors, which remained unknown to him, he cannot be held responsible. Now there appeared before the Court a witness whose testimony was very incriminating for the defendant. This was the witness Dr. Gisevius. The defendant refuses to deal with this witness and his statement. He merely wishes to point out that this statement is untrue in all points which incriminate him. The conclusiveness of the witness's statement depends on whether he is considered to be credible or not. Dr. Nelte has agreed to deal with this question extensively, so that, in order to avoid reiterated statements, I shall refrain from further declarations.
DR. STAHMER: Naturally, the assumption of power by the National Socialist Party met with some resistance, and in particular the leftist parties were anything but satisfied with the situation thus created. The opponents were by no means weak either numerically or in the means at their disposal. The new rulers were, therefore, apprehensive of serious danger to their power if they allowed the opposition parties to continue their activity without hindrance; accordingly they had to take preventive measures against such dangers in good time. In order to stabilize their own power and to nip in the bud any possible source of unrest, the Defendant Goering considered it necessary for reasons of state to arrest at one blow both leaders and officials of the Communist Party and its organizations. The defendant himself has spoken at length explaining his reasons for such acts. For the removal of danger and to insure the safety of the state, the measures taken by the defendant were, for the Government, a necessity caused by the unrest of the time. Since it was a preventive measure, it was not requisite before a provisional arrest that a criminal act against the Government had already been committed or was obviously on the verge of being committed. The fact of membership in itself and previous activity in that party was sufficient to warrant arrest as a political act of self-protection on the part of the Government. Such considerations very soon after the assumption of power led to the establishment of concentration camps, of which there were two at the time when the Defendant Goering was at the head of the Police. The purpose of such camps was to hold temporarily politically unreliable persons, who might be of danger to the new state, until they had either adapted themselves to the new political conditions or until the power of the state had become so great that such persons could no longer endanger it. The legal basis of this institution was the Reich Presidents decree of 28 February 1933 for the protection of people and state.
DR. STAHMER: Reich President Von Hindenburg issued this decree on the basis of Article 48, Paragraph 2, of the Reich Constitution, in order to prevent Communist armed risings dangerous to the state; accordingly, the decree was perfectly constitutional. The decree temporarily suspended certain constitutional rights and declared legal, among other things, the restriction of personal liberty. The establishment and use of concentration camps was founded, according to the defendant's ideas at the time, on the revolutionary conviction inherent in the victorious Movement that it was the sole expression of historical truth, that it alone represented the right path, and that therefore everything was wrong that stood in its way. There was no political discussion of the right political concept based on logical arguments, as in ideologically neutral liberalism; there was only the totalitarian establishment of' a popular regime based on Creed as the historically necessary truth. Any person not caught up by this Movement but, on the contrary, opposing it, was therefore to be removed as an enemy of the true order. Under such conditions, the person concerned could not simply be punished for an infringement of' special rules in the traditional course of Justice; but, according to the opinion of' the National Socialist Government, he deliberately segregated himself from the newly found community of the people and from every foundation for any legal institution. He had therefore to be removed. There was, accordingly, no question of punishment but of a political purge based on ideological intolerance. Therefore no tribunal or administrative procedure was allowed on behalf of the persons concerned for the examination of the police proceedings. The individual who excluded himself from the community was not entitled to legal guarantees which the Constitution provided for his fellow countrymen. And a fellow countryman was ho only who recognized such a community. In handling enemies of the people not only legal principles were applied, but also the viewpoint of the necessities of state.
DR. STAHMER: Since it was an act of political expediency, the Defendant Goering could decide in some eases on his own responsibility that there was no necessity for further confinement and could use all his influence to procure the liberation of individuals who did not endanger the security of the state. In that ease it was not a question of an act of grace breaking through any legal principle, neither was it tantamount to an acknowledgement of an injustice done to the other persons concerned; it simply was an act undertaken from the point of view of expediency, each ease being decided on its own merits. Such principles in handling elements which fail to fit into a totalitarian political rule are by no means specifically National Socialist; they also dominate the policy of the victor countries toward the conquered German population. Anyone who does not obey the newly arising democratic order in Germany, even anyone of whom an essential opposition to democracy can be expected because he was grounded in National Socialism before, is now interned. Whereas-according to Document R-129 of the Prosecution-21,000 people were in concentration camps at the beginning of the war in Nazi Germany, more than 300,000 National Socialists and militarists are held in internment camps in the U.S. Zone alone, according to figures published by the occupation powers. A recently published decree of the Landerrat in the American occupation zone confirms the fact that such acts of political purging are not legal but political acts. This decree removes from the authority of the administration of justice and transfers to the authority of the general administration of the State all workers' camps in which are interned Nazis who have been sentenced to forced labor on account of their Party membership; and this decree is issued because these camps are foreign to the administration of justice. Those were the only considerations which influenced the Defendant Goering when he created concentration camps in 1933 and issued laws concerning the Secret State Police.
DR. STAHMER: These were intended to be, as he conceived them, a means of cleansing and strengthening the young community of the people. He did not aim at a definite annihilation of political enemies but, after a certain period of education, interceded generously for their release and discharged, at Christmas 1933, about 5,000 and in September 1934 about 2,000 prisoners. He vigorously counteracted inevitable abuses and errors which he openly admitted in the book he published in 1934, intended for the British public, The Building of a Nation. For example, he permitted the Communist leader Thalmann personally to report to him about his complaints in the concentration camp and took care to have them remedied. He dissolved the so-called "wild" camps of Stettin and Breslau, punished the Gauleiter of Pomerania who had organized this camp without his knowledge and against his will, and had those responsible for these "wild" concentration camps brought to trial for their infringements of the regulations. This attitude of the Defendant Goering denotes that he never intended the actual physical annihilation of the prisoners. If the Prosecution establishes that this was all in execution of a conspiracy which aimed at committing Crimes against Humanity, such an interpretation has no bearing on the actual political life during the years in question. Such a conspiracy did not exist, nor was it the intention of the defendant to commit crimes against the principles of humanity, nor did he commit any such crimes. As one of the political trustees of the German Government, he felt himself bound to safeguard it against dangerous disturbers of the peace and thereby to guarantee the future of the National Socialist way of life. Far from looking upon such measures as criminal, he considered them, on the contrary, to be the inevitable means of consolidating the political order as a basis of all law. In 1936 the leadership of the Police, and therefore the management of the concentration camps, passed from the defendant to the Reichsfuehrer SS, Heinrich Himmler.
DR. STAHMER: The defendant cannot be held responsible for the subsequent development of the concentration camps nor for the fact that they became, especially after the outbreak of the war, more and more gruesome places of torture and death and led-partly intentionally, partly on account of the chaotic war conditions-to the death of countless people and finally, in the last days before the breakdown of Germany, turned into one vast graveyard. Certainly he knew that there still were concentration camps, also that the number of inmates had risen because of war tension and that they contained foreigners because of the expansion of the war machine over all of Europe; but the terrible happenings which have been disclosed in this Trial were unknown to him. He knew nothing of the inhuman experiments which were being carried out on inmates in misinterpretation of true scientific methods. The testimony of the witness Field Marshal Milch has shown that the Luftwaffe was not interested in these experiments and that the defendant personally did not learn anything specific at all about this matter. By no means did the establishment of concentration camps as such have anything to do with the later extermination of Jews, which apparently originated in Heydrich's and Himmler's brains and was kept secret in a masterly manner until it was disclosed after the collapse as the horror of Auschwitz and Maidanek. This brings me to the Jewish question. The Defendant Goering has explained in detail his views on the Jewish question during his interrogation as witness; furthermore, he has shown in all detail the reasons which influenced the National Socialist Party and, after the seizure of power, the State, to take a hostile attitude toward the Jews. The defendant is reproached for having promulgated the Nuremberg Laws in 1935, which were intended to keep the race pure, and for having, in his capacity as Delegate for the Four Year Plan, issued decrees during the years 1938 and 1939 which had as their aim the exclusion of Jews from economic life.
DR. STAHMER: Furthermore he is blamed for a number of other laws which meant a one-sided and serious intervention into the legal sphere of Jews. The legal reason for this reproach is obscure. For this deals with a purely domestic problem, namely, the regulation of the legal status of German subjects; according to internationally recognized legal opinion at that time, the German Reich as a sovereign state was free to settle such a matter. Even if these encroachments were harsh and the limitations of citizenship rights extremely severe, they nevertheless in no way represent an offense against humanity. Legal provisions which limit a certain race or a certain circle of citizens in their legal position have been made by other states without offense being taken at such measures and without other states considering themselves bound to intervene. Reich Marshal Goering always rejected any illegal or violent action against Jews. This is clearly shown by his attitude toward the action against Jews during the night of 9 to 10 November 1938, instigated by Goebbels, of which he was informed only after the deed had been done and which he condemned most severely. In this respect he raised serious objections with Goebbels and Hitler. On this matter, the precise statements of the witnesses Bodenschatz and Korner are available. The testimony of Dr. Uiberreither shows how greatly Goering disapproved of this action. According to the former, the defendant summoned all Gauleiter to Berlin several weeks after this incident and in an address sharply censured this violent action, which was not in keeping with the dignity of the nation and which caused serious damage to German prestige abroad. That the defendant was no race fanatic became generally known by his expression, "I decide who is a Jew." It has been established sufficiently that he aided many Jews. About a biological extermination of the Jews he learned only at the end of the war. He never would have approved such a measure and would have opposed it with all his might.