dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
ARTHUR SEYSS-INQUART (Defendant): This is certainly also to be attributed to the effects of a number of measures instituted by me, for example, an extensive health insurance, contributions to married couples and children, graduation of the income tax according to social position, et cetera. Finally, I did not carry out the order to destroy the country, which was issued to me, and on my own initiative I put an end to the occupation for defense purposes when resistance in Holland had become senseless. I have two more statements regarding Austria. If the Germans in Austria wish their common destiny with the Germans in the Reich to become a reality inwardly and outwardly, then no authoritarian obstacles ought to be opposed to this wish, and no room given for interference by non-German forces in this decision. Otherwise, the whole German people would follow the most radical trend towards an Anschluss without considering how the rest of the political program of such a movement might be constituted. Secondly, on the question of the effectiveness of provisions of international law during a war: From the point of view of her own interests Germany cannot desire any war. She must even see to it that no weapons are forced into her hands. The other nations do not want a war, either, but that possibility is never absolutely out of the question unless nations abhor it. It is, therefore, wrong to try to minimize a future war and reduce the defensive forces in the nations by creating the impression that a future world war could in some way be kept within the framework of the Hague Conventions on Land Warfare, or some other international agreement. And now I probably still owe an explanation regarding my attitude to Adolf Hitler. Since he saw the measure of all things only in himself, did he prove himself incapable of fulfilling a decisive task for the German people, indeed, for Europe itself, or was he a man who struggled, although in vain, even to the point of committing unimaginable excesses, against ' the course of an inexorable fate?
ARTHUR SEYSS-INQUART (Defendant): To me he remains the man who made Greater Germany a fact in German history. I served this man. And now? I cannot today cry "Crucify him," since yesterday I cried "Hosanna." Finally I thank my defense counsel for the care and circumspection he has employed in my defense. My last word is the principle by which I have always acted and to which I will adhere to my last breath: "I believe in Germany."
THE PRESIDENT: I call on the Defendant Albert Speer.
ALBERT SPEER (Defendant): Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal: Hitler and the collapse of his system have brought a time of tremendous suffering upon the German people. The useless continuation of this war and the unnecessary destruction make the work of reconstruction more difficult. Privation and misery have come to the German people. After this Trial, the German people will despise and condemn Hitler as the proven author of its misfortune. But the world will learn from these happenings not only to hate dictatorship as a form of government, but to fear it. Hitler's dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in history. His was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means in a perfect manner for the domination of its own nation. Through technical devices such as radio and loudspeaker 80 million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man. The telephone, teletype, and radio made it possible, for instance, for orders from the highest sources to be transmitted directly to the lowest-ranking units, where, because of the high authority, they were carried out without criticism. Another result was that numerous offices and headquarters were directly attached to the supreme leadership, from which they received their sinister orders directly. Also, one of the results was a far-reaching supervision of the citizen of the state and the maintenance of a high degree of secrecy for criminal events. Perhaps to the outsider this machinery of the state may appear like the lines of a telephone exchange--apparently without system. But like the latter, it could be served and dominated by one single will. Earlier dictators during their work of leadership needed highly qualified assistants, even at the lowest level, men who could think and act independently.
ALBERT SPEER (Defendant): The totalitarian system in the period of modern technical development can dispense with them; the means of communication alone make it possible to mechanize the subordinate leadership. As a result of this there arises a new type: the uncritical recipient of orders. . We had only reached the beginning of the development. The nightmare of many a man that one day nations could be dominated by technical means was all but realized in Hitler's totalitarian system. Today the danger of being terrorized by technocracy threatens every country in the world. In modern dictatorship this appears to me inevitable. Therefore, the more technical the world becomes, the more necessary is the promotion of individual freedom and the individual's awareness of himself as a counterbalance. Hitler not only took advantage of technical developments to dominate his own people-he almost succeeded, by means of his technical lead, in subjugating the whole of Europe. It was merely due to a few fundamental shortcomings of organization such as are typical in a dictatorship because of the absence of criticism, that he did not have twice as many tanks, aircraft, and submarines before 1942. But, if a modern industrial state utilizes its intelligence, its science, its technical developments, and its production for a number of years in order to gain a lead in the sphere of armament, then even with a sparing use of its manpower it can, because of its technical superiority, completely overtake and conquer the world, if other nations should employ their technical abilities during that same period on behalf of the cultural progress of humanity. The more technical the world becomes, the greater this danger will be, and the more serious will be an established lead in the technical means of warfare. This war ended with remote-controlled rockets, aircraft traveling at the speed of sound, new types of submarines, torpedoes which find their own target, with atom bombs, and with, the prospect of a horrible kind of chemical warfare.
ALBERT SPEER (Defendant): Of necessity the next war will be overshadowed by these new destructive inventions of the human mind. In 5 or 10 years the technique of warfare will make it possible to fire rockets from continent to continent with uncanny precision. By atomic power it can destroy one million people in the center of New York in a matter of seconds with a rocket operated, perhaps, by only 10 men, invisible, without previous warning, faster than sound, by day and by night. Science is able to spread pestilence among human beings and animals and to destroy crops by insect warfare. Chemistry has developed 'terrible weapons with which it can inflict unspeakable suffering upon helpless human beings. Will there ever again be a nation which will use the technical discoveries of this war for the preparation of a new war, while the rest of the world is employing the technical progress of this war for the benefit of humanity, thus attempting to create a slight compensation for its horrors? As a former minister of a highly developed armament system, it is my last duty to say the following: A new large-scale war will end with the destruction of human culture and civilization. Nothing can prevent unconfined engineering and science from completing the work of destroying human beings, which it has begun in so dreadful a way in this war. Therefore this Trial must contribute towards, preventing such degenerate wars in the future, and towards establishing rules whereby human beings can live together. Of what importance is my own fate, after everything that has happened, in comparison with this high goal? During the past centuries the German people have contributed much towards the creation of human civilization. Often they have made these contributions in times when they were just as powerless and helpless as they are today. Worth-while human beings will not let themselves be driven to despair. They will create new and lasting values, and under the tremendous pressure brought to bear upon everyone today these new works will be of particular greatness.
ALBERT SPEER (Defendant): But if the German people create new cultural values in the unavoidable times of their poverty and weakness, and at the same time in the period of their reconstruction, then they will have in that way made the most valuable contribution to world events which they could make in their position. It is not the battles of war alone which shape the history of humanity, but also, in a higher sense, the cultural achievements which one day will become the common property of all humanity. A nation which believes in its future will never perish. May God protect Germany and the culture of the West.
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon Defendant Constantin von Neurath.
CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH (Defendant): Firm in the conviction that truth and justice will prevail before this High Tribunal over all hatred, slander, and misrepresentation, I believe that I should add only this one thing to the words of my defense counsel: my life was consecrated to truth and honor, to the maintenance of peace and the reconciliation of nations, to humanity and justice. I stand with a clear conscience not only before myself, but before history and the German people. If, in spite of this, the Tribunal should find me guilty, I shall be able to bear even this and take it upon myself as a last sacrifice on behalf of my people, to serve whom was the substance and purpose of my life.
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon the Defendant Hans Fritzsche.
HANS FRITZSCHE (Defendant): May it please the Tribunal: The chief prosecutors in their final speeches have repeated several of the accusations against me, although in my opinion they were clearly refuted by the evidence. I have summarized some of these points. I do not propose to read them. If it is not contrary to the rules of this Tribunal, and if it please the Tribunal, then I shall request that they take judicial notice of this summary, which amounts to six pages. They are available in translation. I should not like to waste the great opportunity for the final word in this Trial by enumerating details, all of which can be found in the transcripts and documents. I must turn to the sum total of all the crimes, since the Prosecution alleges that I was connected with all these crimes through a conspiracy. To this charge I can only say that if I had spread the kind of propaganda in my radio talks of which the Prosecution now accuses me; if I had advocated the doctrine of the master race; if I had preached hatred against other nations; if I had incited people to wars of aggression, acts of violence, murder, and inhumanity; if I had done all that--then, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, the German nation would have turned from me and would have repudiated the system for which I spoke. Even if I had done this only in disguised form, my listeners would have noticed it and repudiated it. But the misfortune lies precisely in the fact that I did not advocate all these doctrines which were secretly guiding the actions of Hitler and a small circle which, in the light of the testimony of the witnesses Hoess, Reinecke, and Morgen, among others, is now slowly emerging from the mist in which it was hidden until now. I believed, in Hitler's assurances of a sincere desire for peace. Therefore I strengthened the trust of the German people in them. I believed in the official German denials of all foreign reports of German atrocities. And with my belief I strengthened the belief of the German people in the uprightness of the German state leadership. That is my guilt--no more, no less.
HANS FRITZSCHE (Defendant): The prosecutors have expressed the horror of their nations at the atrocities which occurred. They did not expect any good from Hitler, and they are shattered by the extent of what really happened. But try for a moment to understand the indignation of those who expected good from Hitler and who then saw how their trust, their good will, and their idealism were misused. I find myself in the position of a man who has been deceived, together with many, many other Germans of whom the Prosecution says that they could have recognized all that happened from the smoke rising from the chimneys of the concentration camps, or from the mere sight of the prisoners, and so forth. I feel that it is a great misfortune that the Prosecution has pictured these matters in such a way as if all of Germany had been a tremendous den of iniquity. It is a misfortune that the Prosecution is generalizing the extent of the crimes which are in themselves horrible enough. As against this I must say that if anyone once believed in Hitler during the years of peaceful reconstruction, he only needed to be loyal, courageous, and self-sacrificing to go on believing in him until, by the discovery of carefully hidden secrets, he could recognize the devil in him. That is the only explanation for the struggle which Germany carried on for 68 months. Such a willingness to sacrifice does not grow from crime, but only from idealism and good faith, and from clever and apparently honest organization. I regret that the Prosecution has undertaken to generalize the crimes, because it is bound to add still more to the mountain of hatred which lies upon the world. But the time has come to interrupt the perpetual cycle of hatred which has dominated the world up to now.' It is high time to call a halt to the alternate sowing and reaping of new harvests of hatred. The murder of five million people is an awful warning, and today humanity possesses the technical means for its own destruction. Therefore, in my judgment, the Prosecution should not replace one hatred by another.
HANS FRITZSCHE (Defendant): I have a right to say this before my conscience, because I have not preached hatred, as the Prosecution asserted, nor have I closed the door to pity. On the contrary, many times, even in the middle of the bitterest struggle, I have raised the voice of humanity. This is proved by the vast majority of my speeches, which one can compare at any time with the statements of my enemies. Even if my addresses could not be submitted here before the Tribunal, they cannot have, simply vanished from this earth. It is perfectly possible, perhaps even understandable, that the storm of indignation which swept the world because of the atrocities which were committed should obliterate the borders of individual responsibility. If that happens, if collective responsibility is to, be attached even to those who were misused in good faith, Your Honors, I beg you to hold me responsible. As my defense counsel has emphasized, I do not hide behind the millions who acted in good faith and were misused. I will place myself before those for whom my good faith was once an additional guarantee of the purity of purpose of the system. But this responsibility of mine only applies to those who acted in good faith, not for those who originated, assisted in, or knew of these atrocities, beginning with murder and ending with the selection of living human beings for anatomical collections. Between these criminals and myself there is only one connection: they merely misused me in a different way than they misused those who became their physical victims. It may be difficult to separate German crime from German idealism. It is not impossible. If this distinction is made, much suffering will be avoided for Germany and for the world.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will carefully consider the statements which the defendants have made. The Tribunal is now about to adjourn for the consideration of its judgment. Before doing so, the Tribunal wishes to express its appreciation of the way in which Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense have performed their duties. The Tribunal have been informed that the defendants' counsel have been receiving letters from Germans improperly criticizing their conduct as counsel in these proceedings. The Tribunal will protect counsel insofar as it is necessary so long as the Tribunal is in session, and it has no doubt that the Control Council will protect them thereafter against such attacks. In the opinion of the Tribunal, Defense Counsel have performed an important public duty in accordance with the high traditions of the legal profession, and the Tribunal thanks them for their assistance. The Tribunal will now adjourn until 23 September, in order to consider its judgment. On that date the judgment will be announced. If any postponement should be necessary, due notice will be given. [ The Tribunal adjourned until 30 September 1946 at 1000 hours. ]
THE PRESIDENT: The Judgment of the international Military Tribunal will now be read. I shall not read the title and the formal parts. JUDGMENT* On 8 August 1945, the Government of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics entered into an agreement establishing this Tribunal for the trial of War Criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical location. In accordance with Article 5, the following Governments of the United Nations have expressed their adherence to the Agreement: Greece, Denmark, Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Ethiopia, Australia, Honduras, Norway, Panama, Luxembourg, Haiti, New Zealand, India, Venezuela, Uruguay, and Paraguay. By the Charter annexed to the Agreement, the constitution, jurisdiction and functions of the Tribunal were defined. The Tribunal was invested with power to try and punish persons who had committed Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity as defined in the Charter. The Charter also provided that at the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization. In Berlin, on 18 October 1945, in accordance with Article 14 of the Charter, an indictment was lodged against the defendants named in the caption above, who had been designated by the ----------------------------------------- * Editor's Note. The Judgment is rendered verbatim as originally pronounced by the Tribunal. Later study has shown that in the translations of documents quoted several inaccuracies have occurred. For the benefit of students improved versions have been compiled in an appendix which will be found after the Judgment. References are given by small numbers in the text.
THE PRESIDENT: Committee of the Chief Prosecutors of the signatory Powers as major war criminals. A copy of the Indictment in the German language was served upon each defendant in custody at least 30 days before the Trial opened. This Indictment charges the defendants with Crimes against Peace by the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances, with War Crimes and with Crimes against Humanity. The defendants are also charged with participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit all these crimes. The Tribunal was further asked by the Prosecution to declare all the named groups or organizations to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter. The Defendant Robert Ley committed suicide in prison on 25 October 1945. On 15 November 1945 the Tribunal decided that the Defendant Gustav Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach could not then be tried because of his physical and mental condition, but that the charges against him in the Indictment should be retained for trial thereafter, if the physical and mental condition of the defendant should permit. On 17 November 1945 the Tribunal decided to try the Defendant Bormann in his absence under the provisions of Article 12 of the Charter. After argument and consideration of full medical reports, and a statement from the defendant himself, the Tribunal decided on 1 December 1945 that no grounds existed for a postponement of the trial against the Defendant Hess because of his mental condition. A similar decision was made in the case of the Defendant Streicher. In accordance with Articles 16 and 23 of the Charter, counsel were either chosen by the defendants in custody themselves, or at their request were appointed by the Tribunal. In his absence the Tribunal appointed counsel for the Defendant Bormann, and also assigned counsel to represent the named groups or organizations.
THE PRESIDENT: The Trial, which was conducted in four languages--English, Russian, French, and German--began on 20 November 1945, and pleas of "Not Guilty" were made by all the defendants except Bormann. The hearing of evidence and the speeches of counsel concluded on 31 August 1946. Four hundred and three open sessions of the Tribunal have been held. Thirty-three witnesses gave evidence orally for the Prosecution against the individual defendants, and 61 witnesses, in addition to 19 of the defendants, gave evidence for the Defense. A further 143 witnesses gave evidence for the Defense by means of written answers to interrogatories. The Tribunal appointed Commissioners to hear evidence relating to the organizations, and 101 witnesses were heard for the Defense before the Commissioners, and 1,809 affidavits from other witnesses were submitted. Six reports were also submitted, summarizing the contents of a great number of further affidavits. Thirty-eight thousand affidavits, signed by 155,000 people, were submitted on behalf of the Political Leaders; 136,213 on behalf of the SS; 10,000 on behalf of the SA; 7,000 on behalf of the SD; 3,000 on behalf of the General Staff and OKW; and 2,000 on behalf of the Gestapo. The Tribunal itself heard 22 witnesses for the organizations. The documents tendered in evidence for the prosecution of the individual defendants and the organizations numbered several thousands. A complete stenographic record of everything said in court has been made, as well as an electrical recording of all the proceedings. Copies of all the documents put in evidence by the Prosecution have been supplied to the Defense in the German language. The applications made by the defendants for the production of witnesses and documents raised serious problems in some instances, on account of the unsettled state of the country. It was also necessary to limit the number of witnesses to be called, in order to have an expeditious hearing, in accordance with Article 18(c) of the Charter.