dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO BALDUR VON SCHIRACH Document Description Vol. Page Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Article 6 ......................... I 5 International Military Tribunal, Indictment Number 1, Section IV (H); Appendix A ......................... I 29,65
Note: A single asterisk (*) before a document indicates that the document was received in evidence at the Nurnberg trial. A double asterisk (**) before a document number indicates that the document was referred to during the trial but was not formally received in evidence, for the reason given in parentheses following the description of the document. The USA series number, given in parentheses following the description of the document, is the official exhibit number assigned by the court.
1392-PS			Law on the Hitler Youth, 1 December 1936. 1936 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 993 .........................	III		972
*1458-PS		The Hitler Youth by Baldur von Schirach, Leipzig, 1934. (USA 667) .........................	IV		22
1462-PS			First Execution Order to the Law of the Hitler Youth, 25 March 1939. 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 709 .........................	IV		44
*1893-PS		Extracts from Organization Book of the NSDAP, 1943 edition. (USA 323) .........................	IV		529
*1948-PS		Letter from Governor in Vienna, 7 November 1940, evidencing RSHA instructions to recruit Jews from forced labor. (USA 680) .........................	IV		586
*1950-PS		Secret letter from Lammers to defendant von Schirach, 3 December 1940, concerning deportation of Jews. (USA 681) .........................	IV		592
*2229-PS		The Reich Youth Leader at Work, published in National Socialist Party Press Service Release, 22 June 1933, pp. 2-3. (USA 668) .........................	IV		870
2260-PS			Settlement of Relationship between NSDAP and Stahlhelm (Steel Helmets) published in National Socialist Party Press Service release, 21 June 1933 .........................	IV		933
in National Socialist Party Press Service Release, 22 June 1933, pp. 2-3. (USA 668) ......................... IV 870 2260-PS Settlement of Relationship between NSDAP and Stahlhelm (Steel Helmets) published in National Socialist Party Press Service release, 21 June 1933 ......................... IV 933
*2306-PS		Revolution of Education, by Baldur von Schirach, 1938, pp. 51-52, 63. (USA 860) .........................	IV		997
*2396-PS		Handbook of Collected Youth Laws, Vol. I, Group 1, pp. 19a, 19b, 20. (USA 673) .........................	V		63
*2398-PS		Cooperation of Hitler Jugend with Wehrmacht, 11 August 1939, published in The Archive, No. 65, August  1939, pp. 601-602. (USA 677) .........................	V		66
*2401-PS		The Hitler Youth as recruits for future leaders, from Organization Book of NSDAP, 1938, pp. 80-81. (USA 430) .........................	V		69
*2441-PS		Affidavit of Gregor Ziemer, 4 October 1945, from his book "Education for Death". (USA 679) .........................	V		141
*2454-PS		Quotations from speeches of Hitler, published in Voelkischer Beobachter, Munich edition. (USA 676) .........................	V		196
*2567-PS		Decree signed by Himmler and von Schirach, concerning cooperation of HJ and SS, printed in The Young Germany, Berlin, February 1939. (USA 674) .........................	V		301
*2653-PS		The Way of German Youth, from The Third Reich, 5th Year, 1937, pp. 117-118. (USA 669) .........................	V		359
*2654-PS		Organization and Insignia of the Hitler Youth, edited by Reich Youth Headquarters of NSDAP. (USA 675) .........................	V		361
*2973-PS		Statement by von Schirach concerning positions held. (USA 14) .........................	V		679
*3048-PS		Speech by von Schirach before European Youth Congress in Vienna, published in Voelkischer Beobachter, 15 September 1942. (USA 274) .........................	V		776
*3054-PS		"The Nazi Plan", script of a motion picture composed of captured German film. (USA 167) .........................	V		801
679 *3048-PS Speech by von Schirach before European Youth Congress in Vienna, published in Voelkischer Beobachter, 15 September 1942. (USA 274) ......................... V 776 *3054-PS "The Nazi Plan", script of a motion picture composed of captured German film. (USA 167) ......................... V 801
3301-PS			Law concerning construction of Administration in Austria, 14 April 1939. 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, p. 777 .........................	V		1093
*3302-PS		Affidavit of von Schirach, 4 December 1945, concerning positions held. (USA 665) .........................	V		1096
*3348-PS		Young Replacement Problems, published in Decrees, Regulations, Announcements, Vol. I, pp. 298-9, 303. (USA 410) .........................	VI		79
*3349-PS		Press and propaganda Office of Hitler Youth, published in Organization Book of the NSDAP, 1936, pp. 452-453. (USA 666) .........................	VI		79
*3352-PS		Manpower, published in Decrees, Regulations, Announcements, Vol. II, pp. 507-513, 567. (USA 206) .........................	VI		81
*3459-PS		Article on Meeting of Reich Group of Young Law Guardians on 19 May 1939, from Congress of German Law, 1939. (USA 670) .........................	VI		159
*3464-PS		National Socialist Students League from Organization Book of NSDAP, 1936 and 1937. (USA 666) .........................	VI		166
*3870-PS		Affidavit of Hans Marsalek, 8 April 1946, concerning Mauthausen Concentration Camp and dying statement of Franz Ziereis, the Commandant. (USA 797) .........................	VI		790
*L-360-H		Agreement between the League for Germandom in Foreign Countries and the Hitler Youth, 6 May 1933. (USA 671) .........................	VII		1108
*R-146			Letter from Bormann to all Gauleiters, 20 March 1941, enclosing letter of Dr. Lammers to the Reich Minister of the Interior, 14 March 1941. (USA 678) .........................	VIII		250
*Chart No. 1		National Socialist German Workers' Party. (2903-PS; USA 2) .........................	VIII		770
Chapter XVI Part 15
Contents
Chapter XVI Part 17
MOTIONS, RULINGS, AND EXPLANATORY MATERIAL RELATING TO CERTAIN OF THE DEFENDANTS Although 24 individuals were named as defendants in the Indictment signed in Berlin on 6 October 1945, only 22 remained as defendants when the trial commenced on 20 November. The number had been reduced by the suicide of Robert Ley and by the Tribunal's severance of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach from the proceedings. Of the 22 surviving defendants only 20 appeared in the prisoners' dock at the opening of court. Martin Bormann, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, was presumed to be alive and at large. Ernst Kaltenbrunner had been hospitalized by a cranial hemorrhage, and as a consequence was unable to be present at the trial save for one period of a few days. Defense counsel for two of the twenty men in the prisoners' dock, Hess and Streicher, sought to have the proceedings against their clients dismissed on the grounds of their mental incapacity to stand trial. Expert medical examiners concluded that both defendants were fit to defend themselves, and the proceedings against them were resumed. One of them, Hess, who had claimed to be a victim of amnesia, created something of a sensation by confessing in open court that he had only been pretending to suffer from amnesia and that his memory was actually in good repair. Fuller explanatory notes concerning the positions taken by the prosecution and the defense and the actions of the Tribunal in the cases of each of these six defendants, together with significant papers bearing on these matters, are printed hereinafter. I. ROBERT LEY Pending the opening of the trial on 20 November 1945 the defendants were held in the prison at the Palace of Justice in Nurnberg, under the custody of the United States Army. In the evening of October 25 the guard on watch before the cell of Robert Ley noticed that the prisoner had maintained the same position for some time without moving. The guard entered the cell to find that although the prison officials had taken every known precaution, Ley had succeeded in committing suicide. Ley had ripped the hemmed edge from a towel, twisted it, soaked it in water, and fashioned it into a crude noose which he fastened to an overhead toilet flush pipe. He had then stuffed his
cell to find that although the prison officials had taken every known precaution, Ley had succeeded in committing suicide. Ley had ripped the hemmed edge from a towel, twisted it, soaked it in water, and fashioned it into a crude noose which he fastened to an overhead toilet flush pipe. He had then stuffed his mouth with rags, apparently torn from his own underwear. When he seated himself, strangulation was produced, and Robert Ley had succeeded in accomplishing his exit from the court of judgment, and from the world of living men. A farewell message written by Ley, together with other statements made by him during imprisonment, may be found at the end of the last volume (Statements XI-XIII). 2. GUSTAV KRUPP von BOHLEN und HALBACH The name of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach stood thirteenth on the list of twenty-four defendants accused in the Indictment signed in Berlin on 6 October 1945. On 4 November counsel for Krupp filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal defer proceedings against the defendant until his health permitted him to stand trial, and that he should not be tried in his absence. The Tribunal on 5 November appointed a medical commission consisting of representatives of the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain, and the United States, to examine Krupp and determine whether he was fit to stand trial. On 12 November the Chief of Counsel for the United States filed an answer opposing the motion of defense counsel and proposing that Gustav Krupp should not be dismissed from the proceedings unless Alfried Krupp, the son and sole owner of the Krupp Works, were substituted as a defendant. On 14 November, before the opening of the trial itself, the Tribunal heard oral argument by the prosecution and defense, in which substantially the same views were presented as had been previously expressed in the written motions. The Tribunal on 15 November announced its ruling postponing the proceedings against Gustav Krupp, but retaining the Indictment charges against him on the docket for later trial if his physical and mental condition should permit. The ruling stated that the question of adding another name to the Indictment would be considered later. Thereupon, on 16 November, the American Chief of Counsel filed a memorandum with the Tribunal stating as a matter
charges against him on the docket for later trial if his physical and mental condition should permit. The ruling stated that the question of adding another name to the Indictment would be considered later. Thereupon, on 16 November, the American Chief of Counsel filed a memorandum with the Tribunal stating as a matter of record that the United States was not committed to participate in any subsequent four-power trial. On the same day the Soviet and French Chief Prosecutors joined the United States Chief of Counsel in a motion formally designating Alfried Krupp a defendant. On the following day the Tribunal announced its ruling rejecting the motion to add the name of Alfried Krupp as a defendant. The significant papers pertaining to these questions are set forth below. A. MOTION BY DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH Nurnberg, 4 November 1945 THEODOR KLEFISCH LAWYER COLOGNE, 43, BLUMENTHALSTRASSE To: The International Military Tribunal Nurnberg. As defending counsel to the accused Dr. Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach I beg to state that the proceedings against this accused be deferred until he is again fit for trial. At any rate I request that the accused be not tried in his absence. Reasons By Article 12 of the Statute of the International Military Tribunal this court has the right to try an accused in his absence if he cannot be found, or if the court deem this necessary for other reasons in the interest of justice. The 75 year old accused Krupp von Bohlen has for a long time been incapable of trial or examination owing to his severe physical and mental infirmities. He is not in a position to be in contact with the outside world nor to make or receive statements. The indictment was served on him on the 19th October 1945 by a representative of the International Military Tribunal by placing the document on his bed. The accused had no knowledge of this event. Consequently he is not aware of the existence of an indictment. Naturally therefore he is not capable of communicating either with his defense counsel nor with other persons on the subject of his defense. To prove the above, 2 medical certificates are
his bed. The accused had no knowledge of this event. Consequently he is not aware of the existence of an indictment. Naturally therefore he is not capable of communicating either with his defense counsel nor with other persons on the subject of his defense. To prove the above, 2 medical certificates are enclosed viz. that of the court medical expert Doctor Karl Gersdorf of Werfen Salzburg of 9th September 1945 and that of the Professor Doctor Otto Gerke of Bedgnstein of 13th September. Latterly Herr Krupp von Bohlen has been examined several times by American military doctors. As far as it is possible I should like to request for another complete medical examination. If the accused is unable to appear before the court, then according to article 12 of the statute he could only be tried if the court deemed it necessary in the interests of justice. Whatever may be understood by the phrase "in the interests of justice" it would hardly be objective justice to try a defendant accused of such serious crimes, if he were not informed of the contents of the accusations or if he were not given the chance to conduct his own defense or instruct a defense counsel. Particularly is he in no condition to comprehend the following rights of an accused set out in the statute: 1. By article 16 Section (a) of the statute a copy of the indictment in a language which he understands will be served on the accused at a suitably appointed time. In the first place this concerns the statement which the accused has to render on inquiry as to whether he admits his guilt or not, a statement which is of particular importance for the course of the trial and for the decision of the tribunal. This is all the more important as this statement regarding guilt or innocence can only be made exclusively by the accused himself according to his own judgment and after examining his conscience. So far as the procedure is admissible at all, the defense counsel could not at the request of the court express himself on the question of guilt as such a declaration presupposes the possibility of communication and understanding with the accused. Also the defendant could not exercise the right to
So far as the procedure is admissible at all, the defense counsel could not at the request of the court express himself on the question of guilt as such a declaration presupposes the possibility of communication and understanding with the accused. Also the defendant could not exercise the right to the last word to which he is entitled according to Article 24 Section f. The legislators who set up these guarantees for the defense, cannot wish to deny them undeservedly to an accused who cannot make use of them owing to illness. If by Article 12 of the statute the trial of an absent defendant is allowed then this exception to the rule can only be applied to a defendant who is unwilling to appear though able to do so. As is the case with the criminal procedure rules of nearly all countries, it is on this principle that the rules and regulations concerning the trial of absent defendants are based. [signed] Klefisch Lawyer B. ANSWER FOR THE UNITED STATES TO THE MOTION FILED IN BEHALF OF KRUPP VON BOHLEN To the International Military Tribunal: The United States respectfully opposes the application on behalf of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach that his trail be "deferred until he is again fit for trial." If the Tribunal should grant this application, the practical effect would be to quash all proceedings, for all time, against Krupp von Bohlen. It appears that Krupp should not be arrested and brought to the court room for trial. But the plea is that the Tribunal also excuse him from being tried in absentia. This form of trial admittedly is authorized by Article 12 of the Charter of the Tribunal. Of course, trial in absentia in the circumstances of the case is an unsatisfactory proceeding either for prosecution or for defense. But the request that Krupp von Bohlen be neither brought to court nor tried in his absence is based on the contention that "the interest of justice" requires that he be thus excused from any form of trial. Public interests, which transcend all private considerations, require that Krupp von Bohlen shall not be dismissed unless some other representative of the Krupp armament and munitions interests be substituted. These public interests are as follows: Four generations of the Krupp family have owned and operated the great
trial. Public interests, which transcend all private considerations, require that Krupp von Bohlen shall not be dismissed unless some other representative of the Krupp armament and munitions interests be substituted. These public interests are as follows: Four generations of the Krupp family have owned and operated the great armament and munitions plants which have been the chief source of Germany's war supplies. For over 130 years this family has been the focus, the symbol, and the beneficiary of the most sinister forces engaged in menacing the peace of Europe. During the period between the two World Wars the management of these enterprises was chiefly in defendant Krupp von Bohlen. It was at all times, however, a Krupp family enterprise. Krupp von Bohlen was only a nominal owner himself; his wife, Bertha Krupp, owned the bulk of the stock. About 1937 their son, Alfried Krupp, became plant manager and was actively associated in policy-making and executive management thereafter. In 1940, Krupp von Bohlen, getting on in years, became Chairman of the Board of the concerns, thus making way for Alfried, who became President. In 1943, Alfried became sole owner of the Krupp enterprises by agreement between the family and the Nazi government, for the purpose of perpetuating this business in Krupp family control. It is evident that the future menace of this concern lies in continuance of the tradition under Alfried, now reported to be an internee of the British Army of the Rhine. To drop Krupp von Bohlen from this case without substitution of Alfried, drops from the case the entire Krupp family, and defeats any effective judgment against the German armament makers. Whether this would be "in the interests of justice" will appear from the following recital of only the most significant items of evidence now in possession of the United States as to the activities of Krupp von Bohlen, in which his son Alfried at all times aided, as did other associates in the vast armament enterprises, all plotting to bring about the second World War, and to aid in its ruthless and illegal conduct. After the first World War, the Krupp family and their associates failed to comply with Germany's disarmament agreements, but all secretly and knowingly conspired to evade them. In the March 1, 1940
enterprises, all plotting to bring about the second World War, and to aid in its ruthless and illegal conduct. After the first World War, the Krupp family and their associates failed to comply with Germany's disarmament agreements, but all secretly and knowingly conspired to evade them. In the March 1, 1940 issue of the Krupp Magazine, the defendant Krupp stated: "I wanted and had to maintain Krupp in spite of all opposition, as an armament plant for the later future, even if in camouflaged form. I could only speak in the smallest, most intimate circles, about the real reasons which made me undertake the changeover of the plants for certain lines of production. * * * Even the Allied snoop commissioners were duped. * * * After the accession to power of Adolf Hitler, I had the satisfaction of reporting to the Fuehrer that Krupp stood ready, after a short warming-up period, to begin rearmament of the German people without any gaps of experience * * *" Krupp von Bohlen (and Alfried Krupp as well) lent his name, prestige, and financial support to bring the Nazi Party, with an avowed program of renewing the war, into power over the German State. On April 25, 1931 von Bohlen acted as chairman of the Association of German Industry to bring it into line with Nazi policies. On May 30, 1933 he wrote to Schacht that "it is proposed to initiate a collection in the most far-reaching circles of German industry, including agriculture and the banking world, which is to be put at the disposal of the Fuehrer of the NSDAP in the name of "The Hitler Fund' * * * I have accepted the chairmanship of the management council." Krupp contributed from the treasury of the main Krupp company 4,738,446 Marks to the Nazi Party fund. In June, 1935 he contributed 100,000 Marks to the Nazi Party out of his personal account. The Nazi Party did not succeed in obtaining control of Germany until it obtained support of the industrial interests, largely through the influence of Krupp. Alfried first became a Nazi Party member and later von Bohlen did also. The Krupp influence was powerful in promoting the Nazi plan to incite aggressive warfare in Europe. Krupp von Bohlen strongly advocated and supported Germany's withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and
interests, largely through the influence of Krupp. Alfried first became a Nazi Party member and later von Bohlen did also. The Krupp influence was powerful in promoting the Nazi plan to incite aggressive warfare in Europe. Krupp von Bohlen strongly advocated and supported Germany's withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and from the League of Nations. He personally made repeated public speeches approving and inciting Hitler's program of aggression; on April 6th and 7th, 1938 two speeches approved annexation of Austria; on October 13, 1938 he publicly approved Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland; on September 4, 1939 he approved the invasion of Poland; on may 6, 1941 he spoke commemorating the success of Nazi arms in the West. Alfried Krupp also made speeches to the same general effect. The Krupps were thus one of the most persistent and influential forces that made this war. The Krupps also were the chief factor in getting ready for the war. In January, 1944 in a speech at the University of Berlin, von Bohlen boasted, "Through years of secret work, scientific and basic groundwork was laid in order to be ready again to work for the German Armed Forces at the appointed hour without loss of time or experience." In 1937, before Germany went to war, the Krupps booked orders to equip satellite governments on approval of the German High Command. Krupp contributed 20,000 Marks to the defendant Rosenberg for the purpose of spreading Nazi propaganda abroad. In a memorandum of October 12, 1939, a Krupp official wrote offering to mail propaganda pamphlets abroad at Krupp expense. Once the war was on, Krupps, both von Bohlen and Alfried being directly responsible therefore, led German industry in violating treaties and International Law by employing enslaved laborers, impressed and imported from nearly every country occupied by Germany, and by compelling prisoners of war to make arms and munitions for use against their own countries. There is ample evidence that in Krupp's custody and service they were underfed and overworked, misused and inhumanly treated. Captured records show that in September, 1944, Krupp concerns were working 54,990 foreign workers and 18,902 prisoners of war. Moreover, the Krupp companies profited greatly from destroying the peace of