dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. STAHMER: When the witness, in the months following the speech of 23 May 1939, repeatedly pointed out to Hitler in personal reports that the Air Force was not ready for action with its bombing squadrons and had hardly any stocks of bombs, Hitler refused to give an order for the production of bombs and remarked that this manufacturing was unnecessary and superfluous. Hitler persisted in this refusal, although Milch pointed out that the production would take several months. An order to that effect was given by Hitler only on 20 October 1939. Hitler's discourse before the commanders-in-chief can be easily explained by the odd inclination of Hitler frequently to develop political ideas without ever thinking of their realization. In each case his practical policy resulted from the requirements of the actual development. The defendant is accused of having plundered the territories occupied by Germany, thereby violating the Hague Convention concerning Land Warfare. This accusation is not justified. During his examination the Defendant Goering has explained in detail, with absolutely noteworthy reasons, that the Hague Convention on Land Warfare dating from the years 1899 and 1907 cannot be made to apply to a modern war, since they had become obsolete and insufficient in some respects at the beginning of World War II. At the time when they were drafted, air warfare, economic warfare, and psychological warfare were still unknown. Total war, which put the entire people and the entire national economy without exception at the service of the war, was also not known. Especially, economic warfare was not considered at all. Due to this gap, there is no international law which has been generally recognized for economic warfare. Therefore the old statement of Hugo Grotius that everything is permitted in war (God ad Anew belli necessarium est) applies to economic warfare. Naturally, this principle only applies so far as it has not been affected specifically by a differing settlement through treaties.
DR. STAHMER: The following must be said about the legal situation as it stands: Until the beginning of World War I it was generally acknowledged in international law-in any case as far as land warfare is concerned-that the war does not affect any private legal relations between the citizens of the belligerent states, that private property on principle was inviolable, that the war would only be pursued with arms, and that the enemy civilian population would not be affected by it. This method of warfare suffered a basic change at the outbreak of World War I, when England, in the field of naval warfare, applied her interpretation of war of people against people. At that time the enemy powers resorted to the policy of paralyzing the entire German national strength, disregarding all established rules of the law of naval warfare and of neutrality law by cutting off the necessary raw materials and import of food. This new type of warfare corresponded to the Anglo-Saxon interpretation, which was joined by France at the beginning of World War I, that is, that war is not only fought against the troops in combat but against the entire population of the enemy. The citizen of the enemy state is the enemy of England; his property is enemy property, which is subject to seizure by the British Government. With this, naval warfare was not only directed against the combat forces, but also against the peaceful subjects of the belligerent enemy. This goal was achieved by the total blockade carried out by England. The Hague Convention did not contemplate a total blockade in the form in which it was carried out by England. This blockade made any supplying of Germany through neutral countries impossible. Under these circumstances Germany cannot be blamed for applying to warfare on land the method used by England by means of her naval power. This fact leads to the following consideration: The rules of land warfare, according to their meaning, used to apply to land warfare. There the principle of protection of private property obtained.
DR. STAHMER: In naval warfare, however, private property was unprotected. Now, is it possible for the rules of land warfare with their restrictions to apply to a combined sea and land war? Would it be just that merchandise should be taken away from a party at sea who would not be allowed to touch similar goods belonging to the other party on land? According to established international law, the principle applies now as before that private property is actually inviolable during war. This principle suffers exception only insofar as the Hague Convention on Land Warfare permits certain encroachments on private property caused by an emergency in which the state may find itself, which are deemed justified to the extent in which they appear necessary in the interests of self-preservation of the state. Within this scope, therefore, certain actions are permitted during war which are not normally consistent with the laws of war and actually contrary to international law. By the fact that enemy warfare disregarded the established rules of naval warfare, Germany was driven into a state of economic emergency. If the enemy powers had observed this established law of naval warfare, then Germany could have supplied herself through neutral countries, and the state of economic emergency during the war would not have arisen. But since the enemy powers failed to observe the established blockade regulations, how could they expect Germany to observe the regulations on requisitioning, which form part of the rules of land warfare? Through the action of the enemy powers Germany was thrown into a state of emergency. The prerequisite for the state of emergency within international law is, according to the prevailing theory, an existing or imminent threat of danger to the state, which it is impossible to avert in any other way and which endangers to the utmost the vital interests as well as the independence and existence of the state.
DR. STAHMER: Thus, wherever the vital interests of a state are threatened in this manner there prevails a state of national emergency; this has the legal effect that such a state does not act illegally when committing a violation of international law necessary for the repulsion of imminent danger. The economic situation of Germany became extremely precarious during the course of World War II by the action of the enemy powers. All connections with neutral countries were made impossible for Germany by the total blockade, so that supplies of raw materials necessary for the conduct of the war and of food for the feeding of the civilian population were cut off. Germany was therefore forced, in order to support her own economy which would otherwise have collapsed, to use the stocks of raw materials and food available in the occupied territories and all other items necessary for the continuation of the war, for herself, the interests of the population in the occupied territories being given due consideration. In this, the principles established in the preamble to the Convention concerning the Rules and Customs of Land Warfare, dated 18 October 1907, as they result from the customs existing among civilized nations, from the laws of humanity, and from the demands of public conscience, were strictly observed. A renunciation of the right to use these resources in the occupied territories would have meant the abandonment of the independence and existence of the state; it would have meant unconditional submission. An emergency involving submission during war is the supreme and most fatal emergency in the life of a nation. By referring to the state of emergency, however, only such actions are covered which are necessary to remove a danger which could not be averted otherwise. The limitations naturally fluctuate, and it is not always easy to determine in individual cases whether a genuine state of emergency exists.
DR. STAHMER: Here the Tribunal will have to consider in favor of the defendant the special circumstances and the wartime conditions, which are difficult to appreciate. It has not been proved that the defendant intentionally or carelessly infringed these limitations. It must be left to the examination of the Tribunal whether the defendant personally can be held for a violation, possibly committed intentionally or carelessly-a violation which has been committed exclusively by him in his capacity as plenipotentiary of the Fuehrer-or whether in such a case there is only a liability of the state. The Defense are of the opinion that in this case, too, the problem concerns only a violation of international law which does not constitute personal liability. Exceptional conditions prevailed in the eastern theater of war because there was no private economy in the East, but only a national economy strictly regulated by a central office. The juridical situation here was such that property of the enemy state could generally be claimed as war loot. For the rest, a particularly careful regulation was made, which was defined in the so-called "Green Folder." The regulations contained in this folder did not suggest any looting or annihilation of the population, as asserted by the Prosecution. Its tenor was rather the mobilization of economy and the rules for keeping it going, the seizure and the orderly utilization of stocks and traffic installations in the zones to be occupied in the course of fighting, taking into account the fact that far-reaching destruction was to be expected owing to the Russian attitude.. The folder does not contain any order or indication which might burden certain groups of the population beyond the needs of war. This decree, for which the Defendant Goering has taken full responsibility, does not furnish any reason for disapproval. In all this one must not overlook one thing.
DR. STAHMER: This war was of such bitterness, such proportions, such duration and totality as the creators of the Hague Convention certainly never had or could have even remotely imagined. It was a war in which nations fought for life or death. It was a war in which all values had changed. Thus the defendant was quite right when he declared, "After all, in a life-and-death struggle there is no legality." From the standpoint of emergency, a justification can also be found for the deportation of workers from occupied territories to Germany. In his testimony the defendant stated in detail all the reasons which in his opinion made this measure necessary. For the rest, the counsel for the Defendant Sauckel, Dr. Servatius, will review these matters in detail. Therefore, I do not need to concern myself with further considerations in this respect. The defendant has made a comprehensive statement in regard to the charge of spoliation of art treasures, a statement which will be referred to in order to justify his conduct. In addition it will be observed that Reich Marshal Goering was not directly engaged in the safeguarding of art treasures in Poland. Not one of these art treasures did he take for his own collection. In this respect the defendant cannot be incriminated in any way. By order of the Fuehrer such works of art in France as were owned by Jews were temporarily confiscated for the benefit of the Reich. They were considered as derelict property, because their owners had left the country. Of these confiscated objects, with the express approval of the Fuehrer, Goering received a small part, though not for himself but for the gallery he had planned, in which he also intended to incorporate the works of art already in his possession. He wished to acquire these objects at a price estimated by French art experts, the proceeds to be distributed among the dependents of French war victims. The juridical situation, therefore, was as follows: The objects were confiscated by decree of the Fuehrer for the benefit of the German Reich.
DR. STAHMER: By this confiscation the former owners lost their right to possession and it was transferred to the Reich. Such objects as were ceded to him, Goering acquired from the Reich as their present owner. The Reich obviously saw in this a step which, though it was proved premature by the course of events, was intended to anticipate the peace treaty to be concluded at the end of the hostilities, when the final accounts would be made. This is similar to the confiscations and seizures of property carried out at present in Germany in view of the ultimate peace treaty. Whether the Reich Government was juridically entitled to confiscate the goods and to become their owner is a moot question. A solution of the question is no longer necessary, because Goering acted in good faith in the matter of this acquisition. In his testimony he emphasized his belief that he was entitled to acquire these things as they had been previously confiscated by a Fuehrer decree. In consideration of these facts there cannot be any question of looting. In any event there can be no objection to the purchasing of articles in the course of normal business transactions, which the defendant was offered spontaneously, the sellers being only tot eager to dispose of them in view of the good price they received The same applies to objects which the defendant acquired through a voluntary exchange, in which the other party to the contract enjoyed the same rights as himself. I will now deal with the accusation of the shooting of 50 officers of the British Air Force after their escape from the prisoner-of-war camp Sagan. The Indictment reads as follows: "In March 1944, 50 officers of the R.A.F., who had escaped from Stalag Lust III in Sagan, were murdered after their recapture." According to a later declaration of the Prosecution the circumstances were as follows: During the night of 24 to 25 March 1944, 76 officers of the R.A.F. escaped from the prisoner-of-war camp Stalag Lust III in Sagan. 50 of these officers were shot by the Security Service after they had been recaptured.
DR. STAHMER: Investigation must bear on the following points: Who gave the order for the shooting? Did Reich Marshal Goering play any part in this affair? Did he actually take part in the drafting of the order to shoot these 50 airmen? Did he approve the measure, although ii was a grave offense against Paragraph 50 of the Geneva Protocol dealing with the treatment of prisoners of war? The Prosecution states that the Defendant Goering collaborated in the drafting of this order. It referred, among other things, that the reports which Generalmajor Westhoff and Criminal Counsellor Wielen drew up while they were in British custody. But the interrogation of these witnesses in Court, as well as the bringing forward of further evidence, which has been so carefully gone into before the Tribunal, has shown in the meantime that the previous statements Of Westhoff and Wielen were inaccurate, and in respect ~ Goering's presence at the conference and his knowledge of the shooting order were only based on suppositions which had their roots in the fact that it was a question of a prisoner-of-war camp for airmen. The result of the evidence was as follows: At this general conference on 25 March 1944 Himmler reported the escape of the 76 officers to the Fuehrer. For this Hitler severely reprimanded Field Marshal Keitel. He considered the event a great danger to public security, since the escaped officers might assist the 6 million foreigners in Germany in the organization of an armed revolt. Then Hitler gave the order: "The prisoners will remain with Himmler." Keitel definitely refused to hand over to Himmler the 15 officers who had already been recaptured by the Armed Forces and returned to the camp, and these officers remained unharmed. At this general conference in the presence of Keitel, Hitler did not order the shooting of the prisoners who were to remain in Himmler's hands. Neither Keitel nor Jodl expected such measures. Jodl expected the escaped prisoners to be sent to a concentration camp for some time.
DR. STAHMER: Keitel and Jodl agree in their testimonies that Reich Marshal Goering did not attend this meeting. Therefore, it cannot possibly be correct that Field Marshal Keitel declared in a conversation with General Westhoff that he had been reprimanded by Goering at the general conference on account of the prisoners' escape. General Koller has testified that General Korten assured him over the telephone, about the end of March or beginning of April 1944, that the Luftwaffe, that is, the Reich Marshal and Korten himself, were not involved in the order and had only been informed of it later. Furthermore Koller testifies that the Reich Marshal was extremely angry about the shooting. These statements are completely in accordance with the declarations of Reich Marshal Goering, who was on vacation at the time of the conference with Hitler. The fact of the escape reached him only through a telephone report by his adjutant. It was only after his return from vacation, some time around Easter 1944, that he learned through his Chief of General Staff, Korten, about the fact that shootings of prisoners had taken place. Reich Marshal Goering was much upset about this last report because he condemned the deed in itself and, moreover, feared reprisals for his own airmen. Upon inquiry, Himmler then confirmed the executions to Reich Marshal Goering with the justification that an order to that effect had been issued to him by Hitler. It is made clear by this conversation how the execution was possible and how its perpetration could remain concealed from the Wehrmacht. In the absence of Keitel and Jodl, Hitler issued the order to Himmler to carry out the execution and Himmler thereupon, unknown to the Wehrmacht, immediately passed on the order to the Reich Security Main Office, that is, after Kaltenbrunner's approval, to Muller or, as the case may be, to Nebe.
DR. STAHMER: Not only did Reich Marshal Goering remonstrate with Himmler because he had executed the order without informing Goering, but also raised the most vigorous protest against this measure in a subsequent interview with Hitler. This resulted in heated controversies between Goering and Hitler. As Goering strongly condemned such proceedings, he requested shortly afterward that the prisoner-of-war camps be taken in charge by the OKW. On being questioned Field Marshal Keitel confirmed, as a witness, that a few weeks after the occurrence he received a letter from the General Quartermaster of the Luftwaffe, in which the Luftwaffe requested the taking over of its camps by the OKW. This result of the examination of evidence, correcting the initial statements of the witnesses Westhoff and Wielen, which are contradictory in many respects, as well as Keitel's earlier declaration of 10 November 1945, also justifies the assertion that Reich Marshal Goering was in no way involved in this affair, that he condemned it most severely when he was informed of it, and that he, therefore, cannot be called upon to answer for this extremely regrettable and reprehensible order, which it was not within his power to prevent. The Prosecution has gone on to the question of "lynch law" as resorted to by the German population in isolated cases in 1944 when enemy airmen had been shot down. For these occurrences, the defendants, especially Reich Marshal Goering, are held responsible. The charge that the Defendant Goering or the Wehrmacht are in any way involved in this action, that they issued orders or instructions to this effect or even merely approved the action, is seen to be entirely unjustifiable. The examination of evidence in this case has thoroughly cleared up the matter in favor of the defendant. To support their charges against Reich Marshal Goering, the Prosecution invokes first of all a protocol of 19 May 1944 (Document L-166) concerning the so-called "Hunting Conference" which was held on 15 and 16 May 1944 under the direction of the defendant.
DR. STAHMER: Numbered as Item 20 of this memorandum is a statement by the defendant saying he would suggest to the Fuehrer that terrorist enemy airmen be immediately shot at the scene of their offense. The defendant most definitely denies having made any pronouncement to this effect and justly points to the following circumstances which belie any such statement: The session lasted for 2 days, and numerous technical and organizational questions were discussed The question touched upon in Item 20 had nothing whatever to do with the agenda for the rest of the session, least of all with the purpose of the session. The remark is placed in the midst of themes which deal with matters of an entirely different nature and has no point in this connection. Besides, Goering, had he approved and wished it, could himself have immediately issued such an order without further ado, as he knew the Fuehrer's attitude on this point The decisive fact is that the statement is in the sharpest contradiction with the fundamental attitude of the defendant. He always stood for the view that the enemy airman who was shot down was a comrade and must be treated as a comrade, a fact which I have already remarked upon in another connection. Moreover, in the question as to how terrorist airmen were to be treated, he defended his position with all frankness against the conception held by Hitler and made no secret to Hitler of his entirely different opinion. In view of this unwavering attitude and its resulting policy, it is utterly out of the question that he should suddenly have urged Hitler to issue the above-mentioned order against the terrorist airmen-an order which he opposed with all his might and the execution of which he sought to prevent by every means as soon as it came to his knowledge. And he did succeed in fact in preventing the execution of this order. If the terrorist airmen were actually discussed at the conference, this discussion could only have occurred with the implication that the Fuehrer suggested such a measure.
DR. STAHMER: With reference to the minutes, the following general remarks must be added: They consist of summary notes by a young officer, stretching over a two-day session during which there had been a great deal of talking and discussion. Experience acquired in many other cases has shown that such recordings are often very unreliable and have even at times reproduced the subject of the discussion in an utterly distorted form, precisely because the person taking notes- especially when several participants were present and talking at random-could not follow the course of the discussion and consequently did not reproduce the substance of it accurately, especially when, in addition to this, he was mixing up the people; this explains many factual errors as well as the inadequacy and unreliability of such records. The minutes were never submitted to the defendant. He has not therefore been able to verify their contents nor to correct their errors. Records of this sort, which were taken down in the way described above and which are not submitted for perusal and approval by the parties concerned, are worthless in the production of evidence. They cannot in themselves alone serve as an adequate means of proof either to charge or convict the defendant. They can, therefore, only be made use of to the detriment of the parties implicated when the content matter is confirmed by other material brought for evidence from sources other than these minutes. In the present case there is no confirmation from other evidence that Goering actually made the statement contained in Item 20 or made a request to Hitler to that effect. The note dated 21 May (Document 731-PS) fails to provide support for the claim. The note, "General Korten, according to a speech by the Reich Marshal, reports . . ." cannot, in view of the defendant's uncontested statement, possibly mean that the Reich Marshal delivered an address on this matter in Hitler's quarters but solely that Korten reported on this subject to the Reich Marshal and that Korten informed the Reich Marshal of Hitler's order.