dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
and the League of Nations, universal military service, and seizure of the Rhineland. Finally, according to the Indictment, aggressive action was planned and carried out against Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1936-1938, followed by the planning and waging of war against Poland; and, successively, against ten other countries.
The Prosecution says, in effect, that any significant participation in the affairs of the Nazi Party or Government is evidence of a participation in a conspiracy that is in itself criminal. Conspiracy is not defined in the
Charter
. But in the opinion of the Tribunal the conspiracy must be clearly outlined in its criminal purpose. It must not be too far removed from the time of decision and of action. The planning, to be criminal, must not rest merely on the declarations of a party programme, such as are found in the
twenty five points of the Nazi Party
, announced in 1920, or the political affirmations expressed in "Mein Kampf " in later years. The Tribunal must examine whether a concrete plan to wage war existed, and determine the participants in that concrete plan.
It is not necessary to decide whether a single master conspiracy between the defendants has been established by the evidence. The seizure of power by the Nazi Party, and the subsequent domination by the Nazi State of all spheres of economic and social life must of course be remembered when the later plans for waging war are examined. That plans were made to wage wars, as early as
5th November, 1937
, and probably before that, is apparent. And thereafter, such preparations continued in many directions, and against the peace of many countries. Indeed the threat of war- and war itself if necessary- was an integral part of the Nazi policy. But the evidence establishes with certainty the existence of many separate plans rather than a single conspiracy embracing them all. That Germany was rapidly moving to complete dictatorship from the moment that the Nazis seized power, and progressively in the direction of war, has been overwhelmingly shown in the ordered sequence of aggressive acts and wars already set out in this Judgment.
plans rather than a single conspiracy embracing them all. That Germany was rapidly moving to complete dictatorship from the moment that the Nazis seized power, and progressively in the direction of war, has been overwhelmingly shown in the ordered sequence of aggressive acts and wars already set out in this Judgment.
In the opinion of the Tribunal, the evidence establishes the common planning to prepare and wage war by certain of the defendants. It is immaterial to consider whether a single conspiracy to the extent and over the time set out in the Indictment has been conclusively proved. Continued planning, with aggressive war as the objective, has been established beyond doubt. The truth of the situation was well stated by Paul Schmidt, official interpreter of the German Foreign Office, as follows:
" The general objectives of the Nazi leadership were apparent from the start, namely the domination of the European Continent to be achieved first by the incorporation of all German speaking groups in the Reich, and secondly, by territorial expansion under the slogan 'Lebensraum.' The execution of these basic objectives, how ever, seemed to be characterised by improvisation. Each succeeding step was apparently carried out as each new situation arose, but all consistent with the ultimate objectives mentioned above."
The argument that such common planning cannot exist where there is complete dictatorship is unsound. A plan in the execution of which a number of persons participate is still a plan, even though conceived by only one of them; and those who execute the plan do not avoid responsibility by showing that they acted under the direction of the man who conceived it. Hitler could not make aggressive war by himself. He had to have the co-operation of statesmen, military leaders, diplomats, and business men. When they, with knowledge of his aims, gave him their co-operation, they made themselves parties to the plan he had initiated. They are not to be deemed innocent because Hitler made use of them, if they knew what they were doing. That they were assigned to their tasks by a dictator does not absolve them from responsibility for their acts. The relation of leader and follower does not preclude responsibility here any more than it does in the comparable tyranny of organised domestic crime.
Count One
if they knew what they were doing. That they were assigned to their tasks by a dictator does not absolve them from responsibility for their acts. The relation of leader and follower does not preclude responsibility here any more than it does in the comparable tyranny of organised domestic crime. Count One
, however, charges not only the conspiracy to commit aggressive war, but also to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity. But the
Charter
does not define as a separate crime any conspiracy except the one to commit acts of aggressive war.
Article 6
of the Charter provides:
" Leaders, organisers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan."
In the opinion of the Tribunal these words do not add a new and separate crime to those already listed. The words are designed to establish the responsibility of persons participating in a common plan. The Tribunal will therefore disregard the charges in
Count One
that the defendants conspired to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, and will consider only the common plan to prepare, initiate and wage aggressive war.
The PRESIDENT: I now ask Judge Parker to continue the reading of the Judgment.
Judgement : The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
Previous Document
Judgment Contents
Next Document
Article 6 of the
Charter
provides:
" (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages. or devastation not justified by military necessity;
" (c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated."
As heretofore stated, the
Charter
does not define as a separate crime any conspiracy except the one set out in
Article 6 (a)
, dealing with crimes against peace.
The Tribunal is of course bound by the
Charter
, in the definition which it gives both of war crimes and crimes against humanity. With respect to war crimes, however, as has already been pointed out, the crimes defined by
Article 6, section (b)
, of the Charter were already recognised as war crimes under international law. They were covered by
Articles 46
,
50
,
52
, and
56
of the
Hague Convention of 1907
, and Articles 2, 3, 4, 46 and 51 of the Geneva Convention of 1929. That violations of these provisions constituted crimes for which the guilty individuals were punishable is too well settled to admit of argument.
But it is argued that the Hague Convention does not apply in this case, because of the " general participation " clause in
Article 2 of the Hague Convention of 1907
. That clause provided:
"The provisions contained in the regulations (Rules of Land Warfare referred to in
Article 1
as well as in the present
Convention
do not apply except between contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention."
Several of the belligerents in the recent war were not parties to this Convention.
in the regulations (Rules of Land Warfare referred to in Article 1 as well as in the present Convention do not apply except between contracting powers, and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Convention." Several of the belligerents in the recent war were not parties to this Convention.
In the opinion of the Tribunal it is not necessary to decide this question. The rules of land warfare expressed in the Convention undoubtedly represented an advance over existing international law at the time of their adoption. But the Convention expressly stated that it was an attempt " to revise the general laws and customs of war," which it thus recognised to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in
Article 6 (b)
of the Charter.
A further submission was made that Germany was no longer bound by the rules of land warfare in many of the territories occupied during the war, because Germany had completely subjugated those countries and incorporated them into the German Reich, a fact which gave Germany authority to deal with the occupied countries as though they were part of Germany. In the view of the Tribunal it is unnecessary in this case to decide whether this doctrine of subjugation, dependent as it is upon military conquest, has any application where the subjugation is the result of the crime of aggressive war. The doctrine was never considered to be applicable so long as there was an army in the field attempting to restore the occupied countries to their true owners, and in this case, therefore, the doctrine could not apply to any territories occupied after the 1st September, 1939. As to the war crimes committed in Bohemia and Moravia, it is a sufficient answer that these territories were never added to the Reich, but a mere protectorate was established over them.
owners, and in this case, therefore, the doctrine could not apply to any territories occupied after the 1st September, 1939. As to the war crimes committed in Bohemia and Moravia, it is a sufficient answer that these territories were never added to the Reich, but a mere protectorate was established over them.
With regard to crimes against humanity, there is no doubt whatever that political opponents were murdered in Germany before the war, and that many of them were kept in concentration camps in circumstances of great horror and cruelty. The policy of terror was certainly carried out on a vast scale, and in many cases was organised and systematic. The policy of persecution, repression and murder of civilians in Germany before the war of 1939, who were likely to be hostile to the Government, was most ruthlessly carried out. The persecution of Jews during the same period is established beyond all doubt. To constitute crimes against humanity, the acts relied on before the outbreak of war must have been in execution of, or in connection with, any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is of the opinion that revolting and horrible as many of these crimes were, it has not been satisfactorily proved that they were done in execution of, or in connection with, any such crime. The Tribunal therefore cannot make a general declaration that the acts before 1939 were crimes against humanity within the meaning of the
Charter
, but from the beginning of the war in 1939 war crimes were committed on a vast scale, which were also crimes against humanity; and insofar as the inhumane acts charged in the Indictment, and committed after the beginning of the war, did not constitute war crimes, they were all committed in execution of, or in connection with, the aggressive war, and therefore constituted crimes against humanity.
The PRESIDENT: I now ask Colonel Volchkov to continue the reading of the Judgment.
The Judgment : The Nazi Regime in Germany
Previous Document
Judgment Contents
Next Document
Origin and Aims of the Nazi Party
The Consolidation of Power
Measures of Re-Armament
The Common Plan or Conspiracy and Aggressive War
Preparation for Aggression
Planning of Aggression
Conferences of 23rd November, 1939, and 5th November, 1937
THE ORIGIN AND AIMS OF THE NAZI PARTY
On 5th January, 1919, not two months after the conclusion of the Armistice which ended the first World War, and six months before the signing of the
Peace Treaties at Versailles
, there came into being in Germany a small political party called the German Labour Party. On the 12th September, 1919, Adolf Hitler became a member of this party, and at the first public meeting held in Munich, on 24th February, 1920, he announced the
party's programme
. That programme, which remained unaltered until the party was dissolved in 1945, consisted of twenty-five points, of which the following five are of particular interest on account of the light they throw on the matters with which the Tribunal is concerned:
" Point 1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany, on the basis of the right of a self-determination of peoples.
Point 2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the
peace treaties of Versailles
and Saint Germain.
Point 3. We demand land and territory for the sustenance of our people, and the colonisation of our surplus population.
Point 4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race....
Point 22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army."
Of these aims, the one which seems to have been regarded as the most important, and which figured in almost every public speech, was the removal of the " disgrace " of the Armistice, and the restrictions of the peace treaties of
Versailles
and Saint Germain. In a typical speech at Munich on the 13th April, 1923, for example, Hitler said with regard to the
Treaty of Versailles
:
" The treaty was made in order to bring twenty million Germans to their deaths, and to ruin the German nation.... At its foundation our movement formulated three demands.
"1. Setting aside of the Peace Treaty.
2. Unification of all Germans.
3. Land and soil to feed our nation."
THE ORIGIN AND AIMS OF THE NAZI PARTY
to the Treaty of Versailles : " The treaty was made in order to bring twenty million Germans to their deaths, and to ruin the German nation.... At its foundation our movement formulated three demands. "1. Setting aside of the Peace Treaty. 2. Unification of all Germans. 3. Land and soil to feed our nation."
The demand for the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany was to play a large part in the events preceding the seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia; the abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles was to become a decisive motive in attempting to justify the policy of the German Government; the demand for land was to be the justification for the acquisition of " living space " at the expense of other nations; the expulsion of the Jews from membership of the race of German blood was to lead to the atrocities against the Jewish people; and the demand for a national army was to result in measures of rearmament on the largest possible scale, and ultimately to war. On the 29th July, 1921, the Party which had changed its name to National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (NSDAP) was reorganised, Hitler becoming the first " Chairman ". It was in this year that the Sturmabteilung or SA was founded, with Hitler at its head, as a private pare-military force, which allegedly was to be used for the purpose of protecting NSDAP leaders from attack by rival political parties, and preserving order at NSDAP meetings, but in reality was used for fighting political opponents on the streets. In March, 1923, the defendant Goering was appointed head of the SA.
The procedure within the Party was governed in the most absolute way by the leadership principle" (Fuehrerprinzip).
According to the principle, each Fuehrer has the right to govern, administer or decree, subject to no control of any kind and at his complete discretion, subject only to the orders he received from above.
This principle applied in the first instance to Hitler himself as the Leader of the Party, and in a lesser degree to all other party officials. All members of the Party swore an oath of " eternal allegiance " to the Leader.
There were only two ways in which Germany could achieve the three main aims above-mentioned, by negotiation, or by force. The twenty-five points of the
NSDAP programme
THE ORIGIN AND AIMS OF THE NAZI PARTY
the Party, and in a lesser degree to all other party officials. All members of the Party swore an oath of " eternal allegiance " to the Leader. There were only two ways in which Germany could achieve the three main aims above-mentioned, by negotiation, or by force. The twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme
do not specifically mention the methods on which the leaders of the party proposed to rely, but the history of the Nazi regime shows that Hitler and his followers were only prepared to negotiate on the terms that their demands were conceded, and that force would be used if they were not.
On the night of the 8th November, 1923, an abortive putsch took place in Munich. Hitler and some of his followers burst into a meeting in the Burgerbrau Cellar, which was being addressed by the Bavarian Prime Minister Kehr, with the intention of obtaining from him a decision to march forthwith on Berlin. On the morning of the 9th November, however, no Bavarian support was forthcoming, and Hitler's demonstration was met by the armed forces of the Reichswehr and the Police. Only a few volleys were fired; and after a dozen of his followers had been killed, Hitler fled for his life, and the demonstration was over. The defendants Streicher, Frick and Hess all took part in the attempted rising. Hitler was later tried for high treason, and was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. The SA was outlawed. Hitler was released from prison in 1924 and in 1925 the Schutzstaffel, or SS, was created, nominally to act as his personal bodyguard, but in reality to terrorise political opponents. This was also the year of the publication of " Mein Kampf ", containing the political views and aims of Hitler, which came to be regarded as the authentic source of Nazi doctrine.
Mr. JUSTICE BIRKETT:
THE CONSOLIDATION OF POWER
The NSDAP, having achieved power in this way, now proceeded to extend its hold on every phase of German life. Other political parties were persecuted, their property and assets confiscated, and many of their members placed in concentration camps. On 26th April, 1933, the defendant Goering founded in Prussia the Gestapo as a secret police, and confided to the deputy leader of the Gestapo that its main task was to eliminate political opponents of National Socialism and Hitler. On the 14th July, 1933, a law was passed declaring the NSDAP to be the only political party, and making it criminal to maintain or form any other political party.
In order to place the complete control of the machinery of Government in the hands of the Nazi leaders, a series of laws and decrees were passed which reduced the powers of regional and local governments throughout Germany, transforming them into subordinate divisions of the Government of the Reich. Representative assemblies in the Laender were abolished and with them all local elections. The Government then proceeded to secure control of the Civil Service. This was achieved by a process of centralisation, and by a careful sifting of the whole Civil Service administration. By a law of the 7th April it was provided that officials "who were of non-Aryan descent " should be retired; and it was also decreed that " officials who because of their previous political activity cannot be guaranteed to exert themselves for the national state without reservation shall be discharged." The law of the 11th April, 1933, provided for the discharge of " all Civil Servants who belong to the Communist Party." Similarly, the Judiciary was subjected to control. Judges were removed from the Bench for political or racial reasons. They were spied upon and made subject to the strongest pressure to join the Nazi Party as an alternative to being dismissed. When the Supreme Court acquitted three of the four defendants charged with complicity in the Reichstag fire, its jurisdiction in cases of treason was thereafter taken away and given to a newly established " People's Court ", consisting of two judges and five officials of the Party. Special courts were set up to try political crimes and only party members were appointed as judges
THE CONSOLIDATION OF POWER
with complicity in the Reichstag fire, its jurisdiction in cases of treason was thereafter taken away and given to a newly established " People's Court ", consisting of two judges and five officials of the Party. Special courts were set up to try political crimes and only party members were appointed as judges. Persons were arrested by the SS for political reasons, and detained in prisons and concentration camps, and the judges were without power to intervene in any way. Pardons were granted to members of the Party who had been sentenced by the judges for proved offences. In 1935 several officials of the Hohenstein concentration camp were convicted of inflicting brutal treatment upon the inmates. High Nazi officials tried to influence the Court, and after the officials had been convicted, Hitler pardoned them all. In 1942 " Judges' letters" were sent to all German judges by the Government, instructing them as to the " general lines " that they must follow.
In their determination to remove all sources of opposition, the NSDAP leaders turned their attention to the trade unions, the churches and the Jews. In April, 1933, Hitler ordered the late defendant Ley, who was then staff director of the political organisation of the NSDAP, " to take over the trade unions." Most of the trade unions of Germany were joined together in two large federations, the " Free Trade Unions " and the " Christian Trade Unions." Unions outside these two large federations contained only 15 per cent. of the total union membership. On the 21st April, 1933, Ley issued an NSDAP directive announcing a " co-ordination action" to be carried out on the 2nd May against the Free Trade Unions.
The directive ordered that SA and SS men were to be employed in the planned "occupation of trade union properties and for the taking into protective custody of personalities who come into question." At the conclusion of the action the official NSDAP press service reported that the National Socialist Factory Cells Organisation had "eliminated the old leadership of Free Trade Unions" and taken over the leadership them selves