dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MR. DODD: "Austria has certainly a great mission, namely, to be the bearer of German culture, to insure respect and regard for the German name, especially in the direction of the southeast. Such a mission can only be performed within the Great German Reich and based on the power of a nation of 75 millions, which, regardless of the wish of the opponents, forms the heart and the soul of Europe." Dr. Schacht goes on to say: "We have read a lot in the foreign press during the last few days that this aim, the union of both countries, is to a certain degree justified, but that the method of effecting this union was terrible.... This method, which certainly did not suit one or another foreigner, is nothing but the consequence of countless perfidies and brutal acts of violence which foreign countries have practiced against us." And I refer now to Page 3 of this same document and to the fourth paragraph, about the center of the page, and reading from it: "I am known for sometimes expressing thoughts which give offense and there I would not like to depart from this custom. I know that there are even here, in this country a few people -I believe they are not too numerous-who find fault with the events of the last few days; but nobody, I believe, doubts the goal, and it should be said to all grumblers that you can't satisfy everybody.
MR. DODD: One person says he would have done it maybe in one way, but the remarkable thing is that they did not do it, and that it was only done by our Adolf Hitler; and if there is still something left to be improved, then those grumblers should try to bring about these improvements from the German Reich, and within the German community, but not to disturb it from without." In the memorandum of the 7th of January 1939, written by the Defendant Schacht and other directors of the Reichsbank to Hitler, urging a balancing of the budget in view of the threatening danger of inflation, it was stated-and I now refer to the document bearing the label EC-369 and particularly to the paragraph at the bottom of the first page of that document: "From the beginning the Reichsbank has been aware of the fact that a successful foreign policy can be attained only by the reconstruction of the German Armed Forces. It (the Reichsbank) therefore assumed to a very great extent the responsibility to finance the rearmament in spite of the inherent dangers to the currency. The justification thereof was the necessity, which pushed all other considerations into the background, to carry through the armament at once, out of nothing, and furthermore under camouflage, which made a respect-commanding foreign policy possible." The Reichsbank directors, as experts on money, believed that a point lead been reached where greater production of armaments was no longer possible. We say that was merely a judgment on the situation and not a moral principle, for there was no opposition to Hitler's policy of aggression. Doubts were ascertained only as to whether he could finance that policy. Hitler's letter to Schacht on the occasion of Schacht's departure from the Reichsbank, as contained in Document EC-397, pays high tribute. to Schacht's great efforts in furthering the program of the Nazi conspirators. The Armed Forces by now had enabled Hitler to take Austria and the Sudetenland. We say Schacht's task up to that point had been well done.
MR. DODD: And to quote from Document EC-397 in the words of Hitler, in a letter which he wrote to the Defendant Schacht, "Your name, above all, will always be connected with the first epoch of the national rearmament." Even though dismissed from the presidency of the Reichsbank, Schacht was retained as a Minister without portfolio and special confidential adviser to Hitler. The Defendant Funk stepped into Schacht's position as President of the Reichsbank. And I ask at this point that the Court might take judicial notice of the Volkischer Beobachter of January 21, 1939. The Defendant Funk was completely uninhibited by fears of inflation, for like Goering, under whom he had served in the Four Year Plan, he recognized no obstacles to the plan to attack Poland. In Document 699-PS, in a letter from the Defendant Funk to Hitler, written on August 25 of 1939, only a few days before the attack on Poland, the Defendant Funk reported to Hitler that the Reichsbank was prepared to withstand any disturbances of the international currency and credit system occasioned by a large-scale war. He said that he had secretly transferred all available funds of the Reichsbank abroad into gold, and that Germany stood ready to meet the financial and economic tasks which lay ahead. And so it seems plain and clear from the writings, from the acts, from the speeches of the Nazi conspirators themselves, that they did in fact direct the whole of the German economy toward preparation for aggressive war. To paraphrase the words that the Defendant Goering once used, these conspirators gave the German people "guns instead of butter," and we say they also gave history its most striking example of a nation gearing itself in time of peace to the single purpose of aggressive war.
MR. DODD: Their economic preparations, formulated and applied with the ruthless energy of the Defendant Goering, with the cynical financial wizardry of the Defendant Schacht, and the willing complicity of Funk, among others, were the indispensable first act in the heart-breaking tragedy which their aggression inflicted upon the world. I should like to offer, if I may at this time, Your Honor, those documents which I have referred to in the course of this discussion. We have here the original documents in the folders, and they compare with the translations which have been submitted to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the defendants had the opportunity of inspecting these documents?
MR. DODD: I doubt that they have had full opportunity to inspect them, Your Honor. The photostats are there, but I don't think they have had time to inspect them because they haven't been there long enough for that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that they should have full opportunity of inspecting them and comparing with the copies which have been submitted to us before the originals are put in.
MR. DODD: Very well, Your Honor. We may offer them at a later date, as I understand, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. The Tribunal will adjourn for 10 minutes. [A recess was taken.]
COLONEL STOREY: May it please the Tribunal: The  U.S. Prosecution now passes into the aggressive war phase of the case and it will be presented by Mr. Alderman.
MR. ALDERMAN: May it please the Tribunal: I rise to present on behalf of the United States Chief of Counsel, evidence to support the allegation of Count One of the Indictment relating to the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of illegal and aggressive war, and relating to the conspiracy to commit that crime. The aggressive war phase of the case, the aggressive war phase of the conspiracy case under Count One, and the aggressive war phase of the entire case is really, we think, the heart of the case. If we did not reach it in our presentation we would not reach the heart of the case. If we did not present it to the Tribunal in the necessary detail, we would fail to present what is necessary to the heart of the case. After all, everything else in this case, however dramatic, however sordid, however shocking and revolting to the common instincts of civilized peoples, is incidental to, or subordinate to, the aggressive war aspect of the case. All the dramatic story of what went on in Germany in the early phases of the conspiracy-the ideologies used, the techniques of terror used, the suppressions of human freedom employed in the seizure of power, and even the concentration camps and the Crimes against Humanity, the persecutions, tortures, and murders committed-all these things would have little juridical international significance except for the fact that they were the preparation for the commission of aggressions against peaceful neighboring peoples. Even the aspects of the case involving War Crimes in the strict sense are aspects which are merely the inevitable, proximate result of the wars of aggression launched and waged by these conspirators, and of the kind of warfare they waged-that is-total war, the natural result of the totalitarian party-dominated state that waged it, and atrocious war, the natural result of the atrocious doctrines, designs, and purposes of these war-makers.
MR. ALDERMAN: For these reasons, I repeat that in our view the phases of the case dealing with territorial gains acquired by threats of force and with actual aggressions and aggressive wars constitute the real heart of the case. Accordingly, we ask the indulgence of the Tribunal if for these reasons we make the presentation of this part of the case as detailed as seems to us necessary in view of the outstanding importance of the subject matter. The general scope of the case to be presented by the American Prosecution has been stated in the opening address by Mr. Justice Jackson. That address indicated to the Tribunal the general nature and character of the evidence to be offered by the American Prosecution in support of the allegations with which I shall deal. However, before approaching the actual presentation of that evidence, it seems to us that it would be helpful to an orderly presentation of the case, to address the Tribunal in an introductory way concerning this specific segment of the Prosecution's case. In doing so, I shall not attempt to retrace the ground so ably covered by Mr. Justice Jackson. On the contrary, I shall confine my introductory remarks to matters specifically and peculiarly applicable to that part of the American case relating to the crime of illegal warfare, and the Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit that crime. The substantive rule of law which must guide the considerations of the Tribunal on this aspect of the case, and the rule of law which must be controlling in the final judgment of the Tribunal on this part of the case, is stated in Article 6 of the Charter of the Inter- 23 Nov. Is national Military Tribunal. Article 6, so far as pertinent here, reads as follows: "Article 6.
MR. ALDERMAN: The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. "The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: "(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing . . ." Subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 6 are not pertinent to this aspect of the case. However, the unnumbered final paragraph of Article 6 is of controlling importance on this aspect of the case. That paragraph reads: "Leaders, organizers, 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 receiving evidence on this aspect of the case I would request the Tribunal to have in mind five principles derived from the portions of the Charter I have just read: (1) The Charter imposes "individual responsibility" for acts constituting "Crimes against Peace"; (2) The term "Crimes against Peace" embraces planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of illegal war; (3) The term "Crimes against Peace" also embraces participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit illegal war; (4) An illegal war consists of either a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. These two kinds of illegal war might not necessarily be the same.
MR. ALDERMAN: It will be sufficient for the Prosecution to show that the war was aggressive irrespective of breach of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. On the other hand it would be sufficient for the Prosecution to show that the war was in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances irrespective of whether or not it was a war of aggression. We think the evidence in this case will establish conclusively that the wars planned, prepared, initiated, and waged by these defendants, and the wars which were the object of their common plan and conspiracy, were illegal for both reasons. The fifth principle which I ask you to bear in mind, is that individual criminal responsibility of a defendant is imposed by the Charter not merely by reason of direct, immediate participation in the crime. It is sufficient for the Prosecution to show that a defendant was a leader, an organizer, instigator, or accomplice who participated either in the formulation or in the execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit Crimes against Peace. In the case of many of the defendants the evidence will show direct and immediate personal participation in the substantive crime itself. In the case of some of the defendants the evidence goes to their participation in the formulation and execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy. In the case of each defendant, we think, the evidence will establish full individual responsibility for Crimes against Peace, as defined in the Charter of this Tribunal. In this connection I wish to emphasize that the Charter declares that the responsibility of conspirators extends not only to their own acts, but also to all acts performed by any persons in execution of the conspiracy.
MR. ALDERMAN: It is familiar law in my country that if two or more persons set out to rob a bank, in accordance with a criminal scheme to that end, and in the course of carrying out their scheme one of the conspirators commits the crime of murder, all of the participants in the planning and execution of the bank robbery are guilty of murder, whether or not they had any other personal participation in the killing. This is a simple rule of law declared in the Charter. All the parties to a Common Plan or Conspiracy are the agents of each other and each is responsible as principal for the acts of all the others as his agents. So much for the terms of the Charter having a bearing on this aspect of the case. I invite the attention of the Tribunal to the portions of the Indictment lodged against the defendants on trial which relate to the crimes of illegal war or war of aggression. Particularly I ask the Tribunal to advert to the statements of offense under Count One and Count Two of the Indictment in this case. The statement of offense under Count One of the Indictment is contained in Paragraph III. The offense there stated, so far as pertinent to the present discussion, is: "An the defendants, with divers other persons, during a period of years preceding 8th May 1945, participated as leaders, organizers, instigators, or accomplices in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit, or which involved the commission of, Crimes against Peace, as defined in the Charter of this Tribunal.... The Common Plan or Conspiracy embraced the commission of Crimes against Peace, in that the defendants planned, prepared, initiated, and waged wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances." The statement of offense under Count Two of the Indictment is also relevant at this point. It must be obvious that essentially Counts One and Two interlock in this Indictment.
MR. ALDERMAN: The substance of the offense stated under Count Two, Paragraph V of the Indictment is this: "All the defendants with divers other persons, during a period of years preceding 8 May 1945, participated in the planning, preparation, incitation, and waging of wars of aggression which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances." The emphasis in the statement of offense under Count One of the Indictment is on the Common Plan or Conspiracy. The emphasis under Count Two of the indictment is on the substantive crimes to which the conspiracy related and which were committed in the course of and pursuant to that conspiracy. I should hasten to add at this point that in the division of the case as between the Chief Prosecutors of the four Prosecuting Governments, primary responsibility for the presentation of evidence supporting Count One has been placed on the American prosecutor, and primary responsibility for the presentation of the evidence supporting Count Two of the Indictment has been placed on the British prosecutor. But as we shall show somewhat later, there will to some extent be a cooperative effort as between the two prosecutors to present certain phases of both counts together. In addition to the statement of offense relating to illegal war in Paragraph III under Count One of the Indictment, Count One also contains what amounts to a bill of particulars of that offense. In so far as those particulars relate to illegal war, they are contained in Paragraph IV (F) of the Indictment which is set out in the English text on Page 7 through the top of Page 10 under the general heading "Utilization of Nazi Control for Foreign Aggression." The allegations of this bill of particulars have been read in open court, in the presence of the defendants, and the Tribunal, as well as the defendants, are certainly familiar with the contents of those allegations.
MR. ALDERMAN: I call attention to them now, however, in order to focus attention on the parts of the Indictment which are relevant in consideration of the evidence which I intend to bring before the Tribunal. My introduction to the presentation of evidence in this matter would be faulty if I did not invite the Tribunal to consider with me the relationship between history and the evidence in this case. Neither counsel nor Tribunal can orient themselves to the problem at hand-neither counsel nor Tribunal can present or consider the evidence in this case in its proper context, neither can argue or evaluate the staggering implications of the evidence to be presented without reading that history, reading that evidence against the background of recorded history. And by recorded history, I mean the history merely of the last 12 years. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, of the U. S. Supreme Court, found in his judicial experience that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." My recollection is that he stated it perhaps better, earlier in the preface to his book on the common law where he said, I think, "The life of the law has been not logic but experience." I submit that in the present case a page of history is worth a hundred tons of evidence. As lawyers and judges we cannot blind ourselves to what we know as men. The history of the past 12 years is a burning, living thing in our immediate memory. The facts of history crowd themselves upon us and demand our attention. It is common ground among all systems of jurisprudence that matters of common knowledge need not be proved, but may receive the judicial notice of courts without other evidence. The Charter of this Tribunal, drawing on this uniformly recognized principle, declares in Article 21: "The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof." The facts of recorded history are the prime example of facts of common knowledge which require no proof.
MR. ALDERMAN: No court would require evidence to prove that the Battle of Hastings occurred in the year 1066, or that the Bastille fell on the 14th of July 1789, or that Czar Alexander I freed the serfs in 1863, or that George Washington was the first President of the United States or that George III was the reigning King of England at that time. If I may be allowed to interpolate, an old law professor of mine used to present the curiosity of the law: that a judge is held to responsibility for no knowledge of the law whatsoever, that a 23 Nov. Is lawyer is held to a reasonable knowledge of the law, and a layman is held to an absolute knowledge of all the laws. It works inversely as to facts, or facts of common knowledge. There, the judge is imputed to know all of those facts, however many of them he may have forgotten as an individual man. So one of the purposes of this presentation will be to implement the judicial knowledge which by hypothesis exists, and which probably actually exists. It is not our purpose however, to convert the record of these proceedings into a history book. The evidence which we offer in this case is evidence which for the moment has been concealed from historians. It will fill in recorded history, but it must be read against the background which common knowledge provides. The evidence in this case consists primarily of captured documents. These documents fill in the inside story underlying the historical record which we an already knew. This evidence which we will offer constitutes an illustrative spot check on history-on the history of the recent times as the world knows it. The evidence to be offered is not a substitute for history. We hope the Tribunal will find it to be an authentication of history. The evidence which we have drawn from captured documents establishes the validity of the recent history of the past 12 years-a history of many aggressions by the Nazi conspirators accused in this case.
MR. ALDERMAN: As I offer to the Tribunal document after document, I ask the Court to see in those documents definite additions to history, the addition of new elements long suspected and now proved. The elements which the captured documents on this particular aspect of the case will add to recorded history are the following: (1) The conspiratorial nature of the planning and preparation which underlay the Nazi aggressions already known to history, (2) The deliberate premeditation which preceded those acts of aggression; (3) The evil motives which led to the crimes; (4) The individual participation of named persons in the Nazi conspiracy for aggression; (5) The deliberate falsification of the pretexts claimed by the Nazi aggressors as the reasons for their criminal activities. These elements the captured documents will demonstrate beyond possible doubt, and these elements, in the context of historical facts, we think are all that need to be shown. The critical period between the Nazi seizure of power and the initiation of the first war of aggression was a very short period. This critical period of a lawless preparation and illegal scheming which ultimately set the whole world aflame was unbelievably short. It covered only 6 years, 1933 to 1939. The speed with which all this was accomplished evidences at once the fanatical intensity of the conspirators and their diabolical efficiency. Crowded into these 6 short years is the making of the greatest tragedy that has ever befallen mankind. A full understanding of these 6 years, and of the vibrant 6 years of war that followed, demands that we see this period of time divided into rather definite phases, phases that reflect the development and execution of the Nazi master plan. I suggest that the Tribunal as it receives evidence, fit it into five phases. The first was primarily preparatory, although it did involve overt acts. That phase covers roughly the period from 1933 to 1936.