Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-06-53.14
Last-Modified: 1998/04/14

                                                  [Page 151]
                                                            
That, then, is the evidence of his position and of his
authority, and perhaps I might be allowed to make one short
submission upon that. I make it in respect of this defendant
Hess, although it is perhaps a submission which can be made
in respect of every one of these defendants.

The prosecution has presented these cases against the
individual defendants in the form of a collection of the
documents which directly refer, and which directly connect,
these defendants with specific instances of participation in
the various crimes that were committed by the German people.
My Lord, it will be my submission that it is sufficient to
justify and bring home the conviction of this man and his
colleagues, to produce simply evidence of their positions in
the Nazi State and the control of that State, and also the
general evidence of the crimes which were committed by the
German people. It is only perhaps now, at this late stage in
the trial, as day by day the extent and scope of those
crimes is becoming clearer, that we realise that they cannot
have happened by themselves. Crimes on that scale must be
organised, co-ordinated, and directed. If the Government of
Nazi Germany, or the Government of any country, is not the
organisation which directed and co-ordinated, what is? If
the members of the German nation who are committing those
crimes are not the people responsible for them, then, in my
submission, one is entitled to ask, Who is?

My Lord, there can be no question that these men had no
knowledge. Again, as the picture unfolds, it will be my
submission that everybody in Germany must have had knowledge
of what was going on; and if everybody had knowledge, then,
my submission is, these men must certainly have had
knowledge, and I would urge upon this Tribunal the fact that
the conviction of these men does not rely upon the mere
chance of how many documents happened to have been captured
bearing their signatures. It might well have been that no
documents at all had been captured. But, in the submission
of the prosecution, these men could equally well and equally
justifiably have been proved guilty in the part they took,
beyond any kind of doubt, upon the evidence of the positions
that they held and the evidence of the scope and extent of
the crimes that were committed by the people they
controlled.

My Lord, that is my submission, and in view of that I would
perhaps deal briefly, for the convenience of the Tribunal,
with the small matters, the many matters, which do directly
connect him with, as I say, almost every aspect of the
crimes and life of Nazi Germany

I turn to Page 6 of the trial brief.

DR. ALFRED SEIDL: The prosecuting attorney just mentioned a
sworn statement. I cannot find this sworn statement either
in the document book or in his trial brief. I can,
consequently, take no position in regard to this sworn
statement, nor, especially, can I go into the question as to
whether there is any objection to the statement as regards
the terms of the Charter. I request the prosecuting attorney
to present me with this sworn statement...

(The remainder of the interpretation of the statement of Dr.
Seidl did not come through the headphone.)

THE PRESIDENT: We couldn't hear the rest of the translation
through. Well, go on!

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I am not sure how much of the
translation you heard.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, there is some document that you are
saying is not in the document book?

LIEUTENANT-COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: I intend to say that the
photographs are in the book. The affidavit by the
photographer was, by mistake, omitted from the book, the
original is here. I will produce a copy for Dr. Seidl, and I
regret it was not done before. It was not a very important
document.

                                                  [Page 152]
                                                            
My Lord, it might be expected that, in the positions he
held, the defendant Hess took a leading part in the
acquisition of power by the Nazi Party and in its
consolidation of control over the State. By the law of the
of 1st August, 1934, the office of Reich President and of
Reich Chancellor were joined together under Hitler. Hitler
held both offices. That decree was signed by others and by
Hess. Hess also signed a decree on 20th December, 1934, a
decree entitled "Laws against Treacherous Acts towards the
State and Party." By Article 1 of that decree penalties were
imposed upon anybody making false statements injuring the
prestige of the Government, the Party, or its agencies; and
by Article 2 penalties were imposed for statements proving a
malicious attitude against the Party or its leading
personalities. The decree was signed by Hess, and it was
Hess who had to issue the necessary regulations for carrying
the decree into effect.

He took a leading part in the gaining of control over
government appointments. I quote again in all these matters
only a few examples. If one wanted to quote every decree
that the defendant signed and every act he took in
participation of these matters, it would really entail
writing a history of the Nazi Party from 1920-1941, and a
history of Germany from 1933-1941. Set out in the trial
brief at Page 7, it will be seen that there are various
decrees, all signed by Hess: On 24th September, 1935, a
decree providing for his consultation in the appointment of
Reich civil servants; 3rd April, 1936, providing for his
participation in the appointment of labour service
officials; and I refer again to the 10th July, 1937, another
decree under which he participated by having to be consulted
upon the appointment of other minor Civil servants.

With respect to the control of the Nazi Party gained over
the German youth, again there are various decrees signed by
this defendant and I set out in the trial brief particularly
a reference to the book which has already been put in,
Volz's "Dates of the Nazi Party," where it appears that he
appointed a University Commission of the Party, which was
under his supervision. The Tribunal will remember that we
have already seen from the chart of his staff that he had a
department dealing with universities and with teachers.

I am quoting from the same document. On the 18th July, 1934,
the Nazi League of German Students was directly subordinated
to the Deputy of the Fuehrer.

The defendant, as the Tribunal has heard, was an
Obergruppenfuehrer himself in the S.S. and the S.A. His
responsibility for, and association with, those
organisations can be seen from three documents. Amongst the
papers found in the Krupp files was a circular sent by Hess,
apparently to various industries, asking for funds or
subscriptions for the Adolf Hitler Fund for German Industry.
The document is 151-D, which I put in now as Exhibit GB 256,
and the relevant extract again is set out in the trial brief
for convenience:

     "The fund rests upon an agreement between the Reich
     management of the N.S.D.A.P. and leading
     representatives of German industry."
     
Then its purpose is set out:

     "To put at the disposal of the Reich leadership the
     funds required for the unified execution of the tasks
     which fall to the lot of the S.A.,  S.S., and other
     political organisations."
     
For the convenience of the Tribunal, perhaps I ought to
mention that that last document I referred to can be found
at Page 5 of the document book.

On 9th June, 1934, he signed a decree by which the Security
Service of the Reichsfuehrer S.S. was established as the
sole political news and defence service of the Party.

On 14th December, 1938, he issued a decree by which the
S.D., which Himmler had established, was taken off the
establishment of the Party, and it was, under

                                                  [Page 153]
                                                            
that decree, to be organised by the S.S. Those were both
Hess decrees, and they are both here under the same
document, 3385-PS, which becomes Exhibit GB 257, and they
appear at Page 172 of the Tribunal's document book.

My Lord, there has already been given much evidence of the
subversion of the churches in order to eliminate any hostile
parties there may have been to the Nazi Party. Hess again
took his share in that legislation, and there are set out in
the trial brief, on Pages 8 and 9, a series of decrees which
have already been put before the Tribunal during the
presentation of the case against Bormann.

Bormann, it will be remembered, was at this time, and
throughout, until Hess flew to England, Hess's deputy, and
therefore, it will be my submission that decrees issued by
Bormann as deputy for the Deputy of the Fuehrer are, of
course, the responsibility of this defendant as well.

For the sake of time I believe the Tribunal has a reference
to the decrees and will bear in mind the evidence that was
offered against the defendant Bormann.

I come now to this activity in the general persecution of
the Jews. Again it will be remembered that the chart of his
organisation showed an office which described itself as the
Office for Racial Policy. His own views about this matter
are found in a speech which he made on 16th January, 1937,
and which is reported in a volume of his speeches which is
3124-PS. It is already in as Exhibit GB 253. The extract I
desire to quote is set out in the trial brief. The document
can be found on Page 98 of the document book.

     "The organisations of the N.S.D.A.P. will be used for
     the enlightenment of the people, in questions
     concerning race and health of the nation and an
     increase of the population. Just as in the homeland, so
     in foreign lands, Germans, influenced in the National
     Socialist sense, are being educated in such a way as to
     make them once again proudly conscious of the fact that
     they are Germans, to make them hold together and esteem
     each other. Thus, they are being educated to put
     Germans above the subjects of a foreign nation,
     regardless of their position or their origin."
     
It was Hess who signed the Law for Protection of Blood and
Honour, one of the Nuremberg decrees of 15th September,
1935. It is 3179-PS. It will be remembered that under that
decree, and under the other Reich Citizenship Law of the
same date, it was the Deputy of the Fuehrer who was to issue
the necessary decrees and regulations for the carrying out
and supplementing of those laws, the Nuremberg decrees.

On 14th November, 1935, it was Hess who issued an ordinance
under the Reich Citizenship Law which deprived the Jews of
the right to vote or to hold public office. That is 1417-PS,
and becomes Exhibit GB 258.

By a further decree of 20th May, 1938, those Nuremberg laws
were extended to Austria, that law of extension again being
signed by this defendant (2124-PS, Exhibit GB 259).

As I said, those are only a few examples of the decrees and
activities of this man in the acquisition of power and
consolidation of power in the Nazi Party. There is a
document which I will hand up to the Tribunal that it might
perhaps add to its document books, and there is a copy in
French for the learned French Judge. There are examples in
this, and other exhibits which I have not mentioned now but
which are already before the Tribunal, put in when the case
of Bormann was put before the Tribunal, for which, as I have
already said, this defendant
must take responsibility.

You will see that under various headings -- there are one or
two German copies and the rest are in English -- there are
several documents set out under the headings, "Association
with the S.D. and Gestapo"; "Subversion of the Churches";
and again, "The Persecution of the Jews."

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor