Not Guilty at Nuremberg
Not Guilty at Nuremberg
Not Guilty at Nuremberg
AT NUREMBERG
http://www.cwporter.com
Contents
INTRODUCTION................................................................... 5
MARTIN BORMANN............................................................ 6
CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS ............................................ 7
DOCUMENTS...................................................................... 10
KARL DNITZ.................................................................... 13
HANS FRANK ..................................................................... 15
WILHELM FRICK ............................................................... 16
HANS FRITZSCHE.............................................................. 18
WALTER FUNK .................................................................. 18
KURT GERSTEIN................................................................ 20
G.M. GILBERT .................................................................... 20
HERMANN GRING .......................................................... 21
RUDOLF HESS.................................................................... 24
RUDOLF HSS ................................................................... 25
JAPANESE WAR CRIMES TRIALS ................................... 32
ALFRED JODL .................................................................... 35
ERNST KALTENBRUNNER............................................... 37
WILHELM KEITEL............................................................. 39
CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH......................................... 41
FRANZ VON PAPEN........................................................... 42
ERICH RAEDER.................................................................. 44
JOACHIM VON RIBBENTROP .......................................... 44
ALFRED ROSENBERG AND ERNST SAUCKEL .............. 48
HJALMAR SCHACHT......................................................... 51
BALDUR VON SCHIRACH ................................................ 52
ARTHUR SEYSS-INQUART............................................... 53
ALBERT SPEER .................................................................. 54
JULIUS STREICHER........................................................... 55
INTRODUCTION
THE RE-WRITING OF HISTORY is as old as history itself.
The Annals of Tacitus, for example, (xv 38), mentions a rumour
that Nero burned Rome; this rumour was repeated by later Roman
historians as fact (Suetonius, Nero, 38; Dio Cassius, Epistulae, lxii
16; Pliny, Naturalis Historia, xvii 5).
Later writers called this fact into question, and demoted the fact
to mere rumour.
In 1946, it was a proven fact that Nazis made human soap
(Judgement, Nuremberg Trial, IMT I 252 [283]; VII 597-600 [656659]; XIX 506 [566-567]; XXII 496 [564]).
This fact has since become, apparently, merely rumour
(Hilberg, revised definitive Destruction of the European Jews,
Holmes and Meier, NY, page 966: To this day, the origin of the soap
making rumour has not been traced).
The forensically untested rumour of Soviet origin (a jar of
mysterious stinking material, Exhibit USSR 393) is in the Peace Palace
of The Hague. Peace Palace officials show it to eager visitors and tell
them it is authentic; but do not, apparently, answer letters from persons
asking to have it tested.
In 1943, it was a rumour that Nazis were steaming, frying,
parboiling, electrocuting, vacuuming and gassing Jews (see, for
example, The Black Book: The Nazi Crime Against the Jewish People,
pp. 270, 274, 280, 313, introduced as evidence before the Nuremberg
Commission); by 1946, the gassings had become fact, while the
steamings, fryings, parboilings, electrocutions and vacuumings
remained mere rumour. (Note: the steamings were proven in the
Pohl Trial, Fourth Nuremberg Trial, NMT IV, 1119-1152).
The evidence that Nazis gassed Jews is qualitatively no better
than the evidence that they steamed, fried, parboiled, electrocuted, or
vacuumed them; it appears legitimate to call this evidence into
question.
This article contains, not a re-writing of history, but a simple guide
to historical material which has been forgotten. The 312,022 notarized
defense affidavits presented at the First Nuremberg Trial have been
forgotten, while the 8 or 9 prosecution affidavits which rebutted them
are remembered (XXI 437[483]).
This article contains a great many references to page numbers. They
are not there to confuse, impress, or intimidate the reader, or to prove
the truth of the matter stated, but to help interested people find things.
5
Whether the statements of the defense are more credible than the
human soap (Document USSR-197), human hair socks (Document
USSR-511), and cannibal hamburgers (Exhibit 1873, Tokyo Trial) of
the war crimes prosecutors, is for the reader to decide.
NOTE:
IMT = 1st Nuremberg Trial, in 4 languages.
NMT = 12 later Nuremberg Trials, in English. In the absence of any
indication to the contrary, all page numbers refer to the American
edition, with the German page numbers in [brackets].
MARTIN BORMANN
Bormann was accused of
persecution of religion and
many other crimes. Bormanns
attorney, Dr. Bergold, pointed out
that many modern countries
(meaning the Soviet Union) are
avowedly atheist, and that orders
forbidding priests from holding
high Party offices (that is, offices
in the Nazi Party) could not be
called persecution. In Dr.
Bergolds words:
The party is described as
criminal as a conspiracy. Is it a
crime to exclude certain people
from membership in a criminal
conspiracy? Is that considered a
crime? (V 312 [353]).
Documents were produced in which Bormann prohibited
persecution of religion and expressly allowed religion to be taught
(XXI 462-465[512-515]). A condition of this order was that the full
Biblical text had to be used; deletions, manipulations or distortions of
the text were forbidden. Churches received government subsidies until
the end of the war. Due to wartime paper shortages, restrictions were
placed upon the printing of all newspapers, not just religious ones (XIX
111-124 [125-139]; XXI 262-263; 346; 534; 539; [292-293; 383;
589;595]; XXII 40-41 [52-53]).
Bormanns attorney had little difficulty in showing that Bormann
6
CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS
The defense evidence for the criminal organizations consists of the
testimony of 102 witnesses and 312,022 notarized affidavits (XXII 176
[200]).
The term criminal was never defined (XXII 310 [354]; see also
XXII 129-135[148-155]).
Nor was it defined when these organizations became criminal
(XXII 240 [272-273]).
The Nazi Party itself was criminal dating back to 1920 (XXII 251
[285]) or then again maybe only 1938 (XXII 113 [130]) or maybe even
not at all (II 105 [123]).
The 312,022 notarized affidavits were presented to a commission,
and evidence before this commission does not appear in the transcript
of the Nuremberg Trial. The National Archives in Washington do not
possess a copy of the commission transcript, had never heard of it, and
do not know what it is.
Of the 312,022 affidavits, only a few dozen were ever translated into
English, so the Tribunal could not read them (XXI 287, 397-398 [319,
439]). The President of the Tribunal, Sir Geoffrey Lawrence,
understood no German; neither did Robert Jackson.
Due to a last-minute rule change (XXI 437-438, 441, 586-587 [483485, 488,645-646]) many more affidavits were rejected on technical
grounds (XX 446-448 [487-489]).
The commission prepared summaries which were presented to
the Tribunal (x-thousand affidavits alleging humane treatment of
prisoners, etc). These summaries were not considered to be in evidence.
The Tribunal promised to read the 312,022 affidavits before arriving at
their verdict (XXI 175 [198]); 14 days later it was announced that the
312,022 affidavits were not true (XXII 176-178 [200-203]).
Then a single affidavit from the prosecution (Document D-973) was
deemed to have rebutted 136,000 affidavits from the defense (XXI
7
very brittle paper, with rusty staples. It is absolutely certain that, at least
at The Hague, no one has ever read this material.
Summation relating to the testimony of the 102 witnesses appears
mostly in fine print in volumes XXI and XXII in the Nuremberg Trial
transcript. The fine print means that the passages were deleted from the
final defense summation (otherwise the trial would have been much too
long). This material runs to several hundred pages. In the transcript
published in the United Kingdom, every word of this material is gone.
In English, 11 pages in fine print are missing between paragraphs 1 and
2 on page 594 from volume XXI. These appear in the German volumes
(XXI 654-664). Most of the rest of it appears to be there.
The material covers, for example:
DOCUMENTS
The standard version of events is that the Allies examined 100,000
documents and chose 1,000 which were introduced into evidence, and
that the original documents were then deposited in the Peace Palace at
The Hague. This is rather inexact.
The documents used in evidence at Nuremberg consisted largely of
photocopies of copies. Many of these original documents were
written entirely on plain paper without handwritten markings of any
kind, by unknown persons. Occasionally, there is an illegible initial or
signature of a more or less unknown person certifying the document as
a true copy.
Sometimes there are German stamps, sometimes not. Many have
been found by the Russians, or certified authentic by Soviet War
Crimes Commissions.
Volume XXXIII, a document volume taken at random, contains 20
interrogations or affidavits, 12 photocopies, 5 unsigned copies, 5
original documents with signatures, 4 copies of printed material, 3
mimeographed copies, 3 teletypes, 1 microfilm copy, 1 copy signed by
somebody else and 1 unspecified.
The Hague has few, if any, original documents. The Hague has
many original post-war affidavits, or sworn statements, the Tribunal
Commission transcripts, and much valuable defense material.
They have the human soap, which has never been tested, and the
original human soap recipe (Document USSR-196), which is a
forgery; but apparently no original wartime German documents.
The Hague has negative photostats of these documents, on
extremely brittle paper which has been stapled. To photocopy the
photostats, the staples are removed. When they are re-stapled more
holes are made. Most of these documents have not been photocopied
very often, and officials at the Hague say it is very unusual for anyone
to ask to see them.
The National Archives in Washington (see Telford Taylors Use of
Captured German and Related Documents, A National Archive
Conference) claim that the original documents are in The Hague. The
Hague claims the original documents are in the National Archives.
The Stadtarchiv Nrnberg and the Bundesarchiv Koblenz also have
no original documents, and both say the original documents are in
Washington.
Since the originals are, in most cases, copies, there is often no
proof that the documents in question ever existed.
Robert Jackson got the trial off to a start by quoting the following
10
(II 249-250 [283-284]; XIII 200 [223], 508 [560], 519 [573], XV 43
[53], 169 [189] 171 [191] 327 [359]), to distinguish the photocopies
from the mimeograph copies (IV 245-246 [273-274]).
Translations of all documents were available from the beginning
of the trial (II 159-160[187-189], 191 [219-220], 195 [224], 215 [245],
249-250 [282-283], 277 [312], 415 [458], 437 [482-483]), but the
original German texts were not available until at least two months
later. This applies not just to the trial briefs and indictment, etc. but to
ALL DOCUMENTS.
The defense received no documents in German until after January 9,
1946 (V 22-26 [31-35]).
Documents which appear to have been prepared on the same
typewriter include Document 3803-PS, a letter from Kaltenbrunner to
the Mayor of Vienna, and the cover letter from this same Mayor
sending Kaltenbrunners letter to the Tribunal (XI 345-348 [381-385]).
This letter from Kaltenbrunner contains a false geographical term (XIV
416 [458]).
KARL DNITZ
Dnitz was imprisoned for
waging
illegal
submarine
warfare against the British. In
international law, everything is a
matter
of
reciprocity and
international agreements, which
can only be enforced through
reciprocity. In warfare, the best
defense against a weapon is a
vigorous counterattack with the
same weapon. The British, due to
their mastery of the seas, fought
both
world
wars
through
blockade, and the so-called
Navicert system. Neutral ships
were stopped at sea, and forced to
pull into British ports where they
were searched according to
complicated formulae: if a neutral country imported more food,
fertilizer, wool, leather, rubber, cotton, etc. than the quantities believed
necessary for its own consumption (in the opinion of the British), the
difference was assumed to be intended for reshipment to the Germans.
13
Result: the ship (and entire cargo) was confiscated and sold at
auction, which also violated the clauses of all British marine insurance
contracts.
In 1918-19, the blockade was maintained for 8 months after the
Armistice to force the Germans to ratify the Versailles Treaty.
Hundreds of thousands of Germans died of starvation after the war
while the diplomats delayed, an obvious violation of the conditions of
the Armistice and all international law. This is what Hitler correctly
termed the greatest breach of faith of all time. The British point of
view appears to be that the blockade was legal but was carried out in a
totally illegal manner (see 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Neutrality, 1922 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Blockade, Peace
Conference). In the war against Japan, the Americans sank
everything that moved since the first day of the war.
Neutrals, including the United States, complained that this violated
their neutrality, but complied, again, in violation of their own
neutrality. A nation which allows its neutrality to be violated may be
treated as a belligerent.
The British never ratified the Fifth Hague Convention of 18 October
1907 on the Rights of Neutrals, but considered its terms binding on the
Germans and Japanese, despite an all-participation clause (i.e., the
convention ceases to apply if a non-signatory participates in the
conflict).
In 1939, the Germans possessed only 26 Atlantic-going submarines,
one fifth of the French total alone. Moreover, German submarines were
much smaller than those of other nations. A counter-blockade against
the British could only be enforced by warning neutrals not to sail in
waters surrounding the British Isles. To the British, this was a crime.
Of these 26 submarines, many were, at any one time, under repair;
so that during some months only 2 or 3 were seaworthy. It is obvious
that submarines cannot carry out search and seizure in the same manner
as a surface navy; a submarine, once it has surfaced, is almost
defenseless against the smallest gun mounted on a merchant vessel, not
to mention radio, radar, and aircraft.
It was demanded by the British at Nuremberg that German
submarines should have surfaced, notified the surface vessel of their
intention to search; waited for the surface vessel to commence
hostilities; then sink the vessel, presumably with the submarines deck
guns; then take the dozens of hundreds of survivors on board the
submarine (where they would be in far greater danger than in any
lifeboat), and take them to the nearest land.
When British aircraft appeared and sank the submarine, killing the
14
HANS FRANK
Frank was accused of making
hundreds of anti-Semitic statements in a 12,000 page document
called his diary. The diary
contains only one page signed by
Frank, and hundreds of humane
statements, which were ignored
(XII 115-156[129-173]). The antiSemitic statements were selected
by the Russians and typeset in a
short document which was
introduced into evidence as
Document 2233-PS, invariably
called Franks Diary.
The actual diary of 12,000 pages consists of summaries (not
verbatim transcripts or stenographic notes) of conferences in which 5 or
6 people often spoke at once in circumstances of great confusion; it was
not clear to whom which statements should be attributed (XII 86[9798]).
Frank gave his diary to the Americans in the belief that it would
15
WILHELM FRICK
Frick was hanged for Germanizing the inhabitants of Posen,
Danzig, West Prussia, Eupen,
Malmedy, the Sudetenland, the
Memelland, and Austria. With
the exception of Austria, these
were former parts of the Prussian
Reich, separated from Germany
by the Versailles Treaty. Malmedy is French-speaking the
other areas are all German
speaking. Austria was unable to
subsist as an economic unit after
1919, and had demanded to be
united with Germany by vote.
The Allied victors responded by
threatening to cut off all food supplies (XVIII 55 [66], XIX 360 [397]).
Another crime committed by Frick was killing 275,000 feebleminded persons, according to the report of a Czech War Crimes
Commission.
16
HANS FRITZSCHE
Fritzsche became convinced from
a letter that mass killings were
being carried out in Russia and
attempted to verify this. He was,
however, unable to find any
evidence of it (XVII 172175[191-195]). Fritzsche is an
important defendant because it
was admitted in his case that
foreign newspapers printed much
false news about Germany (XVII
175-176 [194-196]; see also XVII
22-24 [30-33]). Yet, these same
newspaper stories and radio
reports constituted the facts of
common knowledge which the
Tribunal alleged needed no proof (Article 21 of rules of evidence, I
15[16], II 246 [279]).
It was pointed out in Fritzsches defense that no international
convention exists regulating propaganda or atrocity stories, true or
false, and that only one national law of one state (Switzerland) made it
unlawful to insult foreign Heads of State. That Fritzsche could be guilty
of no crime, was, at Nuremberg, simply irrelevant. It was deemed
undesirable to have a trial in which all defendants were convicted. In
the horse-trading which preceded the final verdict, it was agreed that
Fritzsche should be released (XVII 135-261 [152-286]; XIX 312352[345-388]).
WALTER FUNK
Funk was a classical pianist from a highly respected artistic family,
married for 25 years at the time of the trial, and former financial editor.
Like most of the defendants, Funk was accused of performing
immoral acts such as accepting birthday gifts from Hitler, proving
willing participation in the Common Plan. (Obviously, such acts are
not illegal.)
Funk claimed that the British and the Poles had conspired to
provoke Germany into war in the belief that the generals would
overthrow Hitler (XIII 111-112 [125-126]).
18
Funk
was
accused
of
conspiring with the SS to murder
concentration camp inmates in
order to finance the war effort by
pulling their teeth out. The gold
teeth were stored in a vault at the
Reichsbank, along with shaving
kits, fountain pens, large alarm
clocks, and other more or less
useless junk. Forgotten was
Rudolf Hsss testimony that the
teeth were melted at Auschwitz
(XI 417 [460]).
Funk testified that the
amounts and kinds of loot were
absurd and pointed out that the
SS acted as customs police and enforced exchange control regulations,
including a prohibition against the ownership of gold, silver, and
foreign coins or currency. It was quite natural that the SS should
confiscate large amounts of valuables, and that the SS, as a government
agency, should have financial accounts, and that these accounts would
contain valuables. Germans kept valuables in the same vaults as well,
to which the Reichsbank had no access, since they were private safety
deposit accounts.
With the increased bombing raids, more and more valuables were
deposited in the vaults by ordinary German citizens. Finally, after a
particularly damaging raid on the bank, the valuables were removed to
a potassium mine in Thuringen. The Americans found the valuables
there, and falsified a film of it. Funk and his attorney showed the falsity
of the film using an opposing witness, in some of the shrewdest
testimony and cross examination in the entire trial (XIII 169 [189-190],
203-204 [227-228], 562-576 [619-636]; XXI 233-245 [262-275]).
Also given short shrift was the ridiculous Oswald Pohl affidavit,
Document 4045-PS, in which Funk was accused of discussing the use
of gold teeth from dead Jews to finance the war at a dinner party
attended by dozens of people, including waiters (XVIII 220-263 [245291]). This affidavit is in German and is witnessed by Robert Kempner.
Pohl was later convicted of steaming people to death in 10 steam
chambers at Treblinka, and making doormats out of their hair (NMT
IV 1119-1152) (Fourth National Military Tribunal, Nuremberg).
Funk believed, like other defendants, that crimes had occurred, but
maintained that he knew nothing about it. His belief that crimes had
occurred does not, in itself, prove that that belief was true.
19
KURT GERSTEIN
Kurt Gerstein is often referred to
as a Holocaust witness;
however, this is not correct. By
witness,
one
normally
understands a person who has
seen something and who appears
to testify as to his personal
knowledge; Gerstein did not do
that. Gerstein was an unworn
affiant or deponent, which means
that he is simply a name
appearing at the end of a
statement,
typewritten
in
French, which he may or may not
have written. (Document 1553-PS rejected at Nuremberg) (VI 333-334
[371-372], 362-363 [398-399]).
One of the stories current about Gerstein is that he wrote the
statement in Cherche-Midi prison, in France, and committed suicide,
after which his body disappeared.
It is far more probable that the statement was written in French by a
German Jewish interrogator-interpreter, and that some of the
inconsistencies (such as winter occurring in August, or being in a car in
one sentence, and a train in the next) resulted from imperfect
transcription of the notes of interrogation into affidavit form. In minor
war crimes trials and Japanese war crimes trials, unsworn statements
of this kind are fairly common, on the theory that they possess
probative value but less weight than sworn statements. It is also
possible that Gerstein died of injuries sustained during interrogation;
or perhaps he hanged himself with the typewriter ribbon.
This document was later extensively quoted in the Pohl Trial, where
it was proven that Treblinka had 10 gas chambers (1553-PS) and
10 steam chambers (3311-PS) in the same camp at the same time.
G.M. GILBERT
One of the most famous accounts of the behavior and psychology of the
Nuremberg Trial defendants is that of the German-born psychologist,
G.M. Gilbert, in his book Nuremberg Diary. Much of the material
consists of conversations which the defendants and other persons, such
as Rudolf Hss, allegedly had with Gilbert or each other (!) and which
20
HERMANN GRING
Gring was accused of creating the concentration camp system and
plotting aggressive war against Poland. Grings defense was that
Germany was a sovereign state, recognized by every government in the
world (XXI 580-581 [638-639]); that Hitler was legally elected; that
every nation has the right to legislate and to organize its affairs as it
sees fit; that General von Schleicher had attempted to rule illegally and
unconstitutionally without the support of the National Socialists; that
Germany was on the verge of civil war in 1933; that concentration
camps were invented by the British during the Boer War, and that
21
RUDOLF HESS
According to the report of Robert H. Jackson, (quoted by Judge Bert A.
Rling of the Tokyo Tribunal, writing in A Treatise on International
Criminal Law, vol. 1., pp. 590-608, edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni and
Ved. F. Nanda, Chas Thomas Publisher), the British, French, and
Soviets at Nuremberg did not wish to charge the Germans with
aggressive war at all, for obvious reasons. This accusation was
invented by the Americans for the sole, express, and admitted purpose
of justifying American violations of international law. These violations
of international law would include the Lend Lease Program; convoying
and repairing British wartime ships for two years prior to Pearl Harbor;
allowing British ships to disguise themselves as American while the
U.S. was officially neutral; the illegal declaration of a 300 mile limit;
the occupation of Iceland; reporting the movements of German and
24
RUDOLF HSS
Rudolf Hss was the Auschwitz commandant whose confessions
have proven that Hitler gassed six million Jews (or five million, the
figure usually used at Nuremberg). His best-known confession is the
one quoted by William L. Shirer on pages 968-969 of The Rise and
Fall of the Third Reich.
This document, Document 3868-PS, should be seen in its context.
The ex parte written statement or affidavit (i.e., prepared in the
presence of only one of the parties) was a principal prosecutors tool in
the witchcraft trials of the Middle Ages, only to disappear for several
25
not to convict the innocent, but to convict the guilty (Law Reports of
Trials of War Criminals, Vol. II. (This thin volume must be read in its
entirety.)) After the affidavit was prepared by the officer who did
nothing but write affidavits, it was presented in its finished form to the
prisoner for signature. If it was not signed, it was introduced into
evidence anyway.
Objections went to weight, in the jargon of war crimes
proceedings, rather than to admissibility. An example of an unsigned
affidavit by Rudolf Hss is Document NO-4498-B. The B means that
this document is a translation with typewritten signature of an
original document, Document NO-4498-A, written in Polish, and
allegedly signed by Hss.
There is also a Document NO-4498-C, in English. Affidavits A and
C are not attached to Affidavit B, the true copy. Document 3868-PS,
quoted by Shirer, was signed in English, 3 times, but not in the
translation into German. The document contains a minor change
initialled by Hss, with a small h, and an entire sentence written
entirely in the interrogators handwriting (compare capital Ws) not
initialled by Hss. The initial, of course, is there to prove that he has
read and corrected the document. The content of this handwritten
sentence is refuted elsewhere (XXI 529 [584]).
When the affidavit was presented to the prisoner, it was sometimes
corrected extensively, leading to two or more versions of the same
document. In these cases, the longer ones are quoted, and the shorter
ones are lost. An example of this practice is Document D-288, the
affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Jger, cited pp. 948-949 of Shirers Rise and
Fall of the Third Reich (see Albert Speer.) Jger testified that he signed
3 or 4 copies of the same document, a much shorter one. The shorter
one was originally presented against the elder Krupp, before charges
against him were dropped. In this document, the longer one, the
translation into English is dated prior to the signature date on the
original. Jgers court appearance was an unmitigated disaster, but
that is forgotten (XV 264-283 [291-312]).If the affiant appeared to
testify, he invariably contradicted the affidavit, but contradictions are
ignored.
Other affidavit signers whose court appearances were catastrophic
include General Westhoff, who contradicted his unsworn statement
27 times (XI 155-189 [176-212]); and a germ warfare witness,
Schreiber (XXI 547-562 [603-620]); Paul Schmidts affidavit (Schmidt
was Hitlers interpreter), Document 3308-PS presented to him for
signature when he was too sick to read it carefully was partially
repudiated by him (X 222 [252]), but used in evidence against Von
27
Neurath, despite Schmidts repudiation (XVI 381 [420-421] XVII 4041 [49-50]). Ernst Sauckel signed an affidavit written prior to his
arrival at Nuremberg (XV 64-68 [76-80]) and signed under duress (his
wife and 10 children were to be handed over to the Poles or Russians).
Since the affiants almost never (if ever) wrote their own
statements, it is common to find identical or nearly identical phrases
or even entire paragraphs occurring in different documents, even when
they have been prepared on different days by supposedly different
people; for example, affidavits 3 and 5 of Blaskovitz and Halder
(Exhibits 536-US and 537-US); Documents USSR-471 and USSR-472
and 473; and Documents USSR-264 and 272 (human soap affidavits).
Other affidavits signed by Hss include Document NO-1210, in
which the English was written first, with extensive interpolations,
additions and corrections, including 2 different first drafts of page 4,
and 2 different first drafts of page 5, then translated into German and
signed by Hss. That is, the translation is the original, and the
original is the translation.
Document 749(b)D was translated orally into German from
English for Hss prior to signature. The signature is faint to the point of
illegibility, indicating possible ill health, fatigue or torture. The torture
has been described by Rupert Butler in Legions of Death (Hamlyn
Paperbacks) The confession quoted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe on
April Fools Day, April 1, 1946, in which Hss confessed to killing 4
million Jews (X 389 [439-440]), instead of the usual 2.5 million of
April 5, 1946, has either never existed or has gotten lost.
It is not true that Hsss court appearance at Nuremberg consisted
chiefly of assenting to his affidavit; this is true only of his crossexamination by Col. John Amen of the U.S. Army. Instead, Hss
appeared to testify, and, as usual, contradicted his affidavit and himself
as much as possible (XI 396-422 [438-466]). For example, where the
affidavit states (XI 416 [460]) we knew when the people were dead
because their screaming stopped, (a crudely obvious toxicological
impossibility), his oral testimony claims (XI 401 [443]), in response to
grossly improper leading questions posed by Kaltenbrunners defense
attorney), that the people became unconscious; leaving unsolved the
problem of just how he knew when they were, in fact, dead. He forgot
to mention that killing insects with Zyklon-B took two days, a fact he
mentioned elsewhere (Document NO-036, p. 3, German text, answer to
Question 25, and Kommandant in Auschwitz, p. 155). With such a
slow-acting poison, the people would suffocate first.
Hss claimed that the order to kill the Jews of Europe was given
orally (XI 398 [440]), but that orders to keep the killings secret were
28
given in writing (XI 400 [442]. He claimed that persons were cremated
in pits at Auschwitz, a notorious swamp (XI 420 [464]), and that gold
teeth were melted down on the spot (XI 417 [460]), but an evacuation
of the concentration camps to avoid capture would have led to
unnecessary deaths (XI 407 [449-450]), and, almost, that there was no
killing program at all! This is worth quoting:
Until the outbreak of war in 1939, the situation in the camps
regarding feeding, accommodation, and treatment of detainees, was the
same as in any other prison or penitentiary in the Reich. The detainees
were treated strictly, yes, but methodical beatings or ill-treatment were
out of the question. The Reichsfhrer gave frequent warnings that every
SS man who laid violent hands on a detainee would be punished; and
quite often SS men who did ill-treat detainees were punished. Feeding
and accommodation at that time were in every respect put on the same
basis as that of other prisoners under legal administration. The
accommodation in the camps during those years was still normal
because the mass influxes at the outbreak of and during the war had as
yet not taken place. When the war started and when mass deliveries of
political detainees arrived, and, later on, when detainees, who were
members of resistance movements, arrived from the occupied
territories, the construction of buildings and the extensions of the
camps could no longer keep up with the number of detainees who
arrived.
During the first years of the war this problem could still be
overcome by improvising measures; but, later, due to the exigencies of
the war, this was no longer possible, since there were practically no
building materials any longer at our disposal [Note: the bodies are
supposed to have been burnt using wood for fuel.]...
This led to a situation where detainees in the camps no longer had
sufficient powers of resistance against the ensuing plagues and
epidemics... the aim wasnt to have as many dead as possible or to
destroy as many detainees as possible. The Reichsfhrer was constantly
concerned with the problems of engaging all forces possible in the
armament industry...
These so-called ill-treatments and torturing in concentration camps,
stories of which were spread everywhere amongst the people, and
particularly by detainees who were liberated by the occupying armies,
were not, as assumed, inflicted methodically, but by individual leaders,
sub-leaders, and men who laid violent hands on them...
If in any way such a matter was brought to my notice, the
perpetrator was, of course, immediately relieved of his post or
transferred somewhere else. So that, even if he wasnt punished
29
because there wasnt evidence to prove his guilt, he was taken away
and given another position...
The catastrophic situation at the end of the war was due to the fact
that as a result of the destruction of railways and of the continuous
bombings of the industrial works, it was no longer possible to properly
care for these masses, for example, at Auschwitz, with its 140,000
detainees. Improvised measures, truck columns, and everything else
tried by the commandants to improve the situation, were of little or no
avail. The number of sick became immense. There were next to no
medical supplies; plagues raged everywhere.
Detainees who were capable of work were used continuously by
order of the Reichsfhrer, even half-sick people had to be used
wherever possible in industry. As a result, every bit of space in the
concentration camps which could possibly be used for lodging was
filled with sick and dying detainees.
At the end of the war, there were still thirteen concentration camps.
All the other points which are marked here on the map means so-called
labour camps attached to the armament factories situated there...
If any ill-treatment of detainees by guards occurred I myself have
never observed any then this was possible only to a very small
degree, since all officers in charge of the camps took care that as few
SS men as possible had immediate contact with the inmates, because in
the course of the years the guard personnel had deteriorated to such an
extent that the former standards could no longer be maintained...
We had thousands of guards who could hardly speak German, who
came from all leading countries of the world as volunteers and joined
these units; or we had elder men, between 50 and 60, who lacked all
interest in their work, so that a camp commandant had to take care
continuously that these men fulfilled even the lowest requirements of
their duties.
Furthermore, it is obvious that there were elements among them
who would ill-treat detainees, but this ill-treatment was never tolerated.
Furthermore, it was impossible to have these masses of people
working or when in the camp directed by SS men, so that everywhere
detainees had to be engaged to give instructions to the detainees and set
them to work, and who almost exclusively had the administration of the
inner camp in their hands. Of course, a great deal of ill-treatment
occurred which couldnt be avoided, because at night there was hardly
any member of the SS in the camps. Only in specific cases were the SS
men allowed to enter the camp, so that the detainees were more or less
exposed to the detainee supervisors.
Question (by defense attorney for the SS, Dr. Babel):
30
32
U.S. v Tachibana Yochio and 13 others, Mariana Islands, 2nd15th August, 1946;
Commonwealth of Australia vs. Tazaki Takehiko, Wewak, 30th
November 1945;
Commonwealth of Australia v. Tomiyasu Tisato, Rabaul, 2nd
April 1946; and
the most complex war crimes trial in history, the International
ALFRED JODL
Jodl was hanged for complicity in
the Commando Order, an order to
shoot British soldiers who fought
in civilian clothes and strangled
their own prisoners of war (XV
316-329 [347-362]).
Jodls defense was that
international law is intended to
protect men who fight as soldiers.
Soldiers are required to bear arms
openly, wear clearly recognizable
emblems or uniforms, and to treat
prisoners in a humane manner.
Partisan warfare and the
activities of British commando
units were prohibited. Trial and
execution of such people is legal
if carried out under the terms of Article 63 of the Geneva Prisoner of
War Convention of 1929.
(See also dissentient opinion of Judge Rutledge, U.S. v. Yamashita;
Habeas Corpus action of Field Marshall Milch.)
In fact, almost no one was shot as a result of the Commando Order
(55 in Western Europe, according to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, XXII
284 [325]).
The intention was to deter men from fighting in this manner,
thinking they could simply surrender afterwards. Another crime was
notifying the Commander in Chief of the Army that Hitler had repeated
an already previously issued order that an offer of surrender from
35
36
ERNST KALTENBRUNNER
During Kaltenbrunners cross
examination, he was indignantly
asked how he had the nerve to
pretend he was telling the truth
and that 20 or 30 witnesses were
lying (XI 349 [385]).
The eyewitnesses, of course, did not appear in court; they
were merely names on pieces of
paper. One of these names is that
of Franz Ziereis, commandant of
Mauthausen concentration camp.
Ziereis confessed to gassing
65,000 people; making lampshades out of human skin; manufacturing counterfeit money; and
supplied a complicated table of statistical information containing the
exact number of inmates in 31 different camps.
He then accused Kaltenbrunner of ordering the entire camp
(Mauthausen) to be killed upon the approach of the Americans.
Ziereis had been dead for 10 and a half months when he made this
confession. Fortunately, the confession has been remembered by
someone else: a concentration camp inmate named Hans Marsalek,
who never appeared in court, but whose signature appears on the
document (Document 3870-PS, XXXIII 279-286).
Pages 1 through 6 of this document are in quotation marks (!),
including the statistical table, which states, for example, that there were
12,000 inmates at Ebensee; 12,000 at Mauthausen; 24,000 at Gusen I
and II; 20 inmates at Schloss-Lindt, 70 inmates at KlagenfurtJunkerschule, etc, for all of 31 camps in the table.
The document is not signed by anyone else alleged to have been
present at Ziereiss confession, and no notes alleged to have been
taken at the time are appended to the document. The document bears
two signatures only: that of Hans Marsalek, the inmate; and that of
Smith W. Brookhart Jr. U.S. Army.
The document bears the date 8 April 1946. Ziereis died 23 May
1945.
The pretense was that Ziereis was too seriously injured (he died of
multiple gunshot wounds through the stomach) to sign anything at the
time, but he was healthy enough to dictate this lengthy and complex
document, which was then remembered exactly and verbatim by
37
and 136,000 affidavits (XXI 346-373 [382-412]; 415 [458], 444 [492]).
Kaltenbrunner was convicted of conspiring to lynch Allied airmen
who committed mass bombings of civilians. The lynchings would have
been illegal, but did not occur. Many airmen were saved from mobs by
German officials. The Germans refused to contemplate such a matter,
fearing it would lead to a general slaughter of parachuted fliers. Like so
many other German crimes, this remained an idea without effect (XXI
406-407 [449-450], 472-476 [522-527]).
Another crime committed by Kaltenbrunner was responsibility for
the so-called Bullet Order. This is supposed to have been an order to
shoot prisoners of war using a measuring contraption (probably
inspired by the Paul Waldmann pedal-driven brain bashing machine,
Document USSR-52, VII 377[416-417]).
The Bullet Order, Document 1650-PS, if it is an authentic
document, which it probably is not (XVIII 35-36 [43-44]) is a
mistranslation: the sense of the order is that prisoners who attempt to
escape should be chained to an iron ball (Kugel), and not that they
should be shot with a bullet (also Kugel). The word chained
appears in the document, but the word shot does not (III 506 [565];
XXI 514 [568]; Gestapo affidavit 75; XXI 299 [332]). The document is
a teletype thus, without a signature (XXVII 424-428).
Sonderbehandlung (special treatment) is an example of the ugly
jargon used in all bureaucracies, and is probably best translated as
treatment on a case by case basis.
Kaltenbrunner was able to show that it meant, in the context of one
document, the right to drink champagne and take French lessons. The
prosecution got a winter resort mixed up with a concentration camp (XI
338-339 [374-375]) (XI 232-386 [259-427]; XVIII 40-68 [49-80]).
(The winter resort document is Document 3839-PS, XXXIII 197-199,
an affidavit.)
WILHELM KEITEL
Keitel was hanged for alleged responsibility in atrocities said to have
been committed in Russia, and for the Commissar and Night and Fog
Decrees.
The evidence against Keitel consists largely of the reports of
Soviet War Crimes Commissions (XVII 611-612 [663-664], XXII 7683 [90-98]). These are summaries containing final judgments,
conclusions, and generalizations without any underlying evidence or
documents. In these reports, military agencies are wrongly named and
confused.
39
2386-PS; EC-451).
The diplomat, Messersmith, was claimed to be too old to come to
court (II 350 [387]); it was denied, however, that he was senile (II 352
[389]). The evidence consists of Messersmiths personal opinions as
to the motivations and character of other people. Von Neuraths case
appears at XVI 593-673 [649-737]; XVII 2-107 [9-121]; XIX 216-311
[242-345].
Von Papen also considered the shooting of Rohm and his followers
to have been justified by emergency (XVI 364 [401]), but considered
that many other murders took place which were not justified, and that it
was Hitlers duty to conduct an investigation and punish these acts.
This was not done.
It was conceded by the prosecution at Nuremberg that the Nazi
Party Program contained nothing illegal, and was indeed almost
laudable (II 105 [123]). The National Socialists were declared legal by
the occupation authorities in the Rheinland in 1925 (XXI 455 [505])
and by the German Supreme Court in 1932 (XXI 568 [626]) and by the
League of Nations and Polish Resident General in Danzig in 1930
(XVIII 169 [187-188]).
It was not clear in 1933 that the Army would unanimously support
Von Schleicher against the National Socialists, who had a legal right to
govern.
Hindenburgs refusal to violate the Constitution at the risk of civil
war brought Hitler into government in an entirely legal manner (see
also XXII 111-112 [128-129]).
Von Papen was accused of immoral acts in furtherance of the
Common Plan, such as the use of the intimate du form in
conversation with the Austrian Foreign Minister, Guido Schmidt: Von
Papen remarked, Sir David, if you had ever been in Austria in your
life, you would know that in Austria almost everyone says du to
everyone else (XVI 394 [435]).
Acts of Von Papens which could not be called criminal were
used to prove the defendants duplicity (no pun intended). A mental
construction was placed on Von Papens acts with the benefit of
hindsight.
It is sometimes alleged that since Von Papen, Fritzsche and Schacht
were acquitted, Nuremberg was a fair trial. The contrary does not
apply to the International Military Tribunal of the Far East, or other
trials in which there were no acquittals; it is forgotten that the
witchcraft trials of the 17th Century averaged 5-10% in acquittals. Von
Papens case appears at XVI 236-422 [261-466]; XIX 124-177 [139199].
43
ERICH RAEDER
Raeder was accused of conspiring with the Japanese to attack
the United States.
Other crimes committed by
Raeder included listening to
speeches, being present at
conferences, having knowledge
of contingency plans, and
accepting birthday gifts.
Raeder proved that the
Americans
knew
of
the
impending Pearl Harbour attack
10 days before it occurred, while
the Germans knew nothing (XIV
122 [137-138]).
Raeders
discussion
of
German military preparedness
and Hitler speeches will be discussed together with Von Ribbentrops
(XIII 595-599 [656-660]; 617-631 [680-696]; XIV 1-246 [7-275];
XVIII 372-430 [406-470]).
Germans could not believe that the British would go to war over
something which their ambassador admitted was reasonable. According
to the interpreter, Paul Schmidt, there was a full minute of silence when
the message of the British declaration of war was delivered, after which
Hitler turned to Ribbentrop and said What shall we do now? (X 200
[227]).
Schmidts testimony shed light on a famous remark attributed to
Von Ribbentrop, that Jews should be killed or confined to
concentration camps.
What happened, according to Schmidt (X 203-204 [231]) was that
Hitler was putting pressure on Horthy to take stronger measures against
Jews. Horthy said, What am I supposed to do? I cant kill them.
Ribbentrop was very irritable and said, There are two alternatives:
either you can do just that, or they can be interned.
This appeared in the minutes of the conference as The Reichs
Foreign Minister said that Jews should be killed or confined to
concentration camps. The statement was used against Ribbentrop and
all other defendants during the trial, despite Schmidts testimony that
the minutes were inaccurate (X 410-411 [462-463]).
According to Ribbentrop, Raeder, Gring, and nearly all defendants
except Schacht, the Germans were not prepared for war and did not
plan aggression (XVII 522 [566-567]; XXII 62, 90 [76, 105]).
The invasion of Belgium, Holland, and France were not
aggression, because France had declared war on Germany. Belgium
and Holland allowed British planes to fly over their countries every
night to bomb the Ruhr. The Germans protested in writing 127 times
(XVII 581 [630], XIX 10 [16]).
Gring, Raeder, Milch and many others testified that Germany had
only 26 Atlantic submarines with insufficient torpedoes, as opposed to
315 submarines in 1919 (XIV 26 [34]), and a ridiculous bomb supply
(XIX 4-5 [11-12]).
Hitler told Field Marshall Milch in May 1939 that there was no need
for full bomb production, as there would be no war. Milch replied that
full bomb production would take several months to bring to capacity.
The order to begin full production of bombs was not given until
October 12 or 20, 1939 (IX 50 [60-61]; XVII 522 [566-567]).
The German Air Force was designed for defensive, pin-point
bombing; the Germans cooperated with both the Russians and the
British in exchange of technical information of military value until
1938 (IX 45-133 [54-153]; XIV 298-351 [332-389]).
The Germans never built anywhere near the number of ships and
especially submarines (XIV 24 [31]) allowed to them under the terms
46
of the Anglo-German Naval Accord of 1935 (XVIII 379-389 [412425]). This agreement represented a recognition by the British that the
Versailles Treaty was out of date. It was also a voluntarily undertaken
limitation by Hitler of German naval armament (XIX 224-232 [250259]).
When war broke out, many large German battleships were still
under construction and had to be scrapped, because they would have
taken years to finish (XIII 249-250 [279-280]; 620-624 [683-687]).
According to an affidavit signed by her captain, one of Germanys
largest battleships, the Gneisenau, was on a training cruise near the
Canary Islands when war broke out, without any ammunition supplies
(XXI 385 [425]).
Hitler was a bluffer who loved to terrify politicians with grossly
illogical, self-contradictory speeches (XIV 34-48 [43-59]; 329-330
[366]), which all contradicted each other (XXII 66-68 [80-81]). For this
reason, exact stenographic notes were never taken until 1941 (XIV 314315 [349-350]).
Many Hitler speeches are semi-falsifications or forgeries (XVII
406-408 [445-447], XVIII 390-402 [426-439]; XXII 65 [78-79]).
The Germans believed they were no longer bound by the Versailles
Treaty because its terms the preamble to Part V had been violated
by the British, and especially the French. German disarmament was to
be followed by general disarmament (IX 4-7 [12-14]; XIX 242 [269],
356 [392]).
Hitler had offered to disarm to the last machine gun, provided other
nations did likewise; but Germany could not remain in a weakened
position forever, to be invaded and crushed at any moment. The
reoccupation of the Rhineland gave Germany a natural frontier
protecting the Ruhr, and would have been a matter of course for any
government. Eastern Europe seethed with conflict between heavily
armed states; East Prussia was not defensible; the Poles were openly
demanding parts of Upper Silesia (XII 476-479 [520-524]; XIX 224232 [249-259], XX 570-571 [623-624]).
The French-Soviet Accord of 5 December 1934 violated the
Locarno Pact, which the Germans were convicted of violating (XIX
254, 269, 277 [283, 299, 308]). It was not clear that the occupation of
the remainder of Czechoslovakia violated the Munich Accord (X 259
[293-294]). This was done because the Russians were building airports
there, in cooperation with the Czechs. The Czechs hoped to turn the
remainder of Czechoslovakia into a aircraft carrier from which
Germany could be attacked (X 348 [394-395]; 427-430 [480-484]).
Roosevelt had declared that American interest extended to all of the
47
HJALMAR SCHACHT
Schacht is an anomaly as a
defendant because the accusations against him contradict those
made
against
the
other
defendants. While the others
were accused of acts of moral
turpitude proving their willing
membership or participation in
the conspiracy or Common
Plan, such as accepting birthday
gifts; making birthday speeches;
being photographed; signing
laws legally passed by the Head
of State; being in political
agreement with the Head of
State; or if not, failing in their
moral duty to overthrow and murder the Head of State (obviously not a
duty that can be imposed by law); Schacht was accused of all these
things, and, for good measure, violating his oath of loyalty to Hitler and
deceiving Hitler! This was considered proof of particular wickedness
(XII 597 [652-653]).
Schachts remark on the necessity of lying has been widely quoted
to prove Nazi duplicity; it is forgotten that the person being lied to was
Hitler.
Schacht ridiculed these accusations with one wisecrack after
another, and was even more sarcastic than Gring. Jackson, however,
lacked the perspicacity to realize that Schacht was making a fool of him
(XII 416-493 [454-539]; 507-602 [554-658]; XIII 1-48 [7-58]; XVIII
270-312 [299-342]).
Jacksons lie that he forced Schacht to admit that he lied has been
taken seriously by many people who should know better. Jackson
habitually lied (for example, II 438 [483]; IX 500-504 [555-559]).
51
ARTHUR SEYSS-INQUART
Seyss-Inquart is an example of
the manner in which perfectly
legal actions were charged as
crimes when undertaken by
Germans, while identical actions,
or actions criminal under the
Tribunals own Statute (such as
the Dresden bombings, illegal
under Article 6(b), XXII 471,
475 [535, 540]), were treated as
the minor inconveniences of a
great crusade to eradicate evil.
Under international law,
occupation governments are
allowed to legislate as they see fit
(a right claimed by the Tribunal
itself, XXII 461 [523], but contradicted at XXII 497 [565-565]) and
obedience to their authority is required. They are allowed to conscript
labour within certain limits, to confiscate government property, levy
taxes to cover the costs of occupation, and are not required to tolerate
armed resistance, striking, publication of hostile newspapers, or to
employ local officials who will not follow orders.
Initialling documents or passing on orders are not crimes under
international law. Seyss-Inquart prevented much unnecessary
destruction at the end of the war which would have been illegal (XV
610-668 [664-726]; XVI 1-113 [7-128]; XIX 46-111 [55-125]).
As Reichskommissar for Holland, Seyss-Inquart passed on orders to
execute resistance members after conviction for acts of sabotage or
armed resistance, illegal under The Hague Convention. The executions
53
were carried out after renewed acts of sabotage occurred. This was
called execution of hostages. The word hostage, however, is
incorrect (XII 95-96 [108], XVIII 17-19 [25-27], XXI 526 [581], 535
[590]).
For a discussion of international law from the prosecution point of
view, conceding the legality of these actions, see V 537 [603-604]. It
was conceded by the prosecution that resistance members may be shot
(V 405 [455-456]).
The Fourth Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 18 October 1907
contains an all-participation clause (Art. 2); belligerents violating the
convention may be required to pay compensation (Art. 3); prohibits
bombardments by whatever means of undefended cities, cultural
monuments (Art. 23). Not ratified by Bulgaria, Greece, Italy,
Yugoslavia. Ratified by Czarist Russia.
ALBERT SPEER
Albert Speer was convicted of
conspiring to enslave millions of
people for work in German
armaments industries, where they
were forced to sleep in urinals
(Document D-288, Affidavit of
Dr. Wilhelm Jger) and were
tortured in mass-produced torture
boxes disguised as clothes
lockers (Document D-892), the
bizarre disguise being intended
to permit the introduction of
perfectly ordinary objects as
proof of atrocities.
Regarding this charge, Speer
said, I consider this affidavit a
lie... it is not possible to drag the
German people in the dirt in such
a way (XVI 543 [594]).
Speer was the kind of man who is successful under any system. He
always claimed he knew nothing about exterminations, but said he
would have heard about it if prisoners had been cremated using atomic
bombs (a Robert Jackson hallucination, XVI 529-530 [580]).
Speer claimed to have plotted to assassinate Hitler using a highly
sophisticated nerve gas (XVI 494-495 [542-544]). The plot failed
54
because the gas could only be produced at high temperatures (XVI 529
[579]).
Actually, Zyklon-B presents a similar problem, in that the liquid
must evaporate, and does so slowly unless heated. German technical
wizardry and industrial advancement in general renders ridiculous any
notion of a Holocaust using insecticide or Diesel exhaust. It would be
more difficult to drag the German people in the dirt if it were not for
people like Albert Speer. (XVI 430-588 [475-645]; XIX 177-216 [199242].)
JULIUS STREICHER
Streicher was hanged for incitement to race hatred, a crime
which is becoming more popular.
The Streicher case is remarkable
in that nations which preach
separation of church and state and
freedom of speech and press
should conspire with Jews and
Communists to hang a man for
expressing opinions which were
not alleged to have been untrue.
One of Streichers crimes was
the publication of a ritual murder supplement in his antiSemitic newspaper, Der Strmer.
It was expressly admitted by the
prosecution that his illustrations were authentic (V 103 [119]) and that
the article was referenced correctly.
Among Streichers references was at least one recognised scholar,
Dr. Erich Bischof of Leipzig, and modern legal proceedings (IX 696700 [767-771]). It was felt that to investigate the validity of these
references would have unduly prolonged the trial, so the article was not
alleged to have been untrue.
Rather, an act of mental telepathy was performed, and Streicher was
hanged for his alleged mental processes and motivation.
Another Streicher crime was calling the Old Testament a horrible
criminal romance... this holy book abounds in murder, incest, fraud,
theft and indecency. No evidence was introduced to rebut this view (V
96 [112]).
Streicher is famous as a pornographer, sex pervert and
55
58