* A Distributed Proofreaders Canada eBook *

This ebook is made available at no cost and with very few restrictions. These restrictions apply only if (1) you make a change in the ebook (other than alteration for different display devices), or (2) you are making commercial use of the ebook. If either of these conditions applies, please contact a FP administrator before proceeding.

This work is in the Canadian public domain, but may be under copyright in some countries. If you live outside Canada, check your country's copyright laws. IF THE BOOK IS UNDER COPYRIGHT IN YOUR COUNTRY, DO NOT DOWNLOAD OR REDISTRIBUTE THIS FILE.

This ebook was produced by: Larry Harrison, Cindy Beyer & the online Distributed Proofreaders Canada team at http://www.pgdpcanada.net

NAZI  CONSPIRACY

AND  AGGRESSION

 

VOLUME  II

 

 

Office of United States

Chief of Counsel For Prosecution

of Axis Criminality

 

 

A Collection of Documentary Evidence and Guide Materials Prepared by the American and British Prosecuting Staffs for Presentation before the International Military Tribunal at Nurnberg, Germany, in the case of

—against—

1. THE LAW UNDER WHICH NAZI ORGANIZATIONS ARE ACCUSED OF BEING CRIMINAL

The following argument on the law and policy involved in the prosecution’s charge that certain Nazi groups and organizations should be declared criminal, was delivered by Justice Jackson before the Tribunal on 28 February 1946.

May it please the Tribunal:

The unconditional surrender of Germany created, for the victors, novel and difficult problems of law and administration. Since it is the first such surrender of an entire and modernly organized society, precedents and past experiences are of little help in guiding our policy toward the vanquished. The responsibility implicit in demanding and accepting capitulation of a whole people must of necessity include a duty to discriminate justly and intelligently between opposing elements of the population which bore dissimilar relations to the policies and conduct which led to the catastrophe. This differentiation is the objective of those provisions of the Charter which authorize this Tribunal to declare organizations or groups to be criminal. Understanding of the problem which the instrument attempts to solve is essential to its interpretation and application.

A. The Problem of the Nazi Organizations.

One of the sinister peculiarities of German society at the time of the surrender was that the State itself played only a subordinate role in the exercise of political power, while the really drastic controls over German society were organized outside its nominal government. This was accomplished through an elaborate network of closely knit and exclusive organizations of selected volunteers oath-bound to execute, without delay and without question, the commands of the Nazi leaders.

These organizations penetrated the whole German life. The country was subdivided into little Nazi principalities of about 50 households each, and every such community had its recognized party leaders, party police, and its undercover party spies. These were combined into larger units with higher ranking leaders, executioners and spies. The whole formed a pyramid of power outside the law, with the Fuehrer at its apex, and with the local party officials as its broad base resting heavily on the German population. The Nazi despotism, therefore, did not consist of these individual defendants alone. A thousand little fuehrers dictated, a thousand imitation Goerings strutted, a thousand Schirachs incited the youth, a thousand Sauckels worked slaves, a thousand Streichers and Rosenbergs stirred hate, a thousand Kaltenbrunners and Franks tortured and killed, a thousand Schachts and Speers and Funks administered, financed, and supported the movement. The Nazi movement was an integrated force in city and county and hamlet. The party power resulting from this system of organizations first rivaled, and then dominated, the power of the State itself.

The primary vice of this web of organizations was that they were used to transfer the power of coercing men from the government and the law to the Nazi leaders. Liberty, self-government, and security of persons and property do not exist except where the power of coercion is possessed only by the State and is exercised only in obedience to law. The Nazis, however, set up a private system of coercion, outside of and immune from law, with party-controlled concentration camps and firing squads to administer privately decreed sanctions. Without responsibility to law and without warrant from any court, they were enabled to seize property, take away liberty, and even take life itself.

These organizations had a calculated and decisive part in the barbaric extremes of the Nazi movement. They served cleverly to exploit mob psychology and to manipulate the mob. Multiplying the numbers of persons in a common enterprise tends to diminish each individual’s sense of moral responsibility and to increase his sense of security. The Nazi leaders were masters of this technique. They manipulated these organizations to make before the German populace impressive exhibitions of numbers and of power. These were used to incite a mob spirit and then riotously to gratify the popular hates they had inflamed and the Germanic ambition they had inflated.

These organizations indoctrinated and practiced violence and terrorism. They provided the systematized, aggressive, and disciplined execution throughout Germany and the occupied countries of the whole catalogue of crimes we have proven. The flowering of the system is represented in the fanatical SS General Ohlendorf, who told this Tribunal without shame or trace of pity how he personally directed the putting to death of 90,000 men, women, and children. No tribunal ever listened to a recital of such wholesale murder as this Tribunal heard from him and from Wisliceny, a fellow officer of the SS. Their own testimony shows the responsibility of the SS for the extermination program which took the lives of five million Jews, a responsibility the organization welcomed and discharged methodically, remorselessly, and thoroughly. These crimes are unprecedented ones because of the shocking numbers of victims. They are even more shocking and unprecedented because of the large number of persons who united to perpetrate them. All scruple or conscience of a very large segment of the German people was committed to Nazi keeping, and its devotees felt no personal sense of guilt as they went from one extreme measure to another. On the other hand, they developed a contest in cruelty and a competition in crime. Ohlendorf from the witness stand accused other SS commanders, whose killings exceeded his, of “exaggerating” their figures.

There could be no justice and no wisdom in an occupation policy which imposed upon passive and unorganized and inarticulate Germans the same burdens as it placed upon those who voluntarily banded themselves together in these powerful and notorious gangs. One of the basic requirements, both of justice and of successful administration of the occupation responsibility of the victors, is a segregation of these organized elements from the masses of Germans for separate treatment.

It seems beyond controversy that to punish a few top leaders but to leave this web of organized bodies unscotched in the midst of German postwar society, would be to foster the nucleus of a new Nazidom. The members are accustomed to an established chain of centralized command; they have formed a habit and developed a technique of both secret and open cooperation. They still nourish a blind devotion to the suspended, but not abandoned, Nazi program. They will keep alive the hates and ambitions which generated the orgy of crime we have proved. They are carriers, from this generation to the next, of the infection of aggressive and ruthless war. The Tribunal has seen on the screen how easily an assemblage that ostensibly is only a common labor force can be in fact a military training unit drilling with shovels. The next war and the next pogroms will be hatched in the nests of these organizations as surely as we leave their membership with its prestige and influence undiminished by condemnation and punishment.

The menace of these organizations is the more impressive when we consider the demoralized state of German society. It will be years before there can be established in the German State any political authority that is not inexperienced and provisional. It cannot quickly acquire the stability of a government aided by long habit of obedience and traditional respect. The intrigue, obstruction, and possible overthrow, which older and established governments fear from conspiratorial groups, is a real and present danger to any stable social order in the Germany of today and of tomorrow.

Insofar as the Charter of this Tribunal contemplates a justice of retribution, it is obvious that it could not overlook these organized instruments and instigators of past crimes. In opening this case, I said that the United States does not seek to convict the whole German people of crime. But it is equally important that this trial shall not serve to absolve the whole German people except 22 men in the dock. The wrongs that have been done to the world by these defendants and their top confederates was not done by their will or by their strength alone. The success of their designs was made possible because great numbers of Germans organized themselves to become the fulcrum and the lever by which the power of these leaders was extended and magnified. If this trial fails to condemn these organized confederates for share of responsibility for this catastrophe, it will be construed as their exoneration.

But the Charter was not concerned with retributive justice alone. It manifests a constructive policy influenced by exemplary and preventive considerations. The primary objective of requiring that the surrender be unconditional was to clear the way for reconstruction of German society on such a basis that it will not again threaten the peace of Europe and of the world. Temporary measures of the occupation authorities may, by necessity, have been more arbitrary and applied with less discrimination than befits a permanent policy. Under existing denazification policy, no member of the Nazi party or its formations may be employed in any position, other than ordinary labor, or in any business enterprise unless he is found to have been only a nominal Nazi. Persons in certain categories, whose standing in the community is one of prominence or influence, are required to meet this standard, and those who do not may be denied further participation in their businesses or professions. It is mandatory to remove or exclude from public office, and from positions of importance in quasi public and private enterprises, persons falling within approximately 90 specified categories deemed to consist of either active Nazis, Nazi supporters, or militarists. The property of such persons is blocked.

It is recognized by the Control Council, as it was by the framers of the Charter, that a permanent, long-term program should be based on a more careful and more individual discrimination than was possible with sweeping temporary measures. There is a movement now within the Control Council for reconsideration of its whole denazification policy and procedure. The action of this Tribunal in declaring, or in failing to declare, the accused organizations criminal has a vital bearing on future occupation policy.

It was the intent of the Charter to utilize the hearing processes of this Tribunal to identify and condemn those Nazi and militaristic forces that were so organized as to constitute a continuing menace to the long-term objectives for which our respective countries have spent the lives of their young men. It is in the light of this great purpose that we must examine the provisions of the Charter.

B. The Procedure for Condemning Organizations.

It was obvious that the conventional litigation procedures could not, without some modification, be adapted to this task. No system of jurisprudence has yet evolved any satisfactory technique for handling a great multiplicity of common charges against a multitude of accused persons. The number of individual defendants that fairly can be tried in a single proceeding probably does not greatly exceed the number now in your dock. Moreover, the number of separate trials in which the same voluminous evidence as to common plan must be repeated is very limited as a practical matter. Yet adversary hearing procedures are the best assurance the law has evolved that decisions will be well considered and just. The task of the framers of the Charter was to find a way to overcome these obstacles to practicable and early decision without sacrificing the fairness implicit in hearings. The solution prescribed by the Charter is certainly not faultless, but not one of its critics has ever proposed an alternative that would not either deprive the individual of any hearing or contemplate such a multitude of long trials as to be impracticable. In any case, it is the plan adopted by our respective governments and our duty here is to make it work.

The plan which was adopted in the Charter essentially is a severance of the general issues which would be common to all individual trials from the particular issues which would differ in each trial. The plan is comparable to that employed in certain wartime legislation of the United States (Yakus v. United States, 321 U. S., 414, 64 Sup. Ct. 660). The general issues are to be determined with finality in one trial before the International Tribunal. In this trial, every accused organization must be defended by counsel and must be represented by at least one leading member, and other individual members may apply to be heard. Their applications may be granted if the Tribunal thinks justice requires it. The only issue in this trial concerns the collective criminality of the organization or group. It is to be adjudicated by what amounts to be a declaratory judgment. It does not decree any punishment, either against the organization or against the individual members.

The only specification as to the effect of this Tribunal’s declaration that an organization is criminal, is contained in Article 10 of the Charter, which provides:

Unquestionably, it would be competent for the Charter to have declared flatly that membership in any of these named organizations is criminal and should be punished accordingly. If there had been such an enactment, it would not have been open to an individual who was being tried for membership in the organization to contend that the organization was not in fact criminal. The framers of the Charter, at a time before the evidence adduced here was available, did not care to find organizations criminal by fiat. They left that issue to determination after relevant facts were developed by adversary proceedings. Plainly, the individual member is better off because of the procedure of the Charter, which leaves that finding of criminality to this body after hearings at which the organization must, and the individual may, be represented.

The groups and organizations named in the Indictment are not “on trial” in the conventional sense of that term. They are more nearly under investigation as they might be before a grand jury in Anglo-American practice. Article 9 recognizes a distinction between the declaration of a group or organization as criminal and “the trial of any individual member thereof.” The power of the Tribunal to try is confined to “persons,” and the Charter does not expand that term by definition, as statutes sometimes do, to include other than natural persons. The groups or organizations named in the Indictment were not as entities served with process. The Tribunal is not empowered to impose any sentence upon them as entities, nor to convict any person because of membership.

It is to be observed that the Charter does not require subsequent proceedings against anyone. It provides only that the competent national authorities “shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for membership therein.”

The Charter is silent as to the form these trials should take. It was not deemed wise, on the information available when the Charter was drawn up, that the Charter should regulate subsequent proceedings. Nor was it necessary to do so. There is a continuing legislative authority, representing all four signatory nations, competent to take over where the Charter leaves off. Legislative supplementation of the Charter is necessary to confer jurisdiction on local courts, to define procedures, and to prescribe different penalties for different forms of activity.

Fear has been expressed, however, that the Charter’s silence as to future proceedings means that great numbers of members will be rounded up and automatically punished as a result of a declaration of an organization to be criminal. It also has been suggested that this is, or may be, the consequence of Article II, 1(d) of Control Council Act No. 10, which defines as a crime “membership in categories of a criminal group or organization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal.” A purpose to inflict punishments without a right of hearing cannot be spelled out of the Charter, and would be offensive to both its letter and its spirit. And I do not find in Control Council Act No. 10 any inconsistency with the Charter. Of course, to reach all individual members will require numerous hearings. But they will involve only narrow issues; many accused will have no answers to charges if they are clearly stated, and the proceedings should be expeditious and nontechnical.

But I think it is clear that before any person is punishable for membership in a criminal organization, he is entitled to a hearing on the facts of his case. The Charter does not authorize the national authorities to punish membership without a hearing—it gives them only the right to “bring individuals to trial.” That means what it says. A trial means there is something to try.

As to trials of the individual members, the Charter denies only one of the possible defenses of an accused: he may not relitigate the question whether the organization itself was a criminal one. Nothing precludes him from denying that his participation was voluntary and proving he acted under duress; he may prove that he was deceived or tricked into membership; he may show that he had withdrawn; or he may prove that his name on the rolls is a case of mistaken identity.

The membership which the Charter and the Control Council Act make criminal, of course, implies a genuine membership involving the volition of the member. The act of affiliation with the organization must have been intentional and voluntary. Legal compulsion or illegal duress, actual fraud or trick of which one is a victim, has never been thought to be the victim’s crime, and such an unjust result is not to be implied now. The extent of the member’s knowledge of the criminal character of the organization is, however, another matter. He may not have known on the day he joined but may have remained a member after learning the fact. And he is chargeable not only with what he knew but with all of which he reasonably was put on notice.

There are safeguards to assure that this program will be carried out in good faith. Prosecution under the declaration is discretionary, and if there were purpose to punish without trial, it would have been already done without waiting for the declaration. We think the Tribunal will presume that signatory powers which have voluntarily submitted to this process will carry it out faithfully.

The Control Council Act applies only to “categories of membership declared criminal.” This language recognizes a power in this Tribunal to limit the effect of its declaration. I do not think, for reasons I will later state, that this should be construed or availed of so as to try here any issues as to sub-groups or sections or individuals, which can be tried later. It should, I think, be construed to mean, not those limitations which must be defined by detailed evidence, but limitations of principle such as those I have outlined as already implied. It does not require this Tribunal to delve into evidence to condition its judgment, if it sees fit, to apply only to intentional, voluntary, and knowing membership. It does not supplant later trials but guides them.

It cannot be said that a plan, such as we have here, for the severance of general issues common to many cases from particular issues applicable only to individual defendants and for the litigation of each type of issue in separate Tribunals specially adapted to their different tasks, is lacking in reasonableness or fair play. And while it presents unusual procedural difficulties, I do not think it presents any insurmountable ones.

C. Criteria, Principles, and Precedents for Declaring Collective Criminality.

The substantive law which governs the inquiry into criminality of organizations is, in its large outline, old and well settled and fairly uniform in all systems of law. It is true that we are dealing with a procedure easy to abuse and one often feared as an interference with liberty of assembly or as an imposition of “guilt by association.” It also is true that proceedings against organizations are closely akin to the conspiracy charge, which is the great dragnet of the law, rightly watched by courts lest it be abused.

The fact is, however, that every form of government has considered it necessary to treat some organizations as criminal. Not even the most tolerant of governments can permit the accumulation of power in private organizations to a point where it rivals, obstructs, or dominates the government itself. To do so would be to grant designing men a liberty to destroy liberty. It was the very complacency and tolerance as well as the impotence of the Weimar Republic towards the growing organization of Nazi power, which spelled the death of German freedom.

Protection of the citizen’s liberty has required even free governments to enact laws making criminal those aggregations of power which threaten to impose their will on unwilling citizens. Every one of the nations signatory to this Charter has laws making certain types of organizations criminal. The Ku Klux Klan in the United States flourished at about the same time as the Nazi movement in Germany. It appealed to the same hates, practiced the same extra-legal coercions, and likewise terrorized by weird nighttime ceremonials. Like the Nazi Party it was composed of a core of fanatics, but enlisted support of some respectable persons who knew it was wrong, but thought it was winning. It eventually provoked a variety of legislative acts directed against such organizations.

The Congress of the United States also has enacted legislation outlawing certain organizations. A recent example is the Act of June 28, 1940 (c. 439, Title I, Section 2, 54 Stat. 671, 18 USCA 10) which provides in part as follows:

There is much legislation by States of the American union creating analogous offenses. An example is to be found in the Act of California (Statutes 1919, Chapter 188, p. 281) which, after defining “criminal syndicalism,” provides:

Precedents in English law for outlawing organizations and punishing membership therein are old and consistent with the Charter. One of the first is the British India Act No. 30, enacted November 14, 1836. Section 1 provides:

Other precedents in English legislation are the Unlawful Societies Act of 1799 (3 George III, Chapter 79); the Seditious Meetings Act of 1817 (57 George III, Chapter 19); the Seditious Meetings Act of 1846 (9 and 10 Victoria, Chapter 33); the Public Order Act of 1936 and Defense Regulation 18(b). The last, not without opposition, was intended to protect the integrity of the British Government against the fifth-column activities of this same Nazi conspiracy.

Soviet Russia punishes as a crime the formation of and membership in a criminal gang. Criminologists of the U.S.S.R. call this crime the “crime of banditry,” a term appropriate to the German organizations.

French criminal law makes membership in subversive organizations a crime. Membership of the criminal gang is a crime in itself. (Articles 265-268, French Penal Code, “Association de Malfaiteurs”; Garaud, Précis de Droit Criminel, 1934 Edition Sirey, p. 1518 and seq. See also Act of December 18, 1893.)

For German precedents, it is neither seemly nor necessary to go to the Nazi regime. Under the Empire and the Weimar Republic, however, German jurisprudence deserved respect and it presents both statutory and juridical examples of declarations of the criminality of organizations. Among statutory examples are:

1. The German Criminal Code enacted in 1871. Section 128 was aimed against secret associations and Section 129 was directed against organizations inimical to the State.

2. The law of March 22, 1921 against paramilitary organizations.

3. The law of July 21, 1922 against organizations aimed at overthrowing the constitution of the Reich.

Section 128 of the Criminal Code of 1871 is especially pertinent. It reads:

Under the Empire, various Polish national unions were the subject of criminal prosecution. Under the Republic, judicial judgments in 1927-28 held criminal the entire Communist Party of Germany. In 1922 and 1928 judgments ran against the political Leadership Corps of the Communist Party, which included all its so-called “body of functionaries,” corresponding to the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party which we have accused. The judgment included every cashier, every employee, every delivery boy and messenger, and every district leader. In 1930 a judgment of criminality against the “Union of Red Front Fighters” of the Communist Party made no discrimination between leaders and ordinary members.

Most significant of all is the fact that on 30 May, 1924 the German courts rendered judgment that the whole Nazi Party was a criminal organization. This decision referred not only to the Leadership Corps, which we are indicting here, but to all other members as well. The whole subsequent rise to power of the Nazi Party was in the shadow of this judgment of illegality.

The German courts in dealing with criminal organizations proceeded on the theory that all members were held together by a common plan in which each one participated even though at various levels. Moreover, the fundamental principles of responsibility of members as stated by the German Supreme Court are strikingly like the principles that govern our Anglo-American law of conspiracy. Among them were these:

Organizations with criminal ends are everywhere regarded as in the nature of criminal conspiracies, and their criminality is judged by the application of conspiracy principles. The reason why they are offensive to law-governed people has been succinctly stated as follows:

The Charter, in Article 6, provides that “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.” The individual defendants are arraigned at your bar on this charge which, if proved, makes them responsible for the acts of others in execution of the common plan.

The Charter did not define responsibility for the acts of others in terms of “conspiracy” alone. The crimes were defined in non-technical but inclusive terms, and embraced formulating and executing a “common plan” as well as participating in a “conspiracy.” It was feared that to do otherwise might import into the proceedings technical requirements and limitations which have grown up around the term “conspiracy.” There are some divergences between the Anglo-American concept of conspiracy and that of either Soviet, French, or German jurisprudence. It was desired that concrete cases be guided by the broader considerations inherent in the nature of the social problem, rather than controlled by refinements of any local law.

Now, except for procedural difficulties arising from their multitude, there is no reason why every member of any Nazi organization accused here could not have been indicted and convicted as a part of the conspiracy under Article 6 even if the Charter had never mentioned organizations at all. Voluntary affiliation constituted a definite act of adherence to some common plan and purpose. These did not pretend to be merely social or cultural groups; admittedly they were united for action. In the case of several of the Nazi organizations, the fact of confederation was evidenced by formal induction into membership, the taking of an oath, the wearing of a distinctive uniform, the submission to a discipline. That all members of each Nazi organization did combine under a common plan to achieve some end by combined efforts is abundantly established.

The criteria for determining the collective guilt of those who thus adhered to a common plan obviously are those which would test the legality of any combination or conspiracy. Did it contemplate illegal methods or aim at illegal ends? If so, the liability of each member of one of these Nazi organizations for the acts of every other member is not essentially different from the liability for conspiracy enforced in Courts of the United States against business men who combine in violation of the anti-trust laws, or of other defendants accused under narcotic drugs laws, sedition acts, or other federal penal enactments.

Among the principles every day enforced in Courts of Great Britain and the United States in dealing with conspiracy are these:

1. No meeting or formal agreement is necessary. It is sufficient, although one performs one part and other persons other parts, if there be concert of action, and working together understandingly with a common design to accomplish a common purpose.

2. One may be liable even though he may not have known who his fellow-conspirators were, or just what part they were to take, or what acts they committed, and though he did not take personal part in them or was absent when criminal acts occurred.

3. There may be liability for acts of fellow-conspirators although the particular acts were not intended or anticipated, if they were done in execution of the common plan.

4. It is not necessary to liability that one be a member of a conspiracy at the same time as other actors, or at the time of criminal acts. When one becomes a party to it, he adopts and ratifies what has gone before and remains responsible until he abandons the conspiracy with notice to his fellow-conspirators.

Of course, members of criminal organizations or conspiracies who personally commit crimes are individually punishable for those crimes exactly as are those who commit the same offenses without organizational backing. But the very gist of the crime of conspiracy or membership in a criminal association is liability for acts one did not personally commit but which his acts facilitated or abetted. The crime is to combine with others and to participate in the unlawful common effort, however innocent the personal acts of the participant when considered by themselves.

The very innocent act of mailing a letter is enough to implicate one in a conspiracy if the purpose of the letter is to advance a criminal plan. There are countless examples of this doctrine in Anglo-American jurisprudence.

The sweep of the law of conspiracy is an important consideration in determining the criteria of guilt for organizations. Certainly the vicarious liability imposed in consequence of voluntary membership, formalized by oath, dedicated to a common organizational purpose and submission to a discipline and chain of command, can not be less than that which follows from informal cooperation with a nebulous group to a common end as is sufficient in conspiracy. This meets the suggestion that the prosecution is required to prove every member, or every part, fraction, or division of the membership to be guilty of criminal acts. The suggestion ignores the conspiratorial nature of the charge. Such an interpretation also would reduce the Charter to an unworkable absurdity. To concentrate in one International Tribunal inquiries requiring such detailed evidence as to each member would set a task not possible of completion within the lives of living men.

It is easy to toss about such a plausible but superficial cliché as, “One should be convicted for his activities, not for his membership.” But this ignores the fact that membership in Nazi bodies was itself an activity. It was not something passed out to a passive citizen like a handbill. Even a nominal membership may aid and abet a movement greatly. Does anyone believe that Hjalmar Schacht sitting in the front row of the Nazi Party Congress of 1935, wearing the insignia of the Party, was included in the Nazi propaganda films merely for artistic effect? This great banker’s mere loan of his name to this shady enterprise gave it a lift and a respectability in the eyes of every hesitating German. There may be instances in which membership did not aid and abet the organizational ends and means, but individual situations of that kind are for appraisal in the later hearings and not by this Tribunal. By and large, the use of organization affiliation is a quick and simple, but at the same time fairly accurate outline of the contours of a conspiracy to do what the organization actually did. It is the only one workable at this stage of the trial. It can work no injustice because before any individual can be punished, he can submit the facts of his own case to further and more detailed judicial scrutiny.

While the Charter does not so provide, we think that on ordinary legal principles the burden of proof to justify a declaration of criminality is upon the prosecution. It is discharged, we think, when we establish the following:

1. The organization or group in question must be some aggregation of persons associated in some identifiable relationship with a collective general purpose.

2. While the Charter does not so declare, we think it implied that membership in such an organization must be generally voluntary. That does not require proof that every member was a volunteer. Nor does it mean that an organization is not to be considered voluntary if the defense proves that some minor fraction or small percentage of its membership was compelled to join. The test is a common-sense one: Was the organization on the whole one which persons were free to join or to stay out of? Membership is not made involuntary by the fact that it was good business or good politics to identify one’s self with the movement. Any compulsion must be of the kind which the law normally recognizes, and threats of political or economic retaliation would be of no consequence.

3. The aims of the organization must be criminal in that it was designing to perform acts denounced as crimes in Article 6 of the Charter. No other act would authorize conviction of an individual and therefore no other act would authorize conviction of an organization in connection with the conviction of the individual.

4. The criminal aims or methods of the organization must have been of such character that its membership in general may properly be charged with knowledge of them. This again is not specifically required by the Charter. Of course, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish the individual knowledge of every member of the organization or to rebut the possibility that some may have joined in ignorance of its true character.

5. Some individual defendant must have been a member of the organization and must be convicted of some act on the basis of which the organization is declared to be criminal.

D. Definition of Issues for Trial.

The progress of this trial will be expedited by clear definition of the issues to be tried. I have indicated what we consider to be the proper criteria of guilt. There are also subjects which we think are not relevant before this Tribunal, some of which are mentioned in the specific questions asked by the Tribunal.

Only a single ultimate issue is before this Tribunal for decision. That is whether accused organizations properly may be characterized as criminal ones or as innocent ones. Nothing is relevant here that does not bear on a question that would be common to the case of every member. Any matter which would be exculpating for some members but not for all is irrelevant here.

We think it is not relevant to this proceeding at this stage that one or many members were conscripted if in general the membership was voluntary. It may be conceded that conscription is a good defense for an individual charged with membership in a criminal organization, but an organization can have criminal purposes and commit criminal acts even if a portion of its membership consists of persons who were compelled to join it. The issue of conscription is not pertinent to this proceeding but it is pertinent to the trials of individuals for membership in organizations declared criminal by this Tribunal.

We also think it is not relevant to this proceeding that one or more members of the named organizations were ignorant of its criminal purposes or methods if its purposes or methods were open and notorious. An organization may have criminal purposes and commit criminal acts although one or many of its members were without personal knowledge thereof. If a person joined what he thought was a social club but what in fact was a gang of cutthroats and murderers, his lack of knowledge would not exonerate the gang considered as a group, although it might possibly be a factor in extenuation of a charge of criminality brought against him for mere membership in the organization. Even then the test would be not what the man knew, but what, as a person of common understanding, he should have known.

It is not relevant to this proceeding that one or more members of the named organizations were themselves innocent of unlawful acts. This proposition is basic to the entire theory of the declaration of organizational criminality. The purpose of declaring criminality of organizations, as in every conspiracy charge, is punishment for aiding crimes, although the precise perpetrators may never be found or identified. We know that the Gestapo and SS, as organizations, were given principal responsibility for the extermination of the Jewish people in Europe—but beyond a few isolated instances, we can never establish which members of the Gestapo or SS actually carried out the murders. Any member guilty of direct participation in such crimes can be tried on the charge of having committed specific crimes in addition to the general charge of membership in a criminal organization. Therefore, it is wholly immaterial that one or more members of the organizations were themselves allegedly innocent of specific wrongdoing. The purpose of this proceeding is not to reach instances of individual criminal conduct, even in subsequent trials and, therefore, such considerations are irrelevant here.

Another question raised by the Tribunal is the period of time during which the groups or organizations named in the Indictment are claimed by the Prosecution to have been criminal. The Prosecution believes that each organization should be declared criminal during the period referred to in the Indictment. We do not contend that the Tribunal is without power to condition its declaration so as to cover a lesser period of time than that set forth in the Indictment. The Prosecution feels, however, that there is in the record at this time adequate evidence to support the charge of criminality with respect to each of the named organizations during the full period of time set forth in the Indictment.

Another question raised by the Tribunal is whether any classes of persons included within the accused groups or organizations should be excluded from the declaration of criminality. It is, of course, necessary that the Tribunal relate its declaration to some identifiable group or organization. The Tribunal, however, is not expected or required to be bound by formalities of organization. In framing the Charter, the use was deliberately avoided of terms or concepts which would involve this trial in legal technicalities about “juristic persons” or “entities.” Systems of jurisprudence are not uniform in the refinements of these fictions. The concept of the Charter, therefore, is a nontechnical one. “Group” or “organization” should be given no artificial or sophistical meaning. The word “group” was used in the Charter as a broader term, implying a looser and less formal structure or relationship than is implied in the “organization.” The terms mean in the context of the Charter what they mean in the ordinary speech of people. The test to identify a group or organization is, we submit, a natural and common-sense one.

It is important to bear in mind that while the Tribunal no doubt has power to make its own definition of the groups it will declare criminal, the precise composition and membership of groups and organizations is not an issue for trial here. There is no Charter requirement and no practical need for the Tribunal to define a group or organization with such particularity that its precise composition or membership is thereby determined. The creation of a mechanism for later trial of such issues was a recognition that the declaration of this Tribunal is not decisive of such questions and is likely to be so general as to comprehend persons who on more detailed inquiry will prove to be outside of it. An effort by this Tribunal to try questions of exculpation of individuals, few or many, would unduly protract the trial, transgress the limitation of the Charter, and quite likely do some mischief by attempting to adjudicate precise boundaries on evidence which is not directed to that purpose.

The prosecution stands upon the language of the Indictment and contends that each group or organization should be declared criminal as an entity and that no inquiry should be entered upon and no evidence entertained as to the exculpation of any class or classes of persons within such descriptions. Practical reasons of conserving the Tribunal’s time combine with practical considerations for the defendants. A single trial held in one city to deal with questions of excluding thousands of defendants living all over Germany could not be expected to do justice to each member unless it was expected to endure indefinitely. Provision for later, local trial of individual relationships protects the rights of members better than can possibly be done in proceedings before this Tribunal.

With respect to the Gestapo, the United States consents to exclude persons employed in purely clerical, stenographic, janitorial or similar unofficial routine tasks. As to the Nazi Leadership Corps we abide by the position taken at the time of submission of the evidence, that the following should be included: the Fuehrer, the Reichsleitung (i.e., the Reichsleiters, main departments and officeholders), the Gauleiters and their staff officers, the Kreisleiters and their staff officers, the Ortsgruppenleiters, the Zellenleiters, and the Blockleiters, but not members of the staff of the last three officials. As regards the SA, it is considered advisable that the Declaration expressly exclude (1) wearers of the SA Sports Badge; (2) SA controlled Home Guard Units (SA Wehrmannschaften) which were not strictly part of the SA; (3) The Marchabteilungen of the N.S.K.O.V. (National Socialist League for Disabled Veterans); and (4) the SA Reserve, so as to include only the active part of the organization, and that members who were never in any part of that organization other than the Reserve should be excluded.

The Prosecution does not feel that there is evidence of the severability of any class or classes of persons within the organizations accused which would justify any further concessions and feels that no other part of the named groups should be excluded. In this connection, we would again stress the principles of conspiracy. The fact that a section of an organization itself committed no criminal act, or may have been occupied in technical or administrative functions, does not relieve that section of criminal responsibility if its activities contributed to the accomplishment of the criminal enterprise.

E. Further Steps Before This Tribunal.

Over 45,000 persons have joined in communications to this Tribunal asking to be heard in connection with the accusations against organizations. The volume of these applications has caused apprehension as to further proceedings. No doubt there are difficulties yet to be overcome, but my study indicates that the difficulties are greatly exaggerated.

The Tribunal is vested with wide discretion as to whether it will entertain an application to be heard. The Prosecution would be anxious, of course, to have every application granted that is necessary, not only to do justice but to avoid the appearance of doing anything less than justice. And we do not consider that expediting this trial is so important as affording a fair opportunity to present all really pertinent facts.

Analysis of the conditions which have brought about this flood of applications indicates that their significance is not proportionate to their numbers. The Tribunal sent out 200,000 printed notices of the right to appear before it and defend. They were sent to Allied prisoner of war and internment camps. The notice was published in all German language papers and was repeatedly broadcast over the radio. The 45,000 persons who responded with applications to be heard came principally from about 15 prisoner of war and internment camps in British or United States control. Those received included an approximate 12,000 from Dachau, 10,000 from Langwasser, 7,500 from Auerbach, 4,000 from Staumuehle, 2,500 from Garmisch, and several hundred from each of the others.

We undertook investigation of these applications from Auerbach camp as probably typical of all. The camp is for prisoners of war, predominantly SS members, and its prisoners number 16,964 enlisted men and 923 officers. The notice of the International Tribunal was posted in each barracks and was read to all inmates. The applications to the Tribunal were forwarded without censorship. Applications to defend were made by 7,509 SS members.

Investigation indicates that these were filed in direct response to the notice and that no action was directed or inspired from any other source within the camp. All who were interrogated professed no knowledge of any SS crimes or of SS criminal purpose, but expressed interest only in their individual fate. Our investigators report no indication that the SS members had additional evidence or information to submit on the general question of the criminality of the SS as an organization. They seemed to think it necessary to make the application to this Tribunal in order to protect themselves.

Examination of the applications made to the Tribunal indicates that most members do not profess to have evidence on the general issue triable here. They assert that the writer has neither committed, witnessed, nor known of the crimes charged against the organization. On a proper definition of the issues such an application is insufficient on its face.

A careful examination of the Tribunal’s notice to which these applications respond will indicate that the notice contains no word which would inform a member, particularly if a layman, of the narrowness of the issues here, or of the later opportunity of each member, if and when prosecuted, to present personal defenses. On the other hand, I think the notice creates the impression that every member may be convicted and punished by this Tribunal and that his only chance to be heard is here.

In view of these facts we suggest consideration of the following program for completion of this trial as to organizations.

1. That the Tribunal formulate and express in an order the scope of the issues and the limitations on the issues to be heard by it.

2. That a notice adequately informing members as to the limitation on issues and the opportunity for later, individual trial, be sent to all applicants and published as was the original notice.

3. That a panel of masters be appointed as authorized in Article 17(e) of the Charter to examine applications and report those insufficient on their own statements, and to go to the camps and supervise the taking of any relevant evidence. Defense counsel and prosecution representatives should of course attend and be heard before the masters. The masters should reduce any evidence to deposition form and report the whole to the Tribunal to be introduced as a part of its record.

4. The representative principle may also be employed to simplify this task. Members of particular organizations in particular camps might well be invited to choose one or more to represent them in presenting evidence.

It may not be untimely to remind the Tribunal and defense counsel that the prosecution has omitted from evidence many relevant documents which show repetition of crimes by these organizations in order to save time by avoiding cumulative evidence. It is not too much to expect that cumulative evidence of a negative character will likewise be limited.

Some concern has been expressed as to the number of persons who might be affected by the declarations of criminality we have asked. Some people seem more susceptible to the shock of a million punishments than to the shock of 5 million murders. At most the number of punishments will never catch up with the number of crimes. However, it is impossible to state even with approximate accuracy the number of persons who might be affected. Figures from German sources seriously exaggerate the number, because they do not take account of heavy casualties in the latter part of the war, and make no allowances for duplication of membership, which was large. For example, the evidence is to the effect that 75 percent of the Gestapo men also were members of the SS. We know that the United States forces have in detention a roughly estimated 130,000 persons who appear to be members of accused organizations. I have no figures from other Allied forces. But how many of these actually would be prosecuted, instead of being dealt with under the denazification program, no one can foretell. Whatever the number, of one thing we may be sure: it is so large that a thorough inquiry by this Tribunal, into each case, would prolong its session beyond endurance. All questions as to whether individuals or sub-groups of accused organizations should be excepted from the Declaration of Criminality, should be left for local courts, located near the home of the accused and near sources of evidence. These courts can work in one or at most in two languages, instead of four, and can hear evidence which both parties direct to the specific issues.

F. Conclusion.

This is not the time to review the evidence against particular organizations which, we take it, should be reserved for summation after all the evidence is presented. But it is timely to say that the selection of the six organizations named in the Indictment was not a matter of chance. The chief reasons they were chosen are these: collectively they were the ultimate repositories of all power in the Nazi regime; they were not only the most powerful, but the most vicious organizations in the regime; and they were organizations in which membership was generally voluntary.

The Nazi Leadership Corps consisted of the directors and principal executors of the Nazi Party, which was the force lying behind and dominating the whole German state. The Reichs Cabinet was the facade through which the Nazi Party translated its will into legislative, administrative, and executive acts. The two pillars on which the security of the regime rested were the armed forces, directed and controlled by the General Staff and High Command, and the police forces—the Gestapo, the SA, the SD, and the SS. These organizations exemplify all the evil forces of the Nazi regime.

These organizations were also selected because, while representative, they were not so large or extensive as to make it probable that innocent, passive, or indifferent Germans might be caught up in the same net with the guilty. State officialdom is represented, but not all administrative officials or department heads or civil servants; only the Reichsregierung, the very heart of Nazidom within the Government, is named. The armed forces are accused, but not the average soldier or officer, no matter how high ranking. Only the top policy-makers—the General Staff and High Command—are named. The police forces are accused, but not every policeman: not the ordinary police, which performed only normal police functions. Only the most terroristic and repressive police elements—the Gestapo and SD—are named. The Nazi Party is accused, but not every Nazi voter, not even every member; only the leaders, the Politische Leiter. (See Chart No. 14.) And not even every Party official or worker is included; only “the bearers of sovereignty,” in the metaphysical jargon of the Party, who were the actual commanding officers and their staff officers on the highest levels, are accused. The “formations” or strong arms of the Party are accused, but not every one of the seven formations, nor any of the twenty or more supervised or affiliated party groups. Nazi organizations in which membership was compulsory, either legally or in practice (like the Hitler Youth and the Deutsche Studentschaft); Nazi professional organizations (like the Civil Servants Organization, the National Socialist Teachers Organization, and the National Socialist Lawyers Organization); Nazi organizations having some legitimate purpose (like the welfare organizations), have not been indicted. Only two formations are named, the SA and the SS, the oldest of the Nazi organizations, groups which had no purpose other than carrying out the Nazi schemes and which actively participated in every crime denounced in the Charter.

In administering preventive justice with a view to forestalling repetition of these crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, it would be a greater catastrophe to acquit these organizations than it would be to acquit the entire 22 individual defendants in the box. These defendants’ power for harm is spent. That of these organizations goes on. If they are exonerated here, the German people will infer that they did no wrong and will easily be regimented in reconstituted organizations under new names behind the same program.

In administering retributive justice it would be possible to exonerate these organizations only by concluding that no crimes have been committed by the Nazi regime. Their sponsorship of every Nazi purpose and their confederation to execute every measure to attain those ends is beyond denial. A failure to condemn these organizations under the terms of the Charter can only mean that such Nazi ends and means cannot be considered criminal, and that the Charter of the Tribunal is considered a nullity.

2. THE NAZI PARTY LEADERSHIP CORPS

The Nazi Party Leadership Corps—it is proposed to demonstrate—was responsible for planning, directing, and supervising the criminal measures carried into execution by the Nazi Party, which was the central core of the common plan or conspiracy charged in Count I of the Indictment. Moreover, it will be shown, the members of the Leadership Corps themselves actively participated in the commission of illegal measures in aid of the conspiracy. In the light of the evidence to be discussed, the Leadership Corps may be fairly described as the brain, the backbone, and the directing arms of the Nazi Party. Its responsibilities are more massive and comprehensive than those of the army of followers who blindly and faithfully did its bidding.

A. Composition, Functions, Responsibilities, and Powers of the Leadership Corps.

In considering the composition and organizational structure of the Leadership Corps, preliminary reference is made to the organization chart of the Nazi Party (Chart Number 1) as well as a chart of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party appearing at page 9 of a magazine published by the Chief Education Office of the Nazi Party entitled “Das Gesicht der Partei” (The Face of the Party). These charts and the evidence to follow show that the Leadership Corps constituted the sum of the officials of the Nazi Party: it included the Fuehrer; the Reichsleiter and Reich office holders; the five categories of leaders who were area commanders (called Hoheitstraeger, or “bearers of sovereignty”) ranging all the way from the 40-odd Gauleiter in charge of large districts down through the intermediate political leaders to the Blockleiter, charged with looking after 40 to 60 households; and what may best be described as the Staff Officers attached to each of the 5 levels of Hoheitstraeger.

Organized upon a hierarchical basis, forming a pyramidal structure, the principal Political Leaders on a scale of descending authority were:

A large part of this and other evidence relating to the composition of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party is to be found in the 1943 edition of the Organization Book of the NSDAP, an authoritative primer on Nazi organizations which was edited by the defendant, Reich Organization Leader of the NSDAP, Dr. Robert Ley.

The Reichsleitung of the Leadership Corps consisted of the Reichsleiter or Reich Leaders of the Party, the Hauptaemter (Main Offices) and the Aemter (or Offices). The Reichsleiter of the Party were, next to Hitler, the highest officeholders in the Party hierarchy. All the Reichsleiter and Main Office and officeholders within the Reichsleitung were appointed by Hitler and were directly responsible to him. The Organization Book of the NSDAP puts it as follows:

The significant fact is that through the Reichsleitung perfect coordination of Party and State machinery was guaranteed. The Party Manual describes it this way:

To demonstrate that the Reichsleiter of the Leadership Corps included the most powerful coalition of political overlords in Nazi Germany, it is necessary only to mention their names. The list of Reichsleiter includes the following defendants on trial: Rosenberg, Von Schirach, Frick, Bormann, and Ley.

The evidence to be presented will show that Rosenberg was the leader of an organization named for him, the Einsatzstab Rosenberg, which carried out a vast program of looting and plunder of art treasures throughout occupied Europe. The evidence will further show that, as Representative of the Fuehrer for the Supervision of Nazi Ideology and Schooling, Rosenberg participated in an aggressive campaign to undermine the Christian churches and to supersede Christianity by a German National Church founded upon a combination of irrationality, pseudo-scientific theories, mysticism, and the cult of the racial state.

It will be shown that the late Defendant Ley, acting as the agent of Hitler and the Leadership Corps, directed the Nazi assault upon the independent labor unions of Germany and before destroying himself first destroyed the free and independent labor movement; and that he replaced it by a Nazi organization, the German Labor front or DAF, which he employed as a means of exploiting the German labor force in the interests of the conspiracy and to instill Nazi ideology among the ranks of the German workers.

It will be shown that Frick participated in the enactment of many laws which were designed to promote the conspiracy in its several phases. Frick shares responsibility for the grave injury done by the officials of the Leadership Corps to the concept of the rule of law by virtue of his efforts to give the color of law and formal legality to a large volume of Nazi legislation violative of the rights of humanity, such as the legislation designed to stigmatize and eliminate the Jewish people of Germany and German-occupied Europe. As chief of the Party Chancellery, immediately under Hitler, Bormann was an extremely important force in directing the activities of the Leadership Corps. As will be shown, a decree of 16 January 1942 provided that the participation of the Party in all important legislation, governmental appointments, and promotions had to be undertaken exclusively by Bormann. He took part in the preparation of all laws and decrees issued by the Reich authorities and gave his assent to those of the subordinate governments.

The list of Reichsleiter of the NSDAP set forth in the National Socialist Yearbook (1943 Edition) shows that the following 15 Reichsleiter were in office in 1943 (2473-PS):

The principal functions of the Reichsleiter included carrying out the tasks and missions assigned to them by the Fuehrer or by the Chief of the Party Chancellery, Martin Bormann. The Reichsleiter were further charged with insuring that Party policies were being executed in all the subordinate areas of the Reich. The Reichsleiter were also responsible for insuring a continual flow of new leadership into the Party. With respect to the function and responsibilities of the Reichsleiter, the Organization Book of the NSDAP states as follows:

The domination of the German Government by the top members of the Leadership Corps was facilitated by a circular decree of the Reich Minister of Justice, dated 17 February 1934, which established equal rank for the offices within the Reichsleitung of the Leadership Corps and the Reich offices of the government. In this decree it was expressly provided that

The Party Manual termed the control exercised over the machinery of government by the Leadership Corps “the permeation of the State apparatus with the political will of the Party.”

Domination by the Leadership Corps over the German State and Government was facilitated by uniting in the same Nazi chieftains both high office within the Reichsleitung and corresponding offices within the apparatus of government. For example, Goebbels was a Reichsleiter in charge of Party propaganda, but he was also a cabinet minister in charge of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment. Himmler held office within the Reichsleitung as head of the Main Office for “Volkdom” and as Reichsfuehrer of the SS. At the same time, Himmler held the governmental position of Reich Commission for the Consolidation of Germandom and was the governmental head of the German police system (Chart Number 1). This personal union of high office in the Leadership Corps and high governmental position in the same Nazi Leaders greatly assisted the plan of the Leadership Corps to dominate and control the German State and Government.

In addition to the Reichsleiter, the Reichsleitung (Reich Party Directorate) included about eleven Hauptamter, or Main Offices, and about four Amter, or Offices. The Hauptamter of the Party included such main organizations as those for personnel, training, technology (headed by Speer), “Volkdom,” (headed by Himmler), civil servants, communal policy, and the like. The Amter, or offices, of the Party within the Reichsleitung included the Office for Foreign Policy under Rosenberg which actively participated in plans for aggression against Norway, the Office for Colonial Policy, the Office for Geneology, and the Office for Racial Policy.

Certain of the main offices and offices within the Reichsleitung appeared again within the Gauleitung, or Gau Party Directorate, and Kreisleitung, or County Party Directorate. Thus, the Reichsleiter and main office and office holders within the Reichsleitung exercised, through functional channels running through subordinate offices on lower regional levels, total control over the various sectors of the national life of Germany.

(1) Gauleiter. For Party purposes Germany was divided into major administrative regions, Gaue, which, in turn, were subdivided into Kreise (counties), Ortsgruppen (local chapters), Zellen (cells), and Blocke (blocks). Each Gau was in charge of a Gauleiter who was the political leader of the Gau or district. Each Gauleiter was appointed by and was responsible to Hitler himself. The Organization Book of the NSDAP states:

The responsibility and function of the Gauleiter and his staff officers or office holders were essentially political, namely, to insure the authority of the Nazi Party within his area, to coordinate the activities of the Party and all its affiliated and supervised organizations, and to enlarge the influence of the Party over people and life in his Gau generally. Following the outbreak of the war, when it became imperative to coordinate the various phases of the German war effort, the Gauleiter were given additional important responsibilities. The Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich, which was a sort of general staff for civil defense and the mobilization of the German war economy, by a decree of 1 September 1939 (1939, Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 1565), appointed about sixteen Gauleiter as Reich Defense Commissars. Later, under the impact of mounting military reverses and an increasingly strained war economy, more and more important administrative functions were put on a Gau basis; the Party Gaue became the basic defense areas of the Reich and each Gauleiter became a Reich Defense Commissar (Decree of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich of 16 November 1942, 1942 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 649). In the course of the war, additional functions were entrusted to the Gauleiter so that at the end, with the exception of certain special matters, such as police affairs, almost all phases of the German war economy were coordinated and supervised by them. For instance, regional authority over price control was put under the Gauleiter as Reich Defense Commissars, and housing administration was placed under the Gauleiter as Gau Housing Commissar. Toward the end of the war, the Gauleiter were charged even with military and quasi military tasks. They were made commanders of the Volkssturm in their areas and were entrusted with such important functions as the evacuation of civilian population in the path of the advancing Allied armies, as well as measures for the destruction of vital installations.

The structure and organization of the Party Gau were substantially repeated in the lower levels of the Party organization such as the Kreise, Ortsgruppen, Cells, and Blocks. Each of these was headed by a political leader who, subject to the Fuehrer principle and the orders of superior political leaders, was sovereign within his sphere. The Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party was in effect a “hierarchy of descending caesars.” Each of the subordinate Party levels, such as Kreise, Ortsgruppen, and so on, was organized into offices or Amter dealing with the various specialized functions of the Party. But the number of such departments and offices diminished as the Party unit dropped in the hierarchy, so that, while the Kreise office contained all, or most of the offices in the Gau (such as the deputy, the staff office leader, an organization leader, school leader, propaganda leader, press office leader, treasurer, judge of the Party Court, inspector, and the like), the Ortsgruppe had less and the Zellen and Blocke fewer still.

(2) Kreisleiter (County Leaders). The Kreisleiter was appointed and dismissed by Hitler upon the nomination of the Gauleiter and directly subordinate to the Gauleiter in the Party hierarchy. The Kreis usually comprised a single county. The Kreisleiter, within the Kreis, had in general the same position, powers, and prerogatives granted the Gauleiter in the Gau. In cities they constituted the very core of Party power and organization. According to the Organization Book of the NSDAP:

(3) Ortsgruppenleiter (Local Chapter Leaders). The area of the Ortsgruppenleiter comprised one or more communes or, in a town, a certain district. The Ortsgruppe was composed of a combination of blocks and cells and, according to local circumstances, contained up to 1500 households. The Ortsgruppenleiter also had a staff of office leaders to assist him in the various functional activities of the Party. All other political leaders in his area of responsibility were subordinate to and under the direction of the Ortsgruppenleiter. For example, the leaders of the various affiliated organizations of the Party, within his area, such as the German Labor Front, and the Nazi organizations for lawyers, students, and civil servants, were all subordinate to the Ortsgruppenleiter. In accordance with the Fuehrer principle, the Ortsgruppenleiter or Local Chapter Leaders were appointed by the Gauleiter and were directly under and subordinate to the Kreisleiter.

The party Manual provides as follows with respect to the Ortsgruppenleiter:

(4) Zellenleiter (Cell Leaders). The Zellenleiter was responsible for four to eight blocks. He was the immediate superior of and had control and supervision over the Blockleiter (Block Leader). His mission and duties, according to the Party Manual, corresponded to the missions of the Blockleiter. (1893-PS)

(5) Blockleiter (Block Leaders). The Blockleiter was the one Party official who was peculiarly in a position to have continuous contact with the German people. The block was the lowest unit in the Party pyramidal organization. The block of the Party comprised 40 to 60 households and was regarded by the Party as the focal point upon which to press the weight of its propaganda. The Organization Book of the NSDAP states:

The Blockleiter, as in the case of other political leaders, was charged with planning, disseminating, and developing a receptivity to the policies of the Nazi Party among the population in his area of responsibility. It was also the expressed duty of the Blockleiter to spy on the population. According to the Party Manual:

There were in Germany around a half million of these Blockleiter. Large though this figure may appear, there can be no doubt that these officials were in and of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. Though they stood at the broad base of the Party pyramid rather than at its summit, where rested the Reichsleiter, by virtue of this fact they were stationed at close intervals throughout the German civil population. It may be doubted that the average German ever looked upon the face of Heinrich Himmler. But the man in the street in Nazi Germany could not have avoided an uneasy acquaintance with the Blockleiter in his neighbourhood. It was the block leaders who represented to the people of Germany the police-state of Hitler’s Germany. In fact, the Blockleiter were little fuehrers with real power over the civilians in their domains. The authority of the Blockleiter to exercise coercion and the threat of force upon the civil population is shown in an excerpt from page 7 of the magazine published by the Chief Education Office of the Party, entitled “The Face of the Party”:

(6) Hoheitstraeger. Within the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party certain of the Political Leaders possessed a higher degree of responsibility than others, were vested with special prerogatives, and constituted a distinctive and elite group. These were the so-called “Hoheitstraeger” (Bearers of Sovereignty) who represented the Party within their area of jurisdiction, the so-called Hoheitsgebiet. The Party Manual (1893-PS) states as follows:

The distinctive character of the Politischer Leiter (Political Leaders) constituting the Hoheitstraeger, and their existence and operation as an identifiable group, are indicated by the publication of a magazine, entitled Der Hoheitstraeger, whose distribution was limited by regulation of the Reich Organization Leader to the Hoheitstraeger and certain other designated Politischer Leiter. The inside cover of this exclusive Party magazine reads as follows:

The magazine states that, in addition, the following were entitled to receive it:

The fact that this magazine existed, that it derived its name from the Commanding Officers of the Leadership Corps, that it was distributed to the elite of the Leadership Corps—that a House Bulletin was circulated down the command channels of the Leadership Corps—demonstrates that the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party was an identifiable group or organization within the meaning of Article 9 of the Charter.

An examination of the contents of the magazine Der Hoheitstrager reveals a continuing concern by the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party in measures and doctrines which were employed throughout the course of the conspiracy. The plans and policies of the inner elite of the Leadership Corps gain clarity through a random sampling of articles published and policies advocated in various issues of the magazine Der Hoheitstrager. From February 1937 to October 1938 these included the following: anti-Semitic articles, attacks on Catholicism and the Christian religion and clergy; the need for motorized armament; the urgent need for expanded Lebensraum and colonies; persistent attacks on the League of Nations; the use of the Block and Cell in achieving favorable votes in Party plebiscites; the intimate association between the Wehrmacht and the Political Leadership; the racial doctrines of Fascism; the cult of “leadership”; the role of the Gaue, Ortsgruppen, and Zellen in the expansion of Germany; and related matters.

(a) Organization of Political Leaders. The Political Leaders were organized according to the leadership principle (1893-PS):

Each Political Leader was sworn in yearly. According to the Party Manual (1893-PS), the wording of the oath was as follows:

The Organization Book of the NSDAP also provides:

(b) Appointment of Political Leaders. The appointment of the political leaders constituting the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party proceeded as follows, according to the Party Manual:

c. Power of Hoheitstraeger to Call Upon Party Formations. The Hoheitstraeger among the Leadership Corps were entitled to call upon and utilize the various Party Formations as necessary for the execution of Nazi Party policies.

The Party Manual makes it clear that the Hoheitstrager has power and authority to requisition the services of the SA:

The Hoheitstrager also had the same authority to call upon the services of the SS and NSKK (1893-PS).

The Hoheitstrager further, had authority to call upon the services of the Hitler Youth (HJ):

An example of the use of the Party Formations at the call of the Leadership Corps of the Party is provided by the action taken by the Reichsleiter for Party Organization of the NSDAP, Dr. Robert Ley, leading to the deliberate dissolution of the Free Trade Unions on 2 May 1933. A directive issued by Reichsleiter Ley on 21 April 1933 (392-PS) ordered the employment of the SA and the SS in occupying trade union properties and in taking trade union leaders into protective custody:

A decree issued by Hess as Deputy of the Fuehrer, dated 25 October 1934, underwrites the authority of the Hoheitstrager with respect to the Party Formations:

It was the official policy of the Leadership Corps to establish close and cooperative relations with the Gestapo. The Head of the German Police and SS, Himmler, was a Reichsleiter on the top level of the Leadership Corps. A decree issued by Bormann, as Chief of Staff of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, dated 26 June 1935, provided the following:

(d) Meetings of the Political Leaders. The contention of the Prosecution that the members of the Leadership Corps constituted a distinctive and identifiable group or organization is strongly supported by the fact that the various Hoheitstraeger (such as the Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, Ortsgruppenleiter, and so on) were under an absolute obligation to meet and confer periodically, not only with the staff officers on their own staffs, but with the political leaders and staff officers immediately subordinate to them. For example, the Gauleiter was bound to confer with his staff officers (such as his deputy, his staff office leader, his organization leader, school leader, propaganda leader, press leader, his Gau Party Judge, and so on) every 8 to 14 days. Furthermore, the Gauleiter was obligated to meet with the various Gauleiter subordinate to him once every 3 months for a 3-day convention for the purpose of discussing and clarifying Nazi Party policies and directives, for hearing basic lectures on Party policy, and for the mutual exchange of information pertinent to the Party’s current program. The Gauleiter was also obligated to meet at least once a month with the leaders of the Party formations and affiliated organizations within his Gau area, such as the leaders of the SA, SS, Hitler Youth and others. These matters are set forth in the Organization Book of the NSDAP (1893-PS) as follows:

The Organization Book of the Party imposes a similar requirement of regular and periodical conferences and meetings upon all the other Hoheitstraeger, including the Kreisleiter, Ortsgruppenleiter, Zellenleiter, and Blockleiter.

The clear consequence of such regular and obligatory conferences and meetings by all the Hoheitstraeger, both with their own staff officers and with the political leaders and staff officers subordinate to them, was that basic Nazi policies and directives issued by Hitler and the leader of the Party Chancellery, Bormann, directly through the chain of command of the Hoheitstraeger, and functional policies issued by the various Reichsleiter and Reich office holders through functional and technical channels, were certain to be brought to the attention and understanding of the bulk of the membership of the Leadership Corps. When this fact is coupled with the further fact that all the members of the Leadership Corps under the Leadership Principle and their sworn oaths, were bound to obey blindly and without question orders received from their competent superiors, it is clear that the general membership of the Leadership Corps is responsible for measures taken or ordered by that organization in furtherance of the conspiracy.

(7) Statistics Relating to the Leadership Corps. As previously shown, the Leadership Corps comprised the sum of officials of the Nazi Party, including, in addition to Hitler and the members of the Reichsleitung, such as the Reichsleiter and the Reich office holders, a hierarchy of Hoheitstraeger (ranging from the Gauleiter down to the Blockleiter) as well as the staff officers attached to the Hoheitstraeger. According to page 10 of issue No. 8, 1939 of the authoritative publication of the Leadership Corps, “Der Hoheitstrager,” there were in 1939:

However, as shown by previous evidence, the Leadership Corps was composed not only of the Hoheitstraeger (such as Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, Ortsgruppenleiter, Zellenleiter, and Blockleiter) but also of the staff officers or office holders attached to these Hoheitstraeger. The Gauleiter, for example, was assisted by a deputy Gauleiter, several Gau inspectors, and a staff which was divided into main offices (Hauptamter) and offices (Amter), including such departments as the Gau staff Office, Treasury, Education Office, Propaganda Office, Press Office, University Teachers, Communal Policy, etc. As previously shown in evidence, the staff office structure of the Gau was substantially represented in the lower levels of the Leadership Corps organization such as the Kreise, Ortsgruppen, and so on. The Kreise and the smaller territorial areas of the Party were also organized into staff offices dealing with the various activities of the Leadership Corps. But, of course, the importance and the number of such staff offices diminished as the unit dropped in the hierarchy; so that, while the Kreisleiter staff contained all or most of the departments mentioned for the Gau, the Ortsgruppe had fewer departments and the lower ones fewer still.

Firm figures have not been found as to the total number of staff officers, as distinguished from the Hoheitstraeger or political commanders themselves included within the Leadership Corps.

It is the view of the prosecution that in defining the scope and composition of the Leadership Corps, staff officers should be included only down to and including the Kreise. Upon this basis, the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party constituted the Fuehrer, the members of the Reichsleitung, the 5 levels of Hoheitstraeger (ranging from Gauleiter down through the Blockleiter), and the staff officers attached to the 40-odd Gauleiter and the eight to nine hundred Kreisleiter. Adopting this definition of the Leadership Corps, it will be seen that the total figure for the membership of that organization, based upon the statistics cited from the basic handbook for Germany, amounts to around 700,000.

It is true that this figure is based upon an admittedly limited view of the size of the membership of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party; for the evidence has shown that the Leadership Corps in effect embraced staff officers attached to the subordinate Hoheitstraeger, and inclusion of such staff officers in the estimation of the size of the Leadership Corps would have very considerably enlarged the final figure estimated to a total of 2,000,000. The Prosecution, however, proposes to exclude such subordinate staff officers for the reason that their participation in and responsibility for the Conspiracy were measurably less extensive than those of the staff officers and office holders on the higher levels of the Leadership Corps. The subordinate staff officers thus excluded were responsible functionally to the higher staff officers with respect to their particular specialty, such as propaganda, Party organization, and so on, and to their respective Hoheitstraeger with respect to discipline and policy control. Likewise, such higher staff officers participated in planning and policy discussions, and also issued orders through technical channels to lower staff officers.

B. Participation of the Leadership Corps in the Conspiracy.

The Program of the Nazi Party, proclaimed by Hitler, the Fuehrer of the Leadership Corps, on 24 February 1920 (1708-PS), contained the chief elements of the Nazi plan for domination and conquest. The first point required the incorporation of all Germans into a Greater German Reich. Point 2 demanded unilateral abolition of the Peace Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain. Point 3 stated the demand for “land and soil” (colonies). Point 4 proclaimed the Nazi doctrines of racial discrimination and anti-Semitism. Point 6 proclaimed the fight against the democratic-parliamentary system, as follows:

Point 22 expressed the Nazi plans and policies for rearmament as follows:

The official Party Program declares on its face that:

As previously stated, the Party Program was binding upon the Political Leaders of the Leadership Corps, and they were under a duty to support and carry out that Program. As the Party Manual puts it:

The oath of the Political Leader to Hitler has been previously referred to. In connection therewith, the Party Manual provides:

While the leadership principle assured the binding nature of Hitler’s statements, program, and policies upon the entire Party and the Leadership Corps, the leadership principle also established the full responsibility of the individual Political Leader within the province and jurisdiction of his office or position.

The leadership principle applied not only to Hitler as the supreme leader, but also to the Political Leaders under him, and thus permeated the entire Leadership Corps:

The various Hoheitstraeger of the Leadership Corps were, in their respective areas of responsibility, themselves Fuehrer:

As stated in the Organization Book of the NSDAP

The subjection of the entire membership of the Leadership Corps to the fiat of the Fuehrer Principle is clearly shown in the following passage from the Party Manual:

(1) Domination and Control of the German State and Government by the Nazi Party, directed by the Leadership Corps. On 23 March 1933 the Reichstag enacted a law conferring power on the Reich Cabinet to legislate on its own authority (2001-PS). Prominent members of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party were members of the Reich Cabinet. The presence of Reichsleiter and other prominent members of the Leadership Corps in the Cabinet facilitated the domination of the Cabinet by the Nazi Party and the Leadership Corps. For example, a decree of 13 March 1933 established the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. The head of this ministry was Goebbels, who simultaneously was Reichsleiter for Propaganda of the NSDAP (2029-PS). Examples of personal union between high officials in the Leadership and Cabinet membership existed in the case of the Food Minister, the Chief of the German Police, the Reich Labor Leader, the Chief of the Party Organization in Foreign Countries, and the Reich Youth Fuehrer (2473-PS). Moreover, the majority of the Reich Ministries were occupied by leading old Party Members. All Reich Ministers were accepted by the Party on 30 January 1937 and were decorated with the Golden Party Insignia. (1774-PS)

A law of 14 July 1933 outlawed and forbade the formation of any political parties other than the Nazi Party and made violation of this decree a punishable crime. Thereby the one party State was established and the Leadership Corps was rendered immune from the opposition of organized political groups. This Law Against the Formation of New Political Parties reads as follows:

A law was enacted on 20 July 1933 providing for the dismissal of officials who belonged to the Communist Party or who were otherwise active in furthering the aims of Communism. The law also provided for the dismissal of those who were in the future active for Marxism, Communism, or Social Democracy (Law to Supplement the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, 20 July 1933, (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 518)). (1398-PS)

On 13 October 1933 a “law to guarantee public peace” was enacted which provided, inter alia, that the death penalty or other severe punishment should be imposed upon any person who—

On 1 December 1933 a law was enacted “to secure the unity of Party and State.” This law provided that the Nazi Party was the pillar of the German State, and was linked to it indissolubly; it also made the Deputy of the Fuehrer (then Hess) and the Chief of Staff of the SA (then Roehm) members of the Reich Cabinet (1395-PS). The pertinent provisions of this law read as follows:

This law was a basic measure in enthroning the Leadership Corps in a position of supreme political power in Germany. For it laid it down that the Party, directed by the Leadership Corps, was the embodiment of the State and, in fact, was the State. Moreover, this law made both the Fuehrer’s Deputy and the Chief of Staff of the SA, which was a Party Formation subject to the call of the Hoheitstraeger, Cabinet Members. Thus, the Leadership Corps’ control of the Cabinet was further solidified. The dominant position of the Leadership Corps is further revealed by the provision that the Reichs-Chancellor would issue the regulations carrying out this law in his capacity as Fuehrer of the Nazi Party. The fact that Hitler, as Fuehrer of the Leadership Corps, could promulgate rules which would have statutory force and be published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, the proper compilation for State enactments, is but a further reflection of the reality of the Party’s domination of the German State.

In a declaration to the 1935 Party Congress at Nurnberg, Hitler stated:

That categorical statement of the Fuehrer of the Leadership Corps affirms the dominance of Party over State which the evidence makes undeniably clear.

On 30 June 1934 Hitler, as Head of the Nazi Party, directed the massacre of hundreds of SA-men and other political opponents. Hitler sought to justify these mass murders by declaring to the Reichstag that “at that hour I was responsible for the fate of the German nation and supreme judge of the German people.” (The evidence relating to these events is discussed in Section 4, infra.) On 3 July 1934 the Cabinet issued a decree describing the murders of 30 June 1934, in effect, as legitimate self-defense by the State. By this law the Reich Cabinet made themselves accessories after the fact of these murders. The domination of State by Party, however, makes the Cabinet’s characterization of these criminal acts by Hitler and his top Party Leaders as state measures consistent with political reality. The single article of the law of 3 July 1934 reads as follows:

On 12 July 1934 there was enacted a law defining the function of the Academy for German law:

On 30 January 1933, Hitler, the Leader of the Nazi Party and Fuehrer of the Leadership Corps, was appointed Chancellor of the Reich. When President von Hindenburg died in 1934, the Fuehrer amalgamated in his person the offices of Chancellor and Reich President. (2003-PS)

By a decree of 20 December 1934 Party uniforms and institutions were granted the same protection as those of the State. This law was entitled “Law Concerning Treacherous Acts Against the State and Party, and for the Protection of Party Uniforms.” This law imposed heavy penalties upon any person making false statements injuring the welfare or prestige of the Nazi Party or its agencies. It authorized the imprisonment of persons making or circulating malicious or baiting statements against leading personalities of the Nazi Party. And it provided punishment by forced labor for the unauthorized wearing of Party uniforms or symbols. (1393-PS)

By a law of 15 September 1934, the Swastika flag of the Party was made the official flag of the Reich (2079-PS). This law, enacted by the Reichstag, indicates on its face that it issued from Nurnberg on the Party Day of 15 September 1935. Article 2 of this law reads as follows:

“The Reich and National flag is the swastika flag.” (2079-PS) The Swastika was the flag and symbol of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. The law making it the flag of the State constituted a recognition that the Party and its Corps of Political Leaders were the sovereign powers in Germany.

On 23 April 1936, a law was enacted granting amnesty for crimes which the offender had committed “in his eagerness to fight for the National Socialist Ideal.” (1386-PS)

In furtherance of the Conspiracy to acquire totalitarian control over the German people, a law was enacted on 1 December 1936, which incorporated the entire German youth within the Hitler Youth, thereby achieving a “total mobilization of German youth” (1392-PS). The law further provided that the task of educating the German youth through the Hitler Youth was entrusted to the Reichsleiter of German Youth in the NSDAP. By this law a monopoly control over the entire German youth was placed in the hands of a top official, a Reichsleiter, of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, the defendant von Schirach.

On 4 February 1938, the Fuehrer of the Leadership Corps of the NSDAP, Hitler, issued a decree in which he took over directly the command of the whole Armed Forces (1915-PS). In this decree, Hitler declared, in part, as follows:

By the decree of 4 February 1938, Hitler became Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. He was, at the time of its issuance, Fuehrer of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. By virtue of the earlier law of 1 August 1934, he combined the office of Reich President with that of the Chancellorship. In the final result, therefore, Hitler was Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, Head of the German State, and Fuehrer of the Nazi Party.

With respect to the foregoing point, the Party Manual (1893-PS) states as follows:

A decree of 16 January 1942 provided that the Party should participate in legislation, official appointments, and promotions (2100-PS). The decree further provided that such participation should be undertaken exclusively by Bormann, Chief of the Party Chancellery and a Reichsleiter of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. The decree provided that the Chief of the Party Chancellery was to take part in the preparation of all laws and decrees issued by Reich authorities, including those issued by the Ministerial Council for Defense of the Reich, and to give his assent to those of the Laender and the Reich governors; all communications between State and Party authorities, unless within one Gau only, were to pass through his hands. This decree is of crucial importance in demonstrating the ultimate control and responsibility imputable to the Leadership Corps for governmental policy and actions taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. (2100-PS)

On or about 26 April 1942, Hitler declared in a speech that, in his capacity as Leader of the Nation, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, Supreme Head of the Government, and as Fuehrer of the Party, his right must be recognized to compel with all means at his disposal, every German, whether soldier, judge, State official, or party official, to fulfill his desire. He demanded that the Reichstag officially recognize this asserted right. On 26 April 1942, the German Reichstag issued a decision in which full recognition was given to the rights which the Fuehrer had asserted (1961-PS). The Reichstag decreed as follows:

Hitler himself perhaps best summarized the political realities of his Germany, in showing the domination of the German State and Government by the Leadership Corps and its following. The core of the matter was stated by Hitler in his speech to the Reichstag on 20 February 1938, when he declared in effect that every institution in Germany was under the direction of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party:

The supreme power which the Leadership Corps exercised over the German State and Government is sharply pointed up by an article published in the February 1939 issue of the authoritative magazine, “Der Hoheitstrager”. In this article, addressed to all Hoheitstraeger, the Leadership Corps is reminded that it has conquered the State and that it possesses absolute and total power in Germany. The article is significantly entitled, “Fight and Order—Not Peace and Order.” It trumpets forth, in the accents of Caesarism, the battle call of the Leadership Corps of German life:

In view of the domination of the German State and Government by the Nazi Party and the Leadership Corps thereof, as established by the foregoing evidence, the Leadership Corps is responsible for the measures, including legislative enactments, taken by the German State and Government in furtherance of the Conspiracy formulated and carried out by the co-conspirators and the organizations charged with criminality.

For example, as revealed by the above evidence, Point 4 of the original Party Program declared that a Jew was not a member of the German race and, therefore, was not entitled to citizenship. This premise was incorporated into the law of the Third Reich by numerous anti-Semitic and discriminatory laws. Consequently, it is submitted that, by virtue of their control over the German State and Government, the Nazi Party and the Leadership Corps share responsibility for, among other enactments and measures furthering the Conspiracy, discriminatory laws against the Jews.

(2) Overt Acts and Crimes of the Leadership Corps. The membership of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party actively participated in measures designed to further the progress of the Conspiracy. The evidence will show that the participation by the Leadership Corps in the Conspiracy embraces such measures as anti-Semitic activities, war crimes committed against members of the Allied forces, the forced labor program, measures to subvert and undermine the Christian religion and persecute the Christian clergy, the plundering and spoliation of cultural and other property in German-occupied territories of Europe, and plans and measures leading to the initiation and prosecution of aggressive war.

(a) Crimes against Jews. The Gauleiter and Kreisleiter participated in what were disingenuously described by the Nazis as the “spontaneous uprising of the people” against the Jews throughout Germany on 9 and 10 November 1938 in connection with the assassination of an official of the German Embassy in Paris on 7 November. (The evidence relating to these programs is discussed in Chapter XI on the concentration camps, and Chapter XII on the persecution of the Jews.) It will be recalled that in the teletyped directive from SS-Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich, issued on 10 November 1938, to all police headquarters and SD districts, all chiefs of the State Police were ordered to arrange with the political leaders in the Gaue and Kreise the organization of the so-called spontaneous demonstrations against the Jews (3051-PS). Pursuant to this directive, a large number of Jewish shops and businesses were pillaged and wrecked, synagogues were set on fire, individual Jews were beaten up, and large numbers were taken off to concentration camps. These events forcefully illustrate the employment and participation of all the Kreisleiter and Gauleiter in illegal measures designed to further the anti-Semitic program, which was an original and continuing objective of the Leadership Corps.

(b) Crimes against Allied Airmen. The members of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party participated in the murder, beating, and ill-treatment of American airmen who landed in German or German-controlled territory. American airmen who bailed out of disabled planes over Germany were not treated as prisoners of war, but were beaten and murdered by German civilians with the active condonence, indeed at the instigation of the Leadership Corps. Such a course of conduct by the Leadership Corps represented a deliberate violation by the German Government of its obligations, under the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention, to protect prisoners of war against acts of violence and ill-treatment.

Heinrich Himmler was a Reichsleiter of the Nazi Party and thus a top official in the Leadership Corps by virtue of his positions as Reichsfuehrer of the SS and Delegate for German Folkdom (2473-PS; Chart No. 1). An order signed by Himmler (R-110), dated 10 August 1943, reads as follows:

This order was transmitted in writing to all senior executive SS and police officers, and orally to their subordinate officers and to all Gauleiter.

Joseph Goebbels was a top-flight official in the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party by virtue of his position as Propaganda Leader of the Party (2473-PS; Chart No. 1). In the issue of the Voelkischer Beobachter for 26/29 May 1944, there appeared an article written by Goebbels, the Reichsleiter for Party Propaganda, in which he openly invited the German civil population to murder Allied fliers shot down over Germany (1676-PS). After alleging that Anglo-American pilots have engaged in machine gun attacks against civilians, Goebbels continues:

Reichsleiter Goebbels then proceeds to answer his question in the following language:

On 30 May 1944, Bormann, Reichsleiter and Chief of the Party Chancellery, issued a circular letter on the subject which furnishes indisputable proof that British and American fliers who were shot down were lynched by the German population (057-PS). After alleging that in recent weeks English and American fliers had repeatedly shot children, women, peasants, and vehicles on the highway, Bormann then states:

This letter of Bormann was distributed through the chain of command of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. Express mention on the distribution list is made of Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, and leaders of the incorporated and affiliated organizations of the Party. Bormann requested that the local group leaders (Ortsgruppenleiter) be informed of the contents of his circular letter only by oral means. (057-PS)

The effect of Reichsleiter Bormann’s circular letter may be seen in an order dated 25 February 1945 (L-154). This is an order from Albert Hoffman, an important member of the Leadership Corps by virtue of his position as Gauleiter and National Defense Commissioner of the Gau Westfalen-South, and it is addressed to all County Councillors, mayors, and police officials, and to county leaders and county staff chiefs of the Volkssturm. The order reads as follows:

The obligations of belligerents towards prisoners of war are clearly set forth in the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention of 27 July 1929, which was ratified by both Germany and the United States. Article Two of the Convention provides as follows:

The Geneva Prisoners of War Convention clearly imposes upon its signatories the strict obligation to protect prisoners of war from violence. The evidence just discussed shows that the German State flagrantly violated its obligations under that Convention to protect captured airmen who were shot down in German hands. The evidence also proves that the entire hierarchy of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party participated in the conspiracy to incite the German civil population to murder Allied airmen and also ordered police and Party officials to take no steps to secure the safety of these airmen.

(c) Crimes against Foreign Labor and Civilians in Occupied Areas. Alfred Rosenberg and Robert Ley were both Reichsleiter of the NSDAP. (2473-PS)

An agreement was concluded between the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, Reichsleiter Rosenberg, and the Director of the German Labor Front, Reichsorganisationleiter Ley, relating to the inspection and care of foreign workers. This agreement was based on an earlier agreement of 2 June 1943 between the Deputy General for the Arbeitseinsatz, Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, and the Leader of the German Labor Front, Reichsleiter for the Party Organization, Dr. Ley, concerning a “central inspection for the care of foreign workers” (1913-PS). The purpose of the two agreements was to coordinate activities of the organizations concerned with respect to the administration of plants and camps in which foreign workers were employed. (1914-PS)

On 17 October 1944, Reichsleiter Rosenberg sent a letter to Reichsleiter Bormann, Chief of the Party Chancery, informing the latter that he had sent a telegram to Gauleiter urging them not to interfere in the liquidation of certain listed companies and banks under his supervision. Rosenberg emphasized to Bormann that any “delay of liquidation or * * * independent confiscation of the property by the Gauleiter would impair or destroy an organized plan” for the liquidation of a vast amount of property. (327-PS)

On 7 November 1943, the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces delivered a lecture at Munich to the Reichsleiter and Gauleiter. The Chief of Staff stated that his object was to give a review of the strategic position at the outset of the fifth year of war. He stated his realization that the Political Leaders in the Reich and Gau areas, in view of their burdensome tasks in supporting the German War Effort, were in need of information he could give. He stated, in part, as follows:

Reichsleiter Bormann distributed to all Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, and leaders of Party affiliated organizations, by an undated letter of transmittal, an order of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht relating to self-defense by German guard personnel and German contractors and workers against prisoners of war (656-PS). The order of the Wehrmacht states that the question of treatment of prisoners of war is continually being discussed by Wehrmacht and Party bureaus. The order states that should prisoners of war refuse to obey orders to work, the guard has “in the case of the most pressing need and danger, the right to force obedience with the weapon if he has no other means. He can use the weapon as much as is necessary to attain his goal * * *.” (656-PS)

On 18 April 1944, Reich Commissar Lohse, Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories, in a letter to Reich Youth Leader Axmann, proposed that the Hitler Youth participate in and supervise the military education of the Estonian and Latvian youth (347-PS). Lohse stated in this letter that “in the military education camps, the young Latvians are trained under Latvian leaders in the Latvian language not because this is our ideal, but because absolute military necessity demands this.” Lohse further stated:

The Reichsfuehrer of the SS, as shown earlier, was a Reichsleiter of the NSDAP (2473-PS). An order of the Reich Minister of the Interior, Frick, dated 22 October 1938, provided as follows:

This order related to the administration of the Sudeten-German territory.

In a letter dated 23 June 1943 (407-VI-PS) Gauleiter and Plenipotentiary for the Direction of Labor, Fritz Sauckel, wrote to Hitler advising him of the success of the forced labor program as of that date. Sauckel stated:

On 1 September 1939, Hitler wrote a memorandum stating:

A handwritten note on the face of the document states:

In a memorandum recording an agreement between himself and Himmler, the Minister of Justice Thierack stated that, on the suggestion of Reichsleiter Bormann, an agreement had been reached between Himmler and himself with respect to “special treatment at the hands of the police in cases where judicial sentences are not severe enough” (654-PS). The agreement related that:

If the views of the Reich Fuehrer of SS and the Reich Minister for Justice disagreed,

With respect to the “administration of justice by the people,” the memorandum states:

At a meeting of the NSDAP in Kiev, the theory of the master race as the basis of German administrative policy in the East was expressed by Koch, Reich Commissioner for the Ukraine:

A letter from RSHA (Reich Security Main Office) to police chiefs, dated 5 November 1942, recites an agreement between the Reich Fuehrer SS and the Reich Minister of Justice, approved by Hitler, providing that ordinary criminal procedure was no longer to be applied to Poles and members of the Eastern populations (L-316). The agreement provided that such people, including Jews and Gypsies, should henceforth be turned over to the police. The principles applicable to a determination of the punishment of German offenders, including appraisal of the motives of the offender, were not to be applied to foreign offenders. The letter stated:

With respect to the evacuation, deportation, and Germanization of the civilian population of the incorporated eastern territories, Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, in his capacity as Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood, issued several decrees requiring the deportation to Germany of all Germans from such territories who had renounced their nationality during the existence of the Polish State (R-112). These decrees directed that persons affected by the provisions thereof who failed to comply were to be sent to concentration camps. After deportation to Germany, such persons were to be closely supervised by NSDAP “Counsellors” and secret police to insure their Germanization. Certain of the decrees directing such deportation are addressed, inter alia, to the “Gauleiter” and the “Reich Governors in the Reich Gaue.” (R-112)

In a conference with Reichsleiter Rosenberg, Hitler emphasized that he “wished to have the Crimea cleaned out,” and Rosenberg stated that he had given much consideration to renaming the towns in the Crimea in order to invest the area with a German character. (1517-PS)

In a speech to a gathering of persons intimately concerned with the Eastern problem on 20 June 1941, Reichsleiter Rosenberg stated that the southern Russian territories and the northern Caucasus would have to provide food for the German people:

Rosenberg stated that, as a consequence of the above policy, extensive evacuations of Russians from that Area would have to take place. (1058-PS)

Gauleiter Wagner of the German-occupied Areas of Alsace prepared plans and took measures leading to the expulsion and deportation of certain groups within the Alsatian civil population. His plans called for the forcible expulsion of certain categories of so-called undesirable persons, as a means of punishment and compulsory Germanization. The Gauleiter supervised deportation measures in Alsace from July to December 1940, in the course of which 105,000 persons were either expelled or prevented from returning. A memorandum, dated 4 August 1942, of a meeting of high SS and police officials, convened to receive the reports and plans of the Gauleiter relating to the Alsatian evacuations, states that the persons deported were mainly—

According to the memorandum, the Gauleiter stated that the Fuehrer had given him permission “to cleanse Alsace of all foreign, sick, or unreliable elements,” and emphasized the political necessity of further deportation. The memorandum further records that the SS and police officials present at the above conference approved the Gauleiter’s proposals for further evacuation. (R-114)

A second memorandum, dated 17 August 1942, relating to a conference called by SS-Gruppenfuehrer Kaul, held at the Gauleiter office at Karlsruhe for the purpose of considering the deportation of Alsatians into Germany, states that the Gauleiter had reported to the Fuehrer with respect to the proposed evacuation of Alsatians. It is further stated that the Fuehrer verbally declared that “asocial and criminal persons” were to be expelled. The Gauleiter stated at the above conference that the action leading to such evacuation had already begun. The Gauleiter further declared that he intended to offset the loss of population as far as possible by transplantation of people from Baden, “thus creating a uniform race mixture.” (R-114)

A memorandum by Reichsleiter Bormann of a conference called by Hitler at his headquarters on 16 July 1941 (L-221), states, in part, as follows with respect to the maintenance of order in the occupied Eastern areas:

According to the above memorandum, the foregoing conference was attended by Reichsleiter Rosenberg, Reich Minister Lammers, Field Marshal Keitel, Reich Marshal Goering, and Bormann, and lasted about 20 hours. The memorandum states that discussion occurred with respect to the annexation by Germany of various parts of conquered Europe. The memorandum also states that a long discussion took place with respect to the qualifications of Gauleiter Lohse, who was proposed by Rosenberg at the conference as governor of the Baltic country. Discussion also occurred with respect to the qualifications of other Gauleiter and commissioners for the administration of various areas of occupied Russia. Goering stated that he intended to appoint Gauleiter Terboven for the “exploitation of the Kola Peninsula: the Fuehrer agrees.” With respect to the security of the German administration in the eastern areas, the memorandum states:

(d) Subversion of Christian Church and Persecution of the Clergy. The evidence relating to the systematic effort of the conspirators to eliminate the Christian churches in Germany is discussed in Section 6 of Chapter VII. The evidence hereinafter taken up is limited to proving the responsibility of the Leadership Corps and its members for participation in illegal activities against the Christian church and clergy.

Bormann, who was a Reichsleiter and Chief of the Nazi Party Chancellery, issued a secret decree addressed to all Gauleiter, entitled “Relationship of National Socialism and Christianity” (D-75). In this decree Reichsleiter Bormann flatly declared that National Socialism and Christianity are incompatible and that the influence of the churches in Germany must be eliminated:

On 25 April 1941 a letter was issued from Bormann’s office to Rosenberg, in his capacity as the Fuehrer’s Representative for the Supervision of the Entire Mental and Ideological Training and Education of the NSDAP (070-PS). In this letter Bormann’s office stated that measures had been taken leading to the progressive cancellation of morning prayers and other religious services and their substitution by Nazi mottos and slogans:

In a letter from Reichsleiter Bormann to Reichsleiter Rosenberg, dated 22 February 1940, Bormann declared to Rosenberg that the Christian religion and National Socialism are incompatible (098-PS). Bormann cited, as examples of hostile divergence between Naziism and the churches, the attitude of the latter on the racial question, celibacy of the priests, monasteries and nunneries, etc. Bormann further declared that the churches could not be subjugated through compromise, but only through a new philosophy of life as prophesied in Rosenberg’s writings. In this letter, Bormann proposed the creation of a National Socialist Catechism, in order to give that part of the German youth which declines to practice confessional religion, a moral foundation, and to lay a moral basis for National Socialist doctrines, which were gradually to supplant the Christian religions. Bormann suggested that some of the Ten Commandments could be merged with the National Socialist Catechism and stated that a few new Commandments should be added, such as: Thou shalt be courageous; Thou shalt not be cowardly; Thou shalt believe in God’s presence in the living nature, animals, and plants; Thou shalt keep thy blood pure; etc. Deputy of the Fuehrer Bormann concluded that he considered the problem so important that it should be discussed with the members of the Reich Directorate, comprising the top leaders of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party, as soon as possible. (098-PS)

At one point in this letter, Bormann stated:

After discussing various proposals for the formulation of a Nazi religious credo for instruction in the German school system, Bormann stated:

In a circular letter, dated 17 June 1938, addressed by Bormann as Reichsleiter and Deputy of the Fuehrer to all Reichsleiter and Gauleiter, there was enclosed a copy of rules prepared by Reichsleiter Hierl, setting forth certain restrictive regulations with respect to participation of the Reich Labor Service in religious celebrations (107-PS). Pertinent portions of the directives issued by Reichsleiter Hierl read as follows:

The position of Bormann as Deputy of the Fuehrer and chief of the Nazi Party Chancellery, and the position of Rosenberg as the Fuehrer’s Representative for the Whole Spiritual and Philosophical Education of the Nazi Party, give to the foregoing views on religion and religious policy the highest official backing. The anti-Christian utterances and policies of these two conspirator-defendants reveal a community of mind and intention amongst the most powerful leaders of the party which was amply confirmed by the actual treatment of the churches since 1933 and throughout the course of the conspiracy. An excerpt from page 514 of “The Myth of the 20th Century,” written by Rosenberg, reads as follows:

In addition to promoting beliefs and practices fundamentally incompatible with Christianity, the Leadership Corps participated in the persecution of priests, clergy, and members of religious orders. A Gestapo telegram, dated 24 July 1938, dispatched from Berlin to Nurnberg, deals with demonstrations and acts of violence against Bishop Sproll in Rottenburg (848-PS). The Gestapo office in Berlin wired its Nurnberg office the following teletype account received from its Stuttgart office of disorderly conduct and vandalism carried out by Nazi Party members against Bishop Sproll:

The Gestapo official in Stuttgart added that Bishop Groeber desired “to turn to the Fuehrer and Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick, anew”; and that he had found a full report of the demonstration after “suppressing counter mass meetings.” (848-PS)

On 23 July 1938 the Reich Minister for Church Affairs, Kerrl, sent a letter to the Minister of State and Chief of the Praesidium Chancellery, Berlin, stating that Bishop Sproll had angered the population by abstaining from the plebiscite of 10 April (849-PS). In this letter Kerrl stated that the Gauleiter and Governor of Wuerttemberg had decided that, in the interest of preserving the State’s authority and in the interest of quiet and order, Bishop Sproll could no longer remain in office. The letter reads in part as follows:

Kerrl further stated in the foregoing letter that his Deputy had moved the Foreign Office, through the German Embassy at the Vatican, to urge the Holy See to persuade Bishop Sproll to resign his Bishopric. Kerrl concluded by stating that should the effort to procure the Bishop’s resignation prove unsuccessful

On 14 July 1939 Bormann, in his capacity as Deputy of the Fuehrer, issued a party regulation which required party members entering the clergy or undertaking the study of theology to leave the party (840-PS). The last paragraph of the regulation reads as follows:

In this directive Bormann also referred to an earlier decree, dated 9 February 1937, in which he had ruled that the admission of members of the clergy into the party was to be avoided. In that decree also Bormann referred with approval to a regulation of the Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP, dated 10 May 1939, providing that—

In the Allocution of His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, to the Sacred College on 2 June 1945, His Holiness, after declaring that he had acquired an appreciation of the great qualities of the German people in the course of 12 years of residence in their midst, expressed the hope that Germany could rise to new dignity and new life once it had laid the satanic specter raised by National Socialism, and after the guilty had expiated the crimes they have committed (3268-PS). After referring to repeated violations by the German government of the Concordat concluded in 1933, His Holiness declared:

The Leadership Corps participated in the confiscation of church and religious property. A letter dated 19 April 1941 from Reichsleiter Bormann to Reichsleiter Rosenberg exposes the participation of the Gauleiter in measures relating to the confiscation of religious property (072-PS). The letter reads in part as follows:

On 21 February 1940, the Chief of the Security Police and SD, Heydrich, wrote a letter to the Reichsfuehrer SS, Himmler, proposing that certain listed churches and monasteries be confiscated for the accommodation of so-called racial Germans. (Himmler was a Reichsleiter in the Leadership Corps by virtue of his position as Reichsfuehrer of the SS.) After pointing out that, on political grounds, outright expropriation of religious property would not be feasible at the time, Heydrich suggested certain specious interim actions with respect to the church properties in question, to be followed progressively by outright confiscation (R-101-A). Heydrich’s letter makes the following statements:

On 5 April 1940, the Chief of the Security Police and of the Security Service SS sent a letter to the Reich Commissioner for the consolidation of Germandom, enclosing a copy of the foregoing letter from Heydrich to Himmler proposing the confiscation of church properties (R-101-A). The letter of 5 April 1940 stated:

A letter dated 30 July 1941 (R-101-C) written by an SS-Standartenfuehrer whose signature is illegible, to the Reich Leader of the SS, supplies further evidence of the participation of the Gauleiter in the seizure of church property:

Another letter, this one from the Chief of the Staff Main Office to Himmler, dated 30 March 1942, dealing with the confiscation of church property, evidences the active participation of the Party Chancellery in the confiscation of religious property (R-101-D). In this letter the Chief of the Staff Main Office reports to Himmler concerning the policy of the SS in suspending all payments of rent to monasteries and other church institutions whose property had been expropriated. The letter discusses a proposal made by the Reich Minister of the Interior, in which the Party Chancery prominently participated, to the effect that the church institutions should be paid amounts corresponding to current mortgage charges on the premises without realizing any profit. The writer further suggests that such payments should never be made directly to the ecclesiastical institutions but rather should be made to the creditors of such institutions:

The Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party participated in the suppression of religious publications and interfered with free religious education. In a letter dated 27 September 1940, Reichsleiter and Deputy of the Fuehrer Bormann transmitted to Rosenberg a photostatic copy of a letter from Gauleiter Florian to Hess, dated 23 September 1940, which expresses the Gauleiter’s intense disapproval on Nazi ideological grounds of a religious pamphlet entitled “The Spirit and Soul of the Soldiers,” written by a Major General von Rabenau (064-PS). The Gauleiter urges that the religious writings of General von Rabenau be suppressed. Florian also discusses a conversation he had with General von Rabenau at the close of a lecture delivered by the General to a group of younger Army officers at Aachen. This conversation illumines the hostile attitude of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party toward the Christian churches:

That the Party Chancellery shared the Gauleiter’s hostility to the Christian churches is further revealed by Bormann’s instruction to Rosenberg to “take action” on the Gauleiter’s recommendation that the General’s writings be suppressed. (064-PS)

Another letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, dated 8 March 1940, enclosed a copy of Bormann’s letter of the same date to Reichsleiter Amann (089-PS). Amann was a top member of the Leadership Corps by virtue of his position as Reichsleiter for the Press and Leader of the Party Publishing Company. In this letter to Amann, Bormann expressed his dismay and dissatisfaction that only 10 percent of the 3,000 Protestant periodicals in Germany had ceased publication for what are described as “paper saving” reasons. Bormann then advised Amann that “the distribution of any paper whatsoever for such periodicals” was barred (089-PS). Bormann also instructed Amann to make sharper restrictions in the distribution of paper against religious writings in favor of publications more acceptable to the Nazi ideology:

A further letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, dated 17 January 1940, expressed the Party’s opposition to the circulation of religious literature to the members of the German Armed Forces (101-PS). Pertinent excerpts from Bormann’s letter read as follows:

The Leadership Corps also participated in measures leading to the closing and dissolution of theological schools and other religious institutions. In a letter dated 17 April 1939 Bormann transmitted to Rosenberg photostatic copy of a plan suggested by the Reich Minister for Science, Education, and Training for the combining and closing of certain specifically listed theological faculties (122-PS). In his letter of transmittal Bormann requested Rosenberg to take “cognizance and prompt action” with respect to proposed suppression of religious institutions. The plan to suppress the religious institutions was summarized as follows:

A final letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, dated 24 January 1939, enclosed for Rosenberg’s cognizance a copy of Bormann’s letter to the Reich Minister for Knowledge and Education (116-PS). In the enclosed letter, Bormann informed the Minister as to the Party’s position in favor of restricting and suppressing theological faculties. Bormann stated that, owing to the effects of the introduction of military service, the consequences of the Four Year Plan, and the extraordinary lack of replacements, it would become necessary to carry out a reorganization of the German high schools. In view of these developments, he requested the Minister to restrict and suppress the theological faculties:

From the foregoing evidence it is clear the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party shares in the responsibility for the measures taken to subvert the Christian churches and persecute the Christian clergy, both in Germany and in German-occupied territories of Europe. The Prosecution stresses the significance of the appointment of Rosenberg, whose anti-Christian views are open and notorious, as the Fuehrer’s Representative for the Whole Spiritual and Philosophical Education of the Nazi Party. It was precisely this position which gave Rosenberg his seat in the Reichsleitung. But emphasis is placed not merely upon the fact that anti-Christs such as Bormann and Rosenberg held directive positions within the Leadership Corps, but upon the further fact that their directives and orders were passed down the chain of command of the Leadership Corps and caused the participation of its membership in acts subversive of the Christian Church.

(e) Destruction of the Free Trade Unions, Imposition of Nazi Control over the Productive Labor Capacity of Germany. The evidence relating to the destruction of the independent trade unions is discussed in Section 5 of Chapter VII. The evidence hereinafter taken up is offered to prove the responsibility of the Leadership Corps for participation in the smashing of the unions and the imposition of Nazi Party control over the productive labor capacity of the German nation.

Soon after the seizure of power (mid-April 1933), Reichsleiter Robert Ley was directed by Hitler to smash the independent unions. Reichsleiter Ley, in his speech to the Nurnberg Party Congress of 1936, declared:

In furtherance of the Nazi policy to destroy the independent trade unions of Germany, Ley issued a Party directive on 21 April 1933 outlining what was termed a “coordination action” scheduled for 2 May 1933 against the General German Trade Union Federation and the General Independent Employee Federation (392-PS). This directive ordered the SA and the SS to occupy trade union premises, seize trade union funds, and take into protective custody the higher union leaders.

Pertinent portions of Ley’s order provide:

Ley’s order for the dissolution of the independent trade unions was carried out as planned and directed. Trade union premises all over Germany were occupied by the SA and the unions dissolved. On 2 May 1933, the official NSDAP Press Service reported that the National Socialist Factory Cells Organization (NSBO) had “eliminated the old leadership” of “Free Trade Unions” and taken over their leadership (2224-PS):

This assault on the independent unions directed by Ley in his capacity as Reichsleiter in charge of Party Organization, assisted by the Gauleiter, and Party Formations, included the seizure of trade union funds and property. In a speech on 11 September 1937 to the 5th Annual Session of the German Labor Front (1678-PS), Ley admitted the confiscation of trade union funds.

The plan of the Nazi conspirators to eliminate the Free Trade Unions was advanced by the enactment on 19 May 1933 of a law which abolished collective bargaining between workers and employers and replaced it with a regulation of working conditions by Labor Trustees appointed by Hitler (405-PS). After providing in Section 1 for the appointment by Hitler of trustees of labor, this law provides, in Section 2:

Having destroyed the independent unions and collective bargaining, the next step of the Nazi conspirators was to Nazify industrial relations. The Law of 20 January 1934, entitled “Law Regulating National Labor,” imposed the Leadership Principle upon industrial enterprisers (1861-PS). Section I, paragraph 1, provided that the enterpriser should be the leader of the plant and the workers would “constitute his followers.” Section 1, paragraph 2 reads as follows:

The trade unions having been dissolved and the Leadership Principle superimposed upon the relationship of management and labor, the members of the Leadership Corps joined in and directed measures designed to replace the independent unions by the German Labor Front, the DAF, an affiliated Party organization. On the very day the Nazi conspirators seized and dissolved the Free Trade Unions, 2 May 1933, they publicly proclaimed that a “united front of German workers” would be formed with Hitler as honorary patron at a workers’ congress on 10 May 1933 (2224-PS). A release of the Nazi Party Press Agency stated:

The action committee, which supervised the smashing of the unions under Reichsleiter Ley, met with Hitler and reported that the independent unions had been effectively dissolved. The Fuehrer then consented to be Honorary Patron at the Great Workers’ Congress. (2224-PS)

The Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party was not only employed in measures taken to dissolve the independent unions, but certain of its members were given important and directive positions within the German Labor Front, the Nazi Organization which replaced the free trade unions. On 10 May 1933, Hitler appointed Ley Leader of the German Labor Front (DAF) (1940-PS). By the same edict, Hitler appointed Gauleiter Forster as Leader of the Employees’ Associations, and Schumann, Leader of the Nazi Factory Cell Organization (NSBO), as Leader of the Workers’ Associations. The Hitler edict stated:

The Nazi conspirators employed the German Labor Front (DAF) as an instrument for propagandizing its millions of compulsory members with Nazi ideology. The control of the Leadership Corps over the German Labor Front was assured not only by the designation of Reichsleiter Ley as head of the DAF, but by the employment of a large number of Politischen Leiter (political leaders) charged with disseminating Nazi ideology to the large membership of the DAF. These facts are apparent from pages 185-187 of the Organization Book of the NSDAP (2271-PS):

The foregoing evidence fixes upon the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party responsibility for participation in the measures leading to the destruction of the independent trade unions and to Nazi Party control over the productive capacity of the German Labor Movement. Not only were these actions directed by Ley in his capacity as Reichsleiter, but they were supervised on a regional basis by the Gauleiter as district representatives of the Leadership Corps. Moreover, the German Labor Front (DAF) which replaced the dissolved trade unions was an affiliated organization of the NSDAP and, as such, remained under the control of the Leadership Corps and was employed by it to nazify the labor population of Germany.

(f) Plunder of Art Treasures. The Leadership Corps of the NSDAP is also responsible for the plundering of art treasures by Reichsleiter Rosenberg’s Einsatzstab Rosenberg, the activities of which are discussed in full in Chapter XIV.

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE NAZI PARTY LEADERSHIP CORPS

3. THE REICH CABINET

The Reich Cabinet, or Reichsregierung, unlike most of the other Nazi organizations, was not especially created by the Nazi Party to carry out or implement its purposes. The Reichsregierung had, before the Nazis came to power, a place in the constitutional and political history of the country. As with other cabinets of duly constituted governments, the executive power of the realm was concentrated in that body. The Nazi conspirators well realized this fact. Their aim for totalitarian control over the State could not be secured, they realized, except by acquiring, holding, and utilizing the machinery of the State. And this they did. Under the Nazi regime the Reichsregierung gradually became a primary agent of the Nazi Party, with functions and policies formulated in accordance with the objectives and methods of the Party itself. The Reichsregierung became—at first gradually and then with more rapidity—polluted by the infusion of the Nazi conspirators sixteen of whom are accused in the Indictment. Its purpose came to be to clothe every scheme and purpose of the Party, however vile, with the semblance of legality.

A. Composition and Nature of the Reichsregierung.

The term Reichsregierung literally translated means “Reich Government”. Actually, it was commonly taken to refer to the ordinary Reich Cabinet. In the Indictment the term Reichsregierung is defined to include not only those persons who were members of the ordinary Reich Cabinet, but also persons who were members of the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich (Ministerrat fuer die Reichsverteidigung) and the Secret Cabinet Council (Geheimer Kabinettsrat). The most important body, however, was the ordinary cabinet. Between it and the other two groups there was in reality only an artificial distinction. There existed, in fact, a unity of personnel, action, function, and purpose that obliterated any academic separation. As used in the Indictment, the term “ordinary cabinet” means Reich Ministers, i.e., heads of departments of the central government; Reich Ministers without portfolio; State Ministers acting as Reich Ministers; and other officials entitled to take part in Cabinet meetings. Altogether, 48 persons held positions in the ordinary cabinet. 17 of them have been indicted as defendants. Of the remaining 31, eight are believed to be dead.

(1) The Ordinary Cabinet. Into the ordinary cabinet were placed the leading Nazi trusted henchmen. Then, when new governmental agencies or bodies were created, either by Hitler or by the Cabinet itself, the constituents of these new bodies were taken from the rolls of the ordinary cabinet.

When the first Hitler Cabinet was formed on 30 January 1933, there were 10 ministries which could be classified as departments of the central government. This fact appears from the minutes of the first meeting of that cabinet, which were found in the files of the Reich Chancellery and bear the typed signature of one Weinstein, who is described in the minutes as “Responsible for the Protocol—Counsellor in the Ministry” (351-PS). The ten ministers who attended are set forth:

In addition, Goering attended as Reichs Minister (he held no portfolio at that time) and Reichs Commissar for Aviation. Dr. Perecke attended as Reich Commissar for Procurement of Labor. Two state secretaries were present—Dr. Lammers of the Reichs Chancellery and Dr. Meissner of the Reich’s Presidential Chancellery. In addition, Funk was present as Reichs Press Chief, and von Papen was present as Deputy of the Reichs Chancellor and Reichs Commissar for the State of Prussia. (351-PS)

Not long afterwards new ministries or departments were created, into which leading Nazi figures were placed. On 13 March 1933, the Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda was created, and Paul Josef Goebbels was named as Reich Minister of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda (2029-PS). On 5 May 1933 the Ministry of Air (2089-PS), on 1 May 1934 the Ministry of Education (2078-PS), and on 16 July 1935 the Ministry for Church Affairs (2090-PS) were created. Goering was made Air Minister; Bernhard Rust, Gauleiter of South Hanover, was named Education Minister; and Hans Kerrl was named Minister for Church Affairs. Two Ministries were added after the war started. On 17 March 1940 the Ministry of Armaments and Munitions was established (2091-PS). Dr. Fritz Todt, a high party official, was appointed to this post. Speer succeeded him. The name of this department was changed to “Armaments and War Production” in 1943 (2092-PS). On 17 July 1941, when the seizure of Eastern territories was in progress, the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories was created. There was no published decree for this act. A file found in the Presidential Chancellery contains a typewritten copy of the decree of Hitler establishing that post (1997-PS). The decree provides:

During the years 1933 to 1945, one ministry was dropped—the Ministry of Defense (later called War). This took place on 4 February 1938, when Hitler took over command of the whole Armed Forces. At the same time he created the office of the “Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces” or Chief of the OKW. This was held by Keitel. The decree accomplishing this change provides in part as follows:

Another change in the composition of the cabinet during the years in question should be noted. The post of vice-chancellor was never refilled after the departure of von Papen on 30 July 1934.

In addition to the heads of departments mentioned above, the ordinary cabinet also contained Reich Ministers without portfolio. Among these were Frank, Seyss-Inquart, Schacht (after he left the Economics Ministry), and von Neurath (after he was replaced as Ministry of the Interior). Other positions also formed an integral part of the cabinet. Those were the Deputy of the Fuehrer, Hess, and later his successor, the Leader of the Party Chancellery, Bormann; the Chief of Staff of the SA, Ernst Roehm, for the seven months prior to his assassination; the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Lammers; and, as already mentioned, the Chief of the OKW, Keitel. These men had either the title or rank of Reich Minister.

The Cabinet also contained other functionaries, such as State Ministers acting as Reich Ministers. Only two persons fell within this category—the Chief of the Presidential Chancellery, Otto Meissner, and the State Minister of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Karl Hermann Frank. In addition, as named in the Indictment, the ordinary cabinet included “others entitled to take part in Cabinet meetings”. Many governmental agencies were created by the Nazis between the years 1933 and 1945, but the peculiarity of these creations was that in most instances the new officials were given the right to participate in cabinet meetings. Among those entitled to take part in Cabinet meetings were the Commanders in Chief of the Army and the Navy; the Reich Forest Master; the Inspector General for Water and Power; the Inspector General of German Roads; the Reich Labor Leader; the Reich Youth Leader; the Chief of the Foreign Organization in the Foreign Office; the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police in the Reich Ministry of the Interior; the Prussian Finance Minister; and the Cabinet Press Chief. These posts and officials comprising the ordinary cabinet all appear on the chart entitled “Organization of the Reich Government,” and authenticated by Frick (Chart Number 18). The persons who held these posts in the ordinary cabinet varied between the years 1933 to 1945. Their names are listed in the chart (Chart Number 18), which discloses that 17 of these officials are defendants in these proceedings.

(2) The Secret Cabinet Council. Proof that there was only an artificial distinction between the ordinary cabinet, the Secret Cabinet Council, and the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich, is shown by the unity of personnel among the three subdivisions. Thus, on 4 February 1938, Hitler created the Secret Cabinet Council (2031-PS):

It will be noted that every member of this group was either a Reichsminister or, as, in the case of the Army, Navy, and OKW heads, had the rank and authority of a Reich Minister.

(3) The Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich. On 30 August 1939 Hitler established the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich (better known as the Ministerial Council). This was the so-called war cabinet. The decree establishing this Council provided (2018-PS):

Again, all members of this group were also members of the ordinary Cabinet.

The Reich Defense Council, for secret war planning, was created by the Cabinet on 4 April 1933 (cf. the unpublished Reich Defense Law of 21 May 1935 (2261-PS)). The membership of that Council when first created is shown by the minutes of the second session of the working committee of the delegates for Reich Defense, dated 22 May 1933 and signed by Keitel (EC-177):

All but the Chiefs of the Army and Navy Command Staff were at that time members of the ordinary cabinet.

The composition of this Reich Defense Council was changed by an unpublished law on 4 September 1938, which provided as follows (2194-PS):

On that date all the members also belonged to the ordinary cabinet, for by that time the supreme commanders of the Army and Navy had been given ministerial rank and authorized to participate in cabinet meetings (2098-PS). It is also worth noting that two members of the Reich Defense Council also appear in the Ministerial Council under the same title—The Plenipotentiary for Administration, and the Plenipotentiary for Economy. The former post was held by Frick, while the latter was first held by Schacht and then by Funk. These facts are verified by Frick on the Nazi governmental organization chart (Chart Number 18). Many other ministries were subordinated to these two posts for war-planning aims and purposes. These two officials, together with the Chief of the OKW, formed a powerful triumvirate known as the “Three-Man College” (Frick, Funk, and Keitel) which figured prominently in war plans and preparations.

B. Functions of the Reichsregierung.

The utilization of the ordinary cabinet as a manpower reservoir for other governmental agencies, the chronological development of the offshoots of the ordinary cabinet, and the cohesion between all of these groups, is apparent from the Nazi governmental organization chart (Chart Number 18). The chart shows the following offshoots of the ordinary cabinet: 1933, the Reich Defense Council; 1935, the Three-Man College; 1936, the Delegate for the Four Year Plan; 1938, the Secret Cabinet Council; 1939, The Ministerial Defense Council; and 1944, the Delegate for Total War Effort (Goebbels). In every case these important Nazi agencies were staffed with personnel taken from the ordinary cabinet.

(1) The Ordinary Cabinet. The unity, cohesion, and interrelationship of the sub-divisions of the Reichsregierung was not the result of a co-mixture of personnel alone. It was also realized by the method in which it operated. The ordinary cabinet consulted together both by meetings and through the so-called circulation procedure. Under the latter procedure, which was chiefly used when meetings were not held, drafts of laws prepared in individual ministries were distributed to other cabinet members for approval or disapproval.

The man primarily responsible for the circulation of drafts of laws under this procedure was Dr. Lammers, the Leader and Chief of the Reich Chancellery. Lammers has described that procedure in an affidavit (2999-PS):

A memorandum dated 9 August 1943, which bears the facsimile signature of Frick and is addressed to the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, illustrates how the circulation procedure worked (1701-PS). Attached to the memorandum is a draft of the law in question and a carbon copy of a letter dated 22 December 1943 from Rosenberg to the Reich Minister of the Interior, containing his comments on the draft:

(2) Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich. The same procedure was followed in the Council of Ministers when that body was created. And the decrees of the Council of Ministers were also circulated to the members of the ordinary Cabinet. A memorandum found in the files of the Reich Chancellery and addressed to the members of the Council of Ministers, dated 17 September 1939, and bearing the typed signature of Dr. Lammers, Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, states (1141-PS):

Von Stutterheim, who was an official of the Reich Chancellery, comments on this procedure at page 34 of a pamphlet entitled “Die Reichskanzlei”:

For a time the Cabinet consulted together through actual meetings. The Council of Ministers did likewise, but those members of the Cabinet who were not already members of the Council also attended the meetings of the Ministerial Council. And where they did not attend in person, they were usually represented by the state secretaries of their Ministries. The minutes of six meetings of the Council of Ministers, on 1, 4, 8, and 19 September 1939, on 16 October 1939, and on 15 November 1939, demonstrate this procedure. (2852-PS)

At the meeting held on 1 September 1939, which was probably the first meeting since the Council was created on 30 August 1939, the following were in attendance:

These were the regular members of the Council. Also present was the Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture, Darré, and seven State Secretaries: Koerner, Neumann, Stuckart, Posse, Landfried, Backe, and Syrup (2852-PS). These State Secretaries were from the several Ministries or other supreme Reich authorities. Koerner was the Deputy of Goering in the Four-Year Plan; Stuckart was in the Ministry of the Interior; Landfried was in the Ministry of Economics; Syrup was in the Ministry of Labor.

The minutes dated 8 September 1939 (2852-PS) note that in addition to all members of the Ministerial Council, the following also were present:

Then come the names of nine State Secretaries from the several Ministries, and then:

The close integration of the Ministerial Council with the ordinary Cabinet is seen by the following excerpt from the minutes of the same date (8 September 1939):

The minutes of the meeting of 19 September 1939 (2852-PS) show the following Reich Ministers to be present in addition to four members of the Council:

Then come the names of eight State Secretaries. Others present included:

The minutes dated 15 November 1939 show the same co-mixture of Ministers, State Secretaries, and similar functionaries. In addition, the following were also present:

Some of the decrees passed and matters discussed at these meetings of the Ministerial Council are significant. At the first meeting of 1 September 1939 14 decrees were ratified by the Council. Decree No. 6 concerned

At the meeting of the Council on 19 September 1939 the following occurred;

Finally, at the meeting of 15 November 1939 the discussion concerned, among other things, the “treatment of Polish Prisoners of War”. (2852-PS)

The minutes of these meetings (2852-PS) not only establish the close working union between agencies of the state and the party, especially the SS, but also tends to establish that the Reichsregierung was responsible for the policies adopted and put into effect by the government.

C. Powers of The Reichsregierung.

But mere working alliances would be meaningless unless there was power. And the Reichsregierung had power. Short of Hitler himself, it had practically all the power a government can exercise.

(1) The Ordinary Cabinet. The Nazi conspirators secured the passage by the Reichstag of the “Law for the Protection of the People and the Reich,” of 24 March 1933 (2001-PS), which vested the Cabinet with legislative powers even to the extent of deviating from previously existing constitutional law. These powers were retained even after the members of the cabinet were changed, and the several states, provinces, and municipalities, which had formerly exercised semi-autonomous powers, were transformed into mere administrative organs of the central government. The ordinary cabinet emerged all-powerful from this rapid succession of events. Frick waxed eloquent upon that achievement in an article which he wrote for the 1935 National Socialist Year Book:

The heightened legislative power of the Cabinet is also emphasized in an article written by Dr. Franz Medicus, an official in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, and published in 1939 in Volume 4 of “Das Dritte Reich in Aufbau”:

When the Ministerial Council was formed in 1939, it too was given legislative powers (cf. Article II of the decree of 30 August 1939 (2018-PS)). The ordinary cabinet also continued to legislate throughout the war. Because of the fusion of personnel between the Ministerial Council and the ordinary cabinet, questions were bound to arise as to what forum should lend its name to a particular law. Dr. Lammers, Chief of the Reich Chancellery and a member of both agencies, wrote a letter on 14 June 1942 to the Plenipotentiary for Reich Administration about these questions (352-PS):

Other officials possessed legislative powers. Hitler was of course one. Goering, as Deputy of the Four Year Plan, could and did issue decrees with the effect of law. The Cabinet delegated power to issue laws deviating from existing law to the Plenipotentiaries of Economy and Administration and the Chief of the OKW, the so-called Three-Man College. This was done in the Secret Defense Law of 1938 (2194-PS). These three officials—Frick, Funk, and Keitel—however, were also members of the Council of Ministers and of the ordinary cabinet as well. It can therefore be said, in the language of the Indictment, that the Reichsregierung “possessed * * * legislative * * * powers of a very high order in the system of the German government.”

The executive and administrative powers of the Reich were concentrated in the central government primarily as the result of two basic Nazi laws that reduced the separate states (called Laender) to mere geographical divisions. One was the law of 30 January 1934, known as the Law for the Reconstruction of the Reich (2006-PS). By that law the States were deprived of their independent status as States, their legislative assemblies were abolished, and their sovereign powers were transferred to the Reich. The other was the Reich Governor’s Law, enacted by the Cabinet on 30 January 1935 (2008-PS), which made all Reich Governors (Statthalters) permanent delegates of and subject to the order of the cabinet and, more especially, of the Reich Minister of the Interior. As a result, the ordinary cabinet was possessed of wide powers, which are set forth in “Administration Law,” periodical published in 1944 which was edited by Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart, State Secretary in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, and Dr. Harry V. Rosen-v. Hoewel, an Oberregierungsrat in the Reich Ministry of the Interior (2959-PS). The description of the powers and functions of all the ministries of the ordinary cabinet illustrates the extent of control vested in the Reichsregierung:

Other important powers and functions contained in the ordinary cabinet were not included in the foregoing list. For example, upon the creation of the People’s Court on 24 April 1934, it was placed within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice (2014-PS). With the acquisition and occupation of new territories, the integration and coordination thereof were placed within the Ministry of the Interior. The Reich Minister of the Interior, Frick, (in some cases in cooperation with other Reich Ministers) was, by law, given regulatory powers over such territories. The territory and the applicable law may be listed as follows:

Such were the powers and functions of the ordinary cabinet.

(2) The Secret Cabinet Council. Of the other two subdivisions of the Reichsregierung—the Secret Cabinet Council and the Ministerial Council—the Secret Cabinet Council had no legislative or administrative powers. It was created by Hitler on 4 February 1938

Its position in the Nazi regime is described by Ernst Rudolf Huber, a leading Nazi Constitutional Lawyer, in his book entitled “Verfassungsrecht des Grossdeutschen Reiches” (“Constitutional Law of the Greater German Reich”). In this book, which was an authoritative, widely used work on Nazi Constitutional Law, Huber states (1774-PS):

(3) The Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich. The powers concentrated in the Ministerial Council, which did possess legislative and administrative functions, at its creation in 1939, are best expressed by the lecture which Frick gave before the University of Freiburg on 7 March 1940. The lecture, published in a pamphlet entitled “The Administration in Wartime,” contains these statements (2608-PS):

With such power concentrated in the Reichsregierung and to such a high degree, the Nazi conspirators possessed a formidable weapon to effectuate their plans.

D. Acts and Decrees of the Reichsregierung.

Under the Nazi regime the Reichsregierung became the instrument of the Nazi party.

(1) Execution of the Nazi Party Program. In the original Cabinet of 30 January 1933 only three cabinet members were members of the Party—Goering, Frick, and Hitler. As new Ministries were added to the Cabinet, prominent Nazis were placed at their head. On 30 January, 1937, Hitler accepted into the Party those Cabinet members who were not already members. This action is reported in the Voelkischer Beobachter, South German Edition, of 1 February 1937 (2964-PS):

It was possible to refuse the party membership thus conferred. Only one man, von Eltz-Ruebenach, who was the Minister of Post and Minister of Transport at the time, did this. His letter from von Eltz-Ruebenach to Hitler, dated 30 January 1937, reads as follows (1534-PS):

But the Nazis did not wait until all members of the cabinet were party members. Shortly after they came to power, they quickly assured themselves of active participation in the work of the Cabinet. On 1 December 1933, the Cabinet passed a law securing the unity of party and state (1395-PS). In Article 2 of that law the Deputy of the Fuehrer, Hess, and the Chief of Staff of the SA, Roehm, were made members of the Cabinet (1395-PS). Lest mere membership in the Cabinet would not be effective, Hitler endowed his deputy with greater powers of participation. An unpublished decree signed by Hitler, dated 27 July 1934, and addressed to the Reich Ministers, provides (D-138):

Hess himself made pertinent comment on his right of participation on behalf of the party, in a letter dated 9 October 1934, on the stationery of the NSDAP, addressed to the Reich Minister for Enlightenment of the People and Propaganda (D-139):

A handwritten note attached to the letter reads:

The participating powers of Hess were later broadened, according to a letter dated 12 April 1938 from Doctor Lammers to the Reich Ministers (D-140):

After Hess’ flight to England, Bormann, as Leader of the Party Chancellery, took over the same functions. He was given the authority of a Reich Minister and made a member of the cabinet. (2099-PS)

The Nazi constitutional lawyer, Ernst Rudolf Huber, has this to say about the unity of party and Cabinet (1774-PS):

In 1943, out of 16 Reich Leaders (Reichsleiters) of the NSDAP, eight were members of the Cabinet: Martin Bormann; Walter Darré; Otto Dietrich; Wilhelm Frick; Paul Josef Goebbels; Constantin Hierl; Heinrich Himmler; Alfred Rosenberg (2473-PS). Through its domination of the Cabinet the Nazi Party strove to secure the fulfilment of its program under a facade of legality.

(a) Decrees of the Ordinary Cabinet. To the Nazi Cabinet, the Nazi Party program of 25 points (1708-PS) was more than a mere political platform; it was a mandate for action. And the Cabinet acted.

Point 1 of this program declared:

In implication of this demand the Nazi Cabinet enacted, among others, the following laws: the law of 3 February 1938 concerning the obligation of German citizens in foreign countries to register (1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 113); the law of 13 March 1938 for the reunion of Austria with Germany (1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 237) (2307-PS); the law of November 1938 for the reintegration of the German Sudetenland with Germany (1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 1641); the law of 23 March 1939 for the reintegration of Memel in Germany (1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 559).

Point 2 of the Party platform stated in part:

The following acts of the Cabinet supported this part of the program: The proclamation of 14 October 1933 to the German people concerning Germany’s withdrawal from the League of Nations and the Disarmament Conference (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 730); the proclamation and law of 16 March 1935, for the establishment of the Wehrmacht and compulsory military service (1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, pages 369, 375) (1654-PS); and the defense law of 21 May 1935 implementing the last-named law (1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 609).

Point 4 of the Party platform read as follows:

Among the cabinet laws which implemented this point were these: the law of 14 July 1933 for the recall of naturalization and the deprivation of citizenship (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 480); the law of 7 April 1933 permitting persons of non-Aryan descent to be refused permission to practice law (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 188) (1401-PS); the law of 25 April 1933 restricting the number of non-Aryans in schools and higher institutions (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 225) (2022-PS); the law of 29 September 1933 excluding persons of Jewish blood from the peasantry (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 685) (1402-PS); the law of 26 June 1936, forbidding people of Jewish blood to hold positions of authority in the army (1936 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 518) (1398-PS); the law of 19 March 1937 excluding Jews from the Reich Labor Service (1937 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 325); the law of 28 March 1938 on the legal status of Jewish religious communities (1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 338); and the law of 6 July 1938 prohibiting Jews from participating in six different types of business (1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 823).

Point 23 of the platform proclaimed:

To carry out this point numerous Cabinet laws were passed, of which the following are merely examples: the law of 22 September 1933 for the establishment of the Reich Culture Chamber (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 661) (2082-PS); the law of 4 October, 1933 regarding editors (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 713) (2083-PS); and the law of 15 May 1934 regarding the theater (1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 411).

All the laws referred to above and hereafter were enacted specifically in the name of the Cabinet (Reichsregierung). A typical introductory paragraph reads:

In furtherance of the Nazi plans to acquire totalitarian control of Germany (cf. Section 1-2 of Chapter VII), the Cabinet passed the following laws: Law of 26 May 1933, providing for the confiscation of Communist property (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 293) (1396-PS); Law of 14 July 1933 against the new establishment of parties (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 479); Law of 14 July 1933 providing for the confiscation of property of Social Democrats and others (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 479) (1388-PS); and Law of 1 December 1933 securing the unity of party and state (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 1016). (1395-PS)

In the course of consolidating Nazi control of Germany, (cf. Section 3 of Chapter VII) the following laws were enacted by the Cabinet: Decree of the Cabinet, 21 March 1933, creating special courts (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 136) (2076-PS); Law of 31 March 1933 for the integration of States into the Reich (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 153) (2004-PS); Law of 7 April 1933 for the reestablishment of the Professional Civil Service (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 175) (1397-PS); Law of 7 April 1933 for the integration of states into the Reich (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 173) (2005-PS); Law of 30 June 1933 eliminating non-Aryan civil servants or civil servants married to non-Aryans (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 433) (1400-PS); Law of 20 July 1933 providing for the discharge of Communist officials (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 518) (1398-PS); Law of 24 April 1934 creating the People’s Court (1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 341) (2014-PS); Law of 1 August 1934 uniting the office of President and Chancellor (1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 747) (2003-PS); Law of 30 January 1935, Reich Governors Law, further reducing the independence of the states (1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 65); Law of 30 January 1935 providing for the abolition of representatives or deliberative bodies in the municipalities (1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 49) (2008-PS); Law of 26 January 1937, the comprehensive civil service law (1937 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 39); and Law of 18 March 1938 providing for the submission of one list of candidates to the electorate for the entire Reich (1938 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 258). (2355-PS)

Nazi extermination of political internal resistance in Germany, through the purge of political opponents and through acts of terror, (cf. Section 4 of Chapter VII), was facilitated and legalized by the following Cabinet laws: Law of 14 July 1933 against the new establishment of parties (containing a penal clause) (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 479) (1388-PS); Law of 3 July 1934 concerning measures for emergency defense of the State (legalizing the Roehm purge) (1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 529) (2057-PS); Law of 20 December 1934 on treacherous acts against state and party and for the protection of party uniforms (1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 1269) (1393-PS); Law of 24 April 1934 making the creation of new or continuance of existing parties an act of treason (1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 341) (2014-PS); Law of 28 June 1935 changing the Penal Code permitting punishment under analogous law (1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 839) (1962-PS); Law of 16 September 1939 permitting second prosecution of an acquitted person before a special court, the members of which were named by Hitler (1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 1841). (2550-PS)

The destruction of the free trade unions in Germany, (cf. Section 5 of Chapter VII), was made possible by the following Cabinet laws: Law of 4 April 1933 concerning factory representative councils and economic organizations (controlling employee representation) (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 161) (1770-PS); Law of 19 May 1933 concerning Trustees of Labor (abolishing collective bargaining) (1933 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 285) (405-PS); Law of 20 January 1934 regulating National Labor introducing leadership principle into industrial relations (1934 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 45) (1861-PS); and Law of 26 June 1935 establishing Reich Labor Service (compulsory labor service) (1935 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 769). (1389-PS)

Even the anti-Jewish Nurnberg laws of 15 September 1935, although technically passed by the Reichstag, were nevertheless worked out by the Ministry of the Interior. Dr. Franz A. Medicus, who served as Ministerialdirigent in the Ministry of the Interior, made this statement in a book published in 1940 (2960-PS):

(b) Decrees of The Council of Ministers. Decrees of the Council of Ministers similarly supplied the “legal” basis for other criminal actions of the Nazi conspirators. Among these laws are the following: Decree of 5 August 1940 imposing a discriminatory tax on Polish workers in Germany (1940 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 1077); Decree of 4 December 1941 regarding penal measures against Jews and Poles in the occupied Eastern Territories (1941 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 759) (2746-PS); and Decree of 30 June 1942 concerning the employment of Eastern Workers (1942 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, page 419). (2039-PS)

Almost immediately upon Hitler’s coming to power, the Cabinet participated in the Nazi conspiracy to wage aggressive war. This fact appears clearly from the minutes of the second session of the working committee of the Delegates for Reich Defense, dated 22 May 1933 and signed by Keitel (EC-177); from a letter dated 24 June 1935 and signed by von Blomberg, the Reichs Minister of War, which transmits a copy of the secret, unpublished Reich Defense Law of 21 May 1935 and also a copy of the decision of the Reich Cabinet of 21 May 1935 in the Council for the Defense of the Reich (2261-PS); and from a letter dated 5 September 1939 transmitting a copy of the secret, unpublished Reich Defense Law of 4 September 1938 (a note dated 4 September 1938 attached to this law states that the Reich Defense law of 21 May 1935 and the decisions of the Cabinet previously mentioned are repeated) (2194-PS). These three documents, important in the conspiracy to wage aggressive war emphasize the participation of the Reich Cabinet and Reich Ministers, through legislative enactments, in the conspiracy.

The Reich Defense Council was a creation of the Cabinet. On 4 April 1933 the Cabinet decided to form that agency (2261-PS). The circumstances of its creation were discussed at the meeting of 22 May 1933 (EC-177):

The composition of the Reich Defense Council is thereupon set out. Hitler was President; the Minister of Defense was his deputy; and he, plus six more ministers (there were only ten at that time) and the Chiefs of the Army and Navy Command Staffs were permanent members. The remaining ministers, as well as “leading industrialists”, were subject to call. Of the defendants who were then members of the Council, there was von Neurath as Foreign Affairs Minister; Frick as Interior Minister, Goering as Air Minister; and Raeder as Chief of the Navy Command Staff. (EC-177)

The presence of Cabinet ministers was indispensable. The cabinet by that time could legislate for the Reich. It had a definite role to play in this planning, as Keitel pointed out (EC-177):

Each separate ministry, moreover, was scheduled for a definite task.

The secrecy of all undertakings was stressed:

As time went on and greater concentration of power was needed, the Cabinet made changes and additions to this secret war planning body. Article 6 of the Secret Defense Law of 1935 (2261-PS) provided:

Schacht was named as Plenipotentiary for War Economy. It will be noted that the Reich Ministers for Food and Agriculture and for Labor, and the Reichs Forest Master (who by this time had Cabinet rank) had not been included in the original membership of the Reichs Defense Council. Darré was Minister for Food and Agriculture, Seldte for Labor, and Goering was Reich Forest Master.

On the same day the Law was passed, the Cabinet made these decisions covering the newly-created Plenipotentiary-General for War Economy (EC-177):

The complete reorganization of this Reich Defense Council took place in 1938, under the Secret Defense Law of 4th September of that year. By that time, there had been a reorganization of the Armed Forces: the chief of the OKW had been created and the War Ministry had been abolished (2194-PS). The Reich Defense Council in 1938 was composed of Goering, as permanent deputy and Minister of Air and Supreme Commander of the Air Force; Raeder as Supreme Commander of the Navy; Hess as Deputy of the Fuehrer; von Neurath as President of the Secret Cabinet Council; Frick as Plenipotentiary for the Reich Administration; Keitel as Chief of the OKW; Funk as Plenipotentiary for Economics; Ribbentrop as Minister of Foreign Affairs; Schacht as President of the Reichsbank directorate (2261-PS). An important part of the Reich Defense Council was the Working Committee. The minutes of the twelfth meeting of the Reich Defense Working Committee, on 14 May 1936, read (EC-407):

This Working Committee was still functioning in 1939. The Mobilization Book for Civil Administration of 1939 states, in part (1639-A-PS):

The composition of the Working Committee was redefined by the Secret Law of 1938 as follows (2194-PS):

The GBV and the GBW mentioned in the portion quoted above are, respectively, the Plenipotentiaries for Administration and for Economy. Under them were grouped other ministries, some of which were already permanent members of the Council. By paragraph 3 of the Secret Law the following were made subordinate to the Plenipotentiary for Administration: the Ministers of the Interior, Justice, Science and Education, Churches; the Reich Authority for Spatial Planning; and, for limited purposes, the Minister of Finance. Subordinate to and under the direction of the Plenipotentiary for Economy (a position formerly held by Schacht under the title “War Economy” and later held by Funk) were the ministers of Economics, Food, Agriculture, Labor, and for limited purposes, the Reich Finance Ministry and the Reichsbank; the Reich Forest Master; and the Commissioner for Price Control from the 4-Year Plan.

Paragraph 5 of the law (2194-PS) shows that subordinated to the Chief of the OKW were the Reich Postal Minister, the Reich Transportation Minister, and the General Inspector for German Highways.

This concentration of power by the Cabinet was for one purpose only: to plan secretly with the strongest means at hand for the waging of aggressive war. Further evidence of this objective is contained in an affidavit by Frick covering the place, activities, and scope of the Reich Defense Council, including the Three-Man College (2986-PS):

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE REICH CABINET

4. THE STURMABTEILUNG (SA)

The Sturmabteilung, or SA, is the organization which the world remembers as the “Brown Shirts” or Storm Troops—the gangsters of the early days of Nazi terrorism. Since it was the first of the organizations created by the Nazis as instruments to effectuate their illegal objectives, the SA occupied a place of peculiar importance in the scheme of the conspirators. Unlike some of the other organizations, the functions of the SA were not fixed or static. The SA was an agency adapted to many designs and purposes, and its role in the conspiracy changed from time to time various phases toward the final objective—abrogation of the Versailles Treaty and acquisition of the territory of other peoples and nations. If the conspiracy is likened to a pattern, with its various parts fitting together like the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle, the piece representing the SA would be found to constitute the essential link in the pattern.

The SA participated in the conspiracy as a distinct and separate unit, having a legal character of its own. An ordinance passed in March, 1935, provided that the SA and certain other agencies were thereafter to be considered “components” of the Nazi Party (1725-PS). This ordinance further provided, in Article 5, that:

Similarly, the 1943 Organization Book of the Nazi Party which characterizes the SA as an “entity,” declares:

While the SA was composed of many individual members, they acted as a unit. They were closely bound together by many common factors, including uniform membership standards and disciplinary regulations; a common and distinctive uniform; common aims and objectives; common activities, duties, and responsibilities; and a fanatical adherence to the ideologies conceived by the Nazis. Although membership in the SA was voluntary, the SA man was expected to withdraw if

The SA man was well schooled in the philosophies and activities which he was required to adopt in his daily life. Uniformity of action and thought in such matters was in part obtained by the publication and distribution of a weekly periodical entitled “Der SA-Mann.” This publication was principally devoted to fostering various aspects of Nazi ideology. In addition, “Der SA-Mann” reported upon the activities of the SA and its constituent groups.

The SA developed from scattered bands of street ruffians into a cohesive unit organized on a military basis, with military training and military functions, and with an aggressive spirit and philosophy. The organization extended throughout the entire Reich and was organized vertically into local subdivisions. Horizontally, there were special units including military, cavalry, communications, engineer, and medical units. These various groups and branches were coordinated by the SA Headquarters and operational offices, located in Munich.

A. The Relationship Between The SA and The Nazi Party.

The affiliation between the SA and the Nazi leaders was closely maintained, for the purpose of enabling the conspirators to employ the SA for any activity necessary in effectuating the objectives of the conspiracy. The SA was conceived and created by Hitler, in 1921, at the very inception of the conspiracy. Hitler retained the direction of the SA throughout the conspiracy, delegating responsibility for its leadership to a Chief of Staff. Goering was an early leader of the SA, and maintained close connection with it throughout the conspiracy. Hess participated in many of the early battles of the SA and was leader of an SA group in Munich. Frank, Streicher, von Schirach, and Sauckel each held the position of Obergruppenfuehrer in the SA, a position corresponding to the rank of Lieutenant General; and Bormann was a member of the Staff of the SA High Command.

The close relationship between the SA and leaders of the Nazi Party is demonstrated by the fact that the Hoheitstraeger (Bearers of Sovereignty) of the Nazi Leadership Corps were authorized to call upon the SA for assistance in carrying out particular phases of the Party program. For example, at page 71 of the Organization Book of the Nazi Party (1943 edition) the following statement is made (1893-PS):

This close relationship is further shown by an ordinance for the execution of a Hitler decree (2383-PS):

It was in compliance with the authority of the Leadership Corps that the SA was used in the seizure of trade union properties.

In addition, the SA demonstrated its close affiliation to the Nazi Party by participating in various ways in election proceedings. A pamphlet entitled “The SA,” depicting the history and general activities of the SA, written by an SA Sturmfuehrer upon orders from SA Headquarters, declares that the SA stood—

Further evidence of the close relationship between the SA and Nazi leaders is found in the distribution list of the confidential publication of the Nazi Leadership Corps, which shows that this strictly confidential magazine was distributed to Lieutenant-Generals and Major-Generals of the SA. (2660-PS)

The interest and participation of Nazi leaders in the activities of the SA is clearly shown in the issues of “Der SA-Mann” for the period from 1934 to March 1939 (3050-A-E-PS). Throughout these volumes there appear photographs of Nazi leaders participating in SA activities. The following are descriptions of a few of these photographs, together with the page numbers upon which they appear:

The work of the SA did not end with the seizure of the German government by the Nazis, but affiliation between the SA and Nazi leaders continued thereafter. The importance of the SA in connection with the Nazi Government and control of Germany is shown by the law of 1 December 1933 entitled, “The Law on Securing the Unity of Party and State” (1395-PS):

Similarly, a decree promulgated by Hitler providing for supervision of premilitary training by the SA declares:

The complete control of the SA by the Nazis at all times is shown by the so-called “Roehm Purge” of June 1934 (see 2407-PS). Roehm had been Chief of Staff of the SA for several years, and was responsible for the development of SA into a powerful, organization. SA members were required to take a personal oath of fidelity to Roehm. But when his policies conflicted with those of the Nazi leaders, he was removed, murdered, and replaced by Victor Lutze. This drastic action was accomplished without revolt or dissension in the ranks of the SA, and with no change in its objectives or program. The SA remained “a reliable and strong part of the National Socialist Movement * * * full of obedience and blind discipline,” whose function was to “create and form the new German citizens.” (2407-PS)

The importance of the SA in the Nazi plan for the utilization of the people of Germany is shown in Hitler’s pronouncement “The Course for the German Person,” which appears in the issue of “Der SA-Mann” for 5 September 1936, at page 22. Hitler’s statement reads as follows:

Thus the SA was constantly available to the conspirators as an instrument to further their aims. It was natural that Victor Lutze, the former Chief of Staff of the SA, in a pamphlet entitled “The Nature and Tasks of the SA,” declared:

B. Participation by the SA in the Conspiracy.

The principal functions performed by the SA in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy may be classified into four distinct phases, each of which corresponds with a particular phase in the progression of the conspiracy.

The first phase consists of the use of the SA and its members as the instrument for the dissemination of Nazi ideology throughout Germany. The employment of SA for this purpose continued throughout the entire period of the conspiracy. In the second phase, the period prior to the Nazi seizure of power, the SA was a militant group of fighters whose function was to combat all opponents of the Party. In the third phase, the period of several years following the Nazi seizure of power, the SA participated in various measures designed to consolidate the control of the Nazis, including the dissolution of the trade unions, the persecution of the church, and Jewish persecutions. During this period the SA continued to serve as a force of political soldiers whose purpose was to combat members of political parties considered hostile to the Nazi Party. The fourth aspect of SA activities consisted of its employment as an agency for the building up of an armed force in Germany in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, and for the preparation of the youth of Germany for the waging of an aggressive war.

(1) The Propagation of Nazi Doctrine. From the very start the Nazi leaders emphasized the importance of the SA’s mission to disseminate Nazi doctrines. The responsibility of propagating National Socialist ideology remained constant throughout. This is shown in an excerpt from Mein Kampf in which Hitler declared:

Hitler’s pronouncement as to the function of SA in this respect became the guiding principle of SA members, for Mein Kampf was taken to express the basic philosophy of the SA. The Organization Book of the Nazi Party declares that the training of SA members should consist of—

The Party Organization Book also declares that the SA is the

Similarly, in an article which appeared in “Der SA-Mann”, at page 1 of the issue of January 1934, the functions of the SA were set forth as follows:

The function of the SA as propagandist of the Party was more than a responsibility which SA took unto itself. It was a responsibility recognized by the law of Germany. The law for “Securing the Unity of Party and State,” promulgated by the Reich Cabinet in 1933, provided:

As the principal ideology bearers of the Nazi Party SA members were “the soldiers of an idea,” to use the expression employed by Nazi writers. Examples of the use of the SA as Nazi propagandist will be seen in the description of the other functions performed by the SA. For in each case the SA combined its propagandist responsibility instrument with the other functions which it performed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

(2) Strong-Arm Terrorization of Political Opponents. In the early stages of the Nazi Movement the SA combined propaganda with violence along the lines expressed by Hitler in Mein Kampf:

So that the Nazis might better spread their philosophies, the SA was employed to gain possession and control of the streets for the Nazis. Its function was to beat up and terrorize all political opponents. The importance of this function is explained in a pamphlet written by SA Sturmfuehrer Bayer, upon orders from SA Headquarters (2168-PS):

And in Mein Kampf Hitler defined the task of the SA as follows:

The importance of the work of SA in the early days of the Movement was indicated by Goebbels in a speech which appeared in Das Archiv in October 1935:

Specific evidence of the activities of the SA during the early period of the Nazi Movement (1922-31) is to be found in a series of articles appearing in “Der SA-Mann” entitled, “SA Battle Experiences Which We Will Never Forget.” Each of these articles is an account of a street or meeting-hall battle waged by the SA against a group of political opponents in the early days of the Nazi struggle for power. These articles demonstrate that during this period it was the function of SA to employ physical violence in order to destroy all forms of thought and expression which might be considered hostile to Nazi aims or philosophy.

The titles of these articles are sufficiently descriptive to constitute evidence of SA activities. Some of these titles, together with the page and reference of “Der SA-Mann” upon which they appear, follow:

As an example of the nature of these articles, the article appearing in the Franken Edition of “Der SA-Mann” for 30 October 1937, at page 3, is typical. It is entitled: “9 November 1923 in Nurnberg,” and reads in part as follows:

Through such means the SA was chiefly responsible for destroying all political elements hostile to the Nazis, including liberalism and capitalism. This is shown by an article which appeared on 6 January, 1934, at page 1 of “Der SA-Mann,” entitled “The SA Man in the New State!”

(3) Consolidation of Nazi Control of Germany. The Third function of the SA was to carry out various programs designed to consolidate Nazi control of the German State, including particularly the dissolution of the trade unions and the Jewish persecutions. In the words of an SA officer, it was the function of the SA to be the “tool for strengthening the structure of the new State,” and “to clean up” all that was “worth cleaning up.” It was generally employed, says the SA man, “where communism and elements hostile to the State still insolently dared to rebel.” (2168-PS)

SA groups were employed to destroy political opposition by force and brutality where necessary. As an example, an affidavit of William F. Sollman reads as follows:

Prior to the organization of the Gestapo on a national scale local SA meeting places were designated as arrest points, and SA members took into custody Communists and other persons who were actually or supposedly hostile to the Nazi Party. This activity is described in an affidavit of Raymond H. Geist, former U. S. Consul in Berlin:

In addition, SA members served as guards at concentration camps during this consolidation period and participated in mistreatment of the persons there imprisoned. A report to Hitler by the public prosecutor of Dresden concerning the Knollprosse of one Vogel, who was accused of mistreatment of the persons imprisoned in a concentration camp, reads as follows (787-PS):

Similarly, the SA participated in the seizure and dissolution of the German trade unions in 1933, a measure taken by the Nazis under the direction of Robert Ley. An official Nazi Party circular containing an order promulgated by Robert Ley concerning the program for the seizure of the union properties read as follows:

The SA also participated extensively in the Jewish persecutions conducted by the Nazis. The affidavit of Mr. Geist, former U. S. Consul in Berlin (1759-PS) sets forth numerous instances of attacks upon Jewish-American citizens. Mr. Geist also declares that on the morning after the Nazis’ acquisition of power, SA groups roamed the streets of Berlin seizing and beating Jewish persons and other political opponents of the Nazi Party. Thereafter SA men participated in many attacks of physical violence upon Jews, including Jewish-American citizens. In addition, uniformed SA men were employed as a display of threatening force in order to coerce Jewish persons to dispose of their property at greatly reduced values. (1759-PS)

SA participation in the Jewish program of 10 to 11 November, 1938, is disclosed in a confidential report of an SA Brigade Fuehrer to his Group Commander, dated 29 November, 1938 (1721-PS):

In connection with the persecutions of the Jews, the SA again performed its propaganda function. It was the function of the SA to create and foster among the people an anti-Jewish spirit. Evidence of this function is to be found in the issues of “Der SA-Mann”. Article after article in this publication was devoted to propaganda designed to engender hatred toward the Jewish race. The nature of these articles is apparent from some of the titles:

“Since the day when National Socialism unrolled its flag and the march began for the Germany for Germans, our battle also included the Jewry * * * Let the Jew continue with his methods against New Germany. We know that at the end we will remain the victor for

* * * “German women, if you buy from Jews and German girl, if you carry on with Jews, then both of you betray your German Volk and your Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, and commit a sin against your German Volk and its future! Then, also, outside of the last German village, the sign will stand ‘Jews are not wanted here!’ and then, finally, no German citizen will again cross the threshold of a Jewish store. To achieve this goal is the mission of the SA man as political soldier of the Fuehrer. Next to his word and his explanations stands his example”.

The circulation of these articles was not intended to be confined to members of the SA. On the contrary, the plan was to educate the members of the SA with this philosophy, and for the SA in turn to disseminate it into the minds of the German people. This fact is demonstrated in the introduction to a series of anti-Jewish articles entitled “Gravediggers of World Culture,” which began in the issue of 5 December, 1936, at page 6. This introduction stated in part as follows:

In addition, intensive campaigns were conducted to persuade the public to purchase and read “Der SA-Mann,” and various issues were posted in public places so that the general public might read them. “Der SA-Mann” itself contained several photographs showing particular issues posted upon street bulletin boards. There are also several photographs showing advertising displays, one of which reads as follows “Der SA-Mann belongs in every house, every hotel, every inn, every waiting room, and every store” (page 3 of the issue of 31 October, 1936). (3050-A-E-PS)

In view of such widespread publicity for the objectives and methods of the SA, it is inconceivable that volunteers for membership did not know of the criminal character of this organization.

(4) Fostering of Militarism. In the final phase of the SA in the conspiracy—its participation in the preparation for aggressive warfare—the SA was again employed to inculcate a particular Nazi ideology into the minds of the German people. It was the function of the SA to prepare Germany mentally for the waging of an aggressive war.

At all times, and especially during the period from 1933-39, SA leaders emphasized to SA members the duty and responsibility of creating and fostering a militaristic spirit throughout Germany. In 1933, Hitler established the so-called SA sports program and at that time, according to Sturmfuehrer Bayer in his pamphlet “The SA,”

In 1937, Hitler renewed the so-called sports program and then declared the program to be a means “for the fostering of a military spirit” among the German people. (3050-A-E-PS)

The Organization Book of the Party is to the same effect. The function of the SA is characterized as follows:

The contents of a number of articles designed to serve as war propaganda material may be gained from their titles, which are very graphic. A number of articles relate to the Nazi Lebensraum philosophy:

The next group consists of articles condemning the Versailles Treaty:

A third group consists of articles describing preparations for war allegedly being carried on by other nations:

These lists of articles are not exhaustive. These articles are merely typical of many in similar vein which appear throughout the issues of “Der SA-Mann.”

(5) The Training of German Youth for Aggressive Warfare.

The important responsibility of training the youth of Germany in the technique of war, and of preparing them physically and spiritually for the waging of aggressive warfare, was delegated to the SA. Hitler characterized this task of the SA in these words:

The military character of the SA is demonstrated by its organizational structure (2168-PS). As appears from the SA organizational chart, (Chart Number 8) it was organized into units closely corresponding to those of the German army. The organizational scheme consisted of divisions, regiments, battalions, companies, platoons, and squads. In addition, there were special units and branches, including cavalry, signal corps, engineer corps, and medical corps. There were also three officer training schools (2168-PS). SA members wore distinctive uniforms adapted to military functions, bore arms, and engaged in training, forced marches, and other military exercises. These facts are disclosed in photographs and articles in “Der SA-Mann”.

SA members, moreover, were governed by general regulations which closely resemble service regulations of an armed force (2820-PS). According to these regulations, “discipline and obedience are the foundations as strong as steel for each military unit.” These regulations further provide for punishment for disobedience. The punishments provided demonstrate the militaristic character of the SA. They include the following:

Preparation for war through the SA training program was commenced in Germany as early as 1933, but the scope of this program was not made public because it constituted a violation of the Treaty of Versailles. The strict secrecy with which the program was surrounded is shown by an order from the Chief of Staff of the SA dated 25 July, 1933 (D-44):

Secrecy was also required in the order assigning a Wehrmacht officer to the SA in January, 1934, to assist in the SA Training Program (2823-PS). A memorandum from SA Headquarters dated 20 January, 1934 designates an officer of the Wehrmacht to assist in the military training of SA members and goes on to provide:

The military training program of the SA was for many years conducted under the guise of a sports program. This plan was created by Hitler as early as 1920 in founding what he called the National Socialist Sport Troop (SA). Hitler’s declaration at the time of the creation of this sports organization was as follows:

The fact that the so-called Sports Program was in reality closely associated with and in fact a means of providing military training for German youth, is shown by the following characterization of the program by Lutze, the Chief of Staff of the SA, in an article written in 1939 (3215-PS):

The military nature of the Sports Program is likewise demonstrated by the tests and standards required to obtain the sports award. The Organization Book of the Party lists these tests as follows (2354-PS):

In 1939, the SA Sports Program was formally recognized, in a decree issued by Hitler, as a military training program. At the same time the SA was openly declared to be an agency for pre- and post-military training, that is, military training prior to and following military service in the Wehrmacht (2383-PS).

The decree provided in part as follows:

The SA military training program was not confined to its members, but extended to the entire youth of Germany. Thus the Chief of Staff of the SA, in re-establishing the sports program in 1935, declared (2354-PS):

The pamphlet entitled “The SA”, shows that responsibility for conducting this nation-wide program was lodged in the operational main office of the SA (2168-PS). According to the pamphlet it was the duty of this office to—

The extent to which the SA carried the military training program into the lives of the German people may be seen from the following excerpt from “Das Archiv” (3215-PS):

In 1939, the extension of the SA military program to non-SA members was officially recognized by Hitler. This occurred in the ordinance for the execution of the Hitler decree of 16 January, 1942:

The SA, in its military training program, was no mere marching and drilling society. It embraced every phase of the technique of modern warfare. This appears clearly from the articles on military training which appear throughout the issues of “Der SA-Mann”. The titles of these articles indicate their substance. The following are a few examples:

The issues of “Der SA-Mann” also contain many photographs and articles demonstrating SA participation in military exercise, including forced marching, battle maneuvers, obstacle runs, small calibre firing, and the like. Among these photographs and articles are the following:

C. Cooperation with the Wehrmacht in Preparation for Aggression.

Evidence of the SA’s participation in the conspiracy is found in the care which was taken at all times to coordinate the military training program of the SA with the requirements of the Wehrmacht. As early as 1934, an SA memorandum provided that the SA chief of training and his subordinates should remain—

The same memorandum recites that a Lieutenant-Colonel of the Wehrmacht was assigned to the SA with the duty of participating—

Another SA memorandum declared that:

Hitler’s words regarding cooperation between Wehrmacht and SA were as follows:

A speech by the Chief of Staff of the SA relating to the technical and specialized branches of the SA revealed that this opportunity for collaboration with the Wehrmacht in specialized military training was utilized to the utmost:

The specialized training given SA members, in accordance with the requirements of technical branches of the Wehrmacht, is described by SA Sturmfuehrer Bayer as follows (2168-PS):

And, with respect to the mounted or cavalry SA—

The close relationship between the SA and the Wehrmacht is shown throughout the issues of “Der SA-Mann”, which contain a number of articles on military training written by Wehrmacht officers. The same relationship is shown in many photographs. For example, in the issue of 1 May, 1937, at page 4, there is a picture of a Wehrmacht formation drawn up in front of an SA building with SA officers and men in the background. The picture is entitled—

Page 2 of the issue of 27 January, 1939, contains a photograph of the SA Chief of Staff, Lutze, addressing a group of SA men. The photograph bears the caption, “We will be the bridge between the Party and the Wehrmacht.” Page 3 of the issue of 3 February, 1939, reproduces a photograph of General von Brauchitsch and Chief of Staff Lutze reviewing an SA unit.

The close cooperation between the Wehrmacht and the SA, and the significance of the SA military training program is shown by the fact that service in the SA was considered as military service under the Conscription Law of 1935. The Organization Book of the Party declared that—

And an article in “Das Archiv” declared—

There was never any misunderstanding among SA men as to the reasons which lay behind their military training program. They were preparing for war and knew it. The purpose of the so-called “Sports Program” was announced time after time in articles in “Der SA-Mann.” For example, the introduction to an article entitled, “The War of Tomorrow,” which appeared in the issue of 6 July, 1937, at page 12, declared:

D. Participation of the SA in Warfare.

It would be natural in view of the above quotation, to expect the SA to have been used as a striking force in the first steps of the aggressive warfare launched by Germany, and as a basis for so-called Commando Groups. Such was the case. SA units were among the first of the Nazi military machine to invade Austria in the spring of 1938. This fact was proudly announced in an article appearing in “Der SA-Mann” for 19 March, 1938, at p. 10, entitled, “We were the First!” Similarly, the SA participated in the occupation of the Sudetenland (3214-PS). It was announced that conscripted SA men and Hitler Youths could fulfill their military conscription duty in the SA Regiment Feldherrnhalle, commanded by General Field Marshall SA Obergruppenfuehrer Goering. The regiment was employed for the first time as Regiment of the Luftwaffe in the occupation of the Sudetenland, under its Fuehrer and Regimental commander SA Gruppenfuehrer Reimann.

SA participation in the occupation of the Sudetenland is also shown by an affidavit of Gottlob Berger, a former officer in the SS who was assigned to the Sudeten-German Free Corps (3036-PS). Berger declares—

The adaptability of the SA to whatever purpose was required of it is demonstrated by its activities subsequent to the outbreak of the war. During the war the SA continued to carry out its military training program, but it also engaged in various other functions:

The SA even extended its activities into Poland:

An affidavit of Walter Schellenberg, bureau chief in the RSHA, reads as follows:

E. Special Responsibility of Goering for the SA Program.

Hermann Goering participated in the conspiracy in his capacity as an SA member and leader. In 1923, Goering became Commander of the entire SA. A few months later Goering participated in the so-called Munich Putsch. SA troops participated with him in this action.

Goering’s intention to employ the SA as a terroristic force to destroy political opponents is shown by a speech made by him on 3 March, 1933, at a Nazi demonstration in Frankfurt Am Main (1856-PS). Goering spoke as follows:

The importance of the SA under Goering in the early stages of the Nazi movement is shown by a letter written to Goering by Hitler (3259-PS):

Although Goering did not retain command of the SA, he at all times maintained a close affiliation with the organization. This is shown by the photographs of Goering participating in SA activities which have been mentioned previously. In 1937, Goering became Commander of the Feldherrnhalle Regiment of the SA. This was the Regiment which was employed in the occupation of the Sudetenland. (3214-PS)

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE STURMABTEILUNG (SA)

5. THE SCHUTZSTAFFELN (SS)

In the early weeks of the trial, there appeared in a newspaper circulated in Nurnberg an account of a correspondent’s visit to a camp in which SS prisoners of war were confined. The thing which particularly struck the correspondent was the one question asked by the SS prisoners: Why are we charged as war criminals? What have we done except our normal duty?

The evidence which follows will answer that question. It will show that just as the Nazi Party was the core of the conspiracy, so the SS was the very essence of Nazism. For the SS was the elite group of the Party, composed of the most thorough-going adherents of the Nazi cause, pledged to blind devotion to Nazi principles, and prepared to carry them out without any question and at any cost. It was a group in which every ordinary value was so subverted that today its members can ask, what is there unlawful about the things we have done?

In the evidence of the conspirators’ program for aggressive war, for concentration camps, for the extermination of the Jews, for enslavement of foreign labor and illegal use of prisoners of war and for the deportation and Germanization of inhabitants of conquered territories, in all this evidence the name of the SS runs like a thread. Again and again that organization and its components are referred to. It performed a responsible role in each of these criminal activities, because it was and indeed had to be a criminal organization.

The creation and development of such an organization was essential for the execution of the conspirators’ plans. Their sweeping program and the measures they were prepared to use and did use, could be fully accomplished neither through the machinery of the government nor of the Party. Things had to be done for which no agency of government and no political party even the Nazi Party, would openly take full responsibility. A specialized type of apparatus was needed—an apparatus which was to some extent connected with the government and given official support, but which, at the same time, could maintain a quasi-independent status so that all its acts could be attributed neither to the government nor to the Party as a whole. The SS was that apparatus.

Like the SA, it was one of the seven components or formations of the Nazi Party referred to in the Decree on Enforcement of the Law for Securing the Unity of Party and State of 29 March 1935 (1725-PS). But its status was above that of the other formations. As the plans of the conspirators progressed, it acquired new functions, new responsibilities, and an increasingly more important place in the regime. It developed during the course of the conspiracy into a highly complex machine, the most powerful in the Nazi State, spreading its tentacles into every field of Nazi activity.

The evidence which follows will be directed toward showing first, the origin and early development of the SS; second, how it was organized—that is, its structure and its component parts; third, the basic principles governing the selection of its members and the obligations they undertook; and finally, its aims and the means used to accomplish them.

The history, organization, and publicly announced functions of the SS are not controversial matters. They are not matters to be learned only from secret files and captured documents. They were recounted in many publications, circulated widely throughout Germany and the world—in official books of the Nazi Party itself, and in books, pamphlets, and speeches by SS and State officials published with SS and Party approval. Throughout this section there will be frequent reference to and quotation from a few such publications.

A. Origin and General Functions of the SS.

(1) Origin. The first aim of the conspirators was to gain a foothold in politically hostile territory, to acquire mastery of the street, and to combat any and all opponents with force. For that purpose they needed their own private, personal police organization. The SA was created to fill such a role. But the SA was outlawed in 1923. When Nazi Party activity was again resumed in 1925, the SA remained outlawed. To fill its place and to play the part of Hitler’s own personal police, small mobile groups known as protective squadrons—Schutzstaffel—were created. This was the origin of the SS in 1925. With the reinstatement of the SA in 1926, the SS for the next few years ceased to play a major role. But it continued to exist as an organization within the SA—under its own leader, however—the Reichsfuehrer SS.

This early history of the SS is related in two authoritative publications. The first is a book by SS Standartenfuehrer Gunter d’Alquen entitled “The SS” (2284-PS). This pamphlet of some 30 pages, published in 1939, is an authoritative account of the history, mission, and organization of the SS. As indicated on its fly leaf, it was written at the direction of the Reichsfuehrer SS, Heinrich Himmler. Its author was the editor of the official SS publication “Das Schwarze Korps”. The second publication is an article by Himmler, entitled “Organization and Obligations of the SS and the Police.” It was published in 1937 in a booklet containing a series of speeches or essays by important officials of the Party and the State, and known as “National Political Course for the Armed Forces from 15 to 23 January 1937”. (1992-A-PS)

As early as 1929, the conspirators recognized that their plans required an organization in which the main principles of the Nazi system, specifically the racial principles, would not only be jealously guarded but would be carried to such extremes as to inspire or intimidate the rest of the population. Such an organization would also have to be assured complete freedom on the part of the leaders and blind obedience on the part of the members. The SS was built up to meet this need. The following statement appears on page 7 of d’Alquen’s book, “Die SS” (2284-PS):

Carrying out Hitler’s directive, Himmler proceeded to build up out of this small force of men an elite organization which, to use d’Alquen’s words, was “composed of the best physically, the most dependable, and the most faithful men in the Nazi movement.” As d’Alquen further states, at page 12 of his book:

(2) General Functions. The conspirators now had the machinery of government in their hands. The initial function of the SS—that of acting as their private army and personal police force—was thus completed. But its mission had in fact really just begun. That mission is described in the Organizations book of the NSDAP for 1943 as follows:

This new mission—protecting the internal security of the regime—was somewhat more colorfully described by Himmler in his pamphlet, “The SS as an Anti-bolshevist Fighting Organization,” published in 1936 (1851-PS):

This conception necessarily required an extension of the duties of the SS into many fields. It involved, of course, the performance of police functions. But it involved more. It required participation in the suppression and extermination of all internal opponents of the regime. It meant participation in extending the regime beyond the borders of Germany, and eventually, participation in every type of activity designed to secure a hold over those territories and populations which, through military conquest, had come under German domination.

B. Organization and Branches of the SS.

The expansion of SS duties and activities resulted in the creation of several branches and numerous departments and the development of a highly complex machinery. Although those various branches and departments cannot be adequately described out of the context of their history, a few words about the structure of the SS may be useful.

For this purpose reference is made to the chart depicting the organization of the SS as it appeared in 1945. This chart was examined by Gottlob Berger, formerly Chief of the SS Main Office, who stated in an attached affidavit that it correctly represents the organization of the SS (Chart Number 3).

(1) Supreme Command of the SS. At the very top of the chart is Himmler, the Reichsfuehrer SS, who commanded the entire organization. Immediately below, running across the chart and down the right hand side, embraced within the heavy line, are the twelve main departments constituting the Supreme Command of the SS. Some of these departments have been broken down into the several offices of which they were composed, as indicated by the boxes beneath them. Other departments have not been so broken down. It is not intended to indicate that there were not subdivisions of these latter departments as well. The breakdown is shown only in those cases where the constituent offices of some department may have a particular significance in this case.

These departments and their functions are described in two official Nazi publications: The first is the Organizations Book of the NSDAP for 1943, at pages 419-422 (2640-PS). The second is an SS manual, which bears the title: “The Soldier Friend—Pocket Diary for the German Armed Forces—Edition D: Waffen SS” (2825-PS). It was prepared at the direction of the Reichsfuehrer SS and issued by the SS Main Office for the year ending 1942. In addition, the departments are listed in a directory of the SS published by one of the Main Departments of the SS (2769-PS). This document was found in the files of the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS. It is entitled “Directory for the Schutzstaffel of the NSDAP, 1 November 1944”, marked “Restricted”, and bears the notation “Published by SS Fuerhungshauptamt, Kommandant of the General SS. Berlin—Wilmersdorf.”

Returning to the chart, following down the central spine from the Reichsfuehrer SS to the regional level, the Higher SS and Police Leaders, the supreme SS commanders in each region are reached. Immediately below these officials is the breakdown of the organization of the Allgemeine or General SS. To the left are indicated two other branches of the SS—the Death Head Units (Totenkopf Verbaende) and the Waffen SS. To the right under the HSS Pf is the SD. All of which, together with the SS Police Regiments, are specifically named in the Indictment (Appendix B) as being included in the SS.

(2) Principal Branches of the SS. Up to 1933 there were no such specially designated branches. The SS was a single group, made up of “volunteer political soldiers.” It was out of this original nucleus that new units developed.

(a) The Allgemeine SS. The Allgemeine (General) SS was the main stem from which the various branches grew. It was composed of all members of the SS who did not belong to any of the special branches. It was the backbone of the entire organization. The personnel and officers of the Main Departments of the SS Supreme Command were members of this branch. Except for high ranking officers and those remaining in staff capacities, as in the Main Offices of the SS Supreme Command, its members were part-time volunteers. Its members were utilized in about every phase of SS activity. They were called upon in anti-Jewish pogroms of 1938; they took over the task of guarding concentration camps during the war; they participated in the colonization and resettlement program. In short, the term “SS” normally meant the General SS.

It was organized on military lines as will be seen from the chart (Chart Number 3), ranging from district and subdistrict down through the regiment, battalion, and company, to the platoon. Until after the beginning of the war it constituted numerically the largest branch of the SS. In 1939 d’Alquen, the official SS spokesmen, said, in his book, “The SS” (2284-PS):

Similar reference to the military organization of the General SS will be found in Himmler’s speech, “Organization and Obligations of the SS and the Police” (1992-A-PS), and in the Organizations Book of the NSDAP for 1943 (2640-PS). Members of this branch, however,—with the exception of certain staff personnel—were subject to compulsory military service. As a result of the draft of members of the General SS of military age into the Army, the numerical strength of presently active members considerably declined during the war. Older SS men and those working in or holding high positions in the Main Departments of the Supreme Command of the SS remained. Its entire strength during the war was probably not in excess of 40,000 men.

(b) The SD. The second component to be mentioned is the Security Service of the Reichsfuehrer SS, almost always referred to as the SD. Himmler described the SD in these words (1992-A-PS):

Although, as Himmler put it, the SD was only the intelligence service of the SS during the years preceding the accession of the Nazis to power, it became a much more important organization promptly thereafter. It had been developed into such a powerful and scientific espionage system under its chief, Reinhard Heydrich, that on 9 June 1934, just a few weeks before the bloody purge of the SA, it was made, by decree of Hess, the sole intelligence and counter-intelligence agency of the entire Nazi Party (2284-PS). Its organization and numbers, as they stood in 1937, were thus described by Himmler (1992-A-PS):

Up to 1939 its headquarters was the SS Main Security Office (Sicherheitshauptamt), which became amalgamated in 1939 into the Reich Main Security Office (or RSHA), one of the SS main departments shown on the chart (Chart Number 3).

The closer and closer collaboration of the SD with the Gestapo and Criminal Police (Kripo), which eventually resulted in the creation of the RSHA, as well as the activities in which the SD engaged in partnership with the Gestapo are discussed in Section 6 on the Gestapo. The SD was, of course, at all times an integral and important component of the SS. But it is more practicable to deal with it in connection with the activities of the whole repressive police system with which it functioned.

(c) The Waffen SS. The third component is the Waffen SS, the combat arm of the SS, which was created, trained, and finally utilized for the purposes of aggressive war. The reason underlying the creation of this combat branch was described in the Organizations Book of the Nazi Party for 1943:

The term “Waffen SS” did not come into use until after the beginning of the war. Up to that time there were two branches of the SS composed of fulltime, professional, well-trained soldiers: the so-called SS Verfuegungstruppe, translatable perhaps as “SS Emergency Troops”; and the SS Totenkopf Verbaende, the “Death Head Units.” After the beginning of the war, the units of the SS Verfuegungstruppe were brought up to division strength, and new divisions were added to them. Moreover, parts of the SS Death Head Units were formed into a division, the SS Totenkopf Division. All these divisions then came to be known collectively as the “Waffen SS”.

This development is traced in the Organization Book of the Nazi Party for 1943:

The function and status of the SS Verfuegungstruppe are described in a Top Secret Hitler order, 17 August 1938 (647-PS). That order provides, in part:

Immediately after the issuance of this decree, this militarized force was employed with the Army for aggressive purposes—the taking over of the Sudetenland. Following this action, feverish preparations to motorize the force and to organize new units, such as antitank, machine gun, and reconnaissance battalions, were undertaken pursuant to further directives of the Fuehrer. By September 1939, the force was fully motorized, its units had been increased to division strength, and it was prepared for combat. These steps are described in the National Socialist Yearbook for the years 1940 (2164-PS) and 1941 (2163-PS). The Yearbook was an official publication of the Nazi Party, edited by Reichsleiter Robert Ley and published by the Nazi Party publishing company.

After the launching of the Polish invasion, and as the war progressed, still further divisions were added. The Organizations Book of the Nazi Party for 1943 (2640-PS) lists some eight divisions and two infantry brigades as existing at the end of 1942. This was no longer a mere emergency force. It was an SS army and hence came to be designated as the “Waffen SS” that is, “Armed” or “Combat” SS. Himmler referred to the spectacular development of this SS combat branch in his speech at Posen on 4 October 1943 to SS Gruppenfuehrers, in these terms:

The transformation of a small emergency force into a vast combat Army did not result in any separation of this branch from the SS. Although tactically under the command of the Wehrmacht while in the field, it remained as much a part of the SS as any other branch of that organization. Throughout the war it was recruited, trained, administered and supplied by the main offices of the SS Supreme Command. Ideologically and racially its members were selected in conformity with SS standards, as shown by the recruiting standards of the Waffen SS published in the SS manual, “The Soldier Friend” (2825-PS). A section of that manual entitled “The Way to the Waffen SS,” reads:

The recruiting activities of the SS Main Office are illustrated by its recruiting pamphlet, “The SS Calls You,” an elaborate illustrated booklet containing full information covering the Waffen SS:

The SS Main Office, through which these recruiting activities were conducted, was one of the principal departments of the SS Supreme Command. It is shown on the chart (the second box from the left) (Chart Number 3). In the breakdown of that department, shown by the boxes underneath, will be found the central recruiting office.

Other departments of the Supreme Command performed other functions in connection with the Waffen SS. The SS Operational Headquarters (SS Fuehrungshauptamt)—the fifth box from the left—contains the Command Headquarters of the Waffen SS (Chart Number 3). The functions of this department are thus defined in the SS Manual, “The Soldier Friend”:

The SS Legal Main Office (Hauptamt SS Gericht) (indicated on the chart by the second box from the top on the right hand side within the heavy embracing line—(Chart Number 3)) controlled the administration of courts-martial and discipline within the Waffen SS. The secret Hitler order of 17 August 1938 (647-PS) had, it is true, provided that in the event of mobilization the SS militarized forces should come completely under military laws and regulations. That provision was modified by subsequent enactments: The decree of 17 October 1939 relating to special jurisdiction in penal matters for members of the SS and for members of police groups on special tasks (2946-PS); and the decree of 17 April 1940, entitled “Second Decree for the Implementation of the Decree Relating to a Special Jurisdiction in Penal Matters for Members of the SS” (2947-PS). These two decrees established a special jurisdiction in penal matters for various classes of SS members, including members of the SS militarized units, in cases which would ordinarily fall under the jurisdiction of the Wehrmacht; and created special SS courts to handle such cases under the direction of the SS Legal Main Office. Thus, in the vital question of discipline, as well as in recruiting, administration, and supply, the Waffen SS was subject to the SS Supreme Command.

The place of the Waffen SS as an integral part of the entire SS organization was strongly emphasized by Himmler in his address to officers of the SS Leibstandarte “Adolf Hitler” on the “Day of Metz”:

(d) The Totenkopf Verbaende.

The fourth component to be mentioned is the SS Death Head Units (SS Totenkopf Verbaende). Their origin and purpose are succinctly described by d’Alquen on page 20 of his book, “Die SS”:

Since the Death Head Units, like the SS Verfuegungstruppe, were composed of well trained professional soldiers, they were also a valuable nucleus for the Waffen SS. The secret Hitler order of 17 August 1938 (647-PS) provided for this task in the event of mobilization. The Totenkopf Verbaende were to be relieved from the duty of guarding concentration camps and transferred as a skeleton corps to the SS Verfuegungstruppe. Section II C, subparagraph 5, of that order provides: “5. Regulations for the case of the Mobilization.

(e) The SS Polizei Regimente.

The final component specifically referred to in the Indictment is the SS Police Regiments. The SS eventually succeeded in assuming controls over the entire Reich Police. Out of the police, special militarized forces were formed, originally SS Police Battalions, and later expanded to SS Police Regiments. Himmler, in his Posen speech, declared:

The results of this blend of militarized SS police and “savage peoples” will be seen in the evidence, subsequently referred to, of the extermination actions conducted by them in the Eastern territories. These exterminations which were so successful and so ruthless that even Himmler could find no words adequate for their eulogy.

(3) Unity of the Organization.

Each of the various components described above played its part in carrying out one or more functions of the SS. The personnel composing each differed. Some were part-time volunteers; others were professionals enlisted for different periods of time. But every branch, every department, every member was an integral part of the whole organization. Each performed his assigned role in the manifold tasks for which the organization had been created. No better witness to this fact could be called upon than the Reichsfuehrer SS, whose every endeavor was to insure the complete unity of the organization. The following words are taken from his Posen speech:

C. Selection, Training, and Obligations of Members.

To understand this organization, the theories upon which it was based must be kept clearly in mind. The underlying philosophy of the SS, the principles by which its members were selected, and the obligations imposed upon them furnish the key to all its activities. It is necessary, therefore, to consider them in some detail.

(1) The Racial Basis of the SS.

(a) The SS as a racial and biological elite.

The fundamental principle of selection was what Himmler called that of Blood and Elite. The SS was to be the living embodiment of the Nazi doctrine of the superiority of Nordic blood, and of the Nazi conception of a master race. In Himmler’s own words, the SS was to be a “National Socialist Soldierly Order of Nordic Men” (1992-A-PS). In describing to the Wehrmacht the reasons behind his emphasis on racial standards of selection and the manner in which they were carried out, he said:

Further on in the same speech, Himmler described the selection of candidates for his organization:

This same strict selection process for the SS was somewhat similarly described in the Organizations Book of the Nazi Party for 1943:

The creation of a racial and biological elite had some very practical reasons behind it. The conspirators’ plans for conquest and exploitation of the conquered territories required the development of a Nazi aristocracy which would dominate Germany and Europe for centuries to come. That purpose was explicitly stated by Himmler in his Posen speech:

He forcibly made the same point in his address to officers of the SS Leibstandarte “Adolph Hitler” on the “Day of Metz”:

Since the SS was to be made a Nazi aristocracy which would dominate not only Germany but the world for centuries to come, it was essential that the SS stock be perpetuated. To insure the continuance of this good blood, the first step was to limit marriages of SS men to women meeting the same requirements as to health, descent, and ideological background as the SS man himself. This was accomplished by an order of the Reichsfuehrer SS issued on 31 December 1931. This SS marriage law is set out in full in d’Alquen’s Book, “The SS,” (2284-PS). But proper marriages were not enough without children. A series of orders took care of that. On 13 September 1936, Himmler issued an order entitled “Foundation of the Organization ‘Lebensborn e.V.’ ”, published in the SS manual, “The Soldier Friend”:

The drive for perpetuation of SS stock was continued. A further order of Himmler, issued on 28 October 1939, directed to the entire SS and the Police, is also published in the SS manual, “The Soldier Friend”:

A final order designed to assure continuance of good SS blood was issued on 15 August 1942, entitled “SS Orders to the Last Sons”, also published in “The Soldier Friend”:

These orders were not the product of some benevolent theorist in eugenics who was interested in large and happy SS families for their own sake. They stemmed from a basic idea of the conspiracy, the plan to insure Germany’s continued capacity to wage war for generations. Himmler put this theory very bluntly in his speech to officers of the SS Leibstandarte “Adolf Hitler” on the “Day of Metz”:

(b) The SS as an exterminator of “inferior” races.

Domination of Europe through a Nazi Elite required more, however, than the positive side of racism—that is, the building up of a numerous “biologically superior” group. It necessarily meant also the destruction of other races. The SS had to be, and was, taught not merely to breed, but to exterminate. In a speech delivered at Kharkov in April 1943, Himmler declared:

But it was not merely against Jews that SS efforts were directed. All non-Nordic races were similarly condemned. In his Posen speech, Himmler stated this basic principle of the SS:

(c) Indoctrination of members in SS racial theories. These were the principles which were publicly reiterated, over and over again, so that the newest recruit was thoroughly steeped in them. In his Kharkov speech to the commanding officers of three Waffen SS divisions, Himmler strongly insisted on indoctrinating all SS members in his theories of the racial struggle.

This function of the SS men in the racial struggle was publicly proclaimed in the Organizations Book of the NSDAP for 1943:

(2) The Obligation of Obedience. Indoctrination of the organization in principles of racial hatred was not enough. The members had to be ready and willing tools, prepared to carry out tasks of any nature, however distasteful, illegal or inhuman. Absolute obedience was the necessary second foundation stone of the SS. The Organizations Book of the NSDAP for 1943 thus describes this fundamental requirement:

The same point was emphasized by Himmler in the Posen speech:

(3) The SS as a Terroristic Agency. A necessary corollary of these two fundamental principles of race and of blind obedience was ruthlessness. Subsequent evidence of SS activities will prove how successfully the SS learned the lesson it was taught. The SS had to and did develop a reputation for terror which was carefully cultivated. Himmler himself attested to it as early as 1936 in a speech publicly delivered at the Peasant’s Day Rally and subsequently published and circulated in pamphlet form under the title “The SS as an Anti-bolshevist Fighting Organization”:

(4) Continuance of the Elite and Voluntary Character of the SS. The role which the SS was to play required that it remain constantly the essence of Naziism, and that its elite Nazi quality never be diluted. For this reason the SS was for a time temporarily closed to new members, and those who had proved unfit were weeded out. Himmler described this process in his article “Organization and Obligations of the SS and the Police” (1992-A-PS). Referring to the influx of new adherents to the Party and its organizations in 1933, he said:

These standards were not abandoned later. Indeed, in 1943 the Organizations Book of the Nazi Party stated that:

And in the same year, 1943, Himmler emphasized this point in a letter written to Kaltenbrunner (2768-PS).

This letter from the Reichsfuehrer SS, which bears the date 24 April 1943, states in part as follows:

(5) Method of Acquiring Membership in the SS. The normal method by which membership in the SS was attained was discussed by Himmler in his article, “Organization and Obligations of the SS and Police”:

The oath to the Fuehrer, referred to by Himmler in the passage just quoted, appears in the SS recruiting pamphlet, “The SS Calls You”:

D. Criminal Aims and Activities of the SS.

(1) The Purge of 20[sic] June 1934. Proof of the elite Nazi quality and thorough reliability of the SS, the test by which it won its spurs, occurred on 30 June 1934, when it participated in the purge of the SA and other opponents or potential opponents of the Nazi regime. That was the first real occasion for use of this specialized organization which could operate with the blessing of the Nazi State but outside the law. In an affidavit signed and sworn to in Nurnberg on 19 November 1945, Wilhelm Frick says, referring to the victims of that purge:

Himmler referred to this same event in his Posen speech:

It was in recognition of its services in this respect that the SS was elevated to the status of a component of the Party equal in rank to the SA and other similar branches. The following announcement appeared on page 1 of the Voelkischer Beobachter of 26 July 1934:

(2) Functions as a Repressive Police Organization.

One of the first steps essential to the security of any regime is control of the police. The SS was the type of organization which the conspirators needed for this purpose. Their aim was to fuse the SS and police, and to merge them into a single, unified repressive force.

Shortly after the seizure of power the conspirators began to develop as part of the state machinery, secret political police forces. These originated in Prussia with the Gestapo, established by decree of Goering in April 1933, and were duplicated in the other German States. (This development is discussed in Section 6 on the Gestapo.) By 1934 Himmler, the Reichsfuehrer SS, had become the chief of these secret political police forces in each of the German states except Prussia, and deputy chief of the Prussian Gestapo. In that capacity he infiltrated these forces with members of the SS until a virtual identity of membership was assured.

On 17 June 1936, by Decree on the Establishment of a Chief of the German Police (2073-PS), the new post of Chief of the German Police was created in the Ministry of the Interior. Under the terms of the decree, Himmler was appointed to this post with the title of “Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police in the Ministry of the Interior.” The combination of these two positions, that of leadership of the SS and head of all the police forces in the Reich, was no accident but was intended to establish a permanent relation between the two bodies and not a mere “transitory fusion of personnel.” The significance of the combination of these two positions was referred to by Hitler in the preamble to his secret order of 17 August 1938:

Upon his appointment, Himmler immediately proceeded to reorganize the entire Reich Police Force, designating two separate branches: (1) the regular uniformed police force (Ordnungspolizei, or Orpo), and (2) the Security Police (Sicherheitspolizei, or Sipo). The Sipo was composed of all criminal police organizations in the Reich and all the secret political police forces, or Gestapo. This reorganization was achieved by the Decree Assigning Functions in the Office of the Chief of the German Police (1551-PS). To be head of the Sipo, that is the criminal police and Gestapo, Himmler appointed Reinhard Heydrich, who was at that time the Chief of the SD. Thus, through Himmler’s dual capacity as leader of the SS and as Chief of the Police, and through Heydrich’s dual capacity as head of the Sipo and as chief of the SD, a unified personal command of the SS and Security Police Forces was achieved. But further steps toward unification were later taken. In 1939, the Security Police and the SD were combined in a single department, the Reich Security Main Office, commonly referred to as the RSHA. (The details of the organization of the RSHA are discussed in Section 6 on the Gestapo.) The important point to be observed is this: The newly created Reich Security Main Office was not a mere department of the Government. It was a dual body: an agency of the government, organizationally placed in the Department of the Interior, and at the same time one of the principal departments of the SS, organizationally placed in the Supreme Command of the SS. (cf. the chart of the SS organization (Chart Number 3)). The following description of the RSHA appears in the Organizations Book of the NSDAP for 1943:

The position of the RSHA in the Supreme Command of the SS is also similarly described in the SS manual, “The Soldier Friend”. (2825-PS)

But it was not merely the Gestapo and the Criminal Police which came under the sway of the SS. The regular uniformed police as well were affected. For, like the RSHA, the Department of the Regular Police (Ordnungspolizei, or Orpo), was not merely a department in the Ministry of the Interior, but also simultaneously in the Supreme Command of the SS. Its position in the SS is indicated by the seventh box on the chart of the SS organization (Chart Number 3). The following description of the Department of the Regular Police appears in the Organizations Book of the NSDAP for 1943:

The position of this Department in the SS Supreme Command is also similarly described in the SS Manual, “The Soldier Friend”. (2825-PS)

This unity of the Command was not a mere matter of the highest headquarters. It extended down to the operating level. As the chart shows, the Higher SS and Police Leader in each region, who was directly subordinate to Himmler, had under his command both the Security Police and the regular, uniformed police (Chart Number 3). These forces were subject to his orders as well as to those of the RSHA and the Department of the Regular Police respectively. This position of the Higher SS and Police Leader is described in the Organizations Book of the NSDAP for 1943. (2640-PS)

SS control of the police was, however, not only a matter of organization and of unified command. Unity of personnel was also in large measure achieved. Vacancies occurring in the police forces were filled by SS members; police officials retained in the force were urged to join the SS; and schools operated by the SS were the required training centers for police as well as SS officials. These measures are described in Himmler’s article, “Organization and Obligations of the SS and the Police” (1992-A-PS). They are also described in an authoritative book on the police and on the SS, entitled “The German Police,” written by Dr. Werner Best, a Ministerial Director in the Ministry of the Interior and a department head in the Security Police and published in 1940. It bears on its flyleaf the imprimatur of the Nazi Party and is listed in the official list of National Socialist Party bibliography. Chapter 7 from that book is reproduced in document (1852-PS). Reference is also made to the order of the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police of 23 June 1938, entitled “Acceptance of Members of the Security Police into the SS” (1637-PS). In that order provision was made for admitting members of the Security Police into the SS upon certain conditions. The preamble of the order states that it was issued “with the aim of fusing members of the German Police with the ‘Schutzstaffel’ of the National Socialist German Workers Party into one uniformly turned out State Protective Corps of the National Socialist Reich” (1637-PS). Parenthetically, it should be observed that even this aim was not sufficient to cause a relaxation of SS admission standards since the order provided that, to be admitted as an SS member, personnel of the Security Police were obliged to fulfill the general requirements of the SS (its racial and ideological standards).

Through this unity of organization and personnel, the SS and the police became identified in structure and in activity. The resulting situation was described by Best as follows:

As Himmler stated in his address to the officers of SS-Leibstandarte “Adolph Hitler” on the “Day of Metz”:

Through the police the SS was in a position to carry out a large part of the functions assigned to it. The working partnership between Gestapo, the criminal police, and the SD, under the direction of the Reichsfuehrer SS, resulted in the ultimate in repressive and unrestrained police activity. (cf. the discussion in Section 6 on the Gestapo.) It must be remembered that the Gestapo activities were but one aspect of SS functions—one part of the whole criminal SS scheme.

(3) Functions and Activities with Respect to Concentration Camps. Control over the police, however, was not enough. Potential sources of opposition could be tracked down by the SD. Suspects could be seized by the criminal police and Gestapo. But those means alone would not assure the complete suppression of all opponents and potential opponents of the regime. For this purpose concentration camps were invented, and the SS was given large responsibility in that system.

(a) Criminal activities of SS guards and camp personnel. The first requirement of the camps was for guard and administrative personnel. Part-time volunteer members of the Allgemeine SS were originally utilized as guards. But part-time volunteers could not adequately serve the need of the extensive and long-range program that was planned. Hence, beginning in 1933 full-time professional guard units (the SS Totenkopf Verbaende) were organized. Their very name (“Death Head Units”) and their distinguishing insignia, the skull and cross bones, appropriately marked the type of activity in which they engaged.

During the war, members of the Allgemeine SS resumed the function of guarding the camps which they had undertaken when the camps were created. This was provided for in the Hitler order of 17 August 1938 (647-PS) directing the substitution of Allgemeine SS members for the Death Head Units in the event of mobilization. That substitution took place. In reviewing the events of the period between 1938 and 1940, significant for the SS, the National Socialist Yearbook of 1940 congratulated the Allgemeine SS on the performance of its new mission:

It is unnecessary to repeat the evidence of wholesale brutalities, tortures, and murders committed by SS guards. These were not sporadic crimes committed by irresponsible individuals. They were a part of a definite and calculated policy, which necessarily resulted from SS philosophy, and which was carried out from the initial creation of the camps.

Himmler bluntly explained to the Wehrmacht in 1937 the prevailing view of the SS as to the inmates of concentration camps:

Even these “slave-like souls,” however, might be redeemed by SS hygienic measures. For, as Himmler continued:

Despite this callous jest to the Wehrmacht, all pretense was swept away in Himmler’s speech to his own Gruppenfuehrers at Posen:

Certainly there was no “silly humanitarianism” in the manner in which SS men performed their task. An illustration of their conduct, not in 1944 or 1945 but in 1933, is shown in four reports relating to the deaths of four different inmates of the Concentration Camp Dachau between May 16 and 27, 1933. Each report is signed by Winterberger, the Public Prosecutor of the District Court in Munich, and addressed to the Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of Munich. The first (641-PS) 1 June 1933, relates to the death of Dr. Alfred Strauss, a prisoner in protective custody in Dachau. That report states:

The second (642-PS) also 1 June 1933, relates to the death of Leonhard Hausmann, another prisoner in Dachau. That letter states:

The third (644-PS) 22 May 1933, relates to the death of Louis Schloss, an inmate of Dachau. Attached to the letter is a copy of a report of the autopsy conducted in the Schloss case, signed by the examining physicians. The letter of 22 May 1933, begins:

The preliminary opinion of the examining physician states:

The fourth (645-PS) 1 June 1933, relates to the death of Sebastian Nefzger, another Dachau prisoner. The letter reads:

These four murders, committed within the short space of two weeks in the Spring of 1933, each by different SS guards, are but a few examples of SS activities in the camps even as early as 1933. Many similar examples from that period and later periods could be produced.

Indeed, that sort of thing was officially encouraged. Disciplinary Regulations for the Dachau Concentration Camp were issued on 1 October 1933 by SS Fuehrer Eicke, who later became commander of all the Death Head Units (778-PS). The fourth paragraph of the introduction of those rules provides:

So many inmates were killed “while trying to escape,” to use the pat official phrase, that by 1936 the Minister of Justice was moved to appeal to Himmler to regulate the use of firearms by the Death Head Units. A memorandum 9 March 1936, prepared by Minister of Justice Guertner, reads as follows:

The memorandum bears the pencil notation, “Initiative with Himmler”. Subsequent events showed how Himmler carried out this initiative.

(b) Administration of concentration camps through SS agencies. Furnishing guard personnel was not the only function of the SS with relation to the camps. The entire internal management of the camps, including the use of prisoners, their housing, clothing, sanitary conditions, the determination of their right to live and the disposal of their remains, was controlled by the SS. Such management was first vested in the leader of the SS Death Head Units, who also had the title of Inspector of the Concentration Camps. This official was originally a part of the SS Main Office (SS Hauptamt), represented on the chart by the second box from the left (Chart Number 3).

During the course of the war, in March 1942, control of concentration camps was transferred to another of the departments of the SS Supreme Command, the SS Economic and Administration Main Office (commonly known as WVHA). That department is indicated on the chart by the third box from the left (Chart Number 3).

That change was announced in a letter to Himmler 30 April 1942 from SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen SS Pohl, the Chief of WVHA (R-129). In that letter Pohl reported on the measures he had taken to carry out Himmler’s order of 3 March 1942 to transform the camps into large scale economic enterprises, and inclosed an order to all concentration camp commanders which provided that no longer was there to be any limit on working hours in the camps. (R-129)

(c) SS control of concentration camps and the slave labor program. This shift of control to WVHA coincided with the change in the basic purposes of the concentration camps. Political and security reasons, which previously had been the grounds for confinement, were abandoned and the camps were made to serve the Nazi slave labor program.

To satisfy the increased demands for manpower it was not enough to work the inmates of the camp harder. More inmates had to be obtained. Through its police arm, the SS was prepared to satisfy this demand. On 17 December 1942 an order was issued to all commanders of the Security Police and SD directing that at least 35,000 prisoners qualified for work be sent immediately to the concentration camps (1063-D-PS). Thirty-five thousand prisoners was, of course, merely the beginning. The SS dragnet was capable of catching many more slaves. A directive to all the departments of the SS Supreme Command signed by Himmler at his field headquarters on 5 August 1943, ordered the collection of men, women, and children for work in coal mines (744-PS). This directive implements an order signed by Keitel directing the use of all males captured in guerilla fighting in the East for forced labor (744-PS). The Himmler directive, it will be noted, is addressed to every main office in the SS Supreme Command:

In April 1944 the SS was called on to produce even more laborers, this time 100,000 to be drawn from Hungarian Jews, as shown by the minutes of Speer’s discussion with Himmler on 6 and 7 April 1944. (R-124)

The last source of manpower had not been tapped. To Jews, deportees, women and children, there was added the productive power of prisoners of war. Naturally enough it was through the SS that the conspirators squeezed the last drop of labor from such prisoners. Speer’s minutes of his conference with the Fuehrer on 5 March 1944, state:

That matters were soon arranged is shown by Speer’s statement made at the 58th discussion of the Central Planning Board on 25 May 1944 (R-124):

Finally, in order to insure SS control over the labor of prisoners of war, the Reichsfuehrer SS was appointed by Hitler as head of all prisoner of war camps on 25 September 1944. A circular letter from the Director of the Party Chancellery, 30 September 1944 and signed by M. Bormann, states:

So impressive were the results obtained from SS concentration camp labor that Goering on 14 February 1944 called on Himmler for more inmates for use in the aircraft industry (1584-I-PS). Himmler’s reply to that request reads, in part, as follows:

Inclosed with that letter was a report in tabular form of the number of prisoners being used in each of the concentration camps, the total man-hours for the month of January 1944, and the type of production in which such prisoners were engaged. That report is signed by Pohl, the Chief of WVHA (1584-III-PS). The total appearing under the column “Number of prisoners planned” is 90,785; under the column “Number of prisoners used,” 35,839; and under the column “Man-hours—January,” 8,733,495. (1584-III-PS)

The extent to which the number of prisoners was increased through SS efforts is illustrated by a report from Office Group D of WVHA, 15 August 1944:

(d) SS control of concentration camps and the ill treatment and murder of inmates. The intensive drive for manpower to some extent interfered with the program already undertaken by WVHA to exterminate certain classes of individuals in the camps. This is shown by a letter from WVHA, Department D Concentration Camps, 28 March 1942, addressed to a number of concentration camp commandants and signed Liebehenschel, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer:

Another letter from WVHA, Department D Concentration Camps, 27 April 1943, addressed to a number of concentration camp commanders, signed by Gluecks, SS Brigade Fuehrer and Major General of the Waffen SS, deals with the same point:

The SS, however, was to some degree enabled to achieve both goals—that of increased production and of elimination of undesirable individuals, as shown by the agreement between Minister of Justice Thierack and Himmler on 18 September 1942 (654-PS). That agreement provided for the delivery of antisocial elements after the execution of their sentences to the Reichsfuehrer SS “to be worked to death.”

The conditions under which such persons worked in the camps were well calculated to lead to their deaths. Those conditions were regulated by the WVHA. An illustration of WVHA management is to be found in an order directed to commandants of concentration camps, 11 August 1942, and issued by SS Brigade Fuehrer and General of the Waffen SS Gluecks, Chief of Office Group D of WVHA (2189-PS):

Even after their deaths, the prisoners did not escape the management of WVHA. A directive to the commanders of concentration camps, 12 September 1942, signed by the Chief of the Central Office of Office Group D of WVHA, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Liebehenschel, provided:

(e) SS use of concentration camp labor for pecuniary profit. The SS regarded the inmates of concentration camps as its own personal property to be used for its own economic advantage. The suggestion in Himmler’s letter to Goering, will be recalled, that the SS be given a larger responsibility in the armament program conducted in the camps (1584-III-PS). As early as 1942 Speer recognized that the SS was motivated by the desire for further profits when he suggested to Hitler in a conference on 20, 21, and 22 September that the SS receive a share of the war equipment produced by concentration camp labor in ratio to the working hours of the prisoners (R-124). The Fuehrer agreed that a 3 to 5 percent share would satisfy SS commanders (R-124). Himmler himself frankly admitted his intention to derive profits for SS purposes from the camps in his speech to the officers of the SS Leibstandarte “Adolf Hitler” (1918-PS):

(4) Functions and activities with respect to human experiments. One aspect of SS control over concentration camps remains to be mentioned—its direction of the program of biological experiments on human beings which was carried on in the camps. An American military tribunal has passed judgment on some of the SS members who participated in these experiments at Dachau. The purpose of this discussion is to show only that those experiments were the result of SS direction and that the SS played a vital part in their successful execution.

The program seems to have originated in a request by Dr. Sigmund Rascher to Himmler for permission to utilize persons in concentration camps as material for experiments with human beings, in connection with research he was conducting on behalf of the Luftwaffe. A letter dated 15 May 1941, addressed to the Reichsfuehrer SS and signed by S. Rascher reads in part as follows:

Dr. Rascher promptly received assurance that he would be allowed to utilize concentration camp inmates for his experiments.

A letter dated 22 May 1941, addressed to Dr. Rascher and bearing the signature of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Karl Brandt, reads in part:

The altitude experiments were conducted by Rascher. In May 1942 General Field Marshal Milch on behalf of the Luftwaffe expressed his thanks to the SS for the assistance it furnished in connection with the experiments. This letter, dated 20 May 1942, addressed to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff reads in part:

Having finished his high-altitude experiments, Dr. Rascher proceeded to experiment with methods of rewarming persons who had been subjected to extreme cold. On 10 September 1942 he rendered an intermediate report on intense chilling experiments which had been started in Dachau on 15 August (1618-PS). That report states:

Although Rascher was of the preliminary opinion that rewarming by women’s bodies would be too slow, means for conducting such experiments were nevertheless placed at his disposal. A letter from the Reichsfuehrer SS, signed Himmler, 16 November 1942, and addressed to Lt. General Pohl, the head of WVHA, read as follows:

To insure the continuance of Rascher’s experiments, Himmler arranged for his transfer to the Waffen SS. A letter dated November 1942 from the Reichsfuehrer SS addressed to “Dear Comrade Milch,” stated:

Rascher’s experiments were by no means the only experiments in which the SS was interested. Without attempting even to outline the whole extent of the experimental program, one further illustration of this type of SS activity may be mentioned. That is a report prepared by the Chief Hygienist in the office of the Reich Surgeon of the SS and Police, SS Oberfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky, 12 September 1944, relating to experiments with poisoned bullets.

The next three paragraphs describe in coldly scientific fashion the reactions of the dying persons. That description then concludes:

The fact that SS doctors engaged in such experiments was no accident. It was consistent with an ideology and racial philosophy which, to use Himmler’s own words, regarded human beings as lice and offal. But the most important factor was the fact that only the SS was in a position to supply necessary human material. And it did supply such material through WVHA. A letter from the Department Chief of Office Group D of WVHA, 12 May 1944, addressed to the commandants of all concentration camps dealt with the assignment of prisoners for the experimental purposes:

It was on the basis of its ability to supply such material that the Ministry of Finance was prepared to subsidize the SS experimental program. This matter was discussed in a series of letters between the Ministry of Finance, the Reichs Research Department, and the Reich Surgeon of the SS and police (002-PS). The first is from the office of the Executive Council of the Reichs Research Department, addressed to the Reichs Surgeon SS and Police, 19 February 1943, and signed by Mentzel, Chief of Bureau, SS Brigade Leader:

To this letter the Reich Surgeon of SS and Police replied on 26 February 1943:

An interview between the Reich Surgeon and Mentzel took place, and on 25 March 1943 Mentzel wrote the following letter to the Reich Minister of Finance:

(5) Functions and Activities with respect to Jewish Persecution. Through its activities with respect to concentration camps the SS performed part of its mission to safeguard the security of the Nazi regime. But another specialized aspect of that mission must not be forgotten. Himmler had defined that task as the prevention of a “Jewish Bolshevist revolution of subhumans.” In plain words this meant participation in the Nazi program of Jewish persecution and extermination. That program involved every branch and component of the SS.

The racial philosophy of the SS made that organization a natural agency for the execution of all types of anti-semitic measures. The SS position on the Jewish question was publicly stated in the SS newspaper “Das Schwarze Korps,” in the issue of 8 August 1940, by its editor, Gunter d’Alquen (2668-PS). “Das Schwarze Korps” was the official propaganda agency of the SS which every SS man was required to read and to induce others to read. This was the SS position on the Jews:

The attempted “solution” of the Jewish question through pogroms and “spontaneous” demonstrations occurred following the murder of von Rath in November 1938. In these demonstrations all branches of the SS were called on to play a part. The teletype message from SS Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich, Chief of the Security Police and SD, issued on 10 November 1938 concerning “Measures against Jews tonight,” provided:

With the outbreak of the war and the march of Nazi armies over the Continent, the SS participated in “solving” the Jewish question in all the countries of Europe. The solution was nothing short of extermination. To a large degree these wholesale murders were disguised under the name of “anti-partisan” or “anti-guerilla” actions, and as such included as victims not merely Jews but Soviets, Poles, and other Eastern peoples. One example of an action confined essentially to Jews was the mass annihilation of Jews in gas vans (501-PS). Those vans were operated by the Security Police and SD under the direction of RSHA. Another example is found in the report entitled “Solution of the Jewish Question in Galicia,” prepared by SS Gruppenfuehrer and Lt. General of the Police Katzman and rendered to SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Police Krueger (L-18). The “solution,” which consisted in evacuation and extermination of all the Jews in Galicia and confiscation of their property, was carried out under the energetic direction of the SS and Police Leaders, with the assistance of SS police units, as the report proudly boasts. Three additional items in that report dealing specifically with the SS should be noted. The first is the text under a photograph in the original report:

The second is a balance sheet, showing the income from forced Jewish labor and expenditures therefrom. Item 3 on the balance sheet reads as follows:

The third is the last two paragraphs of the report:

One final example of SS participation in Jewish extermination is the report by SS Brigadefuehrer and Major General of the Police, Stroop, of the destruction of the Jewish Ghetto in Warsaw during April and May 1943 (1061-PS). Two sections of that report dealing with the constitution of the participating forces should be noted. A table of the units used indicates the average number of officers and men from each unit employed per day. It will be observed that among the units involved were the staff of the SS and Police Leader, two battalions of the Waffen SS, two battalions of the 22d SS Police Regiment and members of the Security Police. The part played by the Waffen SS particularly came in for high praise from the writer of the report. Tribute is paid to the toughness of the men of the Waffen SS, Police, and Wehrmacht. In the next paragraph the writer says:

The selection methods and ideological education of Waffen SS men furnished such good grounding that a few weeks of practice was all that was required to turn them into excellent exterminators. Himmler’s proud boast of the part that the SS played in the extermination of the Jews occurs in his Posen Speech:

(6) Functions and activities with respect to preparing for and waging aggressive war. From the very beginning the SS made prime contributions to the conspirators’ aggressive aims. First, it served as one of the para-military organizations under which the conspirators disguised their building up of an Army in violation of the Versailles Treaty. Second, through affiliated SS organizations in other countries and through some of the departments in its own Supreme Command, it fostered Fifth Column movements outside Germany and prepared the way for aggression. Third, through its militarized units, it participated in the aggressive actions which were eventually carried out.

(a) The SS as a para-military organization. The para-military character of the General SS is apparent from the military character of its structure, the military discipline required of its members, and the steps it took to enlist in its ranks young men of military age. In addition to this volunteer Army the SS created, as early as 1933, fully armed professional soldiers who complied with the requirement for compulsory military service by performing duties in the SS. These were the SS Vorfuegungstruppe and the Death Head Units.

(b) The SS as a fifth column agency. While building up the SS as a military force within Germany, the conspirators also utilized it in other countries to lay the groundwork for aggression. During the seizure of Austria, the SS Standarte 89 was directly involved in the murder of Chancellor Dolfuss, and a memorial placque was erected in Vienna as a tribute to the SS men who participated in that murder (L-273; 2968-PS). Subsequently, on the night of 11 March 1938, the SS with the SA marched into Vienna and occupied all government buildings and important posts in the city. (See the report of Gauleiter Rainer to Reich Commissioner Buerckel (812-PS); and the record of the telephone conversations between Goering and Dambrowski (2949-PS)).

The same pattern was repeated in Czechoslovakia. Henlein’s Free Corps played in that country the part of fifth column which the SS had played in Austria and was rewarded, in September 1938, by being placed under the jurisdiction of the Reichsfuehrer SS (388-PS, Items 37, 38). Moreover, a Most Secret OKW order of 28 September 1938, reveals that the SS had its own armed units, four battalions of Totenkopf Verbaende, actually operating in Czechoslovakian territory before the Munich Pact was signed (388-PS, Item 36).

But SS preparations for aggression were not confined to military forces. One of the departments of the SS Supreme Command, the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle, was a center for fifth column activity. At the secret meeting between Ribbentrop and Henlein in March 1938, at which the line to be followed by the Sudeten German Party was determined, the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle was represented by Professor Haushofer and SS Obergruppenfuehrer Lorenz (2788-PS). And when the Foreign Office in August 1938 awarded further subsidies to Henlein’s Sudeten Party, the memorandum of that recommendation (3059-PS) contained the significant footnote:

(c) SS participation in aggressive war. When at last the time came to strike, the SS was ready. In the words of the National Socialist Yearbook for 1940 (2164-PS):

In the final act which set off the war, the attack on Poland in September 1939, the SS acted as stage manager. In his affidavit (Affidavit A), Maj. Gen. Erwin Lahousen describes the simulated attack on the radio station Gleiwitz by Germans dressed in Polish uniforms, as one of the most mysterious actions which took place in the Abwehr office:

The war erupted and the Waffen SS again took its place in the van of the attacking forces.

(7) Functions and activities with respect to commission of war crimes. During the war great use was made of the peculiar qualities possessed by the SS—qualities not only of its combat force, but of its other components as well—in executing tasks embracing the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

(a) “Antipartisan” operations. A directive issued by Keitel on 13 March 1941, making preparations 3 months in advance for the attack on Russia, provided that in the area of operations the Reichsfuehrer SS was entrusted with special tasks for the preparation of the political administration—tasks which would result from the struggle about to commence between two opposing political systems. (447-PS)

One of the steps taken by the Reichsfuehrer SS to carry out those “special tasks” was the formation and use of so-called “anti-partisan” units. They were discussed by Himmler in his Posen speech:

What the SS did with its division, corps, and army, out of which the anti-partisan units were formed, is illustrated in the “Activity and Situation Report No. 6 of the Task Forces of the Security Police and SD in the U.S.S.R.,” covering the period from 1 to 31 October 1941 (R-102). The report shows that so-called “anti-partisan” activity was actually nothing but a name for extermination of Jews and persons believed politically undesirable. The report is a carefully organized and detailed description of such extermination. Section I describes the stations of the various Task Forces involved, and section II their activities. The latter section is divided into parts, each dealing with a different geographical region—the Baltic area, White Ruthenia, and the Ukraine. Under each area the report of activities is classified under three headings: (a) Partisan activity and counteraction; (b) arrests and executions of communists and officials; and (c) Jews. The following units were involved (R-102):

The section headed “Baltic area” and subsection labeled “Jews” read as follows (R-102):

In the section headed “White Ruthenia,” the subsection labeled “Partisan activity and counteraction,” the following appear:

The preceding subsection ends with the following statement:

And under the section headed “Ukraine,” the subsection “Jews,” this statement occurs:

The foregoing report deals with the activities of four Task Forces—A, B, C, and D. The more detailed report of Task Force A up to 15 October 1941 shows great variety of SS components in such a task force:

Inclosure 1a to this report shows the constitution of the Force:

Another report on the anti-partisan activity, from the General Commissar for White Ruthenia to the Reich Minister for Occupied Eastern Territories, 5 June 1943, deals with the results of the police operation “Cottbus”:

SS Obergruppenfuehrer vom dem Bach was referred to by Himmler as “our comrade” when he placed him in charge of anti-partisan activity.

(b) Execution of civilians. The activities so far dealt with were joint activities in which the Gestapo, Order Police, the SD, Waffen SS, and SS Police Regiments were all involved. But these units were, of course, also used individually to carry out tasks of such a nature—tasks for which any component of the SS was well trained. A letter from the Chief of the Command Office of the Waffen SS to the Reichsfuehrer SS, 14 October 1941, contains an intermediate report on civilian state of emergency:

(c) Murder of prisoners of war. It is not surprising that units of the Waffen SS, a branch which had thus been employed for extermination actions and the execution of civilians, also violated the laws of warfare when carrying on ordinary combat activities. Proof of these violations is contained in a supplementary report of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force Court of Inquiry concerning the shooting of allied prisoners of war by the 12th SS Panzer Division (Hitler Jugend) in Normandy, France, on 7-21 June 1944 (2997-PS). The Court of Inquiry concluded that there occurred in Normandy, between 7 and 17 June 1944, seven cases of violations of the law of war, involving the shooting of 64 unarmed allied prisoners of war in uniform, many of whom had been previously wounded, and none of whom had resisted or endeavored to escape; that the perpetrators were members of the 12th SS Panzer Division, the so-called Hitler Jugend Division; that enlisted men of the 15th Company of the 25th Panzer Grenadier Regiment of that Division were given secret orders to the effect that SS troops should take no prisoners and that prisoners were to be executed after having been interrogated; that similar orders were given to men of the 3d Battalion of the 26th SS Panzer Grenadier Regiment and to the 12th SS Engineering and Reconnaissance Battalions; and that the conclusion was irresistible that it was understood throughout the Division that a policy of denying quarter or executing prisoners after interrogation was openly approved. (2997-PS)

Other combatants met a similar fate at the hands of other components of the SS. (The execution of allied fliers, of commandos, and paratroopers, and of escaped prisoners of war who were turned over to the SD to be destroyed, is discussed in Section 6 on the Gestapo.)

Combatants who were taken prisoner of war encountered the SS in another form. (Section 6 on the Gestapo discusses the selection, by SS groups stationed in prisoner of war camps, of prisoners for what the Nazis euphemistically called “special treatment.”) Finally, the entire control of prisoners of war was turned over to the Reichsfuehrer SS, pursuant to the circular letter from the Nazi Party Chancellery placing Himmler in charge of all prisoner of war camps. (058-PS)

(8) Functions and activities with respect to Germanization of conquered lands. The final phase of the conspiracy in which the SS played a leading role comprehended the colonization of conquered territories, the destruction of their national existence, and the permanent extension of the German frontier. These objectives were carried out through the forcible evacuation and resettlement of inhabitants of conquered regions, confiscation of their properties, “denationalization” and “reeducation” of persons of German blood, and the colonization of conquered territories by Germans. (See Chapter X on the Slave Labor Program and Chapter XIII on Germanization and Spoliation.)

The SS was the logical agency to formulate and carry out the execution of this program. The numerous statements made by Himmler as to SS training for its role as the aristocracy in the “new Europe” leave that beyond doubt. Himmler immediately proceeded to put these theories into practice upon his appointment on 7 October 1939 as Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Folkdom. (686-PS)

To make and carry out plans for the program of evacuation and resettlement, a new department of the SS Supreme Command, the Staff Headquarters of the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Folkdom, was created. The functions of this office are thus described in the Organizations Book of the NSDAP for 1943:

The colonization program had two principal objectives: the first phase was the destruction of the conquered peoples, by exterminating them, deporting them, and confiscating their property; the second phase was the bringing back of racial Germans to settle in the newly acquired land and to live from the wealth of those who had been eliminated.

(a) Elimination and deportation of conquered people. The extermination actions contributed in part to clearing the conquered territories of persons deemed dangerous to the Nazi plan. But not every undesirable could be liquidated. Moreover, manpower was needed for the Nazi war effort. Mass deportation thus accomplished the twin purpose of providing labor and of freeing the land for German colonists. The participation of SS agencies in deporting persons from the conquered territories to meet the increased demands of the Nazi war machine for manpower has already been shown. The evacuation and resettlement program, however, required the use of additional SS agencies to deport persons occupying the desired living space. For this purpose immigration centers were set up under the direction of RSHA, as is stated in the National Socialist Yearbook for 1941:

Further evidence is contained in the affidavit of Otto Hoffman, SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen SS and Police, who was chief in the Main Office for Race and Settlement in the SS Supreme Command until 1943. This affidavit, taken at Freising, Germany, on 4 August 1945 reads as follows:

Other SS agencies also were included. The report, dated 22 May 1940, relating to confiscation of Polish agricultural enterprises and deportation of the Polish owners to Germany, shows that the following SS agencies were involved in this action:

The extent to which departments of the Supreme Command of the SS were concerned with the evacuation program is shown by the minutes of a meeting on 4 August 1942 dealing with the treatment of deported Alsatians (R-114). The minutes list those present at the meeting as follows:

The minutes read in part as follows:

(b) Resettlement of conquered territories by Germans. The SS not only destroyed or deported conquered peoples and confiscated their property, but it also repopulated the conquered regions with so-called racial Germans. Thousands upon thousands of these Germans were transported from all parts of Europe to join the greater Reich. Not all Germans were deemed reliable colonists, however. Those who were not, were returned to Germany proper for “re-Germanization” and “reeducation” along Nazi lines. A typical instance of the fate of such Germans is found in the decree of the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Folkdom of 16 February 1942, dealing with the treatment to be accorded so-called “Polonized” Germans (R-112). By the terms of that decree two other SS functionaries were charged with the responsibility for the re-Germanization program, the Higher SS and Police Leaders and the Gestapo. Paragraph III of the decree provides:

Paragraph IV of the decree provides:

In the final stage of the process, the resettlement of the conquered lands by racially and politically desirable Germans, still other SS agencies participated. The National Socialist Yearbook for 1941 states that:

E. Defendant’s Membership in the SS.

In the course of its development from a group of strong armed bodyguards, some 200 in number, to a complex organization participating in every field of Nazi endeavor, the SS found room for its members in high places. Persons in high places moreover, found for themselves a position in the SS. Of the defendants charged in the indictment at least 7 were high ranking officers in the SS. They are the defendants Ribbentrop, Hess, Kaltenbrunner, Bormann, Sauckel, Neurath, and Seyss-Inquart. The vital part that Kaltenbrunner played in the SS, the SD, and the entire Security Police system is discussed in Section 6 on the Gestapo.

With respect to the other six defendants, the facts as to their membership in the SS are to be found in two official publications. The first is the membership list of the SS as of 1 December 1936. On line 2, page 8, of that publication, there appears the name “Hess, Rudolf,” followed by the notation, “By authority of the Fuehrer the right to wear the uniform of an SS Obergruppenfuehrer.” In the 1937 edition of the same membership list, line 50, page 10, there appears the name “Bormann, Martin,” and in line with his name on the opposite page, under the heading “Gruppenfuehrer,” appears the following date “20.4.37.” In the same edition, line 56, page 12, is the name “von Neurath, Konstantin” and on the opposite page, under the column headed “Gruppenfuehrer,” the date “18.9.37.”

The second publication is “Der Grossdeutsche Reichstag” for the Fourth Voting Period, edited by E. Kienast, Ministerial Director of the German Reichstag, an official handbook containing biographical data as to members of the Reichstag. On page 349 the following appears: “von Ribbentrop, Joachim, Reichsminister des Auswaertigen, SS Obergruppenfuehrer”; and on page 360 the following: “Sauckel, Fritz, Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter in Thuringen, SS Obergruppenfuehrer”; and on page 389 the following: “Seyss-Inquart, Arthur, Dr. Jur., Reichsminister, SS Obergruppenfuehrer.”

F. Conclusion.

It is the prosecution’s contention that the SS, as defined in Appendix B of the Indictment, was unlawful. Its participation in every phase of the conspiracy alleged in Count One is clear. As an organization founded on the principle that persons of “German blood” were a “master race,” it exemplified a basic Nazi doctrine. It served as one of the means through which the conspirators acquired control of the German government. The operations of the SD, and of the SS Totenkopf Verbaende in concentration camps, were means used by the conspirators to secure their regime and terrorize their opponents as alleged in Count One. All components of the SS were involved from the very beginning in the Nazi program of Jewish extermination. Through the Allgemeine SS as a para-military organization, the SS Verfuegungstruppe and SS Totenkopf Verbaende as professional combat forces, and the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle as a fifth column agency, it participated in preparations for aggressive war, and, through its militarized units, in the seizure of Austria, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the attack on Poland, and the waging of aggressive war in the West and in the East, as set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment. In the course of such war, all components of the SS had a part in the war crimes and crimes against humanity, set forth in Counts Three and Four,—the murder and ill treatment of civilian populations in occupied territory, the murder and ill treatment of prisoners of war, and the Germanization of occupied territories.

The evidence has shown that the SS was a single enterprise—a unified organization. Some of its functions were, of course, performed by one branch, or department or office, some by another. No single branch or department participated in every phase of its activity. But every branch and department and office was necessary to the functioning of the whole. The situation is much the same as in the case of the individual defendants at the bar. Not all participated in every act of the conspiracy; but all performed a contributing part in the whole criminal scheme.

The evidence has shown, not only that the SS was an organization of volunteers but that applicants had to meet the strictest standards of selection. It was not easy to become an SS member. That was true of all branches of the SS. During the course of the war, as the demands for manpower increased and the losses of the Waffen SS grew heavier and heavier, there were occasions when men drafted for compulsory military service were assigned to units of the Waffen SS rather than to the Wehrmacht. Those instances were relatively few. Evidence of recruiting standards of the Waffen SS in 1943 has shown that membership in that branch was as essentially voluntary and highly selective as in other branches. The fact that some individuals may have been arbitrarily assigned to some Waffen SS unit has no bearing on the issue before the tribunal, which is this, whether the SS was or was not an unlawful organization. Doubtless some of the members of the SS, or of other of the organizations alleged to be unlawful, might desire to show that their participation in the organization was small or innocuous, that compelling reasons drove them to apply for membership, that they were not fully conscious of its aims, or that they were mentally irresponsible when they became members. Such facts might or might not be relevant if they were on trial. But in any event this is not the forum to try out such matters.

The question before this Tribunal is simply this, whether the SS was or was not an unlawful organization. The evidence has fully shown what the aims and activities of the SS were. Some of these aims were stated in publications. The activities were so widespread and so notorious, covering so many fields of unlawful endeavor, that the illegality of the organization could not have been concealed. It was a notorious fact, and Himmler himself admitted that in 1936, when he said:

It was at all times the exclusive function and purpose of the SS to carry out the common objectives of the conspirators. Its activities in carrying out those functions involved the commission of the crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter. By reason of its aims and the means used for the accomplishment thereof, the SS should be declared a criminal organization in accordance with Article 9 of the Charter.

LEGAL REFERENCES AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE SCHUTZSTAFFELN (SS)