Chapter XV

CRIMINALITY OF GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS

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:

“In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned.”

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:

“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person . . .

“(3) to organize or help to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any government in the United States by force or violence; or to be or become a member of, or affiliate with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof.”

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:

“Section 2. Any person who . . . (4) organizes or assists in organizing, or is or knowingly becomes a member of, any organization, society, group or assemblage of persons organized or assembled to teach or aid and abet criminal syndicalism . . .

“Is guilty of a felony and punishable by imprisonment.”

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:

“It is hereby enacted that whoever shall be proved to have belonged either before or after the passing of this Act to any gang of thugs either within or without the territories of the East India Company shall be punished with imprisonment for life with hard labour.”

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:

“The participation in an organization the existence, constitution, or purposes of which are to be kept secret from the Government, or in which obedience to unknown superiors or unconditional obedience to known superiors is pledged, is punishable by imprisonment up to six months for the members and from one month to one year for the founders and officers. Public officials may be deprived of the right to hold public office for a period of from one to five years.”

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:

1. “It is a matter of indifference whether all the members pursued the forbidden aims. It is enough if a part exercised the forbidden activity.” (R.G. VIa 97/22 of the 8.5.22.)

2. “It is a matter of indifference whether the members of the group or association agree with the aims, tasks, means of working and means of fighting.” (R.G. 58, 401 of the 24.10.24.)

3. “The real attitude of mind of the participants is a matter of indifference. Even if they had the intention of not participating in criminal efforts, or hindering them, this can not eliminate their responsibility.” (R.G. 58, 401 of the 24.10.24.)

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 reason for finding criminal liability in case of a combination to effect an unlawful end or to use unlawful means, where none would exist, even though the act contemplated were actually committed by an individual, is that a combination of persons to commit a wrong, either as an end or as a means to an end, is so much more dangerous, because of its increased power to do wrong, because it is more difficult to guard against and prevent the evil designs of a group of persons than of a single person, and because of the terror which fear of such a combination tends to create in the minds of people.” (_Miller on Criminal Law_, 1932, p. 110.)

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:

_Fuehrer_

_Reichsleiter_ (Reich Leaders) and _Main Office_ and _Office Holders_

_Gauleiter_ (District Leaders) and Staff Officers

_Kreisleiter_ (County Leaders) and Staff Officers

_Ortsgruppenleiter_ (Local Chapter Leaders) and Staff Officers

_Zellenleiter_ (Cell Leaders) and Staff Officers

_Blockleiter_ (Block Leaders) and Staff Officers

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 Fuehrer appoints the following Political Directors: “_Reichsleiter_ and all Political Directors, to include the Directors of the Womens Leagues within the Reich Directorate or _Reichsleitung_.” (_1893-PS_)

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

“In the _Reichsleitung_ the arteries of the organization of the German people and of the German State merge.” (_1893-PS_)

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 REICHSLEITERS OF THE NSDAP_ “Max Amann _Reichsleiter_ for the Press. “Martin Bormann Chief of the Party Chancery. “Phillipp Bouhler Chief of the Chancery of the Fuehrer of the NSDAP. Chairman of the official Party Investigation Commission for the Protection of National Socialist Writings. “Walter Darré On leave. “Otto Dietrich Reich Press Chief of the NSDAP. “Franz von Epp Chief of the _Kolonialpolitischen Amtes_. “Karl Fiehler Chief of the main office for Municipal Politics. “Wilhelm Frick Leader of the National Socialist “faction” in the Reichstag. “Joseph Goebbels Reich Propaganda Leader of the NSDAP. “Konstantin Hierl Leader of the Reich Labor. “Heinrich Himmler Reich Leader of the SS. The Deputy of the NSDAP, for all questions of Germandom. “Robert Ley Reich Organization Leader of the NSDAP. Leader of the German Labor Front. “Victor Lutze Chief of Staff of the SA. “Alfred Rosenberg Representative of the Fuehrer for the supervision of all mental and ideological training and education of the NSDAP. “Baldur von Schirach Reich Leader for the Education of Youth of the NSDAP. “Franz Xaver Schwarz Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP.” (_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 NSDAP represents the political conception, the political conscience, and the political will of the German nation. Political conception, political conscience, and political will are embodied in the person of the Fuehrer. Based on his directives and in accordance with the program of the NSDAP the organs of the Reich Directorate directionally determine the political aims of the German people. It is in the Reich Directorate that the arteries of the organization of the German people and the State merge. It is the task of the separate organs of the Reich Directorate to maintain as close a contact as possible with the life of the nation through their sub-offices in the Gau * * *

“The structure of the Reich Directorate is thus that the channel from the lowest Party office upwards shows the most minute weaknesses and changes in the mood of the people * * *

“Another essential task of the Reich Directorate is to assure a good selection of leaders. It is the duty of the Reich Directorate to see that there is leadership in all phases of life, a leadership which is firmly tied to National Socialist ideology and which promotes its dissemination with all its energy * * *

“* * * It is the supreme task of the Reich Organization Leader to preserve the Party as a well-sharpened sword for the Fuehrer.” (_1893-PS_)

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 supreme offices of the _Reichsleitung_ are equal in rank to the supreme Reich Government authorities.”

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 _Gau_ represents the concentration of a number of Party counties, or _Kreise_. The _Gauleiter_ is directly subordinate to the Fuehrer. He is appointed by the Fuehrer. The _Gauleiter_ bears overall responsibility to the Fuehrer for the sector of sovereignty entrusted to him. The rights, duties, and jurisdiction of the _Gauleiter_ result primarily from the mission assigned by the Fuehrer and, apart from that, from detailed directives.” (_1893-PS_)

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_:

“The _Kreisleiter_ carries over-all responsibility towards the _Gauleiter_ within his zone of sovereignty for the political and ideological training and organization of the Political Leaders, the Party members, as well as the population.” (_1893-PS_)

(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_:

“As _Hoheitstraeger_ [Bearer of Sovereignty] all expressions of the Party will emanate from the _Ortsgruppenleiter_; he is responsible for the political and ideological leadership and organization within his zone of sovereignty.

“The _Ortsgruppenleiter_ carries the over-all responsibility for the political results of all measures initiated by the offices, organizations, and affiliated associations of the Party. * * * The _Ortsgruppenleiter_ has the right to protest to the _Kreisleiter_ against any measures contrary to the interests of the Party with regard to an outside political appearance in public.” (_1893-PS_)

(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 household is the basic community upon which the block and cell system is built. The household is the organizational focal point of all Germans united in an apartment and includes roomers, domestic help, etc. * * * The _Blockleiter_ has jurisdiction over all matters within his zone relating to the Movement and is fully responsible to the _Zellenleiter_. * * *” (_1893-PS_)

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:

“It is the duty of the _Blockleiter_ to find people disseminating damaging rumors and to report them to the _Ortsgruppe_ so that they may be reported to the respective State authorities.

“The _Blockleiter_ must not only be preacher and defender of the National Socialist ideology towards the members of nation and Party entrusted to his political care, but he must also strive to achieve practical collaboration of the Party members within his block zone * * *.”

“The _Blockleiter_ shall continuously remind the Party members of their particular duties towards the people and the State * * * The _Blockleiter_ keeps a list (card file) about the households * * * In principle, the _Blockleiter_ will settle his official business verbally and he will receive messages verbally and pass them on in the same way. Correspondence will only be used in cases of absolute necessity * * * The _Blockleiter_ conducts National Socialist propaganda from mouth to mouth. He will eventually awaken the understanding of the eternally dissatisfied as regards the frequently misunderstood or wrongly interpreted measures and laws of the National Socialist Government * * * It is not necessary to him to fall in with complaints and gripes about possibly obvious shortcomings of any kind in order to demonstrate * * * solidarity * * * A condition to gain the confidence of all people is to maintain absolute secrecy in all matters.” (_1893-PS_)

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”:

“Advice and sometimes also the harsher form of education is employed if the faulty conduct of an individual harms this individual himself and thus also the community.”

(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:

“Among the Political Leaders, the _Hoheitstraeger_ assumed a special position. Contrary to the other Political Leaders who have departmental missions, the _Hoheitstraeger_ themselves are in charge of a geographical sector known as the _Hoheitsgebiet_ [Sectors of Sovereignty].

“_Hoheitstraeger_ are: “The _Fuehrer_ The _Gauleiter_ The _Kreisleiter_ The _Ortsgruppenleiter_ The _Zellenleiter_ The _Blockleiter_. “_Hoheitsgebiet_ are: “The _Reich_ The _Gau_ The _Kreis_ The _Ortsgruppe_ The _Zelle_ The _Block_.

“Within their sector of sovereignty the _Hoheitstraeger_ have sovereign political rights. They represent the Party within their sector. The _Hoheitstraeger_ supervise all Party Officers within their jurisdiction and * * * are responsible for the maintenance of discipline. * * * The directors of offices, etc., and of the affiliated organizations are responsible to their respective _Hoheitstraeger_ as regards their special missions. * * * The _Hoheitstraeger_ are superior to all Political Leaders, managers, etc., within their sector. As regards personal considerations, _Hoheitstraeger_ * * * are endowed with special rights.

“The _Hoheitstraeger_ of the Party are not to be administrative officials * * * but are to move in a continuous vital contact with the Political Leaders of the population within their sector. The _Hoheitstraeger_ are responsible for the proper and good supervision of all members of the nation within their sectors * * *.

“The Party intends to achieve a state of affairs in which the individual German will find his way to the Party * * *.” (_1893-PS_)

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:

“_DER HOHEITSTRAEGER_, the contents of which is to be handled confidentially, serves only for the orientation of the competent leaders. It may not be loaned out to other persons * * *” [then follows a list of the Hoheitstraeger and other Political Leaders authorized to receive the magazine.] (_2660-PS_)

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

“Commandants, Unit Commanders and Candidates of Order Castles; the Reich, Shock Troop and _Gaue_ Speakers of the NSDAP; the Lieutenant Generals and Major Generals of SA, SS, NSFK, and NSKK; Lieutenant Generals and Major Generals of the HJ.” (_2660-PS_)

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_):

“The basis of the Party organization is the Fuehrer thought. The public is unable to rule itself either directly or indirectly * * * All Political Leaders stand as appointed by the Fuehrer and are responsible to him. They possess full authority toward the lower echelons * * * Only a man who has absorbed the school of subordinate functions within the Party has a claim to the higher Fuehrer offices. We can only use Fuehrers who have served from the ground up. Any Political Leader who does not conform to these principles is to be dismissed or to be sent back to the lower offices, as _Blockleiter_, _Zellenleiter_ for further training * * *

“The Political Leader is not an office worker but the Political Deputy of the Fuehrer * * * Within the Political Leadership, we are building the Political Leadership of the state * * * The type of the Political Leader is not characterized by the office which he represents. There is no such thing as a Political Leader of the NSBO, etc., but there is only the Political Leader of the NSDAP.” (_1893-PS_)

Each Political Leader was sworn in yearly. According to the Party Manual (_1893-PS_), the wording of the oath was as follows:

“I pledge eternal allegiance to Adolf Hitler. I pledge unconditional obedience to him and the Fuehrers appointed by him.” (_1893-PS_)

The Organization Book of the NSDAP also provides:

“The Political Leader is inseparably tied to the ideology and the organization of the NSDAP. His oath only ends with his death or with his expulsion from the National Socialist community.” (_1893-PS_)

(_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:

“The Fuehrer appointed the following Political Leaders:

“a. All _Reichsleiter_ and all Political Leaders within the _Reichsleitung_ [Reich Party Directorate], including women’s leaders.

“b. All _Gauleiter_, including the Political Leaders holding offices in the _Gauleitung_ [Gau Party Directorate], including _Gau_ women leaders.

“c. All _Kreisleiter_.

“The _Gauleiter_ appointed:

“a. The Political Leaders and women’s leaders within the _Gau_ Party Directorate.

“b. The Political Leaders and directors of women’s leagues in the _Kreis_ Party Directorate.

“c. All _Ortsgruppenleiter_.

“The _Kreisleiter_ appoints the Political Leaders and the Directors of the Women’s Leagues of the _Ortsgruppen_ including the Block and Cell Leaders.” (_1893-PS_)

_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_ is responsible for the entire political appearance of the Movement within his zone. The SA leader of that zone is tied to the directives of the _Hoheitstrager_ in that respect.

“The _Hoheitstrager_ is the ranking representative of the Party to include all organizations within his zone. He may requisition the SA located within his zone from the respective SA leader if they are needed for the execution of a political mission. The _Hoheitstrager_ will then assign the mission to the SA * * *

“Should the _Hoheitstrager_ need more SA for the execution of political mission than is locally available, he then applies to the next higher office of sovereignty which, in turn, requests the SA from the SA office in his sector.” (_1893-PS_)

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):

“The Political Leader has the right to requisition the HJ in the same manner as the SA for the execution of a political action.

“In appointing leaders of the HJ and the DJ, the office of the HJ must procure the approval of the _Hoheitstrager_ of his zone. This means that the _Hoheitstrager_ can prevent the appointment of leaders unsuited for the leadership of youth. If his approval has not been procured, an appointment may be cancelled if he so requests.” (_1893-PS_)

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:

“* * * SA as well as SS are to be employed for the occupation of trade union properties and for the taking of personalities who come into question into protective custody.

“The _Gauleiter_ (i.e. Regional Director) is to proceed with his measures on a basis of the closest understanding with competent Regional Factory Cells Director. * * *

* * * * * *

“The following are to be taken into protective custody:

“All Trade Union Chairmen; the District Secretaries and the Branch Directors of the ‘Bank for Workers, Employees and Officials, Inc.’” (_392-PS_)

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:

“The political leadership within the Party and its political representation towards all offices, State or others, which are outside of the Party, lie solely and exclusively with the _Hoheitstrager_, which is to say with me, the _Gauleiter_, _Kreisleiter_, and _Ortsgruppenleiter_ * * *.

“The departmental workers of the Party organization, as well as _Reichsleiter_, office directors, etc., as well as the leaders of the SA, SS, HJ and the subordinate affiliations, may not enter into binding agreements of a political nature with State and other offices except when so authorized by their _Hoheitstrager_.

“In places where the territories of the units of the SA, SS, HJ and the subordinate affiliations do not coincide with the zones of the _Hoheitstrager_, the _Hoheitstrager_ will give his political directives to the ranking leader of each unit within his zone of sovereignty.” (_2474-PS_)

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:

“In order to effect a closer contact between the offices of the Party and its organizations with the Directors of the Secret State Police [Gestapo], the Deputy of the Fuehrer requests that the Directors of the Gestapo be invited to attend all of the larger official rallies of the Party and its organization.”

(_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:

“Leader conferences in the District:

“(a) District Leaders (_Gauleiter_) with his staff every 8 to 14 days.

“(b) It is further absolutely necessary that the directors of the _Gau_ offices will meet with the county directors of their district once every three months for a three-day convention (possibly at a district schooling castle) where they will have an opportunity to overcome difficulties of personal and professional nature, apart from hearing fundamental lectures, by social gatherings in the presence of the bearer of the sovereignty, by getting to know each other and by a mutual exchange of ideas. Participation in these conferences is compulsory and duty would not constitute an excuse under any circumstances.

“(c) The arrangement of social meeting in the presence of leaders of the organizations of RAD and NSFK of the respective zone of sovereignty. In the course of these meetings differences of opinion may be straightened out in discussions.

“(d) The bearer of sovereignty will meet at least once a month with the leaders of the SA, SS, NSKK, HJ, as well as the RAD and the NSFK who are within the zone for the purpose of mutual orientation.” (_1893-PS_)

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:

40 _Gaue_ and 1 Foreign Organization _Gau_ each led by a _Gauleiter_. 808 _Kreise_ each led by a _Kreisleiter_. 28,376 _Ortsgruppen_ each led by a _Ortsgruppenleiter_. 89,378 _Zellen_ each led by a _Zellenleiter_. 463,048 _Blocke_ each led by a _Blockleiter_. (_2958-PS_)

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:

“* * * We demand that every public office, of any sort, whatsover, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to Party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.” (_1708-PS_)

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

“We demand the abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a National Army.” (_1708-PS_)

The official Party Program declares on its face that:

“The program is the political foundation of the NSDAP and accordingly the primary political law of the State * * *

“All legal precepts are to be applied in the spirit of the Party Program.

“Since the taking over of control, the Fuehrer has succeeded in the realization of the essential portions of the Party Program from the fundamentals to the details.

“The Party Program of the NSDAP was proclaimed on 24 February 1920 by Adolf Hitler at the first large Party gathering in Munich and since that day has remained unaltered * * * The National Socialist philosophy is summarized in 25 points.” (_1708-PS_)

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 Commandments of the National Socialists:

“The Fuehrer is always right * * *.

“The Program be your dogma.

“It demands your utter devotion to the Movement * * *.

“Right is what serves the Movement and thus Germany.

* * * * * *

“* * * Leader Corps is responsible for the complete penetration of the German Nation with the National Socialist spirit * * *.” (_1893-PS_)

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

“The Political Leader is inseparably tied to the ideology and the organization of the NSDAP. His oath only ends with his death or with his expulsion from the National Socialist community.” (_1893-PS_)

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 basis of the Party Organization is the Fuehrer thought * * * All Political Leaders stand as appointed by the Fuehrer and are responsible to him. They possess full authority toward the lower echelons * * *.” (_1893-PS_)

The various _Hoheitstraeger_ of the Leadership Corps were, in their respective areas of responsibility, themselves _Fuehrer_:

“Within their sector of sovereignty, the _Hoheitstraeger_ (_Gauleiter_, _Kreisleiter_, _Ortsgruppenleiter_, _Zellenleiter_, _Blockleiter_) have sovereign political rights * * * They are responsible for the entire political situation within their sector * * *” (_1893-PS_)

As stated in the _Organization Book of the NSDAP_

“The Party is an order of ‘Fuehrer’.” (_1814-PS_)

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:

“* * * a solid anchorage for all the organizations within the party structure is provided and a firm connection with the sovereign leaders of the NSDAP is created in accordance with the Fuehrer Principle.” (_1814-PS_)

(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:

“The National Socialist German Workers’ Party constitutes the only political party in Germany. Whoever undertakes to maintain the organizational structure of another political party or to form a new political party will be punished with penal servitude up to three years or with imprisonment of from six months to three years, if the deed is not subject to a greater penalty according to other regulations.” (_1388-PS_)

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—

“* * * undertakes to kill a member of the SA or the SS, a trustee or agent of the NSDAP * * * out of political motives or on account of their official activity.” (_1394-PS_)

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:

“After the victory of the National Socialist Revolution, the National Socialistic German Labor Party is the bearer of the concept of the German State and is inseparably the State. It will be a part of the public law. Its organization will be determined by the Fuehrer * * *.

“The Deputy of the Fuehrer and the Chief of Staff of the SA will become members of the Reich Government in order to insure close cooperation of the offices of the Party and SA with the public authorities * * *.” (_1395-PS_)

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:

“It is not the State which gives orders to us, it is we who give orders to the State.” (_2775-PS_)

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:

“The measures taken on 30 June and 1 and 2 July 1934 to counteract attempt at treason and high treason shall be considered as national emergency defense.” (_2057-PS_)

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

“Closely connected with the agencies competent for legislation, it [the Academy] shall further the realization of the National Socialist program in the realm of the law.” (_1391-PS_)

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:

“From now on, I take over directly the command of the whole Armed Forces.” (_1915-PS_)

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:

“* * * the Fuehrer created the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. He filled it with his spirit and his will and with it he conquered the power of the State on 30 January 1933. The Fuehrer’s will is supreme in the Party.

“By authority of the law about the Chief of State of the German Reich, dated 1 August 1934, the office of the Reich President has been combined with that of the Reich Chancellery. Consequently, the powers heretofore possessed by the Reich President were transferred to the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler. Through this law, the conduct of Party and State has been combined in one hand. By desire of the Fuehrer, a plebiscite was conducted on this law on 19 August 1934. On this day, the German people chose Adolf Hitler to be their sole leader. He is responsible only to his conscience and to the German nation.” (_1893-PS_)

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:

“At the proposal of the President of the Reichstag, on its session of 26 April 1942, the greater German Reichstag has approved of the rights which the Fuehrer has postulated in his speech with the following decision:

“There can be no doubt, that in the present war, in which the German people is faced with a struggle for its existence or annihilation, the Fuehrer must have all the rights postulated by him which serve to further or achieve victory. Therefore—without being bound by existing legal regulations—in his capacity as Leader of the Nation, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, Governmental Chief and Supreme Executive Chief, as Supreme Justice and Leader of the Party—the Fuehrer must be in a position to force with all means at his disposal every German, if necessary, whether he be common soldier or officer, low or high official or judge, leading or subordinate official of the Party, worker or employee—to fulfill his duties. In case of violation of these duties, the Fuehrer is entitled, after conscientious examination, regardless of so-called well-deserved rights, to mete out due punishment and to remove the offender from his post, rank and position without introducing prescribed procedures.

“At the order of the Fuehrer, this decision is hereby made public. Berlin, 26 April 1942.” (_1961-PS_)

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:

“National Socialism has given the German people that leadership which as Party not only mobilizes the nation but also organizes it, so that on the basis of the natural principle of selection, the continuance of a stable political leadership is safeguarded forever * * * National Socialism * * * possesses Germany entirely and completely since the day when, five years ago, I left the house in Wilhelmsplatz as Reich Chancellor. There is no institution in this state which is not National Socialist. Above all, however, the National Socialist Party in these five years not only has made the nation National Socialist, but also has given itself that perfect organizational structure which guarantees its permanence for all future. The greatest guarantee of the National Socialist revolution lies in the complete domination of the Reich and all its institutions and organizations, internally and externally by the National Socialist Party. Its protection against the world abroad, however, lies in its new National Socialist armed forces. * * * In this Reich, anybody who has a responsible position is a National Socialist * * * Every institution of this Reich is under the orders of the supreme political leadership * * * The Party leads the Reich politically, the armed forces defend it militarily * * * There is nobody in any responsible position in this state who doubts that I am the authorized leader of this Reich.” (_2715-PS_)

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:

“Fight? Why do you always talk of fighting? You have conquered the State, and if something does not please you, then just make a law and regulate it differently? Why must you always talk of fighting? For you have every power! Over what do you fight? Outer-politically? You have the Wehrmacht—it will wage the fight if it is required. Inner-politically? You have the law and the police which can change everything which does not agree with you.” (_3230-PS_)

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:

“It is not the task of the police to interfere in clashes between Germans and English and American terror fliers who have bailed out.” (_R-110_)

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:

“It is only possible with the aid of arms to secure the lives of enemy pilots who were shot down during such attacks, for they would otherwise be killed by the sorely tried population. Who is right here? The murderers who, after their cowardly misdeeds, await a humane treatment on the part of their victims, or the victims who wish to defend themselves according to the principle: ‘An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’? This question is not hard to answer.” (_1676-PS_)

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

“It seems to us hardly possible and tolerable to use German police and soldiers against the German people when it treats murderers of children as they deserve.” (_1676-PS_)

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:

“Several instances have occurred where members of the crews of such aircraft, who have bailed out or who have made forced landings, were lynched on the spot immediately after capture by the populace, which was incensed to the highest degree. No police measures or criminal proceedings were invoked against the German civilians who participated in these incidents.” (_057-PS_)

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:

“Fighter bomber pilots who are shot down are not to be protected against the fury of the people. I expect from all police officers that they will refuse to lend their protection to these gangster types. Authorities acting in contradiction to the popular sentiment will have to account to me. All police and gendarmerie officials are to be informed immediately of this, my attitude.” (_L-154_)

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:

“Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile power, but not of the individuals or corps who have captured them.

“They must at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, insults and public curiosity.

“Measures of reprisal against them are prohibited.” (_3738-PS_)

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 has requested me to give you a review today of the strategic position in the beginning of the fifth year of war.

“No one—the Fuehrer has ordered—may know more or be told more than he needs for his immediate task, but I have no doubt at all in my mind, gentlemen, but that you need a great deal in order to be able to cope with your tasks. It is in your _Gau_, after all * * * that all the enemy propaganda, and the malicious rumors concentrate that try to find themselves a place among our people * * * Against this wave of enemy propaganda and cowardice you need to know the true situation, and, for this reason, I believe that I am justified in giving you a perfectly open and uncovered account of the state of affairs * * *.” (_L-172_)

_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:

“* * * in contrast to the Germanic peoples of the West, military education is no longer to be carried out through voluntary enlistments but through _legal conscription_. The camps in Estonia and Latvia * * * will have to be under German Leadership and, as military education camps of the Hitler Youth, they must be a symbol of our educational mission beyond Germany’s borders * * * I consider the execution of the military education of the Estonian and Latvian youth not only a military necessity, but also a war mission of the Hitler Youth especially. I would be thankful to you, Party member Axmann, if the Hitler Youth would put itself at our disposal with the same readiness with which they have so far supported our work in the Baltic area.” (_347-PS_)

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:

“The Reichsfuehrer SS and the Chief of the German Police * * * can take the administrative measures necessary for the maintenance of security and order, even beyond the legal limits otherwise set on such measures.” (_1438-PS_)

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:

“You can be assured that the District of Thueringen [_Gau_] and I will serve you and our dear people with the employment of all strength * * *.” (_407-VI-PS_)

On 1 September 1939, Hitler wrote a memorandum stating:

“_Reichsleiter_ Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M.D., are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.

“(Signed) A. Hitler.” (_630-PS_)

A handwritten note on the face of the document states:

“Given to me by Bouhler on 27 August 1940, [signed] Dr. Guertner.” (_630-PS_)

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:

“The Reich Minister for Justice will decide whether and when special treatment at the hands of the police is to be applied. The Reich Fuehrer of SS will send the reports, which he sent hitherto to Reichsleiter Bormann, to the Reich Minister for Justice.” (_654-PS_)

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

“the opinion of Reichsleiter Bormann will be brought to bear on the case, and he will possibly inform the Fuehrer * * *.

* * * * * *

“The delivery of antisocial elements from execution of their sentence to the Reich Fuehrer of SS to be worked to death. Persons under protective arrest, Jews, Gypsies, Russians and Ukrainians, Poles with more than 3-year sentences, Czechs and Germans with more than 8-year sentences, according to the decision of the Reich Minister of Justice. First of all the worst antisocial elements amongst those just mentioned are to be handed over. I shall inform the Fuehrer of this through Reichsleiter Bormann.” (_654-PS_)

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

“This is to be carried out step by step as soon as possible * * * I shall rouse the Party particularly to cooperate in this scheme by an article in the _Hoheitstrager_ [NSDAP publication] * * *.” (_654-PS_)

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:

“We are the master race * * * I will squeeze the last drop out of the country . . . the people must work, work and work. We are a master race * * * the lowest German worker is racially and biologically a thousand times more valuable than the people here.” (_1130-PS_)

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:

“* * * the offense committed by a person of foreign extraction is not to be regarded from the view of legal retribution by way of justice, but from the point of view of preventing dangers through police action. From this it follows that the criminal procedure against persons of foreign extraction must be transferred from Justice to the Police. The preceding statements serve for personal information. There are no objections if the _Gauleiter_ are informed in the usual form should the need arise * * *.” (_L-316_)

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:

“We see absolutely no obligation on our part to feed also the Russian people with the products of that surplus territory. We know that this is a harsh necessity, bare of any feelings * * *.” (_1058-PS_)

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—

“Jews, Gypsies and other foreign racial elements, criminals, asocial and incurably insane persons, as well as Frenchmen and Francophiles.” (_R-114_)

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:

“The Crimea has to be evacuated by all foreigners and to be settled by Germans only * * *. We have now to face the task of cutting up the giant cake according to our needs in order to be able first, to dominate it, second, to administer it, and third, to exploit it. The Russians have now ordered partisan warfare behind our front. This partisan war * * * has some advantage for us; it enables us to eradicate everyone who opposes us. * * * Our iron principle is and has to remain: we must never permit anybody but the Germans to carry arms * * *.” (_L-221_)

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:

“This giant area would have to be pacified as quickly as possible; the best solution was to shoot anybody who looked sideways * * * Field Marshal Keitel emphasizes the inhabitants themselves ought to be made responsible for their things because it was, of course, impossible to put a sentry in front of every shed or railway station. The inhabitants had to understand that anybody who did not perform their duties properly would be shot, and that they would be held responsible for each offense.” (_L-221_)

(_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