War Crimes Trials

NOT GUILTY AT NUREMBERG:
The German Defense Case

Final revision: March 6 1996
All references revised in English and German
German page numbers in <>
 
Dedicated to Barbara Kulaszka and Dan Gannon
 

• The material covers, for example:
  
  
• Total War XIX 25 <<32>>
  
  
• Reparations XIX 224-232 <<249-259>>
  
  
• German trade unions XXI 462 <<512>>
  
  
• Gestapo and concentration camps XXI 494-530 <<546-584>>
  
  
• Röhm Putsch XXI 576-592 <<635-651>>
  
  
• Crystal Night XXI 590-592 <<649-651>>
  
  
• Resettlement XXI 467-469, 599-603 <<517-519, 669-674>>
  
  
• SD XXII XXII 19-35 <<27-47>>
  
  
• Armaments XXII 62-64 <<75-78>>

   The 312,022 affidavits are probably on deposit with a German archive.
 
   The judgment of the Nuremberg trial is printed twice, in Volumes I and XXII.
 
   It is important to obtain the German volumes and read the juudgment in volume XXII in German. Bad German, mistranslations, etc, written by the Americans have been corrected, with footnotes. Mistakes of this kind in documents may be taken as proof of forgeries.
 
   Generally, the German IMT volumes are preferable to the American ones. Frequent footnotes throughout these volumes alert the reader to mistranslations, missing documents, and falsified copies (for example, XX 205 of the German volumes: "This phrase does not appear in the original document.").
 
   The German volumes are available in paperback from Delphin Verlag, Munich (ISBN 3.7735.2509.5). (Transcript only; transcript and document volumes in English are available from Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry NY. on microfilm).
 
DOCUMENTS
 
   The standard version of events is that the Allies examined 100,000 documents and chose 1,000 which were introduced into evidence, and that the original documents were then deposited in the Peace Palace at The Hague. This is rather inexact.
 
   The documents used in evidence at Nuremberg consisted largely of "photocopies" of "copies". Many of these original documents were written entirely on plain paper without handwritten markings of any kind, by unknown persons. Occasionally, there is an illegible initial or signature of a more or less unknown person certifying the document as a 'true copy'. Sometimes there are German stamps, sometimes not. Many have been 'found' by the Russians, or 'certified authentic' by Soviet War Crimes Commissions.
 
   Volume XXXIII, a document volume taken at random, contains 20 interrogations or affidavits, 12 photocopies, 5 unsigned copies, 5 original documents with signatures, 4 copies of printed material, 3 mimeographed copies, 3 teletypes, 1 microfilm copy, 1 copy signed by somebody else and 1 unspecified.
 
   The Hague has few, if any, original documents. The Hauge has many original postwar 'affidavits', or sworn statements, the Tribunal Commission transcripts, and much valuable defense material. They have the 'human soap', which has never been tested, and the 'original human soap recipe' (Document USSR-196), which is a forgery; but apparently no original wartime German documents. The Hague has negative photostats of these documents, on extremely brittle paper which has been stapled. To photocopy the photostats, the staples are removed. When they are re-stapled more holes are made. Most of these documents have not been photocopied very often, and officials at The Hague say it is very unusual for anyone to ask to see them.
 
   The National Archives in Washington (see Telford Taylor's Use of Captured German and Related Documents, A National Archive Conference) claim that the original documents are in The Hague. The Hague claims the original documents are in the National Archives.
 
   The Stadtarchiv Nurnberg and the Bundesarchiv Koblenz also have no original documents, and both say the original documents are in Washington. Since the originals are, in most cases, 'copies', there is often no proof that the documents in question ever existed.
 
   Robert Jackson got the trial off to a start by quoting the following forged or otherwise worthless documents: 1947-PS; 1721-PS; 1014-PS; 81-PS; 212-PS; and many others (II 120-142 <<141-168>>).
 
   1947-PS is a 'copy' of a 'translation' of a letter from General Fritsch to the Baroness von Schutzbar-Milchling. The Baroness later signed an affidavit stating that she never received the letter in question (XXI 381 <<420-421>>).
 
   The falsified 'letter' from General Fritsch to the Baroness von Schutzbar-Milchling was recognized as such during the trial and is not included in the document volumes, where it should appear at XXVIII 44. Jackson was not, however, admonished by the Tribunal (XXI 380 <<420>>).
 
   The enthusiastic Americans apparently forged 15 of these 'translations', after which the original documents all disappeared (See Taylor, Captured Documents).
 
   1721-PS is a forgery in which an SA man writes a report to himself about how he is carrying out an order which is quoted verbatim in the report. Handwritten markings on page 1 (XXI 137-141 <<157-161>>; 195-198 <<219-224>>; 425 <<470>>; XXII 147-150 <<169-172>>. See also Testimony Before the Commission, Fuss, 25 April, and Lucke, 7 May 1946). The National Archives have a positive photostat of 1721-PS, and The Hague has a negative photostat. The 'original' is a photocopy (XXVII 485).
 
   1014-PS is a falsified 'Hitler Speech' written on plain paper by an unknown person. The document bears the heading 'Second Speech' although it is known that Hitler gave only one speech on that date. There are four versions of this speech, 3 of them forgeries: 1014-PS, 798-PS, L-3, and an authentic version, Ra-27 (XVII 406-408 <<445-447>>; XVIII 390-402 <<426-439>>.
 
   The third forgery, Document L-3, bears an FBI laboratory stamp and was never even accepted into evidence (II 286 <<320-321>>), but 250 copies of it were given to the press as authentic (II 286-293 <<320-328>>).
 
   This document is quoted by A.J.P. Taylor on page 254 of The Origins of the Second World War (Fawcett Paperbacks, 2nd Edition, with Answer to his Critics) giving his source as German Foreign Policy, Series D vii, No 192 and 193.
 
   L-3 is the source of many statements attributed to Hitler, particularly "who today remembers the fate of the Armenians?" and "our enemies are little worms, I saw them at Munich". 'Hitler' also compares himself to Genghis Khan and says he will exterminate the Poles, and kick Chamberlain in the groin in front of the photographers. The document appears to have been prepared on the same typewriter as many other Nuremberg documents, including the two other versions of the same speech. This typewriter was probably a Martin from the Triumph-Adler-Werke, Nuremberg.
 
   81-PS is a 'certified true copy' of an unsigned letter on plain paper prepared by an unknown person. If authentic, it is the first draft of a letter never sent. This is invariably spoken of as a letter written by Rosenberg, which Rosenberg denied (XI 510-511 <<560-561>>). The document lacks signature, initial, blank journal number (a bureaucratic marking) and was not found among the papers of the person to whom it was addressed (XVII 612 <<664>>). 81-PS is a 'photocopy' with a Soviet exhibit number (USSR-353, XXV 156-161).
 
   212-PS was also prepared by an unknown person, entirely on plain paper, without any handwritten markings, date, address, or stamp (III 540 <<602>>, XXV 302-306; see also photocopies of negative photostats from The Hague).
 
   This is, unfortunately, only typical. Document 386-PS, the 'Hossbach Protokoll', Hitler's supposed speech of 5 November 1938, is a certified photocopy of a microfilm copy of a re-typed 'certified true copy' prepared by an American, of a re-typed 'certified true copy' prepared by a German, of unauthenticated handwritten notes by Hossbach, of a speech by Hitler, written from memory 5 days later. This is not the worst document, but one of the best, because we know who made one of the copies. The text of 386-PS has been 'edited' (XLII 228-230).
 
   Thus 'trial by document' works as follows: A, an unknown person, listens to alleged 'oral statements' made by B, and takes notes or prepares a document on the basis of those alleged oral statements. The document is then introduced into evidence, not against A, who made the copy, but against B, C, D, E and a host of other people, although there is nothing to connect them with the document or the alleged statements. It is casually stated as fact that 'B said', or that 'C did', or that 'D and E knew'. This is contrary to the rules of evidence of all civilised countries. Nor are the documents identified by witnesses.
 
   The forgery of original documents was rarely resorted to at Nuremberg, because the documents were not brought to court. The "original document" - that is, the original unsigned "copy" - was kept in a safe in the Document Centre (II 195 <<224>>, 256-258 <<289-292>>).
 
   Then, 2 "photocopies" of the "copy" (V 21 <<29>>) or 6 photocopies (II 251-253 <<284-286>>) were prepared and brought to court. All other copies were re-typed on a mimeograph using a stencil (IX 504 <<558-559>>).
 
   In the transcript, the word "original" is used to mean "photocopy" (II 249-250 <<283-284>>; XIII 200 <<223>>, 508 <<560>>, 519 <<573>>, XV 43 <<53>>, 169 <<189>> 171 <<191>> 327 <<359>>), to distinguish the photocopies from the mimeograph copies (IV 245-246 <<273-274>>).
 
   "Translations" of all documents were available from the beginning of the trial (II 159-160 <<187-189>>, 191 <<219-220>>, 195 <<224>>, 215 <<245>>, 249-250 <<282-283>>, 277 <<312>>, 415 <<458>>, 437 <<482-483>>), but the "original" German texts were not available until at least two months later. This applies not just to the trial briefs and indictment, etc. but to ALL DOCUMENTS. The defense received no documents in German until after January 9, 1946 (V 22-26 <<31-35>>).
 
   Documents which appear to have been prepared on the same typewriter include Document 3803-PS, a letter from Kaltenbrunner to the Mayor of Vienna, and the cover letter from this same Mayor sending Kaltenbrunner's letter to the Tribunal (XI 345-348 <<381-385>>). This letter from Kaltenbrunner contains a false geographical term (XIV 416 <<458>>).
 
KARL DÖNITZ
 
   Dönitz was imprisoned for waging "illegal submarine warfare" against the British. In international law, everything is a matter of reciprocity and international agreements, which can only be enforced through reciprocity. In warfare, the best defense against a weapon is a vigorous counterattack with the same weapon. The British, due to their mastery of the seas, fought both world wars through blockade, and the so-called Navicert system. Neutral ships were stopped at sea, and forced to pull into British ports where they were searched according to complicated formulae: if a neutral country imported more food, fertlizer, wool, leather, rubber, cotton, etc. than the quantities believed necessary for its own consumption (in the opinion of the British), the difference was assumed to be intended for reshipment to the Germans. Result: the ship (and entire cargo) was confiscated and sold at auction, which also violated the clauses of all British marine insurance contracts.
 
   In 1918-19, the blockade was maintained for 8 months after the Armistice to force the Germans to ratify the Versailles Treaty. Hundreds of thousands of Germans died of starvation after the war while the diplomats delayed, an obvious violation of the conditions of the Armistice and all international law. This is what Hitler correctly termed "the greatest breach of faith of all time". The British point of view appears to be that the blockade was legal but was carried out in a totally illegal manner (see 1911 Encyplopaedia Brittannica, "Neutrality", 1922 Encyclopaedia Brittannica, "Blockade", "Peace Conference". In the war against Japan, the Americans "sank everything that moved since the first day of the war".
 
   Neutrals, including the United States, complained that this violated their neutrality, but complied, again, in violation of their own neutrality. A nation which allows its neutrality to be violated may be treated as a belligerent.
 
   The British never ratified the Fifth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 on the Rights of Neutrals, but considered its terms binding on the Germans and Japanese, despite an all-participation clause (i.e., the convention ceases to apply if a non-signatory participates in the conflict).
 
   In 1939, the Germans possessed only 26 Atlantic-going submarines, one fifth of the French total alone. Moreover, German submarines were much smaller than those of other nations. A counterblockade against the British could only be enforced by warning neutrals not to sail in waters surrounding the British Isles. To the British, this was a "crime".
 
   Of these 26 submarines, many were, at any one time, under repair; so that during some months only 2 or 3 were seaworthy. It is obvious that submarines cannot carry out search and seizure in the same manner as a surface navy; a submarine, once it has surfaced, is almost defenseless against the smallest gun mounted on a merchant vessel, not to mention radio, radar, and aircraft.
 
   It was demanded by the British at Nuremberg that German submarines should have surfaced, notified the surface vessel of their intention to search; waited for the surface vessel to commence hostilities; then sink the vessel, presumably with the submarine's deck guns; then take the dozens of hundreds of survivors on board the submarine (where they would be in far greater danger than in any lifeboat), and take them to the nearest land.
 
   When British aircraft appeared and sank the submarine, killing the survivors, they had, of course, been "murdered" by the Germans. No international convention requires this, and no nation fought in this manner. Since rescuing survivors rendered the submarine unfit for duty and frequently resulted in the loss of submarine and crew, Dönitz prohibited any act of rescue. This was called an order to "exterminate survivors". This was not upheld in the judgment, however.
 
   Dönitz was also accused of encouraging the German people to hopeless resistance, a crime also committed by Winston Churchill, Dönitz replied.
 
   "It was very painful that our cities were still being bombed to pieces and that through these bombing attacks and the continued fight more lives were lost. The number of these people is about 300,000 to 400,000, the largest number of whom perished in the bombing of Dresden, which cannot be justified from a military point of view, and which could not have been predicted.
 
   "Nevertheless, this figure is relatively small compared with the millions of German people we would have lost in the East, soldiers and civilians, if we had capitulated in the winter." (XIII 247-406 <<276-449>>; XVIII 312-372 <<342-406>>).
 
HANS FRANK
 
   Frank was accused of making hundreds of anti-Semitic statements in a 12,000 page document called his "diary". The "diary" contains only one page signed by Frank, and hundreds of humane statements, which were ignored (XII 115-156 <<129-173>>). The anti-Semitic statements were selected by the Russians and typeset in a short document which was introduced into evidence as Document 2233-PS, invariably called "Frank's Diary".
 
   The actual "diary" of 12,000 pages consists of summaries (not verbatim transcripts or stenographic notes) of conferences in which 5 or 6 people often spoke at once in circumstances of great confusion; it was not clear to whom which statements should be attributed (XII 86 <<97-98>>).
 
   Frank gave his "diary" to the Americans in the belief that it would exonerate him; he had protested Hitler's illegality in public speeches at great personal risk, and tried to resign 14 times (XII 2-114 <<8-128>>; XVIII 129-163 <<144-181>>).
 
   Frank became convinced that atrocities had occured after reading about the Soviet Maidenak Trial in the foreign press (XII 35 <<43>>). Auschwitz was not in territory controlled by Frank.
 
   Frank saw his task as the creation of an independent judiciary in a National Socialist State, a task which he found impossible. In a speech on November 19, 1941, Frank said,
 
   "Law cannot be degraded to a position where it becomes an object of bargaining. Law cannot be sold. It is either there, or it is not there. Law cannot be marketed on the stock exchange. If the law finds no support, then the State too loses its moral stay and sinks into the depths of night and horror."
 
   Hitler's illegalities never included the passing of an ex post facto law; in 3 cases, punishment was increased retroactively (XVII 504 <<547>>).
 
   Frank's alleged looting of art treasures will be discussed together with that of Rosenberg.
 
WILHELM FRICK
 
   Frick was hanged for "Germanizing" the inhabitants of Posen, Danzig, West Prussia, Eupen, Malmedy, the Sudetenland, the Memelland, and Austria. With the exception of Austria, these were fomer parts of the Prussian Reich, separated from Germany by the Versailles Treaty. Malmedy is French-speaking - the other areas are all German speaking. Austria was unable to subsist as an economic unit after 1919, and had demanded to be united with Germany by vote. The Allied victors responded by threatening to cut off all food supplies (XVIII 55 <<66>>, XIX 360 <<397>>).
 
   Another crime committed by Frick was killing 275,000 feeble-minded persons, according to the "report" of a Czech "War Crimes Commission".
 
   Frick, like Göring, was accused of responsibility for the existence of the concentration camps. In Frick's defense it was pointed out that "protective custody" pre-dated the National Socialist accession to power in both Germany and Austria. In Austria, it was called Anhaltehaft, and was used to imprison thousands of National Socialists (XXI 518-521 <<572-576>>). "Protective custody" exists in West Germany today and is called U-haft.
 
   In the final judgment of one of the most important Dachau Trials (Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss and Thirty-Nine Others, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, volume XI, p. 15, published by the United Nations), the following sentence appears:
 
   "In the Mathausen Concentration Camp case . . . the facts were basically the same - though the casualty figures were much higher as mass extermination by means of a gas chamber was practised ---"
 
   Is this an admission that no gas chamber existed at Dachau? According to Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, no Dachau trial ever "proved" the existence of a gas chamber at Dachau.
 
   At Nuremberg, a "certified true copy" of the judgment of the Trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss and Thirty Nine Others was introduced into evidence with that sentence deleted as Document 3590-PS (V 199 <<228>>) along with 3 other documents alleging mass extermination by gassing at Dachau (Document 3249-PS, V 172-173 <<198>, XXXII 60; Document 2430-PS, XXX 470; and 159-L, XXXVII 621).
 
   Frick was accused by the deponent of the "mass gassings at Dachau" affidavit, Document 3249-PS, (written by Lt. Daniel L. Margolies, also involved in the forgery of 3 Hitler speeches, XIV 65 <<77>>, and signed by Dr. Franz Blaha) of having visited Dachau. Frick denied this, and demanded to take the stand to be confronted with Blaha and to testify in his own defense.
 
   This request was denied, and Frick apparently gave up. He never testified. His defense summation appears at XVIII 164-189 <<182-211>>.
 
   The deponent, Dr. Franz Blaha, a Communist, was President of the International Dachau Association in 1961, still claiming to have witnessed mass gassings and to have made trousers and other leather goods out of human skin.
 
   The trial of Martin Gottfried Weiss is available on 6 reels of microfilm (MII 74, National Archives). The pre-trial gas chamber exhibits (report, diagrams, shower nozzle, reel 1) were never introduced into evidence and are missing from the trial exhibits (reel 4). The transcripts (reels 2 & 3) contain no mention of any gas chamber at Dachau except for a few sentences in the testimony of Dr Blaha (Volume 1 pp. 166-169). The human skin came from moles (Volume 4, pp. 450, 462, 464).
 
HANS FRITZCHE
 
   Fritzsche became convinced from a letter that mass killings were being carried out in Russia and attempted to verify this. He was, however, unable to find any evidence of it (XVII 172-175 <<191-195>>).
 
   Fritzsche is an important defendant because it was admitted in his case that foreign newspapers printed much false news about Germany (XVII 175-176 <<194-196>>; see also XVII 22-24 <<30-33>>). Yet, these same newspaper stories and radio reports constituted the "facts of common knowledge" which the Tribunal alleged needed no proof (Article 21 of rules of evidence, I 15 <<16>>, II 246 <<279>>).
 
   It was pointed out in Fritzsche's defense that no international convention exists regulating propaganda or atrocity stories, true or false, and that only one national law of one state (Switzerland) made it unlawful to insult foreign Heads of State. That Fritzsche could be guilty of no crime, was, at Nuremberg, simply irrelevant. It was deemed undesirable to have a "trial" in which all defendants were convicted. In the horse-trading which preceeded the final verdict, it was agreed that Fritzsche should be released (XVII 135-261 <<152-286>>; XIX 312-352 <<345-388>>).
 
WALTER FUNK
 
   Funk was a classical pianist from a highly respected artistic family, married for 25 years at the time of the trial, and former financial editor. Like most of the defendants, Funk was accused of performing "immoral acts" such as accepting birthday gifts from Hitler, proving "willing participation in the Common Plan". (Obviously, such acts are not illegal.)
 
   Funk claimed that the British and the Poles had conspired to provoke Germany into war in the belief that the generals would overthrow Hitler (XIII 111-112 <<125-126>>).
 
   Funk was accused of conspiring with the SS to murder concentration camp inmates in order to finance the war effort by pulling their teeth out. The gold teeth were stored in a vault at the Reichsbank, along with shaving kits, fountain pens, large alarm clocks, and other more or less useless junk. Forgotten was Rudolf Hoess's testimony that the teeth were melted at Auschwitz (XI 417 <<460>>).
 
   Funk testified that the amounts and kinds of loot were "absurd" and pointed out that the SS acted as customs police and enforced exchange control regulations, including a prohibition against the ownership of gold, silver, and foreign coins or currency. It was quite natural that the SS should confiscate large amounts of valuables, and that the SS, as a government agency, should have financial accounts, and that these accounts would contain valuables. Germans kept valuables in the same vaults as well, to which the Reichsbank had no access, since they were private safety deposit accounts.
 
   With the increased bombing raids, more and more valuables were deposited in the vaults by ordinary German citizens. Finally, after a particularly damaging raid on the bank, the valuables were removed to a potassium mine in Thuringen. The Americans found the valuables there, and falsified a film of it.
 
   Funk and his attorney showed the falsity of the film using an opposing witness, in some of the shrewdest testimony and cross examination in the entire trial (XIII 169 <<189-190>>, 203-204 <<227-228>>, 562-576 <<619-636>>; XXI 233-245 <<262-275>>).
 
   Also given short shrift was the ridiculous Oswald Pohl affidavit, Document 4045-PS, in which Funk was accused of discussing the use of gold teeth from dead Jews to finance the war at a dinner party attended by dozens of people, including waiters (XVIII 220-263 <<245-291>>). This affidavit is in German and is witnessed by Robert Kempner. Pohl was later convicted of "steaming" people to death in 10 "steam chambers" at Treblinka, and making doormats out of their hair (NMT IV 1119-1152) (Fourth National Military Tribunal, Nuremberg).
 
   Funk believed, like other defendants, that crimes had occurred, but maintained that he knew nothing about it. His belief that crimes had occurred does not, in itself, prove that that belief was true.
 
KURT GERSTEIN
 
   Kurt Gerstein is often referred to as a Holocaust "witness"; however, this is not correct. By "witness", one normally understands a person who has seen something and who appears to testify as to his personal knowledge; Gerstein did not do that. Gerstein was an unworn affiant or deponent, which means that he is simply a name appearing at the end of a "statement" typewritten in French, which he may or may not have written. (Document 1553-PS rejected at Nuremberg) (VI 333-334 <<371-372>>, 362-363 <<398-399>>).
 
   One of the stories current about Gerstein is that he wrote the statement in Cherche-Midi prison, in France, and committed suicide, after which his body disappeared.
 
   It is far more probable that the statement was written in French by a German Jewish interrogator-"interpreter", and that some of the inconsistencies (such as winter occuring in August, or being in a car in one sentence, and a train in the next) resulted from imperfect transcription of the notes of interrogation into affidavit form. In minor war crimes trials and Japanese war crimes trials, unsworn "statements" of this kind are fairly common, on the theory that they possess "probative value" but less "weight" than sworn statements. It is also possible that Gerstein died of injuries sustained during "interrogation"; or perhaps he hanged himself with the typewriter ribbon.
 
   This document was later extensively quoted in the Pohl Trial, where it was "proven" that Treblinka had 10 'gas chambers' (1553-PS) and 10 'steam chambers' (3311-PS) in the same camp at the same time.
 
G.M. GILBERT
 
   One of the most famous accounts of the behavior and psychology of the Nuremberg Trial defendants is that of the German-born psychologist, G.M. Gilbert, in his book Nuremberg Diary. Much of the material consists of conversations which the defendants and other persons, such as Rudolf Hoess, allegedly had with Gilbert or each other(!) and which Gilbert allegedly wrote down from memory afterwards.
 
   A comparison of texts with the Nuremberg trial transcript will show that the defendants did not speak in the style attributed to them by Gilbert. Gilbert took no notes. No witnesses were present.
 
   Persons who believe that Documents 1014-PS, 798-PS, and L-3 are "Hitler speeches", at least in comparison with Document Ra-27, may continue believing that Gilbert's book contains "statements of the Nuremberg Trial defendants". This does not rule out, of course, that they may have made statements similar to those allegedly "remembered" by Gilbert.
 
   Gilbert believed that the defendants gassed millions of Jews. If they felt no guilt for their actions, this proved that they were "schizoid".
 
   It is obvious that such a belief on Gilbert's part would influence his perception and memory to some extent, even if he is telling the truth as he remembers it. If he lied, he was not the only "American" at Nuremberg who did so. Telford Taylor, for example, was incapable of repeating the simplest statement truthfully. (See XX 626 <<681-682>>), the statements of General Manstein, compared with Taylor's "quotation" from Manstein, XXII 276 <<315>>).
 
   Gilbert's dishonesty is best proven by the entry for December 14, 1945:
 
   "Major Walsh continued reading documentary evidence of the extermination of the Jews at Treblinka and Auschwitz. A Polish document stated: 'All victims had to strip off their clothes and shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all victims, women and children first, were driven into the death chambers . . . small children were simply thrown inside" (p.69, 1st edition).
 
   The "documentary evidence" is, of course, a Communist "War Crimes Report" and the "death chambers", of course, are "steam chambers" (III 567-568 <<632-633>>).
 
HERMANN GÖRING
 
   Göring was accused of creating the concentration camp system and plotting "aggressive war" against Poland. Göring's defense was that Germany was a sovereign state, recognized by every government in the world (XXI 580-581 <<638-639>>); that Hitler was legally elected; that every nation has the right to legislate and to organize its affairs as it sees fit; that General von Schleicher had attempted to rule illegally and unconstitutionally without the support of the National Socialists; that Germany was on the verge of civil war in 1933; that concentration camps were invented by the British during the Boer War, and that internment of aliens and political opponents was practiced by both Britain and the United States during WWII.
 
   The order to create the camps was unquestionably legal under an emergency clause in the Weimar Constitution, and was signed by Hindenberg (Reich President's Decree of 28 February 1933), under the authority of Article 48, paragraph 2, of the Weimar Constitution (XVII 535 <<581>>, XIX 357 <<394>>).
 
   According to a prosecution document, Document R-129 (III 506 <<565-566>>)) there were 21,400 inmates in all German concentration camps put together in 1939. 300,000 persons were confined in ordinary prisons (XVII 535-536 <<581-582>>, XX 159 <<178>>).
 
   One year after the war, 300,000 Germans were held in Allied prison camps under "automatic arrest" clauses in Allied agreements (such as Point B-5 of the Joint Declaration of Potsdam) (XVIII 52 <<62>>).
 
   The majority of prisoners in German concentration camps were Communists and common criminals (XVII 535-536 <<581-582>>, XXI 516-521 <<570-576>>, 607-614 <<677-685>>).
 
   During the war, due to the Allied blockade, the camp system was expanded to utilize the labour of enemy aliens, criminals, Jehova's Witnesses and Communists. It was pointed out that America imprisoned 11,000 Jehova's Witnesses (XI 513 <<563>>).
 
   Britain fought both world wars in defiance of international law by reducing Germany and any occupied territories to literal starvation through blockade (XIII 445-450 <<492-497>>; XVIII 334-335 <<365-367>>). It was this which necessitated requisitions and labour conscription in occupied territories, legal under Article 52 of The Fourth Hague Convention on Land Warfare 18 October 1907. It was this which made people happy to work in Germany and remit wages to their families (between two and three billion Reichsmarks during the war).
 
   The "slaves" paid German taxes on their wages, and were disciplined through fines, which could not exceed a week's wages (V 509 <<571>>). For gross indiscipline, they could be sent to a work camp (not a concentration camp) for a period not exceeding 56 days (XXI 521 <<575-576>>). It was strictly forbidden to beat or mistreat them.
 
   Prisoners of war could volunteer to be released from prisoner of war camps and work in industry, in which case they were treated like any other industrial workers (XVIII 496-498 <<542-544>>), but lost protection under the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention. They could not be forced to do so.
 
   The Vichy Regime in France obtained the release and immediate return home of 1 prisoner of war for every 3 workers sent to Germany under contract for a period of 6 months (XVIII 497 <<543>>). It was not possible to violate the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention by forcing French, Belgian or Dutch prisoners to participate in hostilities against their own countries, because their own countires were no longer fighting (XVIII 472-473 <<516>>.
 
   As for the attack on Poland, the Polish crisis existed for over a year prior to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the German and Soviet attack. During this entire time, the Poles never called for an impartial international Court of Arbitration; never called on the League of Nations; because they did not wish an equitable solution. They were content to continue to violate their international agreements by expelling Polish citizens of German descent, as well as many hundreds of thousands of Jews (XVI 275 <<304>>).
 
   The influx of Polish Jews into Germany was the principal immediate cause of German anti-Semitism, according to many defendants and defense witnesses (XXI 134-135 <<155>>; XXII 148 <<169>>). Polish Jews were involved in many financial scandals and swindling schemes, such as the Barnat-Kutitsky affair (XXI 569 <<627>>).
 
   As for "conspiracy to wage war in defiance of the laws of war", of course it was the British who did that, with mass aerial bombings. German soldiers went into battle with detailed written instructions that property was to be respected; prisoners must be humanely treated; women must be respected; and so on (IX 57-58 <<68-69>>, 86 <<100-101>>, XVII 516 <<560>>).
 
   Frequent trials resulting in many death penalties against Germans were carried out by the German armed forces against members of their own armed forces for rape or looting, even if the value of the property involved was slight (XVIII 368 <<401-402>>, XXI 390 <<431>>, XXII 78 <<92>>).
 
   Requisition of government property was legal under the Hague Convention. The Soviet Union was not a signatory to this convention. In any case, in Communist countries there was no private property. Göring said he had been to Russia, and the people there had nothing to steal (IX 349-351 <<390-393>>).
 
   Furthermore, the Allies were presently engaged in everything they accused the Germans of doing (XXI 526 <<581>>; XXII 366-367 <<418-420>>).
 
   Göring demolished the "pressure chamber medical experiment" accusation by saying that every airman had to test his physical reactions to high altitude; there was nothing sinister about a so-called "pressure chamber" (XXI 304-310 <<337-344>>). Americans carried out medical experiments resulting in death while the Nuremberg trial was still going on (XIX 90-92 <<102-104>>; see also XXI 356, 370 <<393, 409>>).
 
   Ironically, it was alleged that "defensive war" included preventive attack (XXII 448 <<508>>) or to protect citizens of a foreign country from their own government (XIX 472 <<527>>; XXII 37 <<49>>), except when Germans did it (X 456 <<513>>). Protests that Germans did just that were ignored.
 
   The Soviets had 10,000 tanks and 150 divisions massed along the border of eastern Poland, and had increased the number of airports in their section of the country from 20 to 100. Detailed maps were later found which would not have been necessary for defensive purposes. It was believed that to await an attack upon the oil fields of Roumania or the coal fields of Silesia would be suicidal (XIX 13-16 <<20-23>>, XX 578 <<630-631>>; XXII 71 <<85>>).
 
   It seems unlikely that nations with vast colonial empires (Britain, France) or claims upon entire hemispheres (the United States) could agree upon a workable definition of "aggressive war". Indeed it was admitted in the judgment of Nuremberg that "defense", "aggression", and "conspiracy" were never defined (XXII 464, 467 <<527, 531>>). No doubt "defensive war" is the medieval "bellum justum" dressed up in liberal jargon (IX 236-691 <<268-782>>; XVII 516-550 <<560-597>>; XXI 302-317 <<335-351>>).
 
RUDOLF HESS
 
   According to the report of Robert H. Jackson, (quoted by Judge Bert A. Röling of the Tokyo Tribunal, writing in A Treatise on International Criminal Law, vol. 1., pp. 590-608, edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni and Ved. F. Nanda, Chas Thomas Publisher), the British, French, and Soviets at Nuremberg did not wish to charge the Germans with "aggressive war" at all, for obvious reasons. This accusation was invented by the Americans for the sole, express, and admitted purpose of justifying American violations of international law.
 
   These violations of international law would include the Lend Lease Program; convoying and repairing British wartime ships for two years prior to Pearl Harbor; allowing British ships to disguise themselves as American while the U.S. was officially neutral; the illegal declaration of a 300 mile limit; the occupation of Iceland; reporting the movements of German and Italian submarines; bombing and ramming attacks against German and Italian submarines beginning as early as July of 1941, and other actions obviously indicative of "aggressive war".
 
   Thus Hess was imprisoned for 47 years not only for actions which were not illegal (attempting to stop the war, save millions of lives and prevent the destruction of Europe and the British Empire), but for "crimes" which were invented to cover the crimes of his accusers.
 
   It was not alleged at Nuremberg that Germany had committed "aggression" against Britain or France; the question of whether Britain and France had, thereofre, committed "aggression" against Germany was left unanswered (IX 473 <<525>>; XVII 580 <<629>>).
 
   Hess was accused of plotting with Hitler to take Britain out of the war so that Hitler could attack Russia. His defense was that his action was dictated by sincerity; that he knew nothing of any attack on Russia.
 
   Hess's defense summation appears at XIX 353-396 <<390-437>>. >From his final (and only) statement (XXII 368-373 <<420-425>>) Hess appears to have been a man who could be totally insane one moment, and brilliantly lucid, sane and logical a moment later. It is possible that this condition was acquired in Britain.
 
[Photograph captioned, "The wreckage of the plane that Rudolf Hess flew to Britain in an attempt to stop the war, leading to his conviction for crimes against peace."]
 
RUDOLF HÖSS
 
   Rudolf Höss was the Auschwitz commandant whose "confessions" have "proven" that Hitler gassed six million Jews (or five million, the figure usually used at Nuremberg). His best-known "confession" is the one quoted by William L. Shirer on pages 968-969 of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
 
   This document, Document 3868-PS, should be seen in its context. The ex parte written "statement" or affidavit (i.e., prepared in the presence of only one of the parties) was a principal prosecutor's tool in the witchcraft trials of the Middle Ages, only to disappear for several centuries, then reappear in Communist show trials and war crimes trials.
 
   These documents violate many standard rules of legal procedure, such as the rule against asking leading questions, the rule against prior consistent statements (i.e., the multiplication of evidence by repetition; normally, such statements are only admissible when they contradict other statements made later), the right to confront and cross-examine one's accuser, and the privilege against self-incrimination. Nor would the "evidence" in war crime trials be admissable in a court martial. Even in 1946, the introduction of depositions by the prosecution in capital cases before a court martial was forbidden by Article 25 of the US Articles of War. Article 38 required the use of standard Federal rules of evidence.
 
   At Nuremberg, there was never the slightest pretense that Höss wrote this document. If that had been the case, it would not state, "I understand English as it is written above", but rather, "I have written this statement myself". In the minor trials (Hadamar, Natzweiler, etc.) it is common to find confessions written entirely in the handwriting of the interrogator, in English, with a final statement in the prisoners handwriting, in German, stating that these are his statements and that he is satisfied with the translation into English!
 
   Another formula occurs on page 57 of the Hadamar volume of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe's book, War Crimes Trials, "I certify that the above has been read to me in German, my native tongue" (in English).
 
   The pretense was that the prisoner was interrogated through an interpreter in question and answer form, after which the questions were deleted, and the answers were run together in the form of an affidavit, usually written by a different person from the interrogator who conducted the questioning.
 
   At Belsen, for example, every affidavit was written by one officer, Major Smallwood. In this trial, a combination Auschwitz-Belsen trial, the court-appointed British and free Polish defense team demolished the prosecution case - including the "selections for mass gassings" - but were overruled on the grounds that involuntary statements and oral and written hearsay were admissable, "not to convict the innocent, but to convict the guilty" (Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. II. (This thin volume must be read in its entirety.))
 
   After the affidavit was prepared by the officer who did nothing but write affidavits, it was presented in its finished form to the prisoner for signature. If it was not signed, it was introduced into evidence anyway. Objections went to "weight", in the jargon of war crimes proceedings, rather than to "admissibility".
 
   An example of an unsigned affidavit by Rudolf Höss is Document NO-4498-B. The B means that this document is a "translation" with typewritten signature of an "original" document, Document NO-4498-A, written in Polish, and allegedly signed by Höss. There is also a Document NO-4498-C, in English.
 
   Affidavits A and C are not attached to Affidavit B, the "true copy".
 
   Document 3868-PS, quoted by Shirer, was signed in English, 3 times, but not in the "translation" into German. The document contains a minor change initialled by Höss, with a small "h", and an entire sentence written entirely in the interrogator's handwriting (compare capital "W"s) not initialled by Hoss. The initial, of course, is there to "prove" that he has "read and corrected" the document. The content of this handwritten sentence is refuted elsewhere (XXI 529 <<584>>).
 
   When the affidavit was presented to the prisoner, it was sometimes corrected extensively, leading to two or more versions of the same document. In these cases, the longer ones are "quoted", and the shorter ones are "lost". An example of this practice is Document 948-949, the affidavit of Dr. Wilhelm Jäger (See Albert Speer.)
 
   Jäger testified that he signed 3 or 4 copies of the same document, a much shorter one. The shorter one was originally presented against the elder Krupp, before charges against him were dropped. In this document, the longer one, the translation into English is dated prior to the signature date on the "original". Jäger's court appearance was an unmitigated disaster, but that is forgotten (XV 264-283 <<291-312>>).
 
   If the affiant appeared to testify, he invariably contradicted the affidavit, but contradictions are ignored. Other affidavit signers whose court appearances were catastrophic include General Westhoff, who contradicted his unsworn "statement" 27 times (XI 155-189 <<176-212>>); and a "germ warfare witness", Schreiber (XXI 547-562 <<603-620>>); Paul Schmidt's affidavit (Schmidt was Hitler's interpreter), Document 3308-PS - presented to him for signature when he was too sick to read it carefully - was partially repudiated by him (X 222 <<252>>), but used in evidence against Von Neurath, despite Schmidt's repudiation (XVI 381 <<420-421>> XVII 40-41 <<49-50>>). Ernst Sauckel signed an affidavit written prior to his arrival at Nuremberg (XV 64-68 <<76-80>>) and signed under duress (his wife and 10 children were to be handed over to the Poles or Russians).
 
   Since the affiants almost never (if ever) wrote their own "statements", it is common to find identical or nearly identical phrases or even entire paragraphs occurring in different documents, even when they have been prepared on different days by supposedly different people; for example, affidavits 3 and 5 of Blaskovitz and Halder (Exhibits 536-US and 537-US); Documents USSR-471 and USSR-472 and 473; and Documents USSR-264 and 272 (human soap affidavits).
 
   Other affidavits signed by Höss include Document NO-1210, in which the English was written first, with extensive interpolations, additions and corrections, including 2 different first drafts of page 4, and 2 different first drafts of page 5, then translated into German and signed by Höss. That is, the "translation" is the "original", and the "original" is the "translation".
 
   Document 749(b)D was "translated orally" into German from English for Höss prior to signature. The signature is faint to the point of illegibility, indicating possible ill health, fatigue or torture. The torture has been described by Rupert Butler in Legions of Death (Hamlyn Paperbacks)
 
   The "confession" quoted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe on April Fool's Day, April 1, 1946, in which Höss "confessed" to killing 4 million Jews (X 389 <<439-440>>), instead of the usual 2.5 million of April 5, 1946, has either never existed or has gotten "lost".
 
   It is not true that Höss's court appearance at Nuremberg consisted chiefly of assenting to his affidavit; this is true only of his cross-examination by Col. John Amen of the U.S. Army.
 
   Instead, Höss appeared to testify, and, as usual, contradicted his affidavit and himself as much as possible (XI 396-422 <<438-466>>).
 
   For example, where the affidavit states (XI 416 <<460>>) "we knew when the people were dead because their screaming stopped", (a crudely obvious toxicological impossibility), his oral testimony claims (XI 401 <<443>>, in response to grossly improper leading questions posed by Kaltenbrunner's "defense attorney"), that the people became unconscious; leaving unsolved the problem of just how he knew when they were, in fact, dead. He forgot to mention that killing insects with Zyklon took two days, a fact he mentioned elsewhere (Document NO-036, p. 3, German text, answer to Question 25, and Kommandant in Auschwitz, p. 155).
 
   With such a slow-acting poison, the people would suffocate first.
 
   Höss claimed that the order to kill the Jews of Europe was given orally (XI 398 <<440>>), but that orders to keep the killings secret were given in writing (XI 400 <<442>>. He claimed that persons were cremated in pits at Auschwitz, a notorious swamp (XI 420 <<464>>), and that gold teeth were melted down on the spot (XI 417 <<460>>), but an evacuation of the concentration camps to avoid capture would have led to unnecessary deaths (XI 407 <<449-450>>), and, almost, that there was no killing program at all! This is worth quoting:

"Until the outbreak of war in 1939, the situation in the camps regarding feeding, accomodation, and treatment of detainees, was the same as in any other prison or penitentiary in the Reich. The detainees were treated strictly, yes, but methodical beatings or ill-treatment were outof the question. The Reichsfuhrer gave frequent warnings that every SS man who laid violent hands on a detainee would be punished; and quite often SS men who did ill-treat detainees were punished. Feeding and accomodation at that time were in every respect put on the same basis as that of other prioners under legal administration. The accomodation in the camps during those years was still normal because the mass influxes at the outbreak of and during the war had as yet not taken place. When the war started and when mass deliveries of political detainees arrived, and, later on, when detainees, who were members of resistence movements, arrived from the occupied territories, the construction of buildings and the extensions of the camps could no longer keep up with the number of detainees who arrived. During the first years of the war this problem could still be overcome by improvising measures; but, later, due to the exigencies of the war, this was no longer possible, since there were practically no building materials any longer at our disposal"- (Note: the bodies are supposed to have been burnt using wood for fuel.) - . . . This led to a situation where detainees in the camps no longer had sufficient powers of resistence against the ensuing plagues and epidemics . . . the aim wasn't to have as many dead as possible or to destroy as many detainees as possible. The Reichsfuhrer was constantly concerned with the problems of engaging all forces possible in the armament industry . . . These so-called ill-treatments and torturing in concentration camps, stories of which were spread everywhere amongst the people, and particularly by detainees who were liberated by the occupying armies, were not, as assumed, inflicted methodically, but by individual leaders, sub-leaders, and men who laid violent hands on them . . . If in any way such a matter was brought to my notice, the perpetrator was, of course, immediately relieved of his post or transferred somewhere else. So that, even if he wasn't punished because there wasn't evidence to prove his guilt, he was taken away and given another position . . ..
 
"The catastrophic situation at the end of the war was due to the fact that as a result of the destruction of railways and of the continuous bombings of the industrial works, it was no longer possible to properly care for these masses, for example, at Auschwitz, with its 140,000 detainees. Improvised measures, truck columns, and everything else tried by the commandants to improve the situation, were of little or no avail. The number of sick became immense. There were next to no medical supplies; plagues raged everywhere. Detainees who were capable of work were used continuously by order of the Reichsfuhrer, even half-sick people had to be used wherever possible in industry. As a result, every bit of space in the concentration camps which could possibly be used for lodging was filled with sick and dying detainees . . .
 
"At the end of the war, there were still thirteen concentration camps. All the other points which are marked here on the map means so-called labour camps attached to the armament factories situated there . . .
 
"If any ill-treatment of detainees by guards occurred - I myself have never observed any - then this was possible only to a very small degree, since all officers in charge of the camps took care that as few SS men as possible had immediate contact with the inmates, because in the course of the years the guard personnel had deteriorated to such an extent that the former standards could no longer be maintained . . .
 
"We had thousands of guards who could hardly speak German, who came from all leading countries of the world as volunteers and joined these units; or we had elder men, between 50 and 60, who lacked all interest in their work, so that a camp commandant had to take care continuously that these men fulfilled even the lowest requirements of their duties. Furthermore, it is obvious that there were elements among them who would ill-treat detainees, but this ill-treatment was never tolerated. Furthermore, it was impossible to have these masses of people working or when in the camp directed by SS men, so that everywhere detainees had to be engaged to give instructions to the detainees and set them to work, and who almost exclusively had the administration of the inner camp in their hands. Of course, a great deal of ill-treatment occured which couldn't be avoided, because at night there was hardly any member of the SS in the camps. Only in specific cases were the SS men allowed to enter the camp, so that the detainees were more or less exposed to the detainee supervisors."
Question (by defense attorney for the SS, Dr. Babel):
 
"You have already mentioned regulations which existed for the guards, but there was also a standing order in all the camps. In this camp order there were laid down the punishments for detainees who violated the camp rules. What punishments were these?"
 
Answer:
 
"First of all, transfer to a "penal company" (Strafkompanie), that is to say, harder work, and their accomodation restricted; next, detention in the cell block, detention in a dark cell; and in very serious cases, chaining or strapping. Punishment by 'strapping' (Anbinden) was prohibited in the year 1942 or 1943, I can't say exactly when, by the Reichsfuhrer. Then there was the punishment of standing to attention during a long period at the entrance to the camp (Strafstehen), and finally punishment by beating.
 
"However, this punishment of beating could not be decreed by any commandant independently. He could apply for it."

    Oral testimony of Rudolf Höss, 15 April 1946 (XI 403-411 <<445-454>>).
 
   Höss's motivation appears to have been to protect his wife and 3 children, and to save the lives of others by testifying that only 60 people knew of the mass killings. Höss attempted to save Kaltenbrunner by implicating Eichmann and Pohl, who had not yet been apprehended. (For a similar case, see Heisig's affidavit implicating Raeder, XIII 460-461 <<509-510>>).
 
   Höss appeared as a "defense witness", and his cross-examination by the prosecution was cut short by the prosecution itself (XI 418-419 <<461-462>>). Perhaps they were afraid he would spill the beans.
 
   Höss's famous "autobiography" Kommandant in Auschwitz, probably prepared in question and answer from through interrogation like a gigantic "affidavit", then written up to be copied in his handwriting, is not much better. In this book, German text, cremation fires were visible for miles (p. 159). Everyone in the area knew of the exterminations (p. 159) the victims knew they were going to be gassed (pp. 110, 111, 125), but it was possible to fool them (pp. 123-124; Document 3868-PS), and his family never knew a thing (pp. 129-130). Höss was a chronic drunkard who "confessed" these things when he had been drinking (p. 95) or was being tortured (p. 145).
 
   It is not true that, according to p. 126 of this text, bodies were removed from gas chambers by Kapos eating and smoking and/or not wearing gas masks; the text does not say that. Robert Faurisson has proven that Höss did make this assertion, but elsewhere, during an "interrogation".
 
   The Polish "translation" of this book, published prior to the publication of the German "original text", seems to agree with the German text, except that place names and dates are missing, indicating that the Polish was probably written first, these details being inserted later in the German translation.
 
   The uncut, unexpurgated complete writings of Rudolf Höss(?) (in Polish) are available through international library loan (Wspomnienia Rudolfa Hössa, Komendanta Obozu Oswiecimskiego).