Those are the very words of that decree. Obviously Schirach was not at all thinking about pogroms, bloody persecutions of the Jews, and the like; rather did he believe at that time that the anti-Semitic movement had already achieved its aim by the anti-Jewish legislative measures of the years 1933-34, thereby eliminating Jewish influence as far as it seemed unhealthy to him. He was therefore surprised and very alarmed when the Nuremberg Laws were promulgated in 1935, which formulated a policy of complete exclusion of the Jewish population and carried it out with barbaric severity. Schirach in no way took part in the planning of these laws; he has nothing whatsoever to do with their content and their formulation. That has been proved here.

When on 10 November 1938 he heard about the pogrom against the Jews and about the brutal excesses which were staged by Goebbels and his fanatic clique his indignation became known throughout the entire youth movement. The evidence proved this also. We have heard from the witness Lauterbacher how Schirach reacted to the report of these excesses: He immediately called his assistants together and gave them the strictest orders that the Hitler Youth must be kept out of such actions under all circumstances. He at once had the leaders of the Hitler Youth in all German cities notified by telephone to the same effect and warned every subordinate that he would hold him personally responsible if any excesses should occur in the Hitler Youth.

But even after November 1938 Schirach never considered the possibility that Hitler was contemplating the extermination of the Jews. On the contrary, he only heard it mentioned that the Jews were to be evacuated from Germany into other states, that they should be transported to Poland and settled there, at worst in ghettos, but more probably in a closed settlement area. When Schirach in July 1940 received Hitler’s order to take over the Gau of Vienna, Hitler himself also talked to him along the same lines, namely, that he, Hitler, would have the Jews brought from Vienna into the Government General; and even today Schirach has no doubt that Hitler himself was not thinking about the so-called “final solution” of the Jewish question at that time, 1940, in terms of the extermination of the Jews. We learn from the Hossbach minutes and other evidence of this Trial that Hitler was planning the evacuation of Poland already in 1937, but that he decided on the extermination of the Jewish people only in 1941 or 1942.

Schirach had nothing at all to do with the evacuation of the Jews from Vienna, as is alleged by the Prosecution; the execution of this measure was exclusively in the hands of the Reich Security Main Office and the Vienna branch of that office, and it is known that SS Gruppenführer Brunner of Vienna has in the meantime been sentenced to death for that very reason. The only order which Schirach received and carried out concerning the Viennese Jews was to report to Hitler in 1940 how many Jews there were still left in Vienna, and he made this report in a letter of December 1940 where he gave the figure of the Viennese Jews for 1940 as 60,000. It will be remembered that Minister Lammers answered this letter from the Defendant Schirach by a letter dated 3 December 1940 (1950-PS), which shows with all clarity that it was not Schirach who ordered the evacuation of the Viennese Jews to the Government General but Hitler himself, and that again it was not Schirach who carried out this measure but the Reichsführer SS Himmler, who delegated this task to his Vienna office. It must therefore be stated here categorically that Schirach is in no way responsible for the deportation of the Jews from Vienna; he did not carry out this program and he did not initiate it; when he came to Vienna in the summer of 1940 as Gauleiter, the majority of the Viennese Jews had already voluntarily emigrated or had been forcibly evacuated from Vienna, a fact which was confirmed by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart. The remaining 60,000 Jews who were still there at the beginning of Schirach’s time in Vienna were deported from there by the SS without his participation and without his responsibility.

Schirach did make the well-known speech in Vienna in September 1942, where he stated that every Jew working in Europe was a danger to European culture. Schirach furthermore said in this speech that if it was desired to reproach him with the fact that he had deported tens of thousands of Jews into the Eastern ghetto from this city, which had once been the metropolis of Judaism, he would but answer that he considered this an active contribution to European culture. That is how this passage reads. Schirach has openly and courageously admitted that he actually expressed himself in this manner at that time, and expressed his regret by stating:

Should the Tribunal see in these words a legally punishable crime against humanity, Schirach will have to make atonement for this single anti-Semitic remark which can be attributed to him, though it was merely a spoken word and did not have any harmful result. Schirach’s attitude in this respect does not exempt the Tribunal from its duty to verify carefully what Schirach actually did; furthermore, under what circumstances he made this isolated remark, and finally whether Schirach also made any other spiteful remarks against the Jews or committed any malicious acts against the Jewish race as a whole.

The foremost question is: What did Schirach really do? The reply to this, emerging from the revelations of this Trial, can only be: Apart from the fact that he made this isolated anti-Semitic remark in his speech in Vienna in September 1942, he has not committed any crime against the Jews. He had no competence in the question of the deportation of the Vienna Jews, he did not participate in it at all, and having too little power he could not have prevented it in any case. It is just as the Prosecution incidentally stated: He boastfully attributed to himself an action which in reality he had never committed and, in view of his entire attitude, he never could have committed.

What, however prompted Schirach to make this remark in his Vienna speech? How did he come to attribute to himself a deed and charge himself with an action which he had obviously never committed? Here too the answer is given by the results of the evidence in the Trial: It demonstrates what a very difficult position Schirach had in Vienna. Without giving any reason, Hitler dismissed him as Reich Youth Leader, presumably because he no longer trusted him. From year to year Hitler’s fear was growing lest the young people might stand behind Schirach and become alienated from him, Hitler, to the same degree that the black wall of his SS was isolating him from the people. Hitler possibly saw in his Youth Leader the personification of the coming generation which thought in world-wide terms, whose feelings were human and who felt themselves more and more bound to those precepts of true morality which Hitler had long ago jettisoned for himself and his national leadership, because they had long since ceased to be concepts of true morality for him but mere slogans of a meaningless propaganda. This feeling of Hitler’s may have been the deeper reason why he dismissed Schirach as Youth Leader suddenly in the summer of 1940, without word of explanation, and put him in the especially difficult position of Gauleiter in Vienna, the city which he, Hitler, hated from the bottom of his heart, even while he spoke of his “Austrian fatherland.”

In Vienna Schirach’s position was extremely complicated. Wherever he went he was shadowed and spied upon, his administrative activity there was sharply criticized, he was reproached for neglecting the interests of the Party in Vienna, for almost never being seen at Party meetings, and for not making any political speeches. I refer in this connection to the affidavit of Maria Hoepken, Schirach Document Book Number 3. The Berlin Party Chancellery accepted any complaints the Vienna Party members made about their new Gauleiter with satisfaction, and this fact alone can explain the unfortunate speech Schirach made in September 1942, which was diametrically opposed to the attitude he had always maintained concerning the Jewish question. After the interrogation of the witness Gustav Hoepken here in this courtroom there can be no doubt as to how the Vienna speech came about, for it reveals that Schirach had expressly charged his press officer Günther Kaufmann to emphasize this particular point when telephoning his report of the Vienna speech to the German News Agency in Berlin, because he, Schirach—I quote—“had to make a concession to Bormann in this respect.” Schirach himself stressed this point in the course of his interrogation with the statement that out of false loyalty he had morally identified himself with these acts of Hitler and Himmler. This ugly speech which Schirach made in September 1942 is, however, in another sense a very valuable point in favor of Schirach: He speaks of a “transfer of the Jews to the ghettos of the East.” Had Schirach known at that time that the Viennese Jews were to be sent away in order to be murdered in an extermination camp, he would in view of the purpose of this speech doubtless not have spoken of an Eastern ghetto to which the Jews had been sent, and would have reported the extermination of the Viennese Jews; but even at this time, in the autumn of 1942, he never had the slightest suspicion that Hitler proposed to murder the Jews. That he would never have approved and never accepted; his anti-Semitism at no time went so far.

Schirach also frankly stated here that at that time he approved of Hitler’s plan to settle the Jews in Poland, not because he was inspired by anti-Semitism or hatred of the Jews, but by the reasonable consideration that in view of existing conditions it was in the Jews’ own interest to leave Vienna and be taken to Poland, because the Jews would not in the long run have been able to stay in Vienna under the Hitler regime without being exposed to increasingly serious persecution. As Schirach declared on 24 May 1946, considering Goebbels’ temperament it always seemed possible that incidents like those of November 1938 might be repeated from one day to the other, and under such conditions of legal insecurity he could not visualize the existence of the Jewish population in Germany. He thought that the Jews would be safer in a restricted settlement area of the Government General than in Germany and Austria, where they were exposed to the whims of the Propaganda Minister who, indeed, had been the main supporter of radical anti-Semitism in Germany. Schirach was well aware of this fact. He could not shut his eyes to the realization that the drive against the Jews in Germany obviously became more drastic, more fanatic, and more violent every day. This conception of the Vienna speech of September 1942 and the true cause of its genesis coincide with the statements of the Defendant Schirach at the meeting of the city councillors of Vienna on 6 June 1942 (Document Number 3886-PS), to the effect that in the late summer and autumn of that year all Jews would be expelled from the city, and likewise with the file note of Reichsleiter Bormann of 2 October 1940 (USSR-142), according to which, at a social meeting at Hitler’s home, Schirach had remarked that he still had more than 50,000 Jews left in Vienna which the Governor General of Poland must take over from him. This remark was caused by Schirach’s embarrassing situation at that time. Hitler, on the one hand, kept insisting on the expulsion of the Jews from Vienna, while on the other hand Governor General Frank was reluctant to receive them in the Government General. This disagreement was evidently the reason for Schirach’s discussing this fact at the above-mentioned meeting on 2 October 1940, in order to avoid renewed reproaches by Hitler. Personally he was in no way interested in the removal of the Viennese Jews, as was proved by the testimony of the witness Gustav Hoepken regarding the conference between Schirach and Himmler in November 1943.

I should like to add a word here concerning that discussion. During that conference with Himmler, Schirach presented the point of view that the Jews might be left in Vienna, especially since they were wearing the Star of David anyway. That has been testified to by the witness Hoepken as being a statement made by Schirach during the conversation. However, Hitler demanded the expulsion of the Jews from Vienna and Himmler insisted on having it carried out.

The Prosecution thought it possible to charge Schirach with having made another malicious anti-Semitic remark in connection with a speech which he supposedly made in late December 1938, certainly before the spring of 1939, at a students’ meeting at Heidelberg. Across the Neckar River he pointed to the old university town of Heidelberg where several burned-out synagogues were the silent witnesses to the anti-Semitic activities of the students of Heidelberg. I refer to the affidavit of Ziemer, in which “the stout little Reich Student Leader”—as it is stated literally—is said to have approved and commended the pogroms of 9 November 1938 as a heroic act. This charge, as already mentioned, is supported by the declaration under oath of a certain Gregor Ziemer. However, there can be no doubt that this statement of Ziemer’s is false. Ziemer never belonged to the German student movement or the Hitler Youth, and obviously was not personally present at the student assembly in question. The affidavit does not state from what source he is supposed to have obtained his knowledge. However, that his claim is false is already proved by his description of physical appearance when he speaks of a “stout little student leader”; for this does not at all resemble Schirach. Perhaps it would to some extent apply to his successor, who was Reich Student Leader at the end of 1938, but it certainly was not Schirach. As is known, he had already in 1934 given the office of Reich Student Leader back into the hands of the Führer’s deputy, after he himself had in the meantime been appointed Reich Youth Leader. Schirach did not make a speech at the end of 1938 or at any other time before Heidelberg students, and by the affidavit of the witness Maria Hoepken (Schirach Document Book Number 3) it has been clearly proved that at the time stated Schirach was not in Heidelberg at all. Schirach has also confirmed this under oath and his own statement can lay claim to credibility because he has not whitewashed anything for which he was responsible, and he has not falsely denied anything, but on the contrary has accounted for all his actions with courage and truthfulness during his entire examination.

Still another fact decisively confirms the claim that the Ziemer affidavit is untrue, at any rate in regard to the person of Schirach. In the presentation of evidence it happened to be stated by chance how Schirach reacted to the November pogroms of the year 1938. The witness Lauterbacher has informed us here, as already mentioned at another point, that Schirach on 10 November 1938 condemned most vehemently the events of 9 November 1938 in the presence of his co-workers, and declared that he felt ashamed for the others and for the whole Party. The 9th of November 1938, Schirach said, would go down in Germany history as a unique disgrace of German culture of which we would never be able to cleanse ourselves. Such a thing might have happened among an uncivilized people, but it should never have occurred among us Germans who consider ourselves to be a highly civilized people. The youth leaders, Schirach explained at that time, had to prevent such excesses under all circumstances. He did not wish to hear anything like this about his own organization, either now or in the future. The Hitler Youth must be kept outside such things under all circumstances. These are sworn statements by the witness Hoepken. By a telephone message from Berlin, Schirach had all the offices of the Hitler Youth informed in the same terms. If Schirach in November 1938 condemned and criticized in such an extremely sharp manner the events of 9 November 1938, it is impossible for him to have praised at about the same time the bloody acts which had been committed and thus to have incited the Heidelberg students, and the question therefore arises as to why not a single participant at that student meeting in Heidelberg was brought here as a witness instead of one who could only testify from hearsay. Incidentally, the Prosecution did not revert to this alleged Heidelberg speech during cross-examination, thereby acknowledging Schirach’s own presentation of the facts to be correct.

It is also a very significant fact that the Hitler Youth did not participate in the excesses of 9 November 1938, nor did they commit any excesses of this sort either before or afterward. The Hitler Youth at that time was the strongest Party organization. It comprised some seven or eight million members, and in spite of that not one single case has been proved where the Hitler Youth participated in such crimes against humanity, although its members were mainly of an age which, according to experience, is only too easily tempted to participate in excesses and acts of brutality. The only exception which has been claimed so far concerns the testimony of the French woman Ida Vasseau, who is said to be the manager of an Old People’s Home in Lemberg and is supposed to have claimed, according to the report of the Commission, Document Number USSR-6, that the Hitler Youth had been given children from the ghetto in Lemberg whom they used as living targets for their shooting practice. This single exception, however, which so far has been claimed but not proved, could not be cleared up in any way, particularly not in respect of whether members of the Hitler Youth had really been involved. But even if there had been such a single case among the eight million members during 10 or 15 long years, this could not in any way prove that Baldur von Schirach had exercised an inciting influence, and that, if I may add this here, at a time when he was no longer Reich Youth Leader.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

[A recess was taken.]

DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal please, I shall proceed from Page 36 of my statement. Let us just examine all the speeches and articles which Von Schirach wrote as Reich Youth Leader, and which are in the possession of the Tribunal in the Schirach document book. They extend over a long period of years, yet they do not contain a single word inciting to race hatred, preaching hatred of Jews, exhorting youth to commit acts of violence, or defending such acts. If it has been possible to keep the members of the Hitler Youth, who numbered millions, clear of such excesses, this fact also goes to prove that the leaders endeavored to imbue the younger generation with a spirit of tolerance, love of one’s neighbors, and respect of human dignity.

Just what Von Schirach thought about the treatment of the Jewish question is clearly evident from the scene with occurred in the spring of 1943 at Obersalzberg, which is also described in the affidavit of the witness Maria Hoepken (Document Book Schirach Number 3). In this case I refer to the scene where Schirach had an eyewitness describe to Hitler at his home at Obersalzberg how he had witnessed with his own eyes at night from a hotel window in Amsterdam the manner in which the Gestapo deported hundreds of Dutch Jewesses. Schirach himself could not dare at the time to bring such matters to Hitler’s attention; a decree by Bormann had expressly prohibited the Gauleiter from doing this. Schirach therefore tried through the mediation of a third person, who had been a witness himself, to gain Hitler’s approval of a mitigation in the treatment of the Jewish question. No success was achieved; Hitler dismissed it all bluntly with the remark that this was all sentimentality. Because of this intervention on behalf of the Dutch Jews the situation of the Defendant Von Schirach had become so critical that he preferred to leave Obersalzberg immediately, early in the morning of the following day, and from that time on, Hitler was in principle no longer accessible to Schirach.

This intervention of Schirach for a milder treatment of the Jewish question perhaps also contributed to the fact that Hitler, a few months later, in the summer of 1943, seriously considered having Schirach arrested and brought before the Peoples’ Court, for the sole reason that Schirach had dared, in a letter to Reichsleiter Bormann, to describe the war as a national disaster for Germany.

In any case all this shows that Schirach, as much as he was able, advocated moderation in the Jewish question in a manner which endangered his own position and existence. In spite of the fact that he was an anti-Semite—and just because of this it deserves attention—he withstood all pressure from Berlin and refused to have an anti-Semitic special edition published in the official journal of the Hitler Youth, while he had published his own special editions for an understanding with England and France and for a more humane treatment of the Eastern nations. It is no less worthy of consideration that Schirach, in conjunction with his friend Dr. Colin Ross, endeavored to attain the emigration of the Jews into neutral foreign countries in order to save them from being deported to a Polish ghetto.

The Prosecution has endeavored to substantiate its allegation that the Defendant Von Schirach bears a certain share of the responsibility for the pogroms against Jews which occurred in Poland and Russia, by trying to use against him the so-called “Reports on Experiences and Situation,” which were regularly sent by the SS to the Commissioner for Defense of the Reich in the Military Administrative District XVII. In fact it must be said that if—and I emphasize, if—Schirach had at that time had cognizance of these regular “Reports on Experiences and Situation by the Operational Groups (Einsatzgruppen) of the Security Police and the Security Service in the East,” then this fact would indeed constitute for him a grave moral and political charge. Then he could not be spared the accusation that he must have been aware of the fact that, apart from the military operations in the East, extremely horrible mass murders of Communists and Jews had also taken place. The picture of Von Schirach’s character which we have so far, who was described even by the Prosecution as a “cultured man,” would be tainted very materially if Von Schirach had actually seen and read these reports. For then he would have known that in Latvia and Lithuania, in White Ruthenia and in Kiev, mass murders had taken place, quite obviously without any legal proceedings of any kind and without sentence having been passed.

What has, however, actually been proved by the evidence? The reports referred to were sent, among dozens of other offices, also to that of the “Reich Commissioner for Defense in Military Administrative District XVII” and, moreover, with the specific address “attention of Government Councillor Dr. Hoffmann” or “attention of Government Councillor Dr. Fischer.” From this style of address and from the way in which these reports were initialed at the office of the “Commissioner for Defense of the Reich,” it can be established beyond question that Schirach did not have an opportunity of seeing these reports and that he obtained no knowledge of them in any other way either.

Schirach, it will be remembered, held three extensive offices in Vienna: as Reich Governor (Reichsstatthalter) and Reich Defense Commissioner he was the chief of the whole State administration; as Lord Mayor he was the head of the municipal administration; and as Gauleiter of Vienna he was the head of the local Party machinery. It is only natural that Schirach could not fulfill all these three tasks by himself, especially since in 1940 he had come from a completely different set of tasks, and first had to make himself acquainted with the scope of work in State administration and in municipal administration. He therefore had a permanent deputy for each of his three tasks, and for the affairs of the State administration, which interests us here, this was the Regierungspräsident of Vienna. This official, Dr. Delbrügge, was to handle the current affairs of the State administration completely on his own initiative. Schirach occupied himself only with such matters of State administration as were forwarded to him by his permanent deputy, the Regierungspräsident, in written form, or about which his deputy reported to him orally.

Now, if this had been the case with regard to the afore-mentioned “Experience and Situation Reports,” then this would have somehow been noted on the documents in question. However, on the “Experience and Situation Reports of the SS” submitted here there is not a single note which indicates that these reports were shown to the Defendant Von Schirach or that he was informed about them. This will readily be understood without further explanation because, after all, the experiences which the Police and the SD had accumulated in the partisan struggles in Poland and Russia were completely inconsequential for the Vienna administration; therefore there was not the least cause to inform the Defendant Baldur von Schirach of these reports in any way, since he was very much overburdened anyhow with administrative matters of all kinds.

This conclusion, Gentlemen, rests primarily not only on the testimony under oath of the defendant here in Court, but also on that of the two witnesses Hoepken and Wieshofer, who, one as chief of the Central Office and the other as adjutant of the defendant, were able to give the most exact information about conditions in Vienna. It is certain that these “Experience and Situation Reports” never came into the distribution center of the Central Office in Vienna, but only into the distribution center of the Regierungspräsident, and that Hoepken, as chief of the Central Office, as well as Wieshofer, as adjutant of the defendant, likewise had no previous knowledge of these reports but saw them for the first time here in the courtroom during their questioning. And I would like to insert here that the two officials of the Defendant Von Schirach who were mentioned by name, Dr. Fischer and the other one, were entirely unaware of them. In any case the result, as has been proved by the file notes which are on the documents, is that Schirach did not have any knowledge whatsoever of these reports, and that he is not coresponsible for the atrocities described therein, and therefore cannot be criminally charged on the basis of these activity reports.

May it please the Tribunal, in judging the personality of Schirach, his behavior during the last weeks in Vienna is also not without importance. For Schirach it was a matter of course not to carry out the various insane orders which came from Berlin at that time. He absolutely condemned the lynching of enemy aviators which was ordered by Bormann, and likewise the order to hang defeatists without mercy, regardless of whether they were men or women. His summary court was never even in session, and did not pronounce a single death sentence. No blood is on his hands. On the other hand, for example, he did everything in order to protect from the excited mob enemy aviators who had made an emergency landing and again, as we have heard from the witness Wieshofer, he immediately sent out his own car in order to bring to safety American aviators who had parachuted. Thereby he again placed himself in deliberate opposition to an order of Bormann that such aviators were not to be protected against lynching by the civilian population. Nor did he pay any attention to the order that Vienna was to be defended to the last man, or that in Vienna bridges and churches and residential sections were to be destroyed, and he emphatically refused compliance with the order to form partisan units in civilian clothing or to continue the hopeless struggle in a criminal manner with the aid of the Werewolf organization. He turned down such demands out of his sense of duty, all the more since this would have caused him to violate international law.

The characterization of the Defendant Von Schirach would be incomplete if we were not also to recall at this moment the declaration which he deposed here on the morning of 24 May 1946. I am speaking of that declaration in which he described Hitler as an unmitigated murderer, here before the whole German people and before the entire world public. Already last year Schirach made declarations which show his feeling of responsibility and his preparedness to answer fully for his actions and those of his subordinates. This was the case on 5 June 1945, for example, when he was hiding in the Tyrol and heard over the radio that all Party leaders were to be brought before an Allied court. Schirach thereupon gave himself up immediately, and in his letter to the American local commander stated he was doing so in order to protect other people, who had only executed his orders, from being called to account for his actions. He surrendered voluntarily, although the British radio had already announced the news of his death, and although Schirach could have hoped to remain undiscovered in his hiding place. This behavior deserves consideration in judging the personality of a defendant.

The same feeling of responsibility was then shown by Schirach in the autumn of 1945 when he was heard by the Prosecution. He believed at that time that his successor Axmann had been killed, as he had been reported to be dead. In spite of this, Schirach did not attempt to put the responsibility on his successor; on the contrary, he expressly stated that he was assuming full responsibility also for the time his successor was in office, as well as for what had been done under his successor in the Reich Youth Leadership. The keystone in this line of conduct is furnished by the statement which Schirach made here on 24 May 1946, which went out from this courtroom to the whole world, to all the German lands, down to the last farm, down to the last workman’s hut.

May it please the Tribunal: Any man may err, he may even make mistakes that he later may not understand himself. Schirach also has erred; he brought up the younger generation for a man whom he for many years held to be unimpeachable and whom he must now brand as a diabolical criminal. In his idealism and out of loyalty he remained faithful and true to his oath to a man who deceived and cheated him and the youth of Germany and who, as we learned here from Speer, up to his last breath placed his own interests higher than the existence and the happiness of 80 million people.

Schirach is perhaps the one defendant who not only clearly realized his mistakes, however they may be regarded, but who confessed to them most honestly and who through his plain speaking prevented the creation of a Hitler legend in the future. Such a defendant must be given consideration for trying to repair as far as he can the damage which he caused in good faith.

Schirach had tried to do that; he took pains to open the eyes of our people about the “Führer” in whom, together with millions of Germans, he saw for many years the deliverer of the fatherland and the guarantor of its future. He publicly rendered an account which the German people are entitled to ask of every subleader since Hitler committed suicide. He did this so that foreign countries could see how the conditions of the last six years had come about in Germany and just who was responsible for them.

But above all, the former Youth Leader, in making his statement on 24 May 1946, desired to tell the youth of Germany openly that so far, quite unknowingly and with the best of intentions, he had led them astray and that now they must take another path if the German people and German culture are not to perish. In doing so Schirach did not think of himself nor of his life’s work which had been destroyed; he was thinking of the youth of today, which not only faces the ruins of our cities and dwellings, but also wanders about among the wreckage of its former ideals; he was thinking of German youth, which is in dire need of new guidance and which must base its future existence on another foundation.

Schirach hopes that the entire youth of Germany has heard his words. What was particularly valuable in his confession of 24 May 1946 was his assurance that he alone takes the guilt for youth, just as he formerly assumed command. If this point of view is acknowledged as being right, and if the necessary conclusions are drawn therefrom, this would be a valuable result of this Trial for our German youth.

May it please the Tribunal, I am now coming to the end of my survey of the case of Von Schirach. In the treatment of this case I desisted from making general statements, and especially those of a political nature. Rather, I confined myself to the appreciation of the personality of the defendant, his actions and his motives.

In this connection I should like to add, to complete the picture, that these considerations and this appreciation by the Defense have shown that the Defendant Von Schirach is not guilty in the sense of the Indictment and cannot be punished, for he did not commit a punishable act, since you as judges will not judge political guilt but rather criminal guilt in the sense of the penal code.

At the end of my remarks in the case of Von Schirach I should like to have the privilege of making a few general statements, not immediately connected with the personality of Schirach, but suggesting themselves to a German defense counsel at the end of this Trial.

May it please the Tribunal, you are the highest tribunal of our times; the power of the whole world stands behind you; you represent the four mightiest nations on earth; hundreds of millions of men, not only in the defeated countries, but also in the victorious nations listen to your opinions and anxiously await your judgment, ready to be taught by you and to follow your advice.

This high authority affords you, Gentlemen, an opportunity of doing much good through your verdict and particularly through the statement of the basis for the judgment, in order that out of today’s disaster the way to a better future may be found for the benefit of your own people and for the good of the German people.

Today, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, Germany lies beaten to the ground, a poor people, the poorest of all. The German cities are destroyed; German industry is smashed to pieces; on the shoulders of the German people rests a national debt representing many times the entire national wealth and spelling want and poverty, hunger and slavery, for many generations for the German people if your peoples do not help us. The findings supporting your verdict will in many respects point the way and give the help needed to emerge from this desperate plight.

To be sure, for reasons of sentiment it may be hard for you to consider this point of view and to take it into account when you think of the misfortune which the past six years also brought to your own countries. It becomes doubly hard, because for months this Trial has revealed nothing but crimes, crimes committed for a great number of years by a German tyrant misusing Germans and the name of this same German people of whose future you as judges are now asked to think benevolently and whom you are now required to help.

May it please the Tribunal: Hitler is dead—with him his tools who in these years committed crimes without number tyrannizing Germany and nearly all of Europe and disgracing the German name for generations to come. The German people on the other hand live, and must be allowed to live if half a universe is not to fall into ruins.

With this Trial and during this epoch, the German people are undergoing a very serious operation. It must not bring death; it must bring recovery. Your verdict can and must make a contribution in that direction, so that in the future the world may not see in every German a criminal, but revert again to the concept of Professor Arnold Nash of the University of Chicago, who a few days ago, when questioned about the purpose of his present trip to Europe, replied: “Every scientist has two fatherlands, his own and Germany.” These words ought to be a warning also for all of those irresponsible critics who even today see it as their task, with propaganda means of every sort, to stir up feeling against everything German and to tell the world that at least every other person in Germany is a criminal.

You, as impartial judges, will not wish to forget one thing: There always was and there still is today another Germany, a Germany that knows industriousness and economy; a Germany of Goethe and Beethoven, a Germany that knows loyalty and honesty and other good qualities which in past centuries were proverbial for the German character. Believe me, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, in this epoch, when Germany is regaining consciousness as after a severe illness, as she proceeds to rebuild a better future from the ruins of an evil past, a future for her youth which has no part in the crimes committed, at this time some 70 or 80 million German people are looking to you and are awaiting from you a verdict which will open the way for the reconstruction of German economy, the German spirit, and true freedom.

You are, Gentlemen, truly sovereign judges, not bound by any written law, not bound to any paragraph, pledged to serve your conscience only, and called by destiny to give to the world simultaneously a legal order which will preserve for future generations that peace which the past was unable to preserve for them. A well-known democrat of the old Germany, the former Minister Dr. Diltz, said in a recent article on the Nuremberg Trial: In a monarchist state justice would be administered in the name of the king; in republics courts would pronounce their rulings in the name of the people; but you, the Nuremberg Tribunal, should administer justice in the name of humanity.

It is, indeed, a wonderful thought for the Court, an ideal aim, if it could believe that its verdict could in fact make real the precepts of humanity, and that it could prevent Crimes against Humanity for all time. But in certain respects this would still remain an unsteady foundation for a verdict of such magnitude as confronts you, because ideas on what humanity demands or prohibits in individual cases may vary, depending upon the epoch, the people, the party concepts according to which one judges.

I believe you may find a reliable foundation for your verdict when you revert to a maxim which has endured throughout the centuries and which certainly will remain valid in ages to come: Justitia est fundamentum regnorum.

Thus the German people, and with them the entire world, await from you a judgment which will not just be hailed today by the victor nations as the final victory over Germany, but which history will recognize as proper; a verdict in the name of justice.

THE PRESIDENT: I call on Dr. Servatius for the Defendant Sauckel.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal:

The Defense of the Defendant Sauckel has, in the first place, to deal with the charge of “slave labor.” What is slave labor?

One cannot accept this as an established term comprising all the occurrences which, in bewildering abundance, are charged against the Defendant Sauckel under the heading “slave labor.” Particularly, those actions ought first to be examined from a legal point of view. The legal basis for this examination is the Charter. However, this Charter does not say what is to be understood by “slave labor” or by “deportation.” Therefore, these concepts must be clarified by interpretation. Article 6 of the Charter deals in two passages and from two different points of view with deportation and slave labor. Deportation is designated both a war crime and a crime against humanity, and forced labor appears as “slave labor” under the heading of War Crimes, and as “enslavement” under the heading of Crimes against Humanity.

The question of under what heading the mobilization of labor by the Defendant Sauckel should fall is of decisive importance; if it is a war crime, then it should be judged exclusively under martial law. If it is a crime against humanity, then the latter presupposes the commission of a war crime or of a crime against peace.

It follows therefrom that the deportation mentioned in Article 6(b) cannot be the same thing as deportation according to Article 6(c), nor can forced labor according to Article 6(b) be identical with forced labor under Article 6(c). The difference between the two kinds must be found in ...

THE PRESIDENT [Interposing]: That paragraph of your speech which is in English on Page 2, the second paragraph:

“It follows therefrom that deportation mentioned in Article 6(b) cannot be the same as deportation according to Article 6(c) ...” is not altogether clear to the Tribunal. Could you make it clearer?

DR. SERVATIUS: In Article 6(c) we deal with Crimes against Humanity, whereas in Article 6(b) we deal with War Crimes. In both articles the expressions deportation and forced labor are used, but there must be some differentiation, and my examination is directed at establishing this difference more exactly. I believe, Mr. President, that my further statements will make this clearer than it has heretofore been.

I turn now to the terminology used in the Charter. I was talking of the difference between the two kinds of slave labor and deportation. The difference between the two kinds is to be found in the fact that something has to be added to the war crimes which violates the rules of humanity.

The correctness of this interpretation may also be recognized in the terminology of the Charter, however fluctuating it may be. For instance, the Russian text for deportation as a war crime chooses the word uvod, which means only removal from a place, whereas, on the other hand, it uses for crimes against humanity of the same nature the technical expression ssylka, by which penal deportation under the rule of the czars is understood as denoting deportation in the sense of penal deportation.

THE PRESIDENT: The French is not coming through. Will you just wait a minute, there is some difficulty with the French translation, Dr. Servatius. The Tribunal must adjourn.

MARSHAL: The Court will remain adjourned until a quarter to two.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1345 hours.]

Afternoon Session

DR. SERVATIUS: I was speaking of the terminology of “deportation” in the Russian text. I pointed out the distinction between the word uvod meaning only transportation, and ssylka meaning a deportation as a form of punishment. From that one may conclude that deportation from the occupied territories for the purpose of work can only be regarded as a war crime, while it becomes a crime against humanity when assuming the penal character of a transportation of prisoners.

However, the question arises whether, beyond this, according to the Charter any removal of the population is punishable as a war crime, regardless of whether it occurs for allocation of labor or for other reasons. According to the text of the Charter, the latter seems at first sight to be the case, since it renders punishable “removal for slave labor, or for any other purposes.” Upon closer examination, however, it becomes evident that this rule cannot be meant in such a sense, as there are cases in which a removal is not only consistent with international law but even becomes imperative.

Accordingly, the Charter could only be understood to mean that the punishable act does not consist of plain “removal” but comprises the composite concept “removal for slave labor” and “removal for any other purpose.” The clause, “or for any other purpose,” should be understood so as to mean only that an illegal purpose equivalent to slave labor exists. If removal of any kind was to have been made punishable, then the qualifying addition “for slave labor or for any other purpose” would be contradictory to common sense. This definition is important for the Defendant Sauckel, as otherwise proof of deportation classified as a war crime would be evident from the acts admitted by him.

Just as for the various kinds of deportation, the difference between the kinds of slave labor, according to the Charter, must be clarified. Here, too, a clue to the interpretation is provided by the terminology of the different languages, though not because of their clarity and consistency but by the very opposite:

The English version speaks of “slave labor” as a war crime and of “enslavement” as a crime against humanity; the French version states travaux forcés and réduction en esclavage, the Russian version accordingly rabstvo (slavery) and poraboshtshenie (enslavement). It is not discernible how the terms chosen differentiate in re. Basing upon the fact that labor inconsistent with laws of humanity must be carried out under more severe conditions than other labor and assuming “slave labor” to be the severest forms of labor, it will be seen that no definition can be derived from this terminology of the Charter and that more of an ethical discrimination and stigmatization is intended.

Accordingly an objective division of the kinds of labor should be carried out independent of the terminology by considering exclusively the degree of severity of labor conditions. If one tries to analyze the terminology used, one finds the designation “enslavement,” esclavage, and poraboshtshenie for the inhuman form of labor, whereas the labor not inconsistent with laws of humanity is called “forced labor,” travaux forcés, and prinudidjenaja rabota. Slave labor (“slave labor,” travaux forcés, and rabstvo) consequently is the general term comprising both kinds.

What does this definition mean for the defense of the Defendant Sauckel? He admits having negotiated “compulsory labor” in the form of obligatory labor which, as stated before, has been termed “slave labor” in general. He denies, however, having demanded “slave labor,” which might be looked upon as inhuman labor, in other words, enslavement. A different standard applies, just as for deportation, to these two categories; “obligatory labor” is only a war crime and must be judged according to the rules of war; crimes against humanity, as I already stated above in connection with deportation as a crime against humanity, bear the additional characteristics of being connected with war crimes or crimes against peace. If it can be proven that the mobilization of manpower as ordered by the Defendant Sauckel was permitted by the rules of war, then the same act cannot be held to be a crime against humanity.

The Indictment, too, has made a difference as to the kinds of labor. It has treated, under Paragraph 3, Section VIII (H), as a separate war crime under the title of “Conscription of Civilian Labor,” the mobilization of manpower as directed by the Defendant Sauckel, which I shall call “regulated labor mobilization,” and mentions only “forced labor.” The French version speaks here of travaux forcés and uses terms such as les obligèrent à travailler and mis en obligation; the Russian version follows this and also speaks only of “compulsory labor” as prinuditjelnaja rabota but does not refer to this as being slave labor.

The Defendant Sauckel does not deny the facts taken here as a basis, but I shall submit the legal reasons which justify this mobilization of labor, and I shall prove that it does not involve any war crime that would break international law.

The rules of international law are authoritative in determining the question whether “regulated labor mobilization” is a war crime. The Charter cannot prohibit what international law permits in wartime. Such precepts of international law are laid down in the agreements on the rules of war and in the general legal principles and usages as applied by all states.

The Prosecution bases its opinion that labor mobilization is a war crime on the definitions of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, as well as on the agreements and rules of war and the criminal codes of the countries concerned. If it is shown that labor mobilization is permitted by international law, then a judicial inquiry into the penal regulations is, of course, not necessary.

The Hague Convention on Land Warfare can be considered as a basis for the laws of warfare with which we are concerned here. Whether it was recognized by all the states involved here is, from a practical point of view, of little importance, for inasmuch as it was not recognized or cannot be directly applied, it is a case of a shortcoming in international law which is filled as a matter of course according to the principles of the belligerent’s needs and his duty to respect the laws of humanity. The principles of international law as established in the Hague Convention on Land Warfare are in all cases an important guide.

The Prosecution quotes, in the first place, Article 46 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which is designed to safeguard the fundamental rights of the population. It is typical for labor mobilization that it does restrict liberty, whereas this particular basic right is not protected by this article.

If the Hague Convention on Land Warfare is examined for a definite rule concerning deportation and forced labor, it will be realized that no such regulation exists. Just as in the sphere of air warfare and the use of new weapons, the Hague Convention on Land Warfare could not deal with questions which, at the time of its drafting, were far from the mind of the contracting parties. The first World War was still fought between two armies with already prepared material, and after it was used up the fight would be ended. The idea of a long war consuming huge amounts of material and requiring a continuous production with all available labor was for the Hague Convention on Land Warfare not yet a problem ripe for discussion.

Article 52 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which deals with the right to requisition, touches on the matter; but it can be seen that the rules deal only with purely local requirements of an army which appears fully equipped and has only supplementary local requirements. It is characteristic for the purely local meaning that the requisitioning authority is entrusted to the local commanders, in contrast to Article 51 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare which permits only an independent commanding general to impose compulsory contributions. The literature about the right to requisition in international law accordingly quotes only examples of local significance.

Although Article 52 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare can accordingly not be directly applied, its basic principles are nevertheless binding on the belligerents. The basic idea is that an army can demand practically everything necessary for the satisfaction of its requirements. There are only two limitations: It may not take more than it needs and not more than is compatible with the resources of the country.

The idea of a local obligation to furnish services will have to be adapted to modern warfare. The Hague Convention on Land Warfare envisaged the employment of smiths and wheelwrights necessary for the maintenance of the equipment of the army; work within the home country of the occupying power was, in view of undeveloped transportation conditions, impracticable and remained unconsidered.

Today the necessary work will no longer be done in the vicinity of the front-lines but must be carried out in the belligerents’ own countries, so that it must be possible to demand that labor should be available at the only place where it can be done and where it is necessary. It must also be possible to demand such labor for modern war requirements of mass production for current replacements. What is necessary at any given time can be asked for, the amount depending on prevailing conditions. If in earlier times, according to the principle “the war feeds the war,” an army far removed from its homeland was even to a large extent equipped in occupied territory, it must surely be possible today to supply the army by moving the workers to the factories in the belligerent’s own country. The evolution of the laws of warfare is influenced by the requirements which these laws have to serve.

With the basic idea of the obligation to furnish services the basic idea on limitations will have to be accepted, too. These limitations must also be interpreted to apply to the changed conditions. While the obligation to furnish services is justified, no more work may be demanded than the occupying power requires of its own people at home. The intensity of the war as total war must be taken into consideration. The obligation to work may thereby assume considerable proportions.

The meaning and the purpose of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare is certainly not to place the nationals of a defeated state in a better position than those of the victorious state which occupied the country. This, however, would be the result if the Hague Convention on Land Warfare were interpreted according to its original wording. If this is maintained, then France, which had surrendered unconditionally together with all the other occupied countries, would have been able to look on in security while Germany, strangled by the blockade, was exhausting herself in an indefatigable struggle by sacrifices of life and property. Can one really demand that the prisoner in a besieged fortress should live more comfortably than the defender of the fortress? If Germany today could live according to the romantic concepts of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, this would certainly be preferable to the burden of the peace treaty to be expected.

Actually, the Hague Convention on Land Warfare has not been adhered to even in its original interpretation, if it is true that already before the conclusion of the armistice the Soviet Union as occupying power transferred the population on a large scale from the eastern parts of Germany for the purpose of performing labor outside Germany. The Tribunal could obtain official information about this through an inquiry with the Control Council. I also have information that German civilian internees are used for work in France today. Here too the Tribunal could obtain official information.

The second limitation of the obligation to work is embodied in the rule that no participation in war operations against the home country of the worker may be demanded. Any work done for the occupying power indirectly benefits its war effort; the prohibition is therefore restricted to direct participation in operations of the fighting force. The literature on international law contrasts the participation in military operations with the permissible participation in preparations. Participation in war operations in this sense was not asked of any worker; on the contrary, the purpose was to employ workers away from these operations and without disturbance by the war.

Consequently only such activity as is directed against the workers’ own country is forbidden, thus taking the feelings of the individual into consideration. No protection of the enemy state is thereby intended. Wherever, therefore, the individual renounces his country and in a struggle of ideologies opposes the government of his country, such a restriction no longer applies. In connection with this I wish to point to the vast number of foreigners who adopted such an attitude and who, in part, still live in Germany today.

The same applies when the state to which the worker belongs has ceased fighting. This question is of special importance with regard to the obligation to work in the armament industry. The rules of the Geneva Convention with regard to the work to be done by prisoners of war are known. The basic notion, that no one may be forced to make weapons against his own brothers, must apply to civilian workers also.

The fact, however, that one’s country is no longer in a legal state of war is one of the reasons that nullify this restriction. The need for protection also ceases to exist when a country, though legally still participating in war, to all intents and purposes no longer possesses any fighting forces and has thus ceased to exist as a military object of attack. The fact, that this country may have allies who fight for it cannot arbitrarily extend this limitation beyond the terms of the Geneva Convention; nor is it the duty of a subject of a given state to protect allies fighting for it and to participate in the policies of his government.

Puppet governments cannot change reality. Recognition cannot be granted to them unless they reappear as independent combatants under a command of their own and are recognized as such. This applies to all states defeated by Germany.

At the time of the mobilization of labor only Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union were active combatants against Germany. British and American subjects were not affected by this mobilization, although citizens of the Soviet Union were in part used in armament production.

The legal position of citizens of the Soviet Union is however fundamentally different. Under Document Number EC-338, USSR-356, the Prosecution has submitted a decree by the People’s Commissars dated 1 July 1941. This decree deals with the utilization of prisoners of war for labor purposes; but it also, however, refers to the employment of interned civilians. According to the wording, armament production is not forbidden for either category of workers; and only two limitations are specified in the decree, namely, work in the combat zone and services required of an orderly.

Thus, from the point of view of reciprocity, no objection can be raised against the employment of Soviet citizens in armament production. In his examination before the Tribunal the witness General Paulus stated that prisoners of war were employed in factories of the Soviet Union, which means that in a state with a directed economy they were employed during the war in the armament industry. According to the decree it must be assumed then that these workers were also employed in the production of weapons.

The significance of such a violation of the principle that armament production shall be forbidden lies in the serious consequence that no formation of a generally recognized rule of international law in this new field of utilization of manpower can thereby be proven. Under these circumstances therefore Germany was likewise free to employ workers of the Soviet Union and workers of all other states in armament production.

The Hague Convention on Land Warfare thus does not forbid the regulated utilization of manpower, but there are also further international aspects permitting such a utilization of manpower. The assent of the government of the occupied state is of primary consideration. This assent was given by France. The objection that Marshal Pétain’s Government was not a constitutional government is invalid, for it was the legitimate successor to the provisional armistice Government. That it represented the French State with foreign governments is of decisive consideration in international relations. This authority of representation was confirmed by the United States by its keeping an ambassador in Vichy even after its own entry into the war. Great Britain also negotiated the terms of an armistice with a general of the Vichy Government in Syria in 1941.

This Government once recognized could not be deprived of its legality by the simple declaration of an oppositional government, even though the latter might have been recognized by the Allies. A government loses its international position only if it is forced to transfer its actual power to the oppositional government. Up to that moment it retains authority within its sphere of influence.

The other objection that the Government of Marshal Pétain was not free to act as it wished and that consequently agreements with Germany in the field of utilization of manpower were reached by coercive measures and are therefore invalid, is not justified from the point of view of international law. Armistice and peace treaties are always concluded under great pressure. That this does not curtail the validity of such treaties is an obvious point of international law. This has constantly been emphasized when refusing German demands for a revision of the Treaty of Versailles.

Agreements which are reached in periods between the armistice and the peace treaty are subject to the same conditions. This also applies to the agreement with France with respect to the utilization of manpower. Thus, if—contrary to the statement of the Defendant Sauckel—negotiations about the utilization of manpower were conducted in the form of an ultimatum, there could from the point of view of international law still be no reason for an objection. Besides, Sauckel’s influence surely cannot have been so great that he could have exerted an excessive amount of pressure.

The validity of such agreements is open to doubt only under very special conditions, such as would mean that excessive obligations were to be assumed which obviously violate principles of humanity; for instance, if the agreements contain a clause stating that work must be performed under slave-like conditions.

The motive for these agreements was, however, to offer, especially to the French workers, favorable working conditions and salaries for their obligatory labor in Germany, thus to attract the workers.

Military reasons too can command the evacuation of an occupied territory by part of the population and thereby cause a displacement of manpower. This may happen when the population participates in partisan warfare or is active in resistance groups and thus endangers security instead of behaving obediently and peacefully. It even suffices for the population in the so-called partisan territories to be drawn upon even against its will for the support of the partisans. That such conditions were organized by Germany’s enemies as combat measures in an increasing degree, first in the East and later in the West, is today looked upon as a patriotic achievement. In view of this one must not forget that the resulting displacement of workers was precisely the consequence of their activities and that such action was permitted by international law. Evacuation had to be carried out in the interest of security, and assignment of labor elsewhere was necessary if only to maintain order. It is the privilege of the occupying power to utilize this labor within a regulated state economy in the manner deemed most appropriate under the prevailing conditions. Similar measures might also be imposed in areas of retreat after it had been ascertained that the male population illegally took part in hostilities during the retreat, as it had been called upon to do by the enemy, sometimes even being supplied with weapons.

Evacuation measures for the security of combat troops are equally permissible under international law. To engage persons evacuated from the combat zone in new work is not only legal but is actually the duty of the occupation administration. The state which calls upon its subjects to fight and thereby intensifies combat, bears the guilt for such evacuation. The necessary retaliatory measures therefore must be legal.

Whenever such evacuations become necessary, they must be carried out without undue suffering for the population. For this preparatory measures, which alone can avoid unnecessary hardships, are necessary. That is the duty of administration as laid down in Article 43 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare. Thereto appertain the proposals made by Sauckel for the evacuation of territories of retreat in France in the event of invasion (Document 1289-PS). These proposals did not materialize and cannot therefore incriminate the Defendant Sauckel.

This administrative duty may also call for a displacement of labor in order to avoid unemployment and famine. This, for example, occurred when the industrial areas of the Soviet Union were occupied, where there were no more working possibilities after the population became unemployed following the scorched earth policy adopted by the Soviet Union, and supplies failed to arrive because of transport difficulties.

These military and administrative points of view of international law can invalidate a number of reproaches; but they do not answer the basic question, namely, whether the enlistment of workers is also permitted outside the Hague Convention on Land Warfare for the very purpose of intensified labor to enable the state to carry on the war through increase of production and to allow it to release its own workers for service at the front.

A purely military emergency would provide no excuse for disregarding international law. Victory jeopardized must not be sought by breaking the law when in distress, because the laws of warfare are intended to govern that very combat, which is of necessity connected with distress. International law inclines differently where it is a case of a measure to be taken to safeguard the existence of the state. That is a law of self-preservation which every state is entitled to because higher institutions are lacking which could protect it from destruction.

It has repeatedly been stressed by all concerned that in this war our existence was at stake. This became evident for Germany after the fatal battles on the Eastern Front in the winter 1941-42. Whereas up to that time no wholesale employment of foreign labor had been necessary, new equipment now had to be produced immediately. The German labor reserves, were depleted due to the drafting of 2 million workers for service at the front. The employment of unskilled women and young people could not immediately relieve the situation. During the later stages of the war, especially through aerial warfare, armament demands increased to such an extent that, in spite of the increased employment of women and young people, the level could no longer be maintained. The means were exhausted.

The official figures which the Defendant Sauckel made public in his speech in Posen in February 1943 (see Document 1739-PS) proved that already in 1939, at the beginning of the second World War, more than twice as many women were being employed than at the end of the first World War and that their number at the end of the second World War had increased by another 2 million to a total of over 10 million. This figure exceeds the entire number of male and female workers in the armament industry at the end of the first World War. Yet in spite of that there was a shortage of labor. This has been confirmed by the witness Rohland for Codefendant Speer in Document Speer-56, according to which Speer also declared that foreign labor was needed under all circumstances.

The crux of the matter did not concern the problem of female labor, where by introducing additional home labor the limit was attained, but that of procuring specialists and men for heavy labor. Among the 10 million German women who were at work, there were also the wives of front-line officers and others from similar classes of society.

The notion that in Britain the women were conscripted for work in a higher degree than in Germany is wrong. In Germany the women had to work up to 45 and later 50 years of age, and they actually worked in factories and did not have fake jobs of a social kind. Even schoolchildren beginning with the age of 10 were required to work, and from 16 years onward they were switched to regular labor or occupied in other services. Families were disrupted; schools and universities were closed; pupils and students worked in the armament industry, and even the wounded could not continue their studies. A grim fight was waged over every person capable of work. Speer’s reserve of workers did not exist. What efforts were made in this sector is shown among others by Enclosure 2 of the Wartburg Document RF-810.

Another point of view illustrating the necessity of employing additional labor is the fact that the powers in possession of colonies brought labor from their colonies; France (see Document RF-22, Page 17), for instance, took in about 50,000 workers from North Africa and Indo-China, which were under the command and supervision of officers and noncommissioned officers. Since Germany, having been refused colonies and on account of the blockade, was unable to draw upon such reserves, she was entitled to some means, in her fight for existence, of procuring labor where it could be found inactive in occupied territories.

This is in outline the basis, with regard to international law, for judging the regulated mobilization of labor as a war crime. One may, with regard to certain points, differ in opinion; and it will generally be found that in international law a uniform interpretation will not be readily arrived at. The interests of individual members in the community of international law play an important part and are not always identical; legal principles are often not recognized because some state does not wish to place itself officially in contradiction with its former actions, or because it prefers to remain unbound for the future.

As counsel for the Defense, I am in a position to present my interpretation of law without such inhibitions. The significance of my statement for the Defense, apart from the objective side, lies in the fact that the Defendant Sauckel, subjectively, was for good reasons entitled to believe in the lawfulness of a regulated mobilization of labor and that to him his actions were not discernible as being in contradiction with international law. This was supported by the impression which the Defendant Sauckel could not but gain of the permissibility of a regulated mobilization of labor, as shown by the attitude of other superior offices. When Sauckel entered upon his office, foreign workers had already been enlisted by individual action; and he could take it for granted that the State would equally proceed in a legal manner. None of the highest offices has ever raised legal objections before Sauckel. These offices, both the competent Foreign Office and the highest civil and military offices in the occupied territories, accepted his orders as a matter of course; and no questions of doubt on international law were raised.

For the opinion of the Defendant Sauckel the attitude of the foreign agencies concerned was necessarily of special importance, notably the consent of the French and the Belgians, who came to Berlin personally for discussions. From this resulted the good co-operation with the local authorities in the occupied territories, as was the case before enemy propaganda intervened.

Whether cognizance of breaking a law is indispensable when committing a crime against international law may be a moot point; but to establish guilt leading to a conviction, cognizance of the realization of all the criminal facts is essential. This includes cognizance of the fact that the action performed was contrary to international law. The subjective aspect of the facts, involving criminal guilt of the Defendant Sauckel, cannot be proved in respect to application of the regulated mobilization of labor. It would be impossible to commit the Defendant Sauckel for yet another legal reason, even if the regulated mobilization of manpower really were a violation of international law. According to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, no individual responsibility exists. The Hague Convention on Land Warfare differentiates between two kinds of war crimes; those which can be committed by an individual, such as murder and ill-treatment, and those which can be committed only by parties in a war. The regulated utilization of manpower is a proceeding which can only be initiated by the state. While the individual action is punished according to the penal code of the different states, a special regulation was laid down for offenses committed by parties in a war in Article 3 of the introductory agreement to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare. This specifies only a liability for damages on the part of the state. This passage of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare still applies today, since it cannot be rescinded by agreement among the Allies alone. The Charter, which specifies the immediate criminal responsibility of the state organs or its executors, is void insofar as it is contradictory to the Hague Convention on Land Warfare.