The treatment of the laborers was governed by Sauckel's instructions of 20 April 1942 to the effect that:
'All the men must be fed, sheltered and treated in such a way as to exploit them to the highest possible extent, at the lowest conceivable degree of expenditure.'
The evidence showed that workers destined for the Reich were sent under guard to Germany, often packed in trains without adequate heat, food, clothing or sanitary facilities. The evidence further showed that the treatment of the laborers in Germany in many cases was brutal and dograding..... They were subject to constant supervision by the Gestapo and the SS, and if they attempted to leave their jobs they were sent to correction camps or concentration camps. The concentration camps were also used to increase the supply of labor. Concentration camp commanders were ordered to work their prisoners to the limits of their physical power. During the latter stages of the war the concentration camps were so productive in certain types of work that the Gestapo was actually instructed to arrest certain classes of laborers so that they could be used in this way. Allied prisoners of war were also regarded as a possible source of labor. Pres sure was exercised on non-commissioned officers to force them to consent to work, by transferring to disciplinary camps those who did not consent.
Many of the prisoners of war were assigned to work directly related to military operations, in violation of article 31 of the Geneva Convention. They were put to work in munition factories and even made to load bombers, to carry ammunition and to dig trenches, often under the most hazardous conditions. This condition applied particularly to the Soviet prisoners of war. On 16 February 1943, at a meeting of the Central Planning Board, at which the defendants Sauckel and Speer were present, Milch, the present defendant, said:
'We have made a request for an order that a certain percentage of men in the Ack-Ack artillery must be Russians; 50,000 will be taken altogether, 30,000 are already employed as gunners. This is an amusing thing, that Russians must work the guns.' And on 4 October 1943, at Posen, Himmler, speaking of the Russian prisoners, captured in the early days of the war, said:
'At that time we did not value the mass of humanity as we value it today, as raw material, as labor. What, after all, thinking in terms of generations, is not to be regretted, but is now deplorable by reason of the loss of labor, is that the prisoners died in tens and hundreds of thousands of exhaustion and hunger.'
"The general policy underlying the mobilization of slave labor was stated by Sauckel on 20 April 1943. He said:
'The aim of this new gigantic labor mobilization is to use all the rich and tremendous sources conquered and secured for us by our fighting Armed Forces under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, for the armament of the .armed Forces, and also for the nutrition of the Homeland.
The raw materials, as well as the fertility of the conquered territories and their human labor power, are to be used completely and conscientiously to the profit of Germany and her Allies..... All prisoners of war from the territories of the Jest, as well as the East, actually in Germany, must be completely incorporated into the German armament and nutrition industries.... Consequently it is an immediate necessity to use the human reserves of the conquered Soviet territory to the fullest extent. Should we not succeed in obtaining the necessary amount of labor on a voluntary basis, we must immediately institute conscription or forced labor...... The complete employment of all prisoners of war, as well as the use of a gigantic number of new foreign civilian workers, men and women, has become an indisputable necessity for the solution of the mobilization of the labor program in this war.'
Continuing with the quotation from the IMT decision:
".... As the dominant member of the Central Planning Board, which had supreme authority for the scheduling of German production and the allocation and development of raw materials, Speer took the position that the Board had authority to instruct Sauckel to provide laborers for industries under its control and succeeded in sustaining this position over the objection of Sauckel. The practice was developed under which Speer transmitted to Sauckel an estimate of the total number of workers needed. Sauckel obtained the labor and allocated it to the various in dustries in accordance with instructions supplied by Speer.
"Speer knew when he made his demands on Sauckel that they would be supplied by foreign laborers serving under compulsion. He participated in conferences involving the extension of the slave labor program for the purpose of satisfying his demands. He was present at a conference held during 10 and 12 August 1942 with Hitler and Sauckel at which it was agreed that Sauckel should bring laborers by force from occupied territories where this was necessary to satisfy the labor needs of the industries under Speer's control. Speer also attended a conference in Hitler's headquarters on January 4, 1944, at which the decision was made that Sauckel should obtain'at least 4 million new workers from occupied territories' in order to satisfy the demands for labor made by Speer, although Sauckel indicated that he could do this only with help from Himmler.
"Sauckel continually informed Speer and his represent atives that foreign laborers were being obtained by force. At a meeting of March 1, 1944, Speer's deputy questioned Sauckel very closely about his failure to live up to the obligation to supply four million workers from occupied territories. In some cases Speer demanded laborers from specific foreign countries. Thus, at the conference 1012 August 1942, Sauckel was instructed to supply Speer with 'a further million Russian laborers for the German armament industry up to and including October 1942.' At a meeting of the Central Planning Board on 22 April 1943, Speer discussed plans to obtain Russian laborers for use in the coal mines, and flatly vetoed the suggestion that this labor deficit should be made up by German labor.
Speer argued that he advocated the reorganization of the labor program to place a greater emphasis on utilization of German labor in war production in Germany and on the use of labor in occupied countries in local production of consumer goods formerly produced in Germany. Speer took steps in this direction by establishing the so-called 'blocked industries' in the occupied territories which were used to produce goods to be shipped to Germany. Employees of these industries were immune from deportation to Germany as slave laborers and any worker who had been rodered to go to Germany could avoid deportation if he went to work for a blocked industry. This system, although somewhat less inhumane than deportation to Germany, was still illegal. The system of blocked industries played only a small part in the over-all slave labor program, although Speer urged its cooperation with the slave labor program, knowing the way in which it was actually being administered. In an official sense, he was its principal beneficiary and he constantly urged its extension.
"Speer was also directly involved in the utilization of forced labor as Chief of the Organization Todt. The Organization Todt functioned principally in the occupied areas on such projects as the Atlantic Nall and the construction of military highways, and Speer has admitted that he relied on compulsory service to keep it adequately staffed. He also used concentration camp labor in the industries under his control. He originally arranged to tap this source of labor for use in small out-of-the-way factories; and later, fearful of Himmler's jurisdictional ambitions, attempted to use as few concentration camp workers as possible.
"Speer was also involved in the use of prisoners of war in armament industries but contends that he utilized Soviet prisoners of war only in industries covered by the Geneva Convention.
"Speer's position was such that he was not directly concerned with the cruelty in the administration of the slave labor program, although he was aware of its existence. For example, at meetings of the Central Planning Board he was informed that his demands for labor wore so large as to necessitate violent methods in recruiting. At a meeting of the Central Planning Board on 30 October 1942, Speer voiced his opinion that many slave laborers who claimed to be sick were malingerers and stated: 'There is nothing to be said against SS and Police taking drastic steps and putting those known as slackers into concentration camps.'" That completes the rather liberal quotation on the decision of the International Military Tribunal.
Under the provisions of Article X of Ordinance No. 7, these determinations of fact by the International Military Tribunal are binding upon this Tribunal "in the absence of substantial new evidence to the contrary." Any new evidence which was presented was in no way contradictory of the findings of the International Military Tribunal, but, on the contrary, ratified and affirmed them.
The next question to be answered is whether or not the defendant Milch in this case knew that foreign slave labor and prisoners of war were being procured by Sauckel and used in the aircraft industry, which the defendant controlled. The defendant's own words, as gleaned from the minutes of the Central Planning Board and from his own testimony, conclusively answer this question in the affirmative.
He testified that he know that prisoners of war wore employed in the airplane factory at Regensburg and that some twenty thousand Russian prisoners of war wore used to man anti-aircraft guns protecting the various plants. He stated further that he saw this typo of war prisoners manning 8.8 and 10.5 anti-aircraft guns at airplane factories in Luftgau 7 near Munich. Sauckel, the Minister Plenipotentiary for Labor, sat in on at least fifteen meetings of the Central Planning Board, over which the defendant presided, and discussed at great length and in elaborate detail the problems involved in procuring sufficient foreign laborers for the German war effort. He frankly disclosed the cruel and barbarous methods used in forcing civilians of the eastern countries into the Reich for war work. He related the difficulties and resistance which confronted him and the methods which he used and proposed to use in forcibly rounding up and transporting foreign workers. The advisability of using prisoners of war and inmates of concentration camps in the Luftwaffe was frankly discussed, with the defendant offering advice and suggestions as to the most effective methods to be used. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, disclosing page after page of discussion between Speer, Sauckel and the defendant in which the defendant urged more severe and coercive methods of procuring foreign labor from the east, it would violate all reason to conclude that he had no knowledge of the source of this labor or of the methods used in procuring it. His voice is constantly heard, pleading for more laborers from this source and clamoring for a larger share in Sauckel's labor pool. Hildebrand and Sagemeier for the coal mines, Rohland for the foundries, Kehrl for the coal and iron industries, Bruch and Becht for the rubber industry, Speer for the armament industry, and Milch for the aircraft industry - all those and others joined in a pagan chorus, in which the harmony was frequently strained, but all singing the same song, "We need Laborers, Men and Women.
We Don't Case where You Get Them, But Give Us More."
At the 54th Meeting of the Central Planning Board, Sauckel stated in the defendant's presence:
".... Thereupon I even proceeded to employ and train a whole batch of French male and female agents who for good pay just as was done in olden times for 'shanghaiing' went hunting for men and made them drunk by using liquor as well as words, in order to dispatch them to Germany.
Moreover I charged some sole men with founding a special labor supply executive of our own, and this they did by training and arming with the help of the Higher SS and Police Fuehrer a number of natives, but I still have to ask the Munitions Ministry for arms for the use of these men. ...........
"..........I and my assistants in fact have sometimes seen things happen in France that I was forced to ask, is there no respect any more in Fr nee for the German Lieutenant with his 10 men. ....... We Germans must make an example of one case, and by reason of this law if necessary out Prefect or Burgomaster against the Wall, if he does not comply with the rules; otherwise no Frenchman at all will be dispatched to Germany."
The defendant contributed to the discussion by saying:
"...... As soon as you arrive the men run away to protect themselves from being sent to Germany.......... The men even then will be whisked away unless quite another authority and power is on the watch, and this can only be the army itself. ......I can find no remedy out that the army should assert itself ruthlessly."
As indicating that the defendant was not indifferent to the problem, at the same meeting, in referring to procuring labor from Italy, he offered the following suggestion:
"We could take under German administration the entire food supply for the Italians and tell them: only he get any food who either works in a protected factory (that is, a factor in Italy manufacturing German war materiel) or goes to Germany."
Later in the same conference, the defendant made another contribution to the solution of the problem of foreign labor, saying:
"Now during the transfer it is necessary to see that the people really do arrive and do not ran away before or daring the transfer. If a transport has left a town and has not arrived, 500 to 600 persons from this place must be arrested and sent to Germany as prisoners of war. Such a thing is taken talked about everywhere. If actions like this and other similar ones are carried out often, they would exert a certain pressure. The whole thing would be made easier, if we had control of food."
At the 53rd Meeting of the Central Planning Board (February 16, 1944), the defendant stated:
"Our best new engine is made 88% by Russian prisoners of war and the other 12% by German men and women."
Instances could be multiplied in which the defendant not only listened to stories of enforced labor from eastern civilians and other prisoners of war and thereby became aware of the methods used in procuring such labor, but in which he himself urged more stringent and coercive means to supplement the swindling supply of labor in the Luftwaff As Germany's plight became more desperate, her loss of military personnel presented an alarming dilemma, resulting in the defection of thousands of workmen to the armed forces. This resulted in a shifting of the dilemma to industry, and spurs were put to the labor procurement officers, headed by the implacable Sauckel, cast aside all restraint and set out systematically to herd into the Reich any human being who could contribute to Germany's war effort. Under Sauckel's whip, no means no ever harsh were overlooked, and no person however exempt was spared.
The defense on this count of the indictment is ingenious bat unconvincing. As to the use of prisoners of war, the defendant testified that he had been advised by some unidentified person high in the National Socialist Councils that it was not unlawful to employ prisoners of war in war Industries. The defendant was an old and experienced soldier, and his testimony revealed that he was well acquainted with the provisions of the Geneva and Hague Treaties on this subject, which are plain and unequivocal. In the face of this knowledge, the advice which he claims to have received should have raised grave suspicions in his mind. Presenting, an entirely different aspect to his defense, he testifies that many of the Russian prisoners of war volunteered to serve in the war industries and apparently en joyed the opportunity of manufacturing munitions to be used against their fellow countrymen and their allies.
Other Russian prisoners of war, he states, were discharged as such and immediately enrolled as civilian workers. The photographs introduced in evidence, however, show that they still retained their Russian army uniforms, which makes their status as civilians suspect. Be that as it may, it does nor adequately answer the charge that hundreds of thousands of Polish prisoners of war were cast into concentration camps and parceled out to the various war factories, nor the further fact that thousands of French prisoners of war were compelled to labor the most harrowing conditions for the Luftwaffe.
As to the French civilian workers who were employed at war work in Germany after the conquest of France, it is the contention of the defendant that these workers were supplied by the French Government under a solemn agreement with the Reich. It is claimed with a straight face that the Vichy Government, headed by Laval, entered into an international compact with the German Government to supply French laborers for work in Germany. This contention entirely overlooks the fact that the Vichy Government was a mere puppet set up under German domination, which, in full collaboration with Germany, took its orders from Berlin. Tho position of the defendant seems to be that, if any force or coercion was used on French citizens, it was exerted by their own government, but this position entirely overlooks the fact that the transports which brought Frenchmen to Germans were manned by German armed guards and that upon their arrival they were kept under military guard provided by the Wehrmacht or the SS.
It was sought to disguise the harsh realities of the German foreign labor policy by the use of spacious legal and economic terms, and to make such policy appear as the exercise of conventional labor relations and Labor law. The fiction of a "labor contract" was frequently resorted to, especially in the operations of the Todt Organization, which implied that foreign workers were given a free choice to work or not to work for Germany military industry. This, of course, was purely fictitious, as is shown by the fact that thousands of these "contract workers" jumped from the trains transporting them to Germany and fled into the woods.
Does anyone believe that the vast hordes of Slavic Jews who labored in Germany's war industries were accorded the rights of contracting parties? They were slaves, nothing loss - kidnapped, regimented, herded under armed guards, and worked until they died from disease, hunger and exhaustion. The idea of any Jew being a party to a contract with Germans was unthinkable to the National Socialists. Jews were considered as outcasts and were completely at the mercy of their oppressors. Exploitation was merely a convenient and profitable means of extermination, to the end that, "when this war ends, there will be no more Jews in Europe". As to non-Jewish foreign labor, with few exceptions they were deprived of the basic civil rights of free men: they were deprived of the right to move freely or to choose their place of residence; to live in a household with their families; to rear and educate their children; to marry; to visit public places of their own choosing; to negotiate, either individually or through representatives of their own choice, the conditions of their own employment; to organize in trade unions; to exercise free speech or other free expression of opinion; to gather in peaceful assembly; and they were frequently deprived of the right to worship according to their own conscience. All these are the sign-marks of slavery, not free employment under contract.
The German nation, before the ascendancy of the NSDAP, had repeatedly recognized the rights of civilian in occupied countries. At the Hague Peace Conference of 1907, an amendment was submitted by the German delegate, Maj. Gen. von Gundell, which read:
"A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the adverse party to take part in the operations of war directed against their country, even when they have been in his service before the commencement of the war."
The German manual for war on land (Kreigsbrauchin Landrecht. ed. 1902) stated:
"The inhabitants of an invaded territory are persons endowed with rights ...... subject to certain restrictions ......... but who otherwise may live free from vexations and, as in time of peace, under the protection of the laws."
During the First World War, an order of the German Supreme Command (Oct. 3, 1916) provided for the deportation of Belgian vagrants and idlers to Germany for work, but specified that such labor was not to be used in connection with operations of war. The order resulted in such a storm of protest that it was at once abandoned by the German authorities.
It cannot be contended, of course, that foreign workers were entitled to comforts or luxuries which were not accorded German workers. It is also recognized that, especially during the litter part of the war, there was a universal shortage of food and fuel throughout the Reich and in the discomforts arising therefrom foreign workers were bound to share. But it is an undoubted fact that the foreign workers were subjected to cruelties and torture and the deprivation of decent human rights merely because they were aliens. This was not true in isolated instances, but was universal and was the working out of the German attitude toward those whom it considered inferior peoples. If any decent human consideration was shown these workers, it was merely to maintain their productivity and did not stem from any humanitarian considerations.
The Tribunal therefore finds the defendant guilty of the war crimes charged in Count One of the Indictment, to wit, that he was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in and was connected with, plans and enterprises involving slave labor and deportation to slave labor of the civilian populations of countries and territories occupied by the German armed forces, and in the enslavement, deportation, ill-treatment and terrorization of such persons and further that the defendant was a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and was connected with, plans and enterprises involving the use of prisoners of war in war operations and work having a direct relation to war operations.
THE PRESIDENT: Presiding Judge continuing:
Count Three of the Indictment charges the defendant with crimes against humanity committed against "German nationals and nationals of other countries." Sufficient proof was not adduced as to such offenses against German nationals to justify an adjudication of guilt on that ground. As to such crimes against nationals of other countries, the evidence shows that a large number of Hungarian Jews and other nationals of Hungary and Rumania, which countries were occupied by Germany but were not belligerents, were subjected to the same tortures and deportations as were the nationals of Poland and Russia. In Count One of the Indictment these acts are charged as war crimes and have heretofore been considered by the Tribunal under that count in this judgment. In the judgment of the International Military Tribunal (Vol. I, Trial of the Major War Criminals, p. 254), the court stated:
"From the beginning of the war in 1939, war crimes were committed on a vast scale which were also crimes against humanity."
This is a finding of law and an interpretation of Control Council Law No. 10, with which this Tribunal is in full accord.
Our conclusion is that the same unlawful acts of violence which constituted war crimes under Count One of the Indictment also constitute crimes against humanity as alleged in Count Three of the Indictment. Having determined the defendant to be guilty of war crimes under Count One, it follows, of necessity, that he is also guilty of the separate offense of crimes against humanity, as alleged in Count Three, and this Tribunal so determines.
In exculpation, the defendant states that he was a German soldier and that whatever was done by him or with his knowledge or consent was done in pursuance of a national military policy promulgated by Hitler and in obedience to military orders. He protests that, no matter how violently he disagreed with the methods used by the German Reich in the furthering of its policy of aggressive war, he was helpless to extricate himself and had no alternative except to stay with the venture to the bitter end. It is true that withdrawal may involve risks and dangers, but these are incidental to the original affiliation with the unlawful scheme. He who elects to participate in a venture which may result in failure must make his election to abandon the enterprise if it is not to his liking or to stay as a participant, and win or lose according to the outcome.
Much significance must be attached to the meeting of May 23, 1939, at which the defendant was admittedly present and in which Hitler spoke at great length as to his plans for the subjugation of friendly minor nations and the ultimate conquest of Europe. A purported record of the events at this meeting has been introduced in evidence and has been found to be reliable and accurate by the' International Military Tribunal. The defendant has throughout insisted that this record is spurious and was made by Schmundt long after the occasion which it records. Of course, it was never anticipated that this record, which was marked "Top Secret, To Be Transmitted by Officer Only," would ever be captured and its contents become known. It is not surprising that those who sat and listened to the astounding program of the Fuehrer now wish that they had been absent. It cannot be denied that there was a meeting of some kind which the defendant attended and at which the Fuehrer spoke, and further that it was hold a few short months before the actual invasion of Poland, as forecast in the report of the meeting. The Schmundt paper does not pretend to be a verbatim report of Hitler's exact words, but certainly all of the diabolical plans which it reveals were not manufactured by Schmundt out of thin air, attributed to Hitler, and then marked "Top Secret". Even if Hitler said only a small part of what is attributed to him by Schmundt, there was enough said to advise and warn a man of the defendant's intelligence and experience that mischief was afoot.
Every sentence shrieks of war. The record hints at nothing else, and, if all references to conquest and war and world domination are eliminated, Hitler did not speak at all. At this early date, the defendant must be charged with knowledge that a war of aggression, to be ruthlessly pursued, was planned. This, then, was the time for him to have made his decision - the decision which confronts every man daily - to be honorable or dishonorable. Life consists quite generally in making such decisions. As an old soldier, schooled in the code of war and well aware of the principles to which an honorable soldier must adhere, he sat complacently and listened to a proposed program which violated national honor, personal integrity and the moral code of an honest soldier. He made his choice and elected with the tyrant.
When the defendant joined the National Socialist Party in 1933, Germany was in the throes of dire economical and political distress and was burdened by a myriad of political parties, each with its separate program and all functioning at cross-purposes. The defendant elected to affiliate with the NSDAP because, he testified, he believed it offered the most likely agency for bringing order out of chaos. But very soon he must have realized that he had joined a band of villains whose program contemplated every crime in the calendar. The Nazi code was not a secret. It was published and proclaimed by the party leaders in long harangues to the people; decrees a and directives were broadcast; the infamous Streicher was spreading anti-Jewish obscenities throughout the Reich in "Der Stuermer"; Roehm and a large number of the SA were murdered by Hitler's orders;
hundreds of German citizens' were cast into concentration camps for "political reeducation," without hearing or opportunity for defense; the iniquitous Gestapo stormed through the land, with power over life and liberty which could not be questioned; in public view Jews were beaten and killed, their synagogues burned and their stores destroyed. The Party proclaimed its objectives from the house tops and verified them by open public conduct throughout the Reich. The significant fact which must not be overlooked is that all these things happened before the war was launched, at a time when there was no claim upon the loyalty of the defendant as a soldier to protect his homeland at war. He protests that he never subscribed to the Master Race philosophy, but 13 years before he joined the Party in 1933, its precepts and demands had been proclaimed, among which was Point 4:
"Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race."
The humblest citizens of Germany knew that the iniquitous doctrines of the Party were being implemented by ruthless acts of persecution and terrorism which occurred in public view. Thousands of obscure German citizens were only too well aware that they were living under the scrutiny of an army of spies and saw their friends and relatives summarily dispatched to concentration camps for the slightest suspicion of dissidence. The defendant did not live in a vacuum. He was not blind nor deaf. Long before 1939, long before his military loyalty was called into lay, long before the door withdrawal was closed, he could have seen the bloody handwriting on the wall, for murder and enslavement of his own countrymen was there written in blazing symbols.
But he had taken on the crymson mantle of the Party, with all its ghastly implication, and he were it with glory and profit to himself to the end. Others with more courage and higher principles and with more loyalty to the ancient German ideals rebelled and withdrew from the brutal crew: Von Clausewitz Yorck von Wartenberg, Schlegelberger, Schmitt, Eltz von Ruebenach, Tesmer, These men in high positions had the character to repudiate great civil, and if in so doing they took risks and made sacrifies nevertheless, they made their choice to stand with decency and justice and honor, The defendant had his opportunity to join those who refused to do the evil bidding of an evil master, but he cast it aside and his professed repentance now comes too late.
What a sordid of a civilized nation- the nation of Goethe and Hiene, of Beethoven and Chubert, even of Bismarck and von Hindenberg,- fawning and cringing at the feet of a small man with delusions of granduer: Even when madness in to intensify his frenzy and fear and defeat put spurs to his ferovity, they still said, " We are his people. He is our immaculate leader." Men of large capacities, even genius, prostitute their talents before a puny renegade who used them impiously and paid off his puppets with medals and pelf. But the strutting menials stayed with him. So long as success was on the horizon, they bowed and scrapped and sought to out do each other in supine adulation. They tell us now, Hitler was wrong." But they told him that. Right or wrong, their only concern was, " Can him the war? And what will it mean for me?" They heard him proclaim as early as November, 1937, " The question for Germany is where the greatest possible conquest could be made at the lowest possible cost," and they nodded and shouted, "Heil Hitler," and maneuvered to get closer to him.
Before the invasion of Poland, they heard this blood-thirsty tyrant say,"In starting and making a war, not the right is what matters, but victory." And this defendant, as part of the unholy array, rolled up his sleeves and said "Let me help. Give men and more men, no matter where you get them."
In a civilized state which recognizes the sanctity of human lives and human rights, no man - no group of men - should be endowed with omnipotence. The history of human relations, from Herod to Hitler, has repeatedly demonstrated this to be true. Omnipotence is only for God. Be a man over so wise, ever so benevolent, ever so trustworthy, there still exists in him the frailty, tho fallibility, the susceptibility to temptation that is inherent in every man. If the only protection against the tyranny of an autocrat is his own selfrestraint, that is not enough, for power feeds or power, and the temptation to stretch authority to its limit is irresistible.
What, then, of the responsibility of those who bask in the reflected radiance of omnipotence, who get their sustenance from it and who arrogantly carry out its mandates and crush any resistance to it? Are they not the hands and limbs of the monster, carrying out the orders of the head? Surely, they cannot be allowed to detach themselves from tho corpus by saying, "Those arms and legs are innocent - only the head is guilty."