The fact in itself that he preached anti-Semitism justifies his or his territory.
Criminal responsibility, according to the Penal Code, without exception.
The Regional Commissioner immediately made vigorous pro tests and demanded that the action be stopped at once.
With pointed revolver implicated be punished for the unheard of butcher.
The latter reported to the in higher places.
The Reich Minister for the Occupied Territories sent the requesting further instructions.
Due to an ingenious system, according to which not even obliged to report, Rosenberg could not take any further steps either in this or in similar cases.
He wasnot above the police and could only hope offices over the reported incidents that none of then knew anything about them, that it was no question of excesses, but of an action ordered by Heydrich and Himmler.
When Heydrich and Himmler declined the responsibility, Rosenberg could not suspect anything. the Reich Minister for the occupied territories-
THE PRESIDENT: Would you give us the number again?
DR. THOMA: That is 3663-PS, in which the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories--signed, "for Dr. Leibrandt"--calls for a report by the Reich Commissioner Ostland because a complaint has been made by the Chief Office of Reich Security, the RSHA, that the Reich Commissioner Ostland has prohibited Jewish executions in Libau. To this the addressee replied:
"I prohibited the execution of Jews inLibau because there was no justification for the way in which it was carried out."
This is followed by a request for further instructions. Of this document--which is signed by the departmental chief Liebrandt, and which in no way points to any knowledge on the part of the defendant Rosenberg--the following careful statement may be made in brief: because the executions of Jews were not continued, but it simply points to the transfer of a complaint to the Reich Security Office, the RSHA, with a request to report. It is to be pesumed that the reason for the complaint was that the Reich Commissioner Ostland encroached on the competency of the Reich Security Chief, RSHA, and the demand for a report was supposedly issued in that sense. signed "for Braeutigam", asking the Reich Commissioner Ostland to settle directly any questions which occurred with the Higher SS and Police Leaders.
To identify the sign "R" as Rosenberg's initial, because the Prosecution obviously was more than doubtful about Rosenberg's knowledge of matters, turned out to be a failure, too.
The Document No. 3426-PS concerns a letter of the General Commissioner for white Ruthenia to the Reich Commissioner for the East. It is a shocking document about the mass extermination of Jews in White Ruthenia; however, there is nothing of interest in it for the case against Rosenberg, because these horrible events may be attributed to him only if he knew of them, and, neglecting his duty, failed to interview. There is no actual proof to go by for a supposition of such knowledge. The claim that these documents were found in Rosenberg's possession is not in accordance with the actual facts, for they show the Reich Commissioner in Riga as the addressee.
In the Aktennotiz (the signed note) for the Fuehrer of the 18th of December, 1941 (Document No. 001-PS, USA 282) the defendant suggested the following, which I must quote literally: "The outrages against members of the German Wehrmacht have not stopped, but have gone on. It looks as though there were an obvious plan to disturb German-French cooperation to force Germany to take measures of retaliation, thereby bringing about a new defensive attitude on the part of the French against Germany. My suggestion to the Fuehrer is that instead of killing 100 Frenchmen now, he should have 100 or more Jewish bankers, lawyers, etc., shot". but one thing is certain, that Rosenberg has convinced such a measure was admissible. In that case, however, his suggestion must be considered in that light, and can by no means be judged as an independent incitement to murder.
The suggestion, however, had no results. In his reply of December 31, 1941, Lammers, acting on the Fuehrer's order, merely referred to the suggestion of utilizing the furniture and fittings from Jewish houses, and not to the shooting of hostages. Rosenberg made no more reference to it, either. Rosenberg, when the latter was in the witness box, that that was murder. Gentlemen of the Tribunal, it was not murder, because no execution took place. It was no incitement to murder. One can only incite someone who still has to be convinced or persuaded.
facturo, he can be incited no more, and there is only the derelict of a suggestion of a criminal act, which, according to German law, is just a violation to receive only slight punishment because it has had no consequence. witness that on one occasion a regional commissioner in the East was sentenced to death for having extorted valuables from a Jewish family, and that that sentence was carried out. Please do not consider it a bad argument of defense when I say: Does that not prove that Rosenberg loathed criminal acts against the Jews?
5. The Document S-135, USSR-289, refers to the report of the General Commissioner of white Ruthenia, in Minsk, dated June 1, 1943, on the subject of what happened in the prison of Minsk as regards gold fillings. This was addressed to the Reich Commissioner of Ostland, who forwarded the report on the 18th of June 1943, with his marked anger. already made a statement on this point.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we are going a little too fast.
DR. THOMA: Thank you.
I should like to repeat this briefly now: He had returned on the 22nd of July, 1943, from an official visit to the Ukraine and found a pile of notices about conferences, a number of letters, and above all the Fuehrer decree from the middle of June, 1943, in which Rosenberg was instructed to limited himself to the principles of legislation and not to bother about the details of law. remember it -- that the letter was explained to him by his office, and presumably in the course of the reading hewas informed of many documents and learned that there was again serious trouble between the Police and Civilian Administration. And it is probable that Rosenberg said: Turn that over for investigation to Gauleiter Meyer or to the Police Liaison Officer. Rosenberg's memory.
and all the other frightful things not covered in the documents, but which actually happened, call for atonement. Nobody is in doubt that not only the lesser tormentors acting on higher orders might be punished, but also and above all those who issued the orders and those responsible for the crimes. Rosenberg did not issue an order to murder the Jews; so much is clear. But is he, in spite of this, responsible for the frightful murders? documents. In any case, it could not be determined that he know anything about what went on. But can we condemn Rosenberg on the basis of his supposed and probable knowledge? Rosenberg has by no means the intention of playing a false and cowardly game of hide-and-seek behind his advisors and subordinates. But let us remember with what cunning the so-called executions of the Jews were kept secret, not only from the public, but even from Hitler's most important colleagues. hide-and-seek with Rosenberg? The thoughts and intentions of none of the other NSDAP leaders were revealed so openly and clearly to all the world as those of the editor Rosenberg, in particular. Of none other could one be so sure that would turn with indignation from the cruel, inhuman acts. of this, the greatest crime of all. It is not proved, but one could imagine it and surmise it. Is he then responsible, too? Peculiar, even subtle, too, as we well know, was the departmental authority and the responsibility which went with it in the Eastern countries. The entire complex of the police force had been taken from Rosenberg's sphere of influence, the highest instance of which was Himmler, and under him Heydrich. Of their orders and measures Rosenberg had no knowledge and no suspicion, as a rule. subordinate and responsible to their police superiors and no one else. It was quite immaterial whether or not Rosenberg knew anything of the measures taken by the police. He could do as little about it as any other of his fellow citizens in the Third Reich. One might say, yes, he could have remonstrated with Himmler or Hitler; he could have given up his position.
Of course, he could have done so. The point, however, is not whether he could have done it. The question is, Would he have achieved anything by doing so. That is to say, whether he could have prevented the executions. For only in such a case could his responsibility be affirmed oh the ground of his failure to do so, and only in such a case could one speak of causality without which criminal responsibility is unthinkable.
One can make further claims, still under the assumption of Rosenberg's knowledge of matters, that Rosenberg could at least have stepped in against the Reich Commissioners, who were obviously involved in these matters. We know that the administrative organization and the dividing up of supreme authority in the last were vague, to say the least. The Reich Commissioners were sovereign masters in their own territory. They had the final say in the shooting of hostages and in other retaliatory measures of far-reaching consequence. And what was the extent of their authority? In case the Reich Commissioner was dissatisifed with Rosenberg -- and he mostly was dissatisifed -- he went to Hitler. those Kech as regards the execution of Jews he would have been upheld by Hitler if he had gone to him? In this again, there is a lack of that causality which is indispensible for a legal indictment.
trial against Rosenberg and have accused him of having systematically stolen objects of art and science on a large scale in the East and West (Storey 18 December 1945, Protocol Page 1408; Gerthofer, February 6, 1946, Protocol Page 3945; Smirnow February 15, 1946, and February 21, 1946). First I must take exception to some obvious exaggerations and injustices, that is, the assertion that the activities of the special staff in the West extended to public and private property without distinction, (Page 3951) and that the objects of art Germany appropriated amount to more than the treasures of the Metropolitan Museum in New York, of the British Museum in London, of the Louvre in Paris, and of the Tretjakew gallery all together.. Further, I must declare the statement incorrect that the looting program of Rosenberg was intended to rob the occupied countries of their entire centuries-old possessions of art and science. Finally, the Prosecution contrasts Rosenberg's actions to the looting of art -- treasures in former wars. It says that while egotism, conceit, taste and personal inclination were the underlying motives of such looting, the national-socialists in the first place had the criminal intention of storing up reserves of things of value. (Page 3965). I think it unnecessary to go back over the looting of art treasures in former times as far as Napoleon, because the concepts of International Law and regulations have changed in the meantime, but I should like to mention two things:
1) How many of the most famous objects of art in the most famous galleries of the world got there through the channels of war and how many get there in a peaceful way?
2) I can accept the fact that the Prosecution denies Rosenberg any delight in art, or joy in the possession of treasures of art as a possible motive for his actions because Rosenberg was no pirate of art -- no thief. He had no intention of appropriating the objects of art for himself or for someone else.
What were the actual facts? Rosenberg's operative staff was active in the east and in the west.
It had two tasks, 1) to search libraries, archives, etc., for material suitable for the "high school" of the Party which had been planned to confiscate this material and take it away for the purpose of research, and 2) to seize objects of cultural value that were in possession of or which belonged to Jews, or which had no owner or were of a doubtful origin. The Prosecution says "the true and only motive, the true and only purpose of this 'seizure' was robbery and looting. There could be no question of intentions of 'more safeguarding'." Ostland that he wished distinctly to prohibit the transfer for any kind of art treasure from any place whatsoever without the approval of the Reich Commissioner. (Document Number 1015c-PS). On 30 September 1942 the High Command issued an order in agreement with Rosenberg to the following effect.
"Apart from exceptional cases when it is urgent to safeguard objects of cultural value which are in danger, it is desired that for the time being such objects be left where they are." Further, it says, "The troops and all military service posts within the operational area are invariably directed to spare valuable cultural monuments as far as possible and to prevent their destruction or damage." in the occupied eastern territories the activities of the Special Staff for Fine Arts were restricted to the scientific and photographic seizure of official collections, and that the safeguarding and protection of these was carried out in cooperation with the military and civilian service posts. It further says that in the course of vacating the territories, a few hundred valuable Ikons and paintings were saved and with the cooperation of individual army groups were brought to a place of hiding in the Reich. Finally, on 12 June 1942 Rosenberg sent out the following decree in a circular letter to the highest Reich authorities. In the occupied eastern territories a number of service posts and individual people are oc cupied with the salvaging of objects of cultural value.
They worked from various angles and independent of each other. It is absolutely essential for the administration of the territories that a survey be made of the existing objects of cultural value. Furthermore it must be seen to that as a general rule they be left where they are for the time being. To this end, I have set up a central post for special discernment in my Ministry to lay hold of and salvage cultural value in the East." view that objects of cultural value and remain in the country and only through the retreat of the German troops were few hundred valuable Ikons and valuable paintings brought into Germany. mobile are as exposed to the danger of destruction as are any other values. Rosenberg could have stopped all unnecessary destruction, theft and removal inasmuch as he centralized the safeguarding of objects of cultural value and had all necessary action taken through his operational staff in the east and the West. (See Abels' report on the library at Minsk 076-PS, USSR 375.) It is quite in accordance with the conception of International Law (See Scholz, private Property in Occupied and Unoccupied Enemy Country, Berlin 1919, page 36) that care should be taken on the part of the occupiers not only to protect but to safeguard and salvage protected objects of art as far as the war situation permits. Yes, it is even considered a cultural duty for the occupier to remove particularly valuable objects of art from the zone of fire and place then in safety as far as possible. Under the circumstances the concept of International Law may make it the right and duty of the occupier to bring into his own country for reasons of salvage objects of special scientific and artistic value. This is not an inadmissable seizure (Article 56 Per. 2, LKO), because the latter term could only apply to acts which are hostile to culture and not acts which are friendly to culture. (See Scholz, Page 37.)
Finally, I want to refer to document Number 1109-PS. A report according to which scientific institute that had been saved were ready to be taken back to the Ukraine immediately after the hoped for re-entry of the troops.
I consider it completely impossible to read anything about looting into this clear text. of considerable value were destroyed by direct military actions or by wanton destruction or looting. It would be a fundamental misjudgment of the true facts of the case and a great injustice if these losses should be charged to the account of the Rosenberg Einsatzstab, and its chief, for his efforts were in the opposite direction.
In the West (I refer to the testimony of Robert Scholz of the 19th of May, 1946, Document Rosenberg 041), the case was different but, in my opinion, here also the defendant cannot be charged with looting and robbing objects of art. When in the summer of 1940 the Parissiennes with the exception of the Jews had once more returned, somebody conceived the idea of searching the now ownerless apartments, houses, and castles for books and libraries and of taking what was interesting of this scientific material to Germany. From various branches of the Wehrmacht, the Armed Forces, the report came that especially in Jewish castles there were collections of objects of art which one could not guarantee would remain intact in case of a long occupation. Thereupon, Rosenberg made the proposal that his Einsatzstab be allowed to direct its attention at objects of art and to take care of them, which was then ordered by Hitler.
What did the Einsatzstab do with these objects of art? It set up an accurate card index containing the names of the particular owner of each picture, photographed the objects of art, scientifically appraised then, repaired them expertly insofar as was necessary packed them carefully and shipped them to the Bavarian castles of Neuschwanstein and Chiemsee. Because of the danger of air raids, they were then stored in an old Austrian nine. Rosenberg attached great importance to keeping the objects cared for by the Einsatzstab separately and not mixed in with the great purchases which Hitler made for those proposed galleries in Linz.
Was that looting, robbery, theft? Looting is the indiscriminate and wanton carrying off of objects in the situations of general distress and danger. Robbery is carrying off by force. Theft is the carrying off without force. In all cases the intent must exist to appropriate the object illegally for oneself or somebody else. What intent did Rosenberg have? He has never denied that he and his co-workers had hopes of the pictures remaining in Germany. Perhaps as compensation or as security for the peace negotiation but his intent was only directed at confiscating and safeguarding the objects and that has been proved. The question of what should be done with the confiscated items was left open until the and and no decision made on it. It is absolutely certain that Rosenberg did not have the intention of appropriating the things for himself or anybody else. If Rosenberg had been a plunderer of objects of art, he certainly made notations concerning dates and place of confiscation and names of the owners. As a precaution, however, I should like also to point out that because of the flight of their owners, the objects were ownerless and that the question of the lack of owner and the question of the legality of their acquisition by Rosenberg cannot be judged by normal circumstances but must be judged according to the extraordinary circumstances of the war. art were stolen at random I should like to reply to the statement that only Jewish possessions, and indeed as mentioned, ownerless objects were confiscated. Above all it is not true that state owned property was also touched. in carrying out a state order and finally I want to ask that the fact be not ignored that Rosenberg acted without any egotistical motives. Not a single picture passed into his private possession; he did not gain a single mark from this transaction which was worth millions, and after all, the entire lot of artistic and cultural property has been found again.
admits, "diverted some objects for his own purposes with the Fuehrer's approval. This disturbed Rosenberg because the Einsatzstab was in his name and declared that as a matter of principle he did not want to give anything even to the museum; that his task was purely one of registration and safeguarding. That the Fuehrer should have the final decision on those works of art. Rosenberg could not undertake anything against Goering but he ordered his deputy Robert Scholz at least to make an accurate inventory of what was given to Goering, and to have the latter sign a receipt which he did. And so, it most certainly cannot be proved that Rosenberg had the intention of illegally appropriating the objects of art for himself or for somebody else. Furthermore, Robert Scholz confirmed that Rosenberg also forbade all his assistants to acquire any objects of art or culture even by virtue of an official appraisal. (Document R-041.) gang of vandals broke into the European House of Art in order to plunder in a barbarous way. If one thinks of the tremendous work of drawing up and inventory, of cataloguing, restoration, and scientific appraisal, and if one finally bears in mind that all these treasures were most carefully stored away, and certainly came through the war better than would have been the case if the German authorities had not taken care of them. I believe that objectively speaking one can use any term but that of "vandalism."
PRESIDENT: I think this would be a good time to break off.
Rosenberg is also especially charged with looting furniture. He is alleged to have robbed 79,000 Jewish-owned apartments, among them 38,000 in Paris, of their contents, and to have taken the loot to Germany.
Unquestionably, these measures were taken for the benefit of air-raid victims; in the cities which had been destroyed by air-warfare new apartments were built for the homeless. be morally condemned, that the confiscation was limited to Jewish property. The essential question, however, is whether the confiscation was at all legal. In all my statements, I have avoided -- and I do not wish to do it at this point, either trying to excuse a war legal position with a state of military emergency, for as an expert international law states, "the state of emergency is the lever by means of which the entire body of martial law can be torn off its hinges." But in this case was not national and military necessity the ground for justification, did not air warfare bring "intense and general distress " to Germany ? One might object : "The distress could have been ended by unconditional surrender". In my opinion, however, by this reference to unconditional surrender, the abandonment by the Reich of its own existence and independence and its own vital interests, this ground of justification cannot be taken from the defendant. The appropriation of enemy private property took place in application of a right of requisitioning which was extented beyond the legal maxims of martial law and justified by the state of emergency. I venture to assert that his procedure of confiscating furniture, in view of the devastating effects of the air warfare against Germany, was not contradictory to "the customs among civilized peoples", "the laws of humanity", and "the demands of the public conscience" (Marten's clause in the preamble of the agreement concerning the laws and customs of land warfare; see Scholz in the aforementioned book, page 173). operation. conspirators of the Norway Operation and later in the same matter calls Rosenberg a "dealer in high treason". The opinion of the prosecution and also the supposition of the present Norwegian Government (Norwegian report of 3 October 1945, Document No.TC-56) are obviously that the Party's foreign office of which Rosenberg was the head, and Quisling, had plotted the war against Norway in a mutual conspiracy.
I believe that of all the charges against Rosenberg hitherto dealt with none has less foundation than this one. On the basis of the few documents which have been submitted to the court, in my opinion, the case could doubtless be cleared up in favor of the defendant.
There was a Party "foreign office" which had the task of informing foreign visitors about the National-Socialist movement, of referring any possible suggestions to the official offices, and otherwise of functioning as a central office of the Party for questions of foreign policy. The special interest, and I may perhaps say the special sympathy, of the leading men of the Party and the State, was directed at the Nordic countries; it was in this direction that the A.P.A. placed the main emphasis on the field of cultural policy. The already existing Nordische Gesellschaft (Nordic Society) was expanded, the birthdays of great Nordic scientists and artists were observed in Germany, a great Nordic music festival was held, etc. The relations first took on a really political note with the appearance of Quisling, whom Rosenberg had seen for the first time in 1933, and who then, in 1939, -i.e. six years later -- looked up Rosenberg again after the convention of the Nordic Society in Luebeck; the former spoke of the danger of European enganglements and expressed the fear that Norway was in danger of being drawn into them. He then feared above all a partitioning of his country in such a manner that the Soviet Union would occupy the northern part and England the southern part of Norway.
Quisling again appeared before Rosenberg in Berlin in December 1939. The latter arranged for a conference with the Fuehrer. Hitler declared that he would by far prefer to have Norway remain completely neutral and that he did not intend to extend the theater of war and involve more nations in the conflict, but he would know how to defend himself against a further isolation of and further threats against Germany. In order to counteract the increasing activity of enemy propaganda, Quisling was promised financial support of his movement, which was based on the Pan-Germanic idea. special military staff; Rosenberg was to deal with the political aspect and he appointed his assistant Scheidt to maintain liaison between him and Quisling. Hagelin, a Norwegian confidential agent of Quisling's, in January 1940, gave Rosenberg some more disturbing reports on the feared violation of Neutrality by the Norwegian government and Rosenberg passed them on to Hitler.
After the "Altmark" incident, Hagelin, who moved in Norwegian government circles, intensified his warnings.
The Allies had already begun to study the Norwegian seaports for disembarkation and transportation possibilities; in any case, the Norwegian government would be satisfied with protests on paper, and Quisling sent the message that any delay in undertaking a counteraction would mean an exceptional risk. Rosenberg again handed the reports immediately to Hitler. If he had not done so that would actually have been treason to his country. The German counter-blow followed on 9-4-1940 and Rosenberg learned about it from the radio and newspaper like any ordinary citiwen. After his above mentioned report, which he made in the line of duty, Rosenberg did not participate in either diplomatic or military preparations. forwarded information to Hitler and not an instigator, conspirator or traitor in the Norwegian case, I should like to refer to two documents. First, to Document No. C-65, Rosenberg's file note concerning Quisling's visit. Obviously it is the information on Quisling which had been requested by Hitler of Rosenberg. If Rosenberg had been on close terms with Quisling, he certainly would have wanted to inform Hitler about it. Rosenberg had only heard of a fantastic and impracticable plan of Quisling's for a coup d'etat (occupation of important central offices in Oslo by sudden action, supported by specially selected Norwegians who had been trained in Germany, then having the German fleet called in by a newly-formed Norwegian government). However, an earlier report of Quisling appeared less fantastic to Rosenberg; according to which names were given - officers of the Western powers travelled through Norway as consular officials, ascertained the depth of the water in ports of disembarkation, and made inquiries into the cross-sections and heights of railway tunnels.
the Norwegian matter. The second document is the report concerning "The Political Preparation of the Norway-Operation" (Document No. 004-PS, GB-1305), a report from Rosenberg to Hess of 17 June 1940. In this inter-departmental report also there is nothing which deviates from Rosenberg's own trustworthy statement and which would let him appear as an instigator of war and a person guilty of high treason. concerning Norway. Thus, what criminal act did Rosenberg commit? was it criminal that he tried "to gain influence in Norway" (TC-56) or that with his knowledge subsidies were given to Quisling by the Foreign Office? Finally, I should also like to point out that later on, after the operation had succeeded, Rosenberg in no way was entrusted with on office or function with regard to Norway; that even the appointment of a Reich Commissioner for Norway was carried out without consulting him. Rumanian minister Goga. Rather I do not wish to read it but I would ask the High Tribunal to consider it as having been reported on. the orders for religious persecutions and induced others to participate in these persecutions. However, not a single order of that kind is known. There were presented only writings of Hermann, partly to Rosenberg, partly to others, from which no charges against Rosenberg can be drawn. On the contrary, Rosenberg was repeatedly reproached as once, when in the presence of Hitler, he praised a book by Reichsbishop Mueller (Doc.No.100-PS); another time, when Rosenberg gave Reichsbishop Mueller instruction to work out directives for thoughts regarding religious instruction in schools (Doc.No.098-PS); once again when Rosenberg promoted a strictly Christian piece of writing by General von Rabenau.
As a witness Rosenberg declared himself (Protocol p. 1874) that he always declined propaganda advocating the withdrawal from the Church and never called for state and police measures against his clerical and scientific opponents, and particularly that he never used the police for suppressing those who were opponents of his book, "Myth of the 20th Century."
In December 1941 he had issued, as Reich Minister for the occupied Eastern territories, an edict for church toleration (Doc. No.1517-PS); with arrests, the deportation of priests, and persecution of the Church Rosenberg had nothing to do. He had no part either in the negotiations with the Vatican over the Concordat or in the assignment of the Protestant Reich Bishop; but neither did he take any part in measures which were hostile to the Church, and which were later carried out by the police. He never participated in any other administrative or legislative anti-clerical measures to construe from what Rosenberg thought and said about religious and philosophical matters, that he conspired towards a political suppression of religion. The only document (130-PS) pointing in this direction was withdrawn by the Prosecution itself, before I saw myself obliged to draw attention to it as a pamphlet drawn up against Rosenberg. His book "The Myth of the 20th Century" which is allegedly written for the reshaping of confessions in the spirit of a German Christianity, is moreover chiefly addressed to those who have already broken with the Church.
"No consciously responsible German", says Rosenberg on one occasion in it, "should suggest withdrawal from the Churches to those, who are still faithful members of them" (Doc.No.Ro.7, Doc. Book I, p.122). "May science never have the power to dethrone true religion" (See the same page 125). His writings are not addressed to the faithful church-goers of today in order to hinder them in the course of their spiritual life, but to those who have already discarded their faith." (Doc.No.Ro. 7, Doc. Book I, p.125). establish norms in metaphysical matters which deny immortality etc. Having been assigned to supervise ideological education he said explicitly in his Berlin speech of 22February, 1934:
"No national-socialist is allowed to engage in religious discussions while wearing the uniform of his movement", and he declared at the same time that all well-disposed persons should strive for a pacification of the entire political and spiritual life in Germany (Ro. 7a, Doc.
Book page 130). That in this respect, too, things developed on different lines is not due to will or influence of Rosenberg. question of the 1000 year-old problem of relations between the clerical and so-called worldly powers. The struggle of emperors, kings and popes in the middle ages; the French revolution with the shooting of priests; Bismarck's clerical controversy; the secular legislation of the French republic under Combos: all these were things, which from the standpoint of the Church are persecutions, but from the standpoint of states and nations are termed necessary measures.
Mr. President, may I make a brief statement by way of explanation. I wanted to say that I have concluded this topic, that I do not wish to concern myself with it any further. power and consolidating that power. Uniformity of thinking has played an important part in the program of the conspiracy. The formation of the Wehrmacht has only been possible in conjunction with the ideological education of the nation and party; so says the Prosecution (Brudno, on 9-1-1946. And continuing its attacks against Rosenberg, the Prosecution continues: Rosenberg's ideas formed thefoundation of the national-socialist movement. Rosenberg's contribution in formulating and spreading the national-socialist ideology gave foundation to the conspiracy by shaping its philosophical technique.
I think that one will have to take care, in judging Rosenberg's case, not to yield to certain primitive ways of thinking and become a victim of them. First of all an exaggeration of the conception of ideology and the imprecise use of that conception. At best it was a political philosophy, which went hand in hand with Hitler's political measures and which Hitler himself preached in his book "Mein Kampf", but it was not an ideology in an all-embracing sense. It is true that national-socialism endeavored to create a spiritual philosophy and world ideology of its own, but ithad not reached that stage yet. Rosenberg's book "The Myth of the 20th Century" is an attempt in that direction, being a personal confession, without any suggestion of political measures.
Therefore, his philosophy cannot have formed the ideological basis of national-socialism. Besides this there is a total lack of proof that a straight spiritual line, a clear spiritual causal connection exists between the conceptions of Rosenberg and the alleged and actual crimes.
If one goes to the trouble of looking through the book "Myth of the 20th Century", one sees immediately that though there is some philosophizing in the nationalsocialist way, it would be, however, pure fiction to affirm that there is any dogmatic formulation of an aggressive program in this book or that it is a foundation for the activities of the responsible leaders of the German Reich in the World War.
unification and simplication: people were made uniform; thinking was made uniform; only one uniform type of German was left. Presumably there was also only one national-socialist way of thinking and only one nationalsocialist ideology. But in spite of this, as we see today, the leaders were frequently of different opinions in essential questions. I will recall the more questions of the policy in the East. this way of thinking,of observing everything through the spectacles of uniformity and of saying: One idea, one philosophy, one responsibility, one crime. Such a simplification apart from its primitive nature would surely be a great injustice toward the defendant Rosenberg. "German Christianity", the 2Heathenish Bloodmyth", pillorying Rosenberg's expression "the Nordic blood is the very mystery, which superseded and overpowered the old sacraments", one may close one's eyes for a moment and picture oneself at a session of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages where they are about to sentence Rosenberg as a heretic to the stake. Surely nothing can be farther from the Tribunal's mind, than to harbour thoughts of intolerance, as here in spite of all atempts by some of the prosecutors, to affirm that it is not idelogies but crimes which are being debated here.
In the defendant Rosenberg's case we are debating: whether by his teachings he did wilfully prepare and further a crime. The prosecuting authorities have brought forth arguments to prove this, but have not proved it, and I can prove the opposite merely by pointing out Rosenberg's activities in the East. Had he been the bearer and apostle of a criminal idea, he would have had an opportunity, such as no criminal has ever had yet in world history, to indulge in criminal activities. I have stated explicitly and specifically that in his case it was just the opposite. So when the bearer and apostle of an idea himself has the greatest of opportunities and yet behaves morally, then his teachings cannot be criminal and immoral either, and above all, he cannot be punished then as a criminal on the ground of his teachings.