LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am sorry it has taken so long.
I go on to the next interview of the 14th of May, which is M-118 and becomes 271.
He started off that interview by making certain complaints about the treatment, asking for a number of things, including, "Three Men in a Boat," the book which perhaps is one of the few signs that any of these Defendants have shown any kind of culture or normal feelings at all.
He described his flight to England, and then I quote from the third paragraph.
"He then passed to political questions. He said that, on reflection, he had omitted to explain that there were two further conditions attached to his peace proposals.
First: Germany could not leave Iraq in the lurch.
The Iraquis had fought for Germany and Germany would, therefore, have to require us to evacuate Iraq.
I observed that this was going considerably beyond the original proposal that German interests should be confined to Europe, but he retorted that, taken as a whole, his proposals were more than fair.
The second condition was that the peace agreement should contain a provision for the reciprocal indemnification of British and German nationals, whose property had been expropriated as the result of war.
"Herr Hess concluded by saying that he wished to impress on us that Germany must win the war by blockade.
We had no conception of the number of submarines now building in Germany.
Hitler always did things on a grand scale and devastating submarine war, supported by new types of aircraft, would very shortly succeed in establishing a completely effective blockade of England.
It was fruitless for anyone here to imagine that England could capitulate and that the war could be waged from the Empire.
It was Hitler's intention, in such an eventuality, to continue the blockade of England, even though the island had capitulated, so that we would have to face the deliberate starvation of the population of these islands."
I think I can leave then that interview. Nothing more was added.
I turn to the next document, M-119, which becomes 272, and which is the report of the interview of the 15th of May, the third and last interview with Mr. Kirkpatrick.
I quote from the third paragraph.
There was some mention of Iraq at the beginning of the interview, and then Mr. Kirkpatrick writes.
"I then throw a fly over him about Ireland. He said that in all his talks with Hitler, the subject of Ireland had never been mentioned except incidentally.
Ireland had done nothing for Germany in this war and it was therefore to be supposed that Hitler would not concern himself in Anglo-Irish relations.
We had some little conversation about the difficulty of reconciling the wishes of the South and North and from this we passed to American interest in Ireland, and so to America.
"On the subject of America, Hess took the following line. The Germans reckoned with American intervention and were not afraid of it.
They knew all about American aircraft production and the quality of the aircraft.
Germany could outbuild England and America combined.
"Germany had no designs on America. The so-called German peril was a ludicrous figment of imagination.
Hitler's interests were European.
"If we made peace now, America would be furious. America really wanted to inherit the British Empire.
"Hess concluded by saying that Hitler really wanted a permanent understanding with us on a basis which preserved the Empire intact.
His own flight was intended to give us a chance of opening conversations without loss of prestige.
If we rejected this chance, it would be clear proof that we desired no understanding with Germany, and Hitler would be entitled, in fact it would be his duty, to destroy us utterly and to keep us after the war in a state of permanent subjection."
My Lord, those report show the substantial and indeed the whole substance of the visit.
His humanitarian reasons for coming, which sounded so well between the 10th and 15th of May, took on quite a different light when barely a little more than a month later Germany attacked the Soviet Union.
One cannot help remembering an exact parallel between this business and that which took place before Germany attacked Poland when every effort was made to keep England out of the war and so let her fight her battle on one front only.
Here the same thing appears to be happening, and what is more, we have it from himself in the course of those interviews that at that time Germany had no intentions of attacking Russia immediately at all.
Well, that must be untrue, because it will be remembered, and the evidence is set out in the trial brief, it will be remembered that so far back as November 1940 there had been plans being made, initial plans, for the invasion of Russia.
On the 18th of December 1940 directive ordered preparations to be completed by the 15th of May, 1941.
On the 3rd of April 1941 orders were given delaying the Barbarossa action for five weeks, and on the 30th of April 1941, 10 days before he arrived in England, D-day was actually fixed for the invasion of Russia for the 22nd of June.
Well, now, in my submission, nobody who held the position that this defendant did at that time, in charge of the foreign organization, Deputy to the Fuehrer, only been made designate successor number two a year ago -nobody in that position could have been kept in ignorance of those preparations and of those plans.
My Lord, my submission, therefore, is that the only reason he came to England was not humanitarian at all, but purely, as I say, to allow Germany to fight her battle against Russia on one front only.
There is -- and I hesitate to refer the Tribunal to any other document -but there is one document, which is a document of extreme interest from many points of view and has only just come to light. I did ask that it should be put in at the back of the Tribunal's document book, but if it has not been I have some spare copies which perhaps the clerk may now hand out.
It is Document PS-1866, which becomes 273, and it is an account of conversations between Ribbentrop and Mussolini and Ciano on the 13th of May 1941, signed by Schmidt.
It carries the question very little further, but there has existed and still does exist the question of course as to whether or not the flight to England was undertaken with the knowledge and approval of Hitler or any other members of the Government or on his own initiative and in complete secrecy. He himself has always maintained that he did it secretly. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how he could have been planning it and practising it for months before and having tried three times before without anybody knowing.
This account of the conversations with the Italians cast little further light on it, but it does show anyway what Ribbentrop is saying to the Italians, their allies, three days later. I would ask the Tribunal to look at and read the first page of this document, and the paragraph of the next page.
"To begin with the Reich Minister conveyed the Fuehrer's greetings to the Duce.
"He would shortly propose to the Duce a date for the planned meeting, which he would like to take place as soon as possible.
As the place for the meeting he would probably prefer the Brenner. At the present moment he was, as the Duce could well understand, still busy with the Hess affair and with a few military matters.
"The Duce replied that he would agree with all the Fuehrer's proposals," and so on.
"The Reich foreign minister then said that the Fuehrer had sent him to the Duce in order to inform him about the Hess affair and the conversation with Admiral Darlan about the Hess affair. He remarked that the Fuehrer had been completely taken aback by Hess's action, and that it had been the action of a lunatic.
"Hess had been suffering for a long time from a bilious complaint and had fallen into the hands of magnetists and nature-cure doctors who allowed his state of helath to become worse.
"All these matters were being investigated at the moment as well as the responsibility of the aides-de-camp who had known about Hess' forbidden flights. Hess had for weeks carried out secret practice flights in an ME 110. Naturally he had acted only from idealistic motives. His being unfaithful to the Fuehrer was utterly out of the question. His conduct had to be explained by a kind of mysticism and a state of mind caused by his illness."
And it goes on, and the gist of it really is that Ribbentrop is emphasizing again that it was done without the authority of Hitler or anyone else in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT:Can't you read the beginning of the next paragraph?
SIRGRIFFITH-JONES: "Being sympathetically inclined towards England Hess had conceived the crazy idea of using Great Britain's Fascist circles to persuade the British to give in. He had explained all this in a long and confused letter to the Fuehrer. When this letter reached the Fuehrer, Hess was already in England. It was hoped in Germany that he would perhaps have an accident on the way, but he was now really in England and had tried to contact the former Marquis of Clydesdale, the present Duke of Hamilton. Hess quite wrongly considered him as a great friend of Germany and had flown to the neighborhood of his castle in Scotland."
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
SIR GRIFFITH JONES:That is what Ribbentrop is saying to Mussolini. Ribbentrop, we know, is a liar, and indeed what he said later on in an interview proves it, and I would thus refer to page five -or rather to the bottom of page four -- if the Tribunal would bear with me while I read that, because it would have been put in previously during this trial had this document been known of. And as I am putting it in now, perhaps I might be allowed to read this one paragraph which really concerns the defendant Ribbentrop.
"The Duce returned to his remark concerning the united front of Europe against England and the two countries, Spain and Russia, that were absent from it, with the remark that to him it seemed that it would be advantageous if a policy of collaboration with Russia could be carried out. He asked the Reich Foreign Minister whether Germany excluded such a possibility, that is, collaboration with Russia. The Reich Foreign Minister replied that Germany had treaties with Russia, and that the relations between the two countries were in other respects correct. He personally did not believe that Stalin would undertake anything against Germany, but should he do so, or should he carry out a policy that was intolerable to Germany then he would be destroyed within three months.The Duce agreed to this. The Fuehrer would certainly not look for any quarrel, but he had nevertheless taken precautions" -- this is again, I think, Ribbentrop speaking -"The Fuehrer would certainly not look for any quarrel, but he had nevertheless taken precautions for all eventualities. He had in new way come to any decision, but as a result of certain occurrences and want of clearness on the part of the Russians, he had become suspicious. Thus, for example, the Russians had strengthened their forces along their western frontier, which of course, caused Germany to reinforce her troops too, but only after theRussians started it."
It really must have been a remarkable position in the German Government if neither the Fuehrer nor the foreign secretary knew on the 13th of May 1941 that Germany was going to attack Russia a month later.
My Lord, that is the evidence which I have to present to the Tribunal on this matter.
I regret that this should have taken so long. I am grateful to Your Honors for your patience.
(Whereupon at 1800 hours the Court adjourned to reconvene at 1000 hours 8 February 1946). Official transcript of the International Military Tribunal, in the matter of:
The United States of America, the French Re public, the United Kingdom of Great Bri tain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, against Hermann Wilhelm Goering, et al,Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 8 February 1946, 1010-1245, Lord Justice Lawrence presiding.
THE PRESIDENT:I call on General Rudenko for the Soviet Union.
GENERAL RUDENKO:May it please your Honors, in entering upon the delivery of my opening statement, the last to be made at this trial by the chief prosecutors, I am fully conscious of the utmost historical importance of these proceedings.
For the first time in the history of mankind is justice confronted with crimes committed on such a scale, with crimes which have entailed such grave consequences.
It is for the first time that before a court of justice appear criminals who, having taken possession of a whole state, made this state an instrument of their monstrous crimes.
It is, also, for the first time that by judging these defendants, we sit in judgment not only on the defendants themselves, but also on the criminal institutions and organizations which they created, and over the fiendish "theories" and "ideas" which they spread with the view to commit crimes against peace and humanity, crimes which were designed by them far in advance of their perpetration.
Nine months ago after having tortured for a number of years of bloody warfare the freedom-loving nations of Europe, Hitlerite Germany collapsed under the hammering blows of the combined armed forces of the Anglo-Soviet-American coalition. On 8 May 1945, Hitlerite Germany was compelled to lay down its arms, having suffered a military and political defeat hitherto unequalled in history.
Hitlerism imposed upon the world a war which caused the freedom-loving nations innumerable privations and endless sufferings. Millions of people fell as victims of the war, initiated by the Hitlerite brigands, who embarked on a dream of conquering the free peoples of the democratic countries and of estab lishing the rules of Hitlerite tyranny in Europe and in the entire world.
The day has come, when the peoples of the world demand a just retribution and a severe punishment of the Hitlerite hangmen; when they demand severe punishment of the criminals.
All the outrages individually or jointly committed by the major Hitlerite war criminals, all together and each one individually, shall be considered by you, your Honors, with all the thoroughness and attention which the law, the charter of the International Military Tribunal, justice and our conscience require.
We charge the defendants with the initiation, instigation, and direct execution, individually or through their agents, of the criminal plan of conspiracy. To the execution of this plan, was committed the entire machinery of the Hitlerite state, with all its governmental agencies and institutions, with its army, police, the so called public agencies, as set out in the indictment and particularly in Appendix B.
Before entering upon the examination of the concrete events and facts, which lie at the foundation of the charges raised against the defendants, I think it necessary to dwell on certain general legal questions, connected with the proceedings. This is indispensible, because the present trial is the first one in history, where justice is being done by an agency of an International legal system - the International Military Tribunal. This also becomes necessary since special consideration was given to questions of law in both the written and oral motions made before the Tribunal.
The first and the most general legal problem which, in my opinion, has to be considered by the Tribunal, is the problem of legality. Contrary to the system of fascist tyranny, and arbitrary fascist practices, the Great Democracies, which have established this Tribunal, as well as all democracies throughout the world, exist and act on a firm legal basis. But neither the positive law, nor the concept of law can be identical in the national and the international meaning of these terms. Lex in the meaning of national law is an act of legislative power of a state, clothed in a proper form. In the meaning of international law, it is different. In the international field, there never existed, nor do now exist, any legislative bodies which are competent to pass laws which are binding on individual states.
The legal system of inter-
national relations, which includes those relations which are manifested in the coordinated effort, to combat criminality, is based on different legal principles. In the international field the basic source of law and the only lawsetting act is a treaty, an agreement between states. Accordingly in the same ways as the duly promulgated laws passed by legislative bodies and properly published are an absolute and sufficient legal basis for the administration of national justice, so in the international field an international treaty is an absolute and sifficient legal basis for the implementation and the activity of agencies of international justice, created by the signatories.
The International Military Tribunal was established for the trial and punishment of major war criminals on the basis of the London Agreement dated August 8, 1945, signed by the four countries which acted in the interests of all freedom-loving nations. Being an integral part of this Agreement, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, is to be considered an unquestionable and sufficient legislative act, defining and determining the basis and the procedure for the trial and punishment of major war criminals. Provoked by fear of responsibility or, at best, by insufficient knowledge of the organic nature of international justice, the references to the principle "nullum crimen sine lege" or to the principle that "a statute cannot have retroactive power", are not applicable because of the following fundamental decisive fact: The Charter of the Tribunal is in force and in operation and all its provisions possess absolute and binding force.
Pursuant to Article 6 of the Charter, the Defendants are charged with crimes against peace, crimes committed in violation of rules and customs of war, and crimes against humanity. We must state with great satisfaction, that, in placing on such actions the stigma of criminality, the Charter of the Tribunal reduced to rules of law those international principles and ideas, which for many years were set forth in the defense of law and justice in the field of international relations.
First of all, the criminal aggression. For a number of decades, nations interested in strengthening the cause of peace were proclaiming and advocating the idea that aggression is the gravest encroachment on the peaceful relations between nations, a most serious international crime.
These hopes and demands on the part of nations found their expression in a series of acts and documents which officially recognized aggression as an international crime.
On 27 August 1928, in Paris there was signed the Briand-Kellog Pact. "Persuaded", proclaimed the agreement, "that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made...... Convinced that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pacific means.... The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another."
In 1929, a year after the signing of the Paris Pact at the Congress of the International Association of Criminal Law at Bucharest was passed a resolution, which squarely raised the question of criminal responsibility for aggression. "Whereas war has been outlawed by the Paris Pact of 1928 and acknowledging the necessity of securing international order and harmony by means of effective sanctions...." the Congress considered imperative "the establishment of an international penal judicial system", as well as of the principle of criminal responsibility of states and single individuals for acts of aggression.
Thus, long ago was proclaimed the principle of penal responsibility for criminal aggression, the principle which found its clear legal expression in subparagraph (a) of Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Consequently, the Fascist aggressors, the defendants, knew, that by their predatory attacks on other countries, they committed gravest crimes against peace.
They knew it, and they know it now, and that is reason why they attempted and are now attempting to camouflage their criminal aggression with lies about self-defense.
Furthermore, it has been repeatedly and authoritatively declared, that violations of laws and customs of war, established by international conventions, must entail criminal responsibility.
In this connection, quotes the law, it is necessary to note that the gravest outrages in violation of laws and customs of war, committed by the Hitlerites -- murder, violence, arson and plunder, are considered punishable criminal acts by all criminal codes throughout the world. Moreover, the international conventions signed especially for the purpose of establishing laws and rules of war stipulate criminal responsibility for violation of these laws and rules. Thus article 56 of the Hague Convention in 1907 declares: "The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property. All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and shall be made the subject of legal proceedings."
Thus, the Hague Convention not only forbids the violation of the rules of war, but also stipulates that these violations "should be made the subject of legal proceedings", i.e. must entail criminal responsibility.
Article 29 of the 1929 Geneva Convention states with still greater precision that "The Governments of the High Contracting Parties whose penal laws may not be adequate, shall likewise take or recommend to their legislatures the necessary measures to repress in time of war all acts in contravention of the provisions of the present convention."
Finally, the principle of criminal responsibility for all acts in violation of the laws and customs of war is expressed with the utmost precision in Article 3 of the provisions of the "Washington Conference for the Reduction of Armaments and for the Pacific and Far-Eastern Problems", which states that: "The Contracting Powers, wishing to ensure the execution of promulgated laws....
declare that any person in the service of any power who violates one of these rules, and independently of the fact whether he is subordinated to an official personality or not, will be considered a transgressor of the laws of war and will be liable to be tried by civilian or military authorities."
Consequently, according to the directives of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and according to the provisions of the Washington Conference, the enforcing of criminal responsibility for the violation of the laws and customs of war is not only possible, but is actually compulsory.
Thus, sub-paragraph "B" of Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, concerning the war-crimes, defined with greater precision and generalized the principles and rules contained in the international conventions previously signed.
The defendants knew that cynical mockery at the laws and customs of war constituted a gravest crime. They knew it, but they hoped that the total war by bringing victory, would also secure their impunity. But victory did not arrive on the heels of the crimes. Instead came complete and unconditional surrender of Germany, and with it came the hour of grim reckoning for all the outrages they committed.
I myself, speaking on behalf of the Soviet Union, and my honoured colleagues the chief Prosecutors of the United States of America, Great Britain and France, we all accuse the defendants of having ruled over the entire German state and war machine through a criminal conspiracy, turning the machinery of the German State into a mechanism for the preparation and prosecution of criminal aggression, into a mechanism for the extermination of millions of innocent people.
When several criminals conspire to commit a murder, every one of them plays a definite part. One works out the plan of murder, another waits in the car, and the third actually fires at the victim. But whatever may be the part played by any individual participant, they all are murderers and any court of law in any country will reject any attempts to assert that the first two should not be considered murderers, since they themselves had not fired the bullet.
The more complicated and hazardous the conceived crime, the more complicated and less tangible the links connecting the individual participants.
When a gang of bandits commits an assault, responsibility for the raid is also shared by those members of the gang who did not actually take part in the assault. But when the size of the gang attains extraordinary proportions, when the gang happens to be at the helm of the ship of state, when the gang commits numerous and very grave international crimes, then of course, the ties and mutual relations among the members of the gang become entangled to the utmost. A highly ramified mechanism is here at work. It consisted of a whole system of links and blocks,(Zellenleiters, Blockleiters, Gauleiters, Reichsleiters etc.) extending from ministerial chairs to the hands of the executioners.
This is a consolidated and powerful mechanism, yet it is powerless to conceal the basic and decisive fact that at the core of the entire system operated a gang of conspirators who were setting in motion the whole organization which they had created.
When entire regions of flourishing countryside were turned into desert areas and the soil was drenched with the bllod of those executed, it was the work of their hands, of their organization, their instigation, their leadership. And just because the masses of the German people were made to participate in these outrages, because, prior to setting packs of dogs and executioners on millions of innocent people, the defendants for years had poisoned the conscience and the mind of an entire generation of Germans by developing in them the conceit of "the chosen", the morals of cannibals and the greed of burglars, can it be said that the guilt of the Hitlerite conspirators is any less great or grave?
Expressing the will of nations, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal has settled this question: "Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of such plan." (Art.6, Charter).
Ideological Preparation for Aggressive Wars For the purpose of successful execution of their criminal plans these conspirators, Goering, Hess, Rosenberg, Fritsche, Schirach and the other defendants developed a fiendish"theory of the superior or master race."
By means of this so-called theory they had in mind to justify the claims of German Fascism for the domination of other nations which were declared by their theory to be nations of inferior race.
It followed from this theory that Germans, since they belonged to the "master race", have the "right" to build their own welfare on the bones of other races and nations. This "Theory" proclaimed that German Fascist usurpers are not bound by any laws or commonly accepted rules of human morality. The "master race" is permitted to do anything. No matter how revolting and shameless, cruel and monstrous were the actions of those individuals they were based on the "idea" of the superiority of this race.
Said Hitler; "We want to make a selection for a class of new masters who will be deprived of moral pity, a class which will realize that because of its better race it has the right to dominate others, a class that will be able to establish and maintain without hesitation its domination over the masses."
This German Fascist racial theory had at the same time to serve as a "scientific" basis for the preparation by the Hitlerites of an attack against democratic nations, as a justification for aggressive wars for which the Hitlerites made feverish preparation during the whole time of their domination of Germany. In such manner, the function of racism was to justify the conspiracy to fulfil the predatory aims of the German imperialistic clique.
By order of the German fascist authorities, the "racial doctrine" was introduced into the educational plans as a most important and obligatory subject.
In the hands of German fascism, the schools and universities became dangerous centres of the intellectual and moral mutilation of the people and, as such, the greatest menace to civili zation. All branches of science were militarized. All aspects of art were subjected to the aims of aggression.
"We approach science unbiased by knowledge and scholarly education", declared the fascist revue "POLITISCHE WISSENSCHAFT" (No.3 for 1934). One reads further: "The student must come to college with the demand that science be as soldierly as his own bearing, and that the professor possess the qualities of a leader and soldierly attitude".
"Give us arms again", said Hitler, "For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theatre and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission....."
Geography became the instrument for propagating the "Pre-eminent importance of the Germans in the world", of their "Right to dominate" other peoples. A feeling of racial superiority, arrogance, hatred, contempt and cruelty towards other peoples was cultivated in the young.
These are the words of a German fascist song;
"If all the world lies in ruins," "What the devil do we care" "We still will go marching on" "For to-day Germany belongs to us" "And to-morrow the whole world."
The German fascist ideology set loose wildest and basest instincts. They made into a principle arbitrary actions, violence and debasement of people. They declared dangerous for the "Master Races" the ideas of freedom, the ideas of enlightenment and demands of humanity.
Said Hitler:- "I am freeing men from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge; from the dirty and degrading self-mortifications of a chimera called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and personal independence which only a very few can bear."
In the spirit of such principles the whole German fascist system of education was built up with a view to adapting and preparing them to unqualifie obedience to all predatory plans and aims put before Germany by the fascist leaders of Germany. As a result of fascist propaganda and the whole system of measures cultivated by the German State, the German mind was systematically poisoned by the fumes of chauvinism and hatred for mankind. The aggressive plans of German Fascism ripened with every year of their political power until they were brought to their fruition: - war. This war was projected, planned and begun by Fascist Germany and her satellites as a "lightning war" (blitzkrieg).
The criminal conspiracy aimed at the establishment of a predatory, "new order" in Europe. This "new order" was a regime of terror, by which, in the countries seized by the Hitlerites, all democratic institutions were abolished and civil rights of the population were abrogated and those countries themselves were plundered and rapaciously exploited. The population of these countries, and of Slav countries first of all, was subjected to merciless persecutions and mass extermination. Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Poles, Czechs, Serbians, Slovenes suffered more than others.
The conspirators failed to achieve their objectives. The valiant struggle of the peoples of democratic countries, led by the coalition of the three Great Powers - Soviet Union, The United States of America, and Great Britain - resulted in liberation of the European countries from the Hitlerite yoke. The victory of the Soviet and of the allied armies destroyed the criminal plans of Hitlerite conspirators, and liberated the peoples of Europe from the terrible threat of Hitlerite domination.
We, the prosecutors, are obligated by law and by duty before the peoples of the democratic countries and the whole humanity to formulate and present to the International Military Tribunal evidence that proves the guilt of the defendants in committing the most grave crimes.
Permit me to perform my duty in conjunction with my colleagues, by presenting to the International Military Tribunal the evidence which, together with the materials already presented by the prosecution on behalf of the United States of America, Great Britain, and France will give a complete and exhaustive body of proof in this case.
Organization and execution of aggression against Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia.
The defendants Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Raeder, Rosenberg, Kaltenbrunner, Frank, Frick, Doenitz, Fritzsche and others, are charged with the organization of a conspiracy to establish by force and to set up the fascist regime in all European countries, and later, throughout the world.
The core of this plan was the organization of aggressive wars and the rearrangement of the map of the whole world by use of force. In execution of this plan for aggression, the criminal Hitlerite government and the German General Staff prepared and executed the seizure of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Holland, France, Poland, Greece and Yugoslavia. They also prepared and undertook a predatory military campaign against the Soviet Union.
My colleagues of the American, British and French prosecution have already submitted to the Tribunal, weighty and irrefutable evidence which establishes the fact of German aggression against their own countries, as well as against Belgium, Holland, Greece and a number of other States which had become victims of the predatory Hitlerite imperialism.
May it please your Honors, I will now produce proofs of the monstrous crimes of the defendants in the preparation and initiation of aggressive wars against freedom-loving peoples.
1. The Attack on Czechoslovakia The document submitted in this case and known as "directive Gruen" contains a plan for an attack on the Czechoslovakian Republic.
This directive, signed by Hitler, was distributed, together with a covering note, bearing the signatures of Keitel. The directive begins with "political prerequisites", which read precisely as follows:
"My unshaken decision is that Czechoslovakia should be smashed in the nearest future by means of a single military operation.
To abide the time, and to create a suitable political and military situation - this is the task of political leadership. The inevitable development of conditions within Czechoslovakia or other political events in Europe, which might never again bring about a similar situation, may force my hand even before the designated date. The proper choice and the resolute exploitation of the opportune moment are the surest guaranties of success. Accordingly, all preparations should be made immediately."
Turning to the exposition of the political possibilities and prerequisites regarding the initiation of the attack, Hitler, cynically disclosed these prerequisites:
a) A suitable military pretext and in this connection
b) a satisfactory political justification,
c) a surprise action which should take the enemy, as far as possible, unawares.
It was Hitler's idea that the most propitious moment, both from the military and political point of view, would be a lightning, secretly prepared German attack under the pretext of some incident, which could morally justify the use of military force, at least in the eyes of a certain portion of the public opinion of the world.
The directive envisaged the actual preparation for an attack on Czechoslovakia to be executed by all the branches of the armed forces.
Thus the directive "Gruen" which bears as early a date as May 1938, clearly and definitely testifies to the fact of a carefully planned preparation for the seizure of Czechoslovakia.
The Soviet prosecution will submit documents taken from the files of German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which reveal the criminal methods used by the Hitlerites in preparing for the seizure of Czechoslovakia.
You, your Honours, as well as the entire world, know how methodically and ruthlessly this criminal scheme was executed by the predatory Hitlerite Imperialism.
Having set up in occupied Czechoslovakia an insufferable regime of terrorism, the Hitlerites have deported to German slavery many thousands of Czechoslovak citizens, showing no mercy even to children who were sent to industrial plants, farms and mines.
The youth of Czechoslovakia was deprived of opportunities for education. When in 1942 a Czech delegation appealed to Frank for permission to reopen Czechoslovak educational institutions, he cynically replied: "Should the war be won by England, you will reopen your schools yourselves; should Germany win, then five-grade elementary schools will be enough for you."