not even a single concentration camp in the Protectorate. They all have been established under his successor only after his departure. The decree too concerning security and preventive custody, which the Czech prosecution appears to charge him with too, has as shown by the copy annexed to the Czech report (USSR 60) been issued, but after his departure, viz., on 9 March 1942.

Lastly, concerning the charges of the indictment about the alleged measures taken by the defendant against the Jews, in this point too the representation of the indictment does not fit the facts and is shown to be erroneous on closer examination of the documents submitted by the prosecution itself.

Of all the 21 decrees contained in the British Document Book 12 B, only 4 have been signed by the defendant himself, 6 have been issued by the Reich Ministry directly, and 10 by secretary of state Frank or his direct subordinate Dr. v. Burgsdorff, 1 by the Czech State President Hacha. The first decree signed by Herr v. Neurath himself, of 21 June 1939, which contained nothing but the introduction of the regulations concerning treatment of Jewish property, valid for the entire German Reich, into the Protectorate, which, since 16 March 1939, was a part of the German Reich too, had been prescribed to the defendant from Berlin at the very beginning of his assuming of office. The fact however, that it was published, but on 21 June 1939, 3 months ater, proves the correctness of his statement that he wanted to give the Jews time to prepare themselves for the introduction of the Jewish legislation as in force throughout the Reich. Its postponement to that day took place in the very interest of the Jews. The 2d decree issued by the defendant himself of 16 September 1940 only prescribed an obligation to declare securities, i.e., mortgages, which were Jewish property, and corresponded to the decrees of the same or similar kind issued in the German Reich too and which were applicable to all German nationals. The 3d decree issued and signed by himself, as well as the 4th, of 14 September 1940, aimed at rendering possible and facilitating Jewish emigration, as clearly shown by their contents; an emigration which the development of happenings in the Reich had made inevitable. Both decrees had accordingly been issued in the interest of the Jews themselves, and prove that the defendant had no antisemitic views. All the documents submitted by me which refer to this matter, especially the newspaper report concerning the boycott of the Jews in the spring of 1933 (Doc. Book I, No. 9) and the submitted depositions of witnesses, show that he did not approve of the measures taken against the Jews, particularly of

the violent ones, but opposed them. As shown especially by the deposition of the witness Dr. Koepcke, such measures would have been in contradiction with his completely Christian and human attitude and ideology. It is a matter of fact that until his departure from Prague not a single synagogue has been closed and that no religious restrictions against the Jews have been decreed. It does not need any particular proof that the defendant cannot be made responsible for the six ordinances issued by the Reich Ministry of the Interior. But neither does he bear any responsibility for the decrees signed by Frank and by Herr v. Burgsdorff, in view of the independent position of Secretary of State Frank and the competence of the police concerning all Jewish matters, which I have described. In opposition to the assertions of the indictment it must be particularly emphasized that, according to his own sworn deposition, no persecution of the Jews has occurred during his entire tenure of office.

His aforementioned human and Christian attitude and ideology makes the assertions of the Czech report of September 1945 (998-PS) concerning an alleged hostility of the defendant against the Church appear from the beginning as hardly likely. It is true that the Czech indictment of 14 November 1945 (USSR 60) does not make this report an object of an accusation, but nevertheless, I should like to speak about it in a short way. It is proved by evidence that the relations between Herr v. Neurath and the Archbishop of Prague have been very good, even friendly and that the latter has explicitly thanked the defendant for his support of the churches, and this would certainly not have been the case if he had been opposed to the Church or if he had suppressed the churches, their organizations, and clergymen or persecuted them in any way. It is certainly not an extraordinary occurrence that there may have been differences in administrative matters, as has obviously been the case according to the letter of the Archbishop submitted by the prosecution-State and Church always have had differences with one another at all times and in all countries-but this cannot be construed as implying, on the defendant's side, a policy opposed to the Church. It may be right that clergymen have been arrested, but firstly these arrests have been ordered not by the defendant, but by the police, which was not under his control, and secondly-insofar the defendant has known them at all-not because of any church activity, but because of political intrigues. Neither is it clear from the mentioned Czech report whether the alleged actions against the Church, its organizations, and ministers have actually taken place during the defendant's tenure of office. The evidence has shown

that he did not decree any antieclesiastical or antireligious measures, pilgrimages to the Czech religious relics, e.g., were especially permitted by him.

Here I would also like to emphasize that the defendant is not to be charged with any offense against Czech national féeling. In contrast to the statement of the prosecution he did not destroy or close any Masaryk houses, nor did he destroy or remove any monuments of national personalities, what the prosecution would like to reproach him with. Insofar as Masaryk houses were closed, the SS and the police which were not under his jurisdiction are exclusively responsible for it. His attitude towards the Czech national feeling is best illustrated by the fact that he especially permitted the deposition of wreaths at the foot of Masaryk monuments.

Just as little did the defendant take measures hostile to culture in spite of all efforts made in that direction by radical elements. The Czech theater life was not touched and remained free, as well as Czech literature which was not suppressed or encroached, with the natural exception of forbidding such things that were of an anti-German or revolting character. Also the press, which by the way was not controlled and censured by him but by the Reich Ministry for Propaganda, was not submitted to other limitations than the German press, as all in all the defendant's efforts were directed towards conserving and encouraging Czech national cultural life in its characteristic qualities and independence. I believe it is not necessary for me to go still further into details about that subject and that I can confine myself with referring to the defendant's own statements and the statements of the German witnesses heard on this subject.

From these statements it will, however, also be clearly seen what difficulties and resistance from certain radical circles and authorities, and not least from his own Under Secretary Frank, he was up against in his above mentioned efforts and in all his policy towards the Czech people. If one wishes to draw up a summary of his official activities, we may say that his entire life in Prague was one single fight against the forces inspired and led by Himmler, a fight that was the more difficult because he did not actually possess full powers in the Protectorate, and the offices and authorities which were the most important and influential ones in the field of home politics, the entire police and Gestapo, were not under his authority. Nevertheless he did not abandon this fight, and he did not get tired of protesting to Hitler repeatedly and demanding redress, in many cases successfully, in others not. He fought up to the end, and did not let himself be discouraged by

failures and remained faithful to his policy of reconciliation and settlement, of pacification and conservation of the Czech people, and of its national characteristics. And when he had to recognize in Autumn 1941, here again, that any further fight was hopeless, that Himmler's influence on Hitler was greater than his own, and that Hitler had now decided to change over to a policy of force and terror and to send to Prague for the purpose Heydrich who was known as a bloodhound, he immediately drew his conclusions as in the winter of 1937-1938 as Minister for Foreign Affairs, and resigned.

He left Prague and finally retired to private life. What an impression this resignation made on the Czech people and even in circles hostile to Germany, and what people took it to mean, follows with a clarity which can hardly be surpassed from the fact that the Czech report (USSR 60) which was truly not dictated by pro-German sentiments or love for my client, characterized this departure of my client as a "geheeriger Schlag" in the German text, "a heavy blow" in the English text, a fact which fundamentally disavows its own accusations against Herr von Neurath. And in fact I believe I have proved that, during and as a result of his administration, the defendant was not guilty personally of a single crime against humanity punishable under the charter of this Court and only such a crime could, after all, come into question here. And here the basic question of this trial also arises, which is whether the defendant rendered himself guilty of supporting or aiding Hitler and his helpers-in a manner punishable under the Charter-in committing their crimes, by accepting the office of Reichprotector and by keeping it, in spite of the war launched by Hitler a few months after his assumption of office and in spite of the events in November 1939 and several other occurrences. The prosecution answers this question in the affirmative. But can an objective, unprejudiced judgment of things really answer this question in the affirmative? One thing should be unassailably certain after what we have heard here from the defendant himself and from the witnesses questioned on the subject by me and from the affidavits presented. Just as little as external, material reasons moved Herr von Neurath at that time to enter Hitler's government and remain in it, just as little did such reasons enter into his acceptance of the Reich protectorate. Evidence for this is found already in the fact alone that he declined the endowment which Hitler had intended for his 70th birthday in 1943, and when this was not possible, he had this endowment placed in his bank as I have proved to you through the letter from his bank (Doc. Book V, Nos. 160 and 161) and

never touched one penny of it. And how little the pomposity of the position of the Reich protector attracted or much less suited him can unmistakably be seen from his letter of 14 October 1939 to the witness Dr. Koepcke (Doc. Book V, No. 130) in which he calls it an absolute prison. In both cases, as has been proved not only by the defendant's own statements, but also by the statements of all the witnesses and documents which I have introduced, the motive and the reason for the acceptance of his position and his endurance in it was not per chance that he approved of the ideologies of the Nazi regime with all its methods and wanted to support them, to the contrary, his high ethical and moral convictions which sprang from his deep sense of responsibility towards his people as man and statesman, these caused him to do it. Since he was not in the position to and had not the power to remove Hitler and the Nazi government, he considered it as his duty at least in his small sphere within the compass and limits of his power in the field under his leadership to fight the Nazi tendencies which he also despised and to prevent their materialization, as far as his strength permitted. Can one, so I ask, really reproach Herr von Neurath for this, can one condemn him because the task he had assumed with a sense of moral duty and a consciousness of responsibility was beyond his strength and he was frustrated by it?

For once, Your Honors, free yourselves from all juridical and political prejudices, from all the retrospective considerations of things with their in any case very uncertain deductions and think yourselves into the soul of this man, into the world of thought, into the conception of life of this man. Brought up in the house of his parents which was filled not only with Christian, humane, and through and through decent ideas but also with the sense of responsibility towards its German people, he had grown up and reached the age of 60 in civil service under the various governments, first under the imperial, then under the changing governments of the republic. Without caring for their political trends, without asking whether they were conservative, democratic, or social democratic, he had served them, he carried out the tasks assigned to him in his sphere of labor. As diplomat, as official of the Reich's Foreign Service the field of internal politics was remote from him, he considered it his only duty to serve his people as such, regardless of its momentary governments and their inner-political attitude. And thus, much against his personal wishes, upon Hindenburg's call in the hour of distress, he took over the Foreign Ministry and thereby entered the government of the Reich and remained in it also after Hitler was appointed,