the total land level in the Netherlands lies below sea level. In the course of hard work for centuries, soil was wrested from the sea again and again and changed into fertile farming land. Powerful dikes protect the land; locks and pumping installations regulate the entry of water and water traffic in the interior of the country. The constant struggle against storms and water have turned the Dutchman into a proud and freedom-loving character. "God has created the earth, we have made our land ourselves," says a Dutch proverb.

When the Canadian troops thrust forward toward the North, the Reich Commissioner, contrary to the expectations of many persons, did not take the way into the Reich from Groningen, but returned to The Hague in order to carry his responsibility until the end. He feared that the collapsing Reich might reach a policy of catastrophe which would lead to destruction in an exposed country like Holland where 271 people live in one square kilometer.

The Gothic battle, in which everything is exterminated, became a fixed idea in many heads. Goebbels, after all, has declared braggingly that if they must go, they would slam the door with such a bang that the whole world would hear it. The Reich Commissioner admonished such ideas. The "Scorched earth" order actually came, and it would have meant the destruction of all technical facilities, including dams and lock facilities in Holland and of two-thirds of the country. In unison with Minister Speer and Doenitz all this was prevented. This has also been confirmed in my questionnaire by Commander-in-Chief General von Kleffel and been acknowledged by the Chief of Staff of the American Army, Bedell Smith. Historical structures were. also to be destroyed, as has been testified by Schwebel. The defense counsel of General Christiansen informed me that besides the technical troops of the Wehrmacht which carried out detonations and floodings justified by the war situation, men sent by Himmler also appeared in order to carry out destructions behind the back of the Wehrmacht. All this was prevented by the intervention of the Reich Commissioner, who was conscious of his responsibility, and the country was saved to a great extent from destruction which could never again have been repaired. Since May 1932 there has been a simple memorial on the dam of the Zuidersee, the largest water structure which has ever been constructed, which bears no name whatsoever, only the proverb: "A nation that lives builds on its future." Regardless of how the trials may end, perhaps some day the time will come when the brief words will be added under this proverb "Saved from destruction by Seyss-Inquart.”

And so I have also reached the conclusion of the second accusation complex.

Slowly the curtains are beginning to fall in the act of the supposed conspiracy. I ask you, however, Is a man, who in the middle of a struggle for life and death of his nation is placed at the head of the administration of an enemy country and has tried again and again to prevent or decrease attempted excesses, a creature who could accordingly be described as a ruthless and arbitrary despot and war criminal?

However, I would not want to bring my discourse to a conclusion without also expressing some general thoughts on the trials. I esteem France and her old culture, and I have considered it an honor to be allowed as an attorney to cross swords with Frenchmen in these proceedings. I have listened to the speech of the French Chief Prosecutor Francois de Menthon with deep attention and inner sympathy. However, it cannot remain quite undisputed. De Menthon has described Germany as the eternal enemy of France and alone demanded the most severe penalty, death, against all defendants without exception! He thereby places one of the weaknesses of these trials into the foreground, namely that it will always remain a trial of the victors over the vanquished. One is reminded too strongly of the Gaul Brennus, who with his vae victis, throws the sword onto the uneven scale. Menthon with this presentation unintentionally obstructs the road to a lasting peace.

The sin against the spirit is the basic error of National Socialism and the source of all crimes, says Menthon. National Socialism is based on racial theory, a product of German mentality. But Menthon rightly explains that National Socialism is the farthest point of a doctrinaire development. There are no direct transitions in History but all is rooted in preceding ideas and undercurrents. The events of the 20th Century can only find their explanation in the developments of the preceding century. The final periods of the 19th Century are under the influence of exaggerated Nationalism, and in connection therewith it is important to confirm that it was not Germans, but French who first established the racial theory. Count Gobineau in his essay sur L'inegalite des races humaines (Essay concerning the inequality of the Human Races) and George Sorel in his Reflexion sur la violence (Reflections on Violence).

M. Menthon cites at the end of his statement "La morale internationale" (International Ethics) the work by Politis which I have also mentioned. Politis describes this exaggerated Nationalism being a real international disease, deriving from the

19th Century. He in particular mentions the case of the Frenchman Maurice Barres. He sees in the sentence "Que la patrie etelle tort, if faut lui donner raison" (my country right or wrong) the negation of all ethical laws. I wish to refer to another Frenchman in contrast with M. Menthon. He is an unknown professor of history. The Gestapo, the German, and the French police are pursuing him. He frequently changes appearance and name. He is everywhere, we find him in the Massive Centrale, in the Auvergne-District, in the mountains near Grenoble, on the coast at Bordeaux, and in Paris. Whenever he appears army trains are derailed, ammunition depots are blown up, and vitally important industrial plants are shut down. He always remembers the words of de Gaulle: "Our country is in mortal danger, join us, everybody, fight for France!" The name of this man is Georges Bidault. The first thing he did after the enemy had been driven out of the country was to visit severely wounded soldiers in the hospitals. But he does not only go to the French. He also visits the German casualties in their wards, saying to them "Comrades, I wish you speedy recovery and a happy return to your homes." These words of the man who today is leading France, indicate to us the path towards peace in honest and free collaboration of people and nations.

Hitler wished to create a new Europe through his own methods. He failed in his efforts. Germany is beaten down to defenselessness, her towns are destroyed, her economic life annihilated. France, one of the oldest countries of Christendom, the country which at the end of the 18th Century revealed the rights of men, has therefore today the particular mission and responsibility of saving the culture of the Occident. For this achievement, however, it is necessary that distrust, poisoning the life of all countries, must be eliminated. All this in short and common to the trial.

Into your hands, my very esteemed judges, I trustfully put the fate of my client! I very well know that you will consider all the facts which speak for Seyss-Inquart.

But once more I wish to walk through the streets of Nurnberg, as I have done so often during the long months of this Trial, and from the imperial castle, now destroyed, look down on the German countryside. Out of the ruins of the old town rise, hardly damaged, the monuments of the Painter Albrecht Duerer and the Geographer Martin Behaim. They are the prophets of German Art and Science! May those two names be symbols for the future, and like a pillar of fire, lead the German people from dark misery to the luminous heights of a lasting peace!

2. FINAL PLEA by Artur Seyss-Inquart

Mr. President, with my final words, I should like to make my own contribution to the clearing up of the evidence submitted here by explaining the personal motives and considerations responsible for my actions.

I have little to say concerning the Austrian question. The "Anschluss," separated from the bulk of later events, I regard as a purely domestic German affair. For every Austrian, the "Anschluss" was a goal in itself and never, even remotely, a preparatory step to a war of aggression. For that the idea of the "Anschluss" was too important a goal for the German people, it was its noblest aim. To the German people I make the report of the German people, it was its noblest aim. To the German people I make the report of the greatest success of my life. I believed in these words of the Fuehrer when he spoke on the 15th of March 1938 in the Hofburg in Vienna. They were true. The question of the "Anschluss" became of a peace-endangering nature, far beyond its domestic significance for Germany; and when I have followed the way prescribed by Berlin in March, the reason was the following: The unjustified opposition against the carrying out of orderly elections opened the doors to a radical procedure, practically as well as psychologically. I asked myself whether I had the right to be opposed to these methods, after my way had apparently not been practicable, precisely because of the stubbornness of the opposition within and without Austria.

If this procedure, however, seemed justified, I felt it my duty to give my cooperation in the measure, and I could give it in the face of these circumstances. I am convinced that it is due mainly to my cooperation, that this fundamental change, in particular during the night of the 12th of March, took place quietly and without bloodshed, despite the fact that strong hatred was stored within the hearts of the Austrian National Socialist..

In any case, it was indifferent for the unification of the Germans, whether Germany was a monarchy, a democracy, a socialistic republic, or a National Socialist Fuehrer State. I believe that the prosecution in the various documents regarding the "Anschluss", interpret them in such a manner as to read from them my aggressive intentions towards the annexation. These are documents regarding the Danube sphere of influence, and Czechoslovakia, all dated after the 1st of October 1938, and after the Munich agreement, and regarding the Vistula district after the 1st of September 1939. I admit these statements; their correctness has been proved in the meantime. As long as the Danube

area was incorporated in the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy its development was prosperous to all, and the German element did not deploy an imperial activity but rather promoted culture and economy. Since this area is broken up through the integral carrying out of the national principle it has not settled down in peace. This recollection made me imagine a reshaping of a common Lebensraum, which, as I openly declared, must give such a social order to all, that is, Germans, Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, and Rumanians, which would make life worth while to every individual. In this connection I also thought of Czechoslovakia, because of the coordination of languages in Moravia which I myself had witnessed.

If, after 1 September 1939, I spoke of the Vistula area as a German area of destiny, I did so out of my striving to take precautions against future dangers which had become obvious by the outbreak of war, and which have today become a terrible reality to every German. These statements have no other evidential strength to prove the intention for a war of aggression than for instance the factual carrying out of the decisions of Teheran concerning the German territories of the East.

This war which I immediately and always recognized as a struggle for life and death of the German people had now become a fact. I could oppose but an unconditional "no" to the demand for an unconditional capitulation. I believe in the words of Rathenau "Courageous people can be broken but never bent".

In connection with the defeat, I should like to say only the following with reference to my interference with the political administration. Nobody in the Netherlands was forced to a political confession nor limited in his freedom or his property because during the occupation he had held an attitude hostile to the Reich or to National Socialism.

I have already explained that I had serious humane and legal objections to the evacuation of the Jews. Today I realize that there must be a justification for large-scale and permanent evacuations, for such evacuations are today affecting more than 10,000,000 Germans, who had been settled in their homes longer than most of the Jews in Amsterdam, for hundreds of years. From the middle of 1944, the activity of German courts in the Netherlands was stopped on the basis of a direct Fuehrer order. Saboteurs and terrorists were to be shot by the police if their activity was proved. I heard only of such shootings at this time, never of shootings of hostages in the true sense. The Dutch patriots who lost their lives during the occupation are today rightly considered fallen heroes. Does it not put this