the Saar territory, Austria, Memel, Danzig, and, as a hope lingering in the far future, also to the Sudeten territory. They all had been in the past parts of the German Reich, they all would have already returned to the German Reich in 1919 if the right of selfdetermination solemnly promised to all peoples had been realized. But these objectives of German longing could be reached by peaceful means. And, in fact, they have been reached without a shot or a stroke with the one exception of Danzig, which would have been done in the same peaceful way if the Fuehrer had had a spark of patience and the Poles a spark of goodwill. But they neither wanted nor believed in a war. Hitler was believed capable of a large scale bluff, but not launching the catastrophe of a war. I cannot, therefore, believe in a conspiracy to commit crimes against peace and usages of war. May I add two points of general importance:

1. The first point refers to Goering's attitude previous immediately to the outbreak of war. He was at that time Hitler's confident friend, the country's second man, and is now the chief figure among the defendants. If there had been, in truth, a conspiracy to launch wars of aggression at that time, then he would have been the second in importance in such a conspiracy, but it was actually he who tried everything within his power, in the last days of August, 1939, to prevent the attack on Poland, and who tried behind Hitler's back to uphold peace. How would this be consistent with a conspiracy for initiating wars of aggression? Nor did he agree with a war against Russia, and he strongly dissuaded the Fuehrer of such

a war.

2. If there had been a conspiracy to commit war crimes, then the war would have been waged, from the beginning, with utter ruthlessness and disregard of rules of war. Just the contrary actually happened. In fact, in the first years of the war, international law was on the whole, respected. Especially in the beginning one endeavored to wage war with decorum and chivalry. If any evidence is needed, a look into the orders of the German High Command regulating the behavior of the soldiers in Norway, Belgium, Holland is sufficient proof. Moreover a leaflet with "10 commandments for the conduct of the German soldier in wartime" was issued to the soldiers. Fieldmarshal Milch has read them out from his pay-book, during this trial. They all obliged the soldier to act loyally and according to international law. A gang of conspirators at the head of the state which plans to wage a war without any consideration of right and morals would really not send their soldiers into the field with a detailed written order saying just the opposite.

I think, if the prosecution believes that these 22 men are con

spirators and conspirators against peace, the laws of war and humanity, it is seeing ghosts.

It remains for the defense counsels of the individual defendants to show what relationship their client could have had with the alleged conspiracy.

I just mentioned that Reichsmarshal Goering was the second man in the state. During the trial the prosecution also referred repeatedly to this elevated position of Goering's and tried to make it responsible for the defendant's special guilt, pointing out that Goering, by virtue of this special position knew about everything, even the most secret matters, and had the possibility to intervene in a practical way on his own in the course of government business.

This opinion is wrong and is based on ignorance of the meaning of his position. It meant, according to rank Goering was the second man in the state.

This rank was a consequence of the fact that Hitler, in the fall of 1934, had made a will and by a secret Fuehrer order had appointed Goering as his successor in the government. In 1935 or 1936 this succession was fixed in an unpublished Reichlaw which was signed by all the ministers.

On 1 September 1939 Hitler announced this law in the Reichstag. In this way the successorship of Goering became known to the German people.

Goering's task of deputizing for the Fuehrer in the government now followed but only in the event of Hitler being prevented by illness or absence from Germany-thus this occurred when in March 1938 Hitler spent a few days in Austria.

During Hitler's presence, that is as long as Hitler exercised his office himself, Goering derived no special powers from the deputyship.

During this time his authority was limited to the offices directly under him and he was not entitled to issue any official directives to other offices.

The consequence was, as second man in the state, Goering could neither rescind, nor change, nor supplement Hitler's orders. He could give no orders whatsoever to offices of which he was not directly in charge. He did not have the possibility of giving any binding orders to any other office whether it were an office of the party, the police, the army, or navy, nor could he interfere in the authority of these offices which were not his own.

This position as second man in the state can not therefore be used as especially incriminating for Goering; it is furthermore not fit to serve as a basis for the assumption of a conspiracy.

The defendant Goering never participated in the drafting or

the attitude of Goering to war. He knew him especially from the first world war and he has exact knowledge of the attitude of Goering to war from frequent conversations he has held with him. Bodenschatz states that Goering repeatedly told him that he knew the horrors of war very well from the first world war. His aim was a peaceful solution of all conflicts to spare the German people as far as possible the horrors of a war. A war would always be an uncertain and risky business. It would not be possible to burden with a second war a generation which had already experienced the horrors of one great world war and its bitter consequences.

General Field Marshal Milch also knows from conversations with the defendant Goering that the latter opposed a war, that he already had not agreed with the occupation of the Rhineland and that he advised Hitler in vain against a war with Russia.

In public the defendant Goering in his many speeches since 1933 frequently emphasized how much he had his heart set on maintaining the peace and that the rearmament had only served to make Germany strong outwardly and to enable her to play a political role again.

His serious and honest will for peace can be seen best from the speech which he aimed in the beginning of July 1938 in Karinhall before all the Gauleiters of the German Reich. He emphasized in this speech energetically that the foreign policy of Germany had to be directed in such a way that under no circumstances it would lead into war. The present generation had still to get over the last world war, another war would shock the German people. Goering had not the slightest reason to hide his true opinion before this gathering which consisted exclusively of the highest party leaders. For that reason this speech is a valuable and reliable proof for the fact that Goering really and truly wanted peace.

How deeply the defendant Goering was interested in maintaining the good relations with England is shown by his conduct at the conference with Lord Halifax in November 1937 at Karinhall, in which Goering, with full candor, put before Lord Halifax the aims of German foreign policy:

a. Incorporation of Austria and the Sudetenland into Germany. b. Return of Danzig to Germany with a reasonable solution of the corridor problem.

He pointed out at the same time that he does not want war for these aims and that England could contribute to a peaceful solution.

The meeting in Munich in the fall of 1938 was arranged at his suggestion. The conclusion of the Munich Pact is essentially due to his influence.

Due to the occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia in

March 1939, the relations with England had deteriorated considerably. As England was very angry about this step of Hitler's, which was a violation of the Munich Pact, Goering made serious efforts for the restoration of normal relations.

In order to achieve this goal he arranged the meeting, described by the witness Dahlerus, with English industrialists at the beginning of August 1939 in the Soenke-Nissen-Koog near Husum. In an address he pointed out that under no circumstances must it come to a war with England and he asked those present to contribute to the best of their ability to the restoration of the good relations with England.

When, after the often quoted speech of Hitler's to the commanders in chief of the armed forces on the Obersalzberg on 22 August 1939, the danger of a war became imminent, Goering summoned immediately, that is already on the following day, the witness Dahlerus from Sweden and attempted, bypassing the Foreign Office, to reach an agreement with England for the prevention of the war on his own responsibility.

The objection was raised here that Goering had left Dahlerus in the dark as to his true intentions. His efforts were not aimed at the maintaining of peace but only at persuading England to deny to the Poles the support guaranteed to them and to separate England from Poland, which would enable Germany after this separation to exert pressure on Poland to submit to the German demands or to be able to attack Poland and to realize her plans towards Poland without any risk.

The doubts about the honest will for peace are unjustified; the imputed intention was far from Goering's thoughts.

If this objection is based on the fact that Goering did not inform the witness Dahlerus either of the content of the Fuehrer speech of 23 May 1939 or of the 22 August 1939, this objection is not relevant and nothing is gained by it.

Under no circumstances could Goering inform a third person and especially a foreigner of these strictly confidential speeches without exposing himself to the accusation of high treason or treason against his country. These speeches were all immaterial for the commission given to the witness, since here was the peculiar situation that Goering-after the efforts of the diplomats had reached a deadlock-knew as ultimo ratio of no other way out than to use his personal relations, all of his personal influence, and his personal prestige.

What alone mattered for the activity of Dahlerus was that the political situation had become dangerously critical through the quarrel between Germany and Poland, of which also the witness