heroism on a lower plane to represent them exclusively as the victims of a crime, thus implying that their conduct would not have been so hazardous if the occupying power had conducted itself in a proper manner? They were all in a voluntary and active relationship to the resistance movement. They share the destiny of front-line soldiers; the bullet hits him who is active in a danger zone. Jen

Could I have been the friend of the Dutch, the overwhelming majority of whom were against my people which was struggling for its existence? I only regretted that I had not come to the country as a friend. But I was neither a hangman nor, of my own will, a looter, as the Soviet Prosecution contends. My conscience has been assuaged by the fact that the biological situation of the Dutch people during the period of my full responsibilitythat is, up to the middle of 1944 was better than in the First World War, without occupation and blockade. This is testified to by the statistics of marriages and births and by the mortality and illness figures. This is certainly due in part to the effects of a number of measures instituted by me, for example, an extensive health insurance, marriage and baby houses, social graduation of the income tax, etc. Finally, I did not carry out the order which I received to destroy the country, and on my own initiative, I put an end to the occupation when resistance in Holland had become senseless.

I have two more statements regarding Austria.o

First of all, if the Germans in Austria wish their community of fate with the Germans in the Reich to become a reality inwardly and outwardly, then no authoritarian obstacles may be opposed to this wish, and no cause given for interference of nonGerman forces in this decision. Otherwise, the whole German people would follow the most radical "Anschluss" tendency without consideration of how the rest of the political program of such a movement might be constituted.

Secondly, on the question of the effectiveness of provisions of international law during a war, Germany cannot desire any war in her own true interest. She must even see to it that no weapons are forced into her hands. The other peoples do not want a war, either, but the possibility of one is not absolutely out of the question unless the peoples abhor it. It is therefore wrong to try to minimize a future war enough to reduce the defensive forces in the nations by awakening the impression that a future world war could in some way be kept within the framework of the Hague Conventions on Land Warfare, or other international law agreements. Poongil math noblenog videre Vaba The Deputy

Fon And now I have, no doubt, to give you an explanation regarding my relation to Adolf Hitler. Did he prove himself inadequate to fulfill a task decisive for the German people, for Europe itself, or was he the man who struggled, although in vain, and to unimaginable excesses, against the course of an inexorable fate? To me he remains the man who made Greater Germany a fact in German history. I served him and remained loyal to him. And then? I cannot today cry "Crucify him", since yesterday I cried "Hosanna". Holder

Ro My next thought is that of gratitude to my Defense Counsel for the high effort he has made in defending me..

My last word is the principle on which I have always acted and to which I will hold unto my last breath! I believe in Germany. ost Terent not ofdienaga

congodt vnirub' DoorLong mod rod conobizn

should Jodde gitglied XXI. ALBERT SPEER

heb 671. FINAL ARGUMENT by Dr. Hans Flaechsner, its 415-16 duoda päivrind Defense Counsel

Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal:

The Prosecution has charged defendant Speer with violations of all 4 points of the indictment, which essentially coincide with the stipulations of par. 6a-c. The French Prosecution which has substantiated more definitely the individual charges against defendant Speer desists from charging defendant Speer with a violation of par. 6a of the Statute of the Penal Code and demands only the application against Speer of par. 6b and c. However, since the legal concept of conspiracy during the oral proceedings has frequently been clarified by referring to the person of the defendant Speer, and since the assertion was set forth that the defendant Speer also had made himself guilty within the meaning of the Penal Code paragraph of a violation of figure 6a of the Statute, the details must be entered into by way of precaution.quel off-piniqanos

The defendant Speer has therefore been charged with the planning, preparations, launching, and conduct of a war of aggression or a war violating international treaties, and this, indeed, at a time when the defendant assumed the office of Minister of Armaments, which was expanded to a Ministry for Armament and War Production 112 years later when the German Reich was at war with all countries to which she capitulated in May 1945. At the time the defendant assumed Government affairs, all the facts mentioned under par. 6a had altogether

taken place and defendant Speer's activity did not alter the actually existing situation to the slightest extent.

The defendant had not contributed in the least to bring about this situation. His previous activity was that of an architect, who occupied himself exclusively with peace time construction and did not contribute by his activity, either toward preparation nor launching of a war violating international treaties. (Compare Doc. 1435-PS USA 216, p 29.) If under the circumstances which par. 6a of the Statute materially and legally characterizes as a punishable act it were a case of generally prevailing international law, and if individual culpability of persons who bring about these facts of the case were generally recognized in international law defendant Speer in my opinion could still not be held responsible for these facts, for not the slightest evidence has been produced during the proceedings that Speer contributed towards bringing about these facts. In this connection we must consider that culpability of an attitude requires that the person in question must have contributed in some way or other towards the bringing about of the facts which have been declared punishable, i.e., he must have caused the result which was declared punishable to be brought about. If, however, as in the case under consideration, defendant Speer entered the Government without having contributed anything at all towards the so-called crimes against peace, he cannot be charged with criminal responsibility for this, even if such responsibility could be applicable to other members of the government. The Prosecution used the expression that the defendant had accepted and/or approved the preceding crimes against peace by joining the government. Such a concept taken from the field of civil law cannot be applied to criminal law. Criminal law applies only to circumstances consisting of actions which serve Nor is this altered by the introduction of the legal concept of conspiracy. In this connection reference may be made to Dr. Stahmer's detailed statement on conspiracy. The legal views set forth in that statement are also made the subject of my detailed statement. In order to avoid repetition, reference is made to it as well as to the full statements of Prof. Jahrreiss. It can, therefore, be confirmed that defendant Speer cannot be charged with a so-called crime against peace.

to bring about the circumstances declared punish Serve

The personal interrogation of the defendant and the crossexamination regarding his activity have shown that Speer, by virtue of his position as architect, exercised exclusively architectural-artistic functions also in the Party set-up. Speer was

the commissioner for construction in the Hess staff; here it was a matter of a purely technical task, which had nothing at all to do with any form of preparation for war. The Party, which strove to seize and influence all the vital functions of the people, had created the position of commissioner for construction, to execute and shape the Party structures uniformly. For their construction projects, the regional leaders of the NSDAP (Gauleiter) and the other Party offices were to apply to this office for consultation; however, they availed themselves of this only to a very slight extent. Naturally it was a purely architectonic task, when the Party acted as person for whom building was performed (Bauherr). It strove to give its buildings a uniformly

representative character. Considering the peculiarity of architectonic will to fashion things, each architect naturally pursues his own intentions in solving the problems put to him. The activity. of the defendant as commissioner for construction was therefore relatively restricted and of secondary importance, since he did not even have an apparatus of his own at his disposal. It would be erroneous to try to assume therefrom any participation on the part of the defendant in any crimes against the peace. The same holds true for the defendant's remaining functions prior to and during the war up to his assumption of office as minister (Compare Spe. Exhibit 1). When the defendant was given the job of reshaping the appearance of the towns of Berlin and Nurnberg, this activity had nothing at all to do with any crime against the peace; on the contrary, his activity was rather to be regarded. as a prevention of war preparations, as this task of his required raw materials and equipment to a very great extent, from which rearmament might otherwise have benefited directly or indirectly. The construction projects assigned to Speer were, moreover, calculated and planned far ahead. They could only cause the impression in Speer that Hitler reckoned with a long period of peace. It is, therefore, out of the question for the defendant prior to his assumption of office as Reich Minister to have contributed directly or indirectly to the realization of facts, which are characterized by par. 6a of the Statute as crimes against peace.

A

The fact too that the defendant was a member of the Reichstag from 1941 cannot be quoted in support by the Prosecution, because as the Prosecution itself pointed out, the Reichstag in the authoritarian regime has sunk to complete insignificance and had become merely an institution that accepted and applauded the Fuehrer's decisions. In this respect also responsibility for the guilt of war is out of the question for no activity whatever of the Reichstag is recognizable in extension of the war to the Soviet Union and the United States.

wwwww

The special French Prosecution, therefore, justly desisted from reproaching the defendant with an offense against par. 6a of the Statute.

The Prosecution further charges defendant Speer with having participated during his term of office through the fact that workers were transferred against their will from the occupied countries to Germany where they were employed for the purpose of the conduct of war or production of war material. It should be said in this connection:

The Prosecution reproaches the defendant with violations of paragraph 52 of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare insofar as according to be demanded of nathis convention services co tionals of the occupied country only for the necessities of the occupation army; moreover, they have to be in proportion to the resources of the country and must not imply the obligation of the persons concerned to take part in military actions against their native land. The Hague Convention on Land Warfare establishes in paragraph 2 that all countries participating in the war in question must have joined it (General participation clause). The Soviet Union not having entered into the Convention on Land Warfare, the latter could be applicable to the conditions created by the war against the Soviet Union only if the legal principles laid down in the Convention could be considered as universally valid international law. Above all we have, therefore, to start from the principle that a different legal judgment has to be applied to those areas belonging to states that were partners of the Hague Convention on Land Warfare, and for such areas whose states are not to be regarded as treaty partners.

In examining the question, the point is to be determined whether deportation of laborers from territories occupied in wartime by an enemy power can be justified in virtue of Article 52 of the HLO. Article 52 constitutes a limitation of Article 46 of the HLO, inasmuch as the principle is stipulated that fundamentally the population of occupied territories and their property are to be involved as little as the necessities of war will allow. Starting from this principle, it is now necessary to examine whether, in virtue of it, a deportation for the purpose of securing labor potential for the essential war economy of a belligerent country is prohibited to any extent. In this respect, the question must be considered, and it makes a difference whether the deportation carried out by the occupying belligerent State is in accordance with conventions agreed upon with the Government State. The Prosecution has defended the view that such conventions are legally void

of the country occupied by the hell;

1