The Nuremberg Trials (Vol.5). International Military Tribunal

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ

      “Ambassador Oshima declared that he has received a telegram from Tokyo; and he is to report, by order of his Government, to the Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs the following:

      “The suggestion of the German Government to attack Russia was the object of a common conference between the Japanese Government and the Imperial headquarters, during which the question was discussed in detail and investigated exactly. The outcome is the following: The Japanese Government thoroughly recognize the danger which threatens from Russia and completely understand the desire of their German ally that Japan on her part also enter the war against Russia. However, it is not possible for the Japanese Government, considering the present war situation, to enter the war. They are rather of the conviction that it would be in the common interest not to start the war against Russia now. On the other hand, the Japanese Government will never lose sight of the Russian question.”

      And then, in the middle of the next paragraph, this defendant returns to the attack. The third sentence—it begins on the fourth line—says:

      “However, it would be more correct that all powers allied in the Three Power Pact, would combine their forces to strike together at not only England and America, but also Russia. It is not good if one part must fight alone.”

      Then the pressure on Japan to attack Russia is shown again in the next document, 2929-PS, which was put in as Exhibit USA-159. And, if I might just close this part of the case, if I might read that—it is very short:

      “The Reich Minister for Foreign Affairs then stressed again that without any doubt this year presented the most favorable opportunity for Japan, if she felt strong enough and had sufficient antitank weapons at her disposal to attack Russia, which certainly would never again be as weak as at the moment”—the moment being 18 April 1943.

      If the Tribunal please, that concludes my evidence on the second allegation dealing with aggressive war; and I submit that that allegation in the Indictment is more than amply proved.

      The third allegation is that the Defendant Ribbentrop authorized, directed, and participated in War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.

      Of course, I am considering this from the point of view of planning these crimes only. The execution of the crimes will be dealt with by my friends and Soviet colleagues, but it is relevant to show how this defendant participated in the planning of such crimes. I deal, first, with the killing of Allied aviators; secondly, with the destruction of peoples in Europe; and thirdly, with the persecution of the Jews.

      First, the killing of Allied aviators:

      With the increasing air raids on German cities in 1944 by Allied Air Forces, the German Government proposed to undertake a plan to deter Anglo-American fliers from further raids on the Reich cities. In a report of a meeting at which a definite policy was to be established, there is stated what was the point of view that this Defendant Ribbentrop had been urging. That is in Document 735-PS, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-151. That is a discussion of a meeting at the Führer’s headquarters on the 6th of June 1944. If I might read the first paragraph:

      “Obergruppenführer Kaltenbrunner informed the Deputy Chief of Operations Staff”—WFSt—“in Klessheim on the afternoon of the 6th of June that a conference on this question had been held shortly before by the Reich Marshal”—the Defendant Göring—“the Reich Foreign Minister”—the Defendant Von Ribbentrop—“and the Reichsführer SS.”—Himmler—“Contrary to the original suggestion made by the Reich Foreign Minister, who wished to include every type of terror attack on the German civilian population, including bombing attacks on cities, it was agreed in the above conference that merely those attacks carried out with aircraft armament aimed directly at the civilian population and their property should be taken as the standard for the evidence of a criminal action in this sense. Lynch law would have to be the rule, there was no mention of trial by court-martial or handing over to the police.”

      That is, this defendant was pressing that even where there was an attack on a German city, the airmen should be handed over to be lynched by the crowd. The others were saying that that should be restricted to cases where there were attacks by machine guns, and the like, on the civilian population.

      I do not think we need trouble with Paragraph (a) of the statement of the Deputy Chief of WFSt. The importance of (a) goes because Kaltenbrunner says that there were no such cases as were mentioned.

      If you look at (b):

      “The Deputy Chief of the WFSt pointed out that, besides the lynch law, a procedure must be worked out for segregating such enemy aviators who are suspected of criminal action of this kind by sending them to the reception camp for aviators at Oberursel and, if the suspicion was confirmed, handing them over to the SD for special treatment.”

      As I understand that, it is that if they were not lynched under the first scheme, by the crowd, then they were to be kept from prisoners of war, where they would, of course, be subject to the protecting power’s intervention. And if the suspicion was confirmed, they would be handed over to the SD to be killed.

      Then in Paragraph 3 we have what was decided to justify the lynch law. Paragraph 3 says:

      “At a conference with Colonel Von Brauchitsch (Colonel of the Air Force) on the 6th of June, it was settled that the following actions are to be regarded as terror actions justifying lynch law:

      “Low-level attacks with aircraft armament on the civilian population, single persons as well as crowds.

      “Shooting in the air our own (German) men who had bailed out.

      “Attacks with aircraft armament on passenger trains in the public service.

      “Attacks with aircraft armament on military hospitals, hospitals, and hospital trains, which are clearly marked with the red cross.”

      These were to be the subject of lynching and not, as this defendant had suggested, a case where there was the bombing of a city.

      Then on the next page, the last page of this document, we have a somewhat curious comment from the Defendant Keitel:

      “Remarks by the Chief of the OKW on the agenda dated 6 June 1944.”

      The number is that of the document at which the Tribunal has just been looking.

      “Most secret; Staff officers only.

      “If one allows the people to carry out lynch law, it is difficult to enforce rules.

      “Ministerial Director Berndt got out and shot the enemy aviator on the road. I am against legal procedure. It doesn’t work out.”—Signed—“Keitel.”

      Then the Defendant Jodl’s comment appears:

      “This conference is insufficient. The following points must be decided quite definitely in conjunction with the Foreign Office:

      “1. What do we consider as murder? Is the Foreign Office in agreement with point 3b?

      “2. How should the procedure be carried out? a. By the people? b. By the authorities?

      “3. How can we guarantee that the procedure will not be also carried out against other enemy aviators?

      “4. Should some legal procedure be arranged or not?”—Signed—“Jodl.”

СКАЧАТЬ