Appointment of political leaders:
With respect to the appointment of the political leaders constituting the Leadership Corps of the Party, I quote from Page 4 of the Organization Book, which is Document 1893-PS:
“1. The Führer appoints the following political leaders:
“a) Reichsleiter and all political leaders within the Reichsleitung”—Reich Party Directorate—“including women’s leaders; b) Gauleiter, including the political leaders holding offices in the Gauleitung”—Gau Party Directorate—“including Gau women’s leaders; c) Kreisleiter. . . .
“2. The Gauleiter appoints:
“a) The political leaders and women’s leaders within the Gau Party Directorate . . . b) the political leaders and the directors of women’s leagues in the Kreis Party Directorate; c) Ortsgruppenleiter.
“3. The Kreisleiter appoints the political leaders and the directors of the women’s leagues of the Ortsgruppen including the block and cell leaders . . . .”
The power of Hoheitsträger to call upon other Party formations:
The Hoheitsträger among the Leadership Corps were entitled to call upon and utilize the various Party formations as necessary for the execution of the Nazi Party policies.
The Party manual provides, with respect to the power and authority of the Hoheitsträger to requisition the services of the SA—and I quote from Page 11 of this same Document 1893-PS:
“The Hoheitsträger is responsible for the entire political appearance of the Movement within this zone. The SA leader of that zone is tied to the directives of the Hoheitsträger in that respect . . . . The Hoheitsträger is the ranking representative of the Party to include all organizations within his zone. He may requisition the SA located within his zone from the respective SA leader if they are needed for the execution of a political mission. The Hoheitsträger will then assign the mission to the SA . . . . Should the Hoheitsträger need more SA for the execution of a political mission than is locally available, he then applies to the next higher office of sovereignty which, in turn, requests the SA from the SA office in his sector.”
According to the Party manual, the Hoheitsträger had the same authority to call upon the services of the SS and NSKK as they possessed with respect to the SA.
With respect to the authority of the Hoheitsträger to call upon the services of the Hitler Youth (the HJ), the Party manual states, and I quote from Page 11, the last paragraph of that translation:
“The political leader has the right to requisition the HJ”—that is the Hitler Jugend—“in the same manner as the SA for the execution of a political action . . . .
“In appointing leaders of the HJ . . . the office of the HJ must procure the approval of the Hoheitsträger of its zone. This means that the Hoheitsträger can prevent the appointment of leaders unsuited for the leadership of youth. If his approval has not been procured, an appointment may be cancelled if he so requests.”
An example of the use of the Party formations at the call of the Leadership Corps of the Party is provided by the action taken by the Reichsleiter for Party Organization of the National Socialist Party, Dr. Robert Ley, leading to the deliberate dissolution of the Free Trade Unions on 2 May 1933. I quote from Document 392-PS, Exhibit Number USA-326, which is a copy of the directive issued by the Defendant Ley on 21 April 1933, reproduced on Pages 51-52 of the Social Life in New Germany by Professor Müller. In this directive the late Defendant Ley directed the employment of the SA and the SS in the occupation of trade unions and for taking trade union leaders into protective custody. I now quote from Paragraph 6 of Page 1 of Document 392-PS. It is the third and fourth paragraph from the bottom of the page:
“SA as well as SS are to be employed for the occupation of trade union properties and for the taking of personalities, who come into question, into protective custody.
“The Gauleiter is to proceed with his measures on a basis of the closest understanding with the competent regional cell director.”
I also quote from the second paragraph of Page 2 of that same document which reads, quoting:
“The following are to be taken into protective custody: All trade union chairmen, the district secretaries and the branch directors of the ‘Bank for Workers, Employees, and Officials, Incorporated,’ included.”
I now offer in evidence Document 2474-PS, Exhibit Number USA-327, which is a copy of a decree issued by the Defendant Hess as Deputy of the Führer, dated 25 October 1934, which underwrites the authority of the Hoheitsträger with respect to Party formations. I quote from the numbered Paragraphs 1, 5, and 6 of Page 1 of Document 2474-PS which reads as follows—Page 1 of the English translation:
“The political leadership within the Party and its political representation towards all offices, state or others which are outside of the Party, lie solely and exclusively with the Hoheitsträger”—bearers of sovereignty—“which is to say with me, the Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, and Ortsgruppenleiter. . . .
“The departmental workers of the Party organizations, such as Reichsleiter, office directors, et cetera, as well as the leaders of the SA, SS, HJ, and the subordinate affiliations, may not enter into binding agreements of a political nature with State and other offices except when so authorized by their Hoheitsträger.
“In places where the territories of the units of the SA, SS, HJ, and the subordinate affiliations do not coincide with the zones of the Hoheitsträger, the Hoheitsträger will give his political directives to the ranking leader of each unit within his zone of sovereignty.”
It was the official policy of the Leadership Corps to establish close and co-operative relations with the Gestapo. The Tribunal will recall that the head of the German Police and SS, Himmler, was a Reichsleiter on the top level of the Leadership Corps. Without offering in evidence a decree issued by the Defendant Bormann as Chief of Staff of the Deputy of the Führer, dated 26 June 1935, I ask the Court to take judicial knowledge; and I quote:
“In order to effect a closer contact between the offices of the Party and its organizations with the Directors of the Secret State Police,”—Gestapo—“the Deputy of the Führer requests that the directors of the Gestapo be invited to attend all the larger official rallies of the Party and its organizations.”
That is from the 1935 edition, Page 143, dated the 26th June 1935, The Decrees of the Deputy of the Führer.
With reference to the meetings and conferences among the Hoheitsträger of the Leadership Corps, it is the contention of the Prosecution that the members of the Leadership Corps constituted a distinctive and identifiable group or organization. It is strongly supported by the fact that the various Hoheitsträger were under an absolute obligation to meet and confer periodically, not only with the staff officers of their own staffs, but with the political leaders and staff officers immediately subordinate to them. For example, the Gauleiter was bound to confer with his staff officers (such as his deputy and so forth, which included the school leader, propaganda leader, press leader, his Gau Party judge, and so on) every 8 to 14 days. Furthermore, the Gauleiter was obligated to meet with the various Gauleaders subordinate to him once every 3 months for a 3-day convention for the purpose of discussing and clarifying Nazi Party policies and directives, for hearing basic lectures on Party policy, and for the mutual exchange of information pertinent to the Party’s current program. The Gauleiter was also obligated to meet at least once a month with the leaders of the Party formations and affiliated organizations within his Gau area, such as the leaders of the SA, and SS, Hitler Youth, and others. In support of these statements, I quote from Page 8 of Document 1893-PS. I don’t think it is necessary to read all of that:
“Leader conferences in the district:
“A. District Leaders.”
If Your Honor please, with your permission I will omit the reading of