Hermann goering why of course

But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

Another timely quote in the vein of the apocryphal Julius Caesar warning about political leaders who can all too easily send the citizenry marching eagerly off to war by manufacturing crises that purportedly threaten national security and making popular appeals to patriotism.

In this case the sentiment expressed is even more disturbing because it comes not from a venerated figure of antiquity, but supposedly from a reviled twentieth-century figure associated with the most chilling example of genocide in human history: Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief.

We may be made somewhat uneasy by the idea that the head of a classic civilization recognized 2, years ago that the populace could be manipulated into sacrificing themselves in wars at the whims of their leaders, but we're outraged and maybe even scared at the thought of a fat Nazi fascist flunky's recognizing and telling us the same thing.

The notable difference here is that although the Caesar quote is a latter-day fabrication, the words attributed to Hermann Goering are real. From the artistic point of view I did not at all regret that the assembly chamber was burned- I hoped to build a better one. But I did regret very much that I was forced to find a new meeting place for the Reichstag and, not being able to find one, I had to give up my Kroll Opera House, that is, the second State Opera House, for that purpose.

The opera seemed to me much more important than the Reichstag. I made a joke, if that is the one you are referring to, when I said that, after this, I should be competing with Nero and that probably people would soon be saying that, dressed in a red toga and holding a lyre in my hand, I looked on at the fire and played while the Reichstag was burning.

That was the joke. But the fact was that I almost perished in the flames, which would have been very unfortunate for the German people, but very fortunate for their enemies. I know that Herr Rauschning said in the book which he wrote, and which has often been referred to here, that I had discussed this with him.

I saw Herr Rauschning only twice in my life and only for a short time on each occasion. If I had set fire to the Reichstag, I would presumably have let that be known only to my closest circle of confidants, if at all.

I would not have told it to a man whom I did not know and whose appearance I could not describe at all today. That is an absolute distortion of the truth. I will ask that you be shown the affidavit of General Franz Halder, and I call your attention to his statements which may refresh your recollection.

I read it. I heard with my own ears how Goring broke into the conversation and shouted: 'The only one who really knows the Reichstag is I, for I set fire to it. First of all I want to emphasize that what is written here is utter nonsense. It says, "The only one who really knows the Reichstag is I. The fire took place only in the general assembly room, and many hundreds or thousands of people knew this room as well as I did.

A statement of this type is utter nonsense. How Herr Halder came to make that statement I do not know. Apparently that bad memory, which also let him down in military matters, is the only explanation.

What was it that Rohm did that he was shot? What acts did he commit? He wanted to follow it up by a revolution, directed in the first place against the Army, the officers' corps-those groups which he considered to be reactionary. He wanted to bring about a Putsch and therefore the Fuehrer considered it right that this thing should be nipped in the bud-not by a court procedure, but by smashing the revolt immediately.

Do you know? GOERING: The police carried out the arrest of those who were, first of all, to be interrogated, those who were not so seriouslY incriminated and of whom it was not known whether they were incriminated or not. A number of these people were released very soon, others not until somewhat later. Just how many were arrested in this connection I cannot tell you.

The arrests were made by the police. Do you know the number that were arrested? GOERING: I state again, I do not know exactly how many were arrested because the necessary arrests, or the arrest of those who were considered as having a part in this, did not go through me. My action ended, so to speak, on the date when the revolt was smashed. I understood Milch a little differently and I sent a note to my counsel in order that it be made clear, through a question whether Milch meant by these people those concerned with the Rohm Putsch or whether he meant to say that he saw altogether arrested persons there.

That is the way I understood it. But to clarify this statement we should have to question Milch again, for I believe this number of , , or , to be far too high for the total number of people arrested in connection with the Rohm Putsch. He was one of your political opponents, was he not? Actually, it was Klausner's case which caused me, as I stated recently to ask the Fuehrer to give immediate orders to cease any further action, since, in my opinion, Klausner was quite wrongfully shot.

He played an extremely important role within the Party before the seizure of power, but he was banned from the Party already before the seizure of power. Strasser participated in this revolt and he was also shot.

I made it fairly clear and should like to repeat briefly that not when there were only two left on the list did I intervene; I intervened when I saw that many were shot who were not concerned with this matter. And when I did so, two persons were left who had taken a very active part, and the Fuehrer himself had ordered that they be shot. The Fuehrer was particularly furious with one of them, the chief instigator of the action.

What I wanted to make clear was that I said to the Fuehrer, "It is better for you to give up the idea of having these two main perpetrators executed, and put an end to the whole thing immediately. Did you fix the time? As far as I recall the decisive day was Saturday; on Saturday evening between 6 and 7 o'clock the Fuehrer arrived by plane from Munich.

My request to stop the action was made on Sunday, some time between 2 and 3 o'clock in the afternoon. One, as far as I remember, was taken to a concentration camp, and the other was for the time being placed under a sort of house arrest, if I remember correctly.

Please repeat. I stated that it had struck me that Hitler had very definite views of the impotency of protest; secondly, that he was of the opinion that Germany must be freed from the dictate of Versailles. It was not only Adolf Hitler; everY German, every patriotic German had the same feelings- and I, being an ardent patriot, bitterly felt the shame of the dictate of Versailles, and I allied myself with the man about whom I felt that he perceived most clearly the consequences of this dictate, and that probablY he was the man who would find the ways and means to set it aside.

All the other talk in the Party about Versailles was, pardon the expression, mere twaddle. We debated only about the foremost condition, that Germany should acquire a different political structure, which alone would enable her to raise objections to this dictate, this one-sided dictate- everybody always called it a peace, whereas we Germans always called it a dictate and not merely objections, but such objections as would demand consideration.

But by that we did not go as far as to say, "We want to wage war on our enemies and be victorious. Those were the basic considerations. Question One: The fight against the dictate of Versailles was for me the most decisive factor in joining the Party. For others, perhaps, other points of the program or of the ideology, which seemed more important, may have been more decisive.

Giving the Fuehrer absolute powers was not a basic condition for getting rid of Versailles, but for putting into practice our conception of the Leadership Principle.

To give him Our oath before he became the head of the State was, under the conditions then existing, a matter of course for those who considered themselves members of his select leadership corps. I do not know and I cannot tell exactly, just how the oath was given before the seizure of power; I can only tell you what I myself did. After a certain period of time, when I had acquired more insight into the Fuehrer's personality, I gave him my hand and said: "I unite my ate with yours for better or for worse: I dedicate myself to you in good times and in bad, even unto death.

In the first place, you wanted a strong German State to overcome the conditions of Versailles. GOERING: We wanted a strong State anyhow, regardless of Versailles; but in order to get rid of Versailles the State had, first of all, to be strong, for a weak State never makes itself heard; that we know from experience. GOERING: The dictate of Versailles was such that every German in my opinion, could not help being in favor of its modification, and there is no doubt that this was a very strong inducement for joining the movement.

I was not there. I have no proof. I do not know, but I assume so. The chief influence on the Fuehrer, at least up till the end -of or the beginning of , if one can speak of influence at all, vas exerted by me.

From then until my influence gradually decreased, after which it rapidly dwindled. All in all, I do not believe anyone had anything like the influence on the Fuehrer that I had.

Next to me, or apart from me, if one can speak of influence at all, Goebbels, with whom the Fuehrer was together quite a good deal, exerted an influence in a certain direction from the very beginning.

This influence wavered for a time and was very slight, and then increased greatly in the last years of the war, for it was easy to win influence by means of Before the seizure of power and during the years immediately following the seizure of power, Hess had a certain influence, but only in regard to his special sphere.

Then, in the course of the years, Himmler's influence increased. From the end of on this influence decreased rapidly. The most decisive influence on the Fuehrer during the war, and especially from about after Hess went out in and a year had elapsed-was exerted by Herr Bormann. The latter had, at the end, a disastrously strong influence. That was possible only because the Fuehrer was filled with profound mistrust after 20 July, and because Bormann was with him constantly and reported on and described to him all matters.

Broadly speaking these are the persons who had influence at one time or another. GOERING: I have explained that I had erected a technical apparatus which, as you said, monitored the conversations of important reigners to and from foreign countries-telegrams and wireless communications which were transmitted not only from Germany to foreign countries, but also from one foreign country to the other through the ether, and which were intercepted.

It also monitored telephone conversations within Germany of: 1 all important foreigners; 2 important firms, at times; and 3 persons who for any reason of a political or police nature were to be watched. In order to prevent any abuse on the part of the police, this department had to obtain my personal permission when it was to listen to telephone conversations.

Despite this there could, of course, be uncontrolled tapping of wires at the same time, just as that is technically possible everywhere today. Those reports which were important to the Fuehrer went to the Fuehrer. Those which were important to the military authorities went to the Minister of War, or to the Air Ministry, or to the Ministry of Economy. I or my deputy decided whether a report was important for this or that office.

There was a man there whose job and responsibility it was to see that these secret reports were submitted only to the chief. That was always possible. The police did strive to get this instrument into their hands. But they did not get it from me, and perhaps they kept a watch of their own here and there. But the decisive control which had to be directed through the Ministry of Posts could technically be ordered only by me.

In these assertions there are a number of actions which would not have been necessary. I do not believe that this is a question of fact, but rather of judgment, and that it is not possible to give an answer to such a general question.

Justice Jackson, the Tribunal thinks that the question is somewhat too wide. They did not constitute a defense in the past nor do they constitute a power in the future. SubterraneanCatalyst 1, books view quotes. Dec 07, AM. Julia books view quotes. Nov 09, PM. Stenner93 0 books view quotes. Sep 14, AM. M 4, books view quotes.

Mar 04, PM. Atif books view quotes. Feb 24, AM. Susan books view quotes. Feb 23, AM. Mohamed books view quotes. Jan 11, PM. Hw 73 books view quotes. Dec 10, PM. Kuan 27 books view quotes. Geni books view quotes. Nov 22, PM.

Georgette Ahia 82 books view quotes. Nov 19, PM. Linda 1 book view quotes. Oct 08, PM. Charles 22 books view quotes. Oct 08, AM. Jason 21 books view quotes. Aug 13, PM. Ante books view quotes.

Feb 21, AM. Gregory books view quotes. Jan 21, PM. Cath books view quotes. Jan 18, AM. Jan 11, AM. Carmel 2 books view quotes. Oct 04, PM. That is not what the United States would expect me to participate in. I respectfully suggest that if he can draw any kind of challenge. The witness, if the question permits it, must answer, and if there are relevant explanations they should be reserved until later. Now let me come back to the specific problem I have right here this morning.

Here is an answer given which the Tribunal now rules is irrelevant- But we have no opportunity to object to it. The Tribunal had no opportunity to rule upon it. The witness asks, "Did you ever hear of the United States publishing its plan of mobilization?

The difficulty is that the Tribunal loses control of these proceedings if the defendant, in a case of this kind where we all know propaganda is one of the purposes of the defendant, is permitted to put his propaganda in, and then we have to meet it afterwards. I really feel that the United States is deprived of the opportunity of the technique of cross-examination if this is the procedure.

Surely that is not a matter of very great importance. Every country keeps certain things secret. Certainly it would be much wiser to ignore a statement of that sort. But as to the general rule, the Tribunal will now consider the matter. I have already laid down what I believe to be the rule, and ,; I think with the assent of the Tribunal, but I will ascertain The point is, do we answer these things or leave them, apart from the control of the Trial?

And it does seem to me that this is the beginning of this Trial's getting out of hand, if I may say so, if we do not have control of this situation. I trust the Tribunal will pardon my earnestness in presenting this. I think it is a very vital thing. I do not think this accusation is justified. Neither do I believe that the defendant intended to make an accusation against the United States. I think we have to consider the question that was put to him. That is, it was pointed out to him by the Prosecution that this document which was submitted to him was marked "secret.

If instead of the U. S-A- he had said any other nation, then the remark would have been considered harmless. In my opinion the answer was quite justified. The witness should be given the possibility not only to answer "yes" or "no," but to give reasons for his answer, as ruled by the Court.

Justice Jackson, the Tribunal considers that the rule which it has laid down is the only possible rule and that the witness must be confined strictly to answering the question directly where the question admits of a direct answer, and that he must not make his explanation before he gives a direct answer but, after having given a direct answer to any question which admits of a direct answer, he may make a short explanation; and that he is not to be confined simply to making direct answers "yes" or "no," and leaving the explanation until his counsel puts it to him in his re-examination.

As to this particular observation of the defendant, the defendant ought not to have referred to the United States, but it is a matter which I think you might well ignore. At the conclusion of the session yesterday we were considering Document Number EC The Defendant Goering challenged the use of a word which he said should have been translated "clearance" rather than "liberation. This document was introduced under Exhibit Number GB on the 9th of January, at Page of the Tribunal's records Volume V, Page 28 , and since it has already been received in evidence and it is before the Tribunal, we think it incumbent upon the Prosecution to make that correction now for the record.

Volume IX. I should have said, just come to us for translation. We have not had it translated; we just discovered it among our great collection of documents. I do not know what it says except that it is the minutes of their meeting. We have a photostat. You will find that on Page 1. It was fixed by law. This deals with the second Reich Defense Council, not the first one. Besides, I was not present at this meeting; and I point out that on the left is a list of the authorities who took part in the meeting, and in my case it says "Minister President Field Marshal Goering," and on the right, as representative for him, "State Secretary Korner and State Secretary Neumann.

It seems to be an absolutely authentic copy of the minutes; I admit that. But here again we are dealing with a meeting not as I said when answering my counsel, of the Reich Defense Council but of a larger meeting in which many other departments participated and it is a matter of the second Reich Defense Council, which was set up after , not a secret council such as was the case from There were two Reich defense laws concerning the Reich Defense Council, which I tried to explain in my statement: the Secret Council of , which was not made public, and the Reich Defense Council which was created and converted into the Ministerial Council in ; the latter held meetings which were in no way confined to its own members.

At that time it was clear that our military sovereignty had already been declared. This first council, which the Prosecution called the secret one, never met, and the document of yesterday proved that. If I may translate it, the last point on the agenda: Consequences resulting from the lifting of the secrecy ban on the Reich defense law and measures to expedite procedures have already been dealt with by a letter from the Reich Defense Committee on 26 June: "Consequences resulting from the lifting of the secrecy ban with a view to expediting written communications.

Would you state who these were? The question was that you said some members of the government were more radical toward Jews than you were. Would you tell us which of the members of the government were more radical than you were?

If you ask who, then I would say that those were primarily Minister Goebbels and Himmler. If I said Himmler, I, of course, include Heydrich.

I do not know anything about his attitude in the beginning. From the very beginning you regarded the elimination of the Jews from the economic life of Germany as one phase of the Four Year Plan under your jurisdiction, did you not?

The elimination as far as the large industries were concerned, because there were continual disturbances due to the fact that there were large industries, also armament industries, still partly under Jewish directors, or with Jewish shareholders, and that gave rise to a certain anxiety among the lower ranks. That is the way you want to be understood?

They did not come into the Four Year Plan. First, did you proclaim the Nuremberg Laws? Do you deny that you published the Reichsgesetzblatt law, , found on Page , referring to the competence of the courts to handle penalties against Jews?

If you do not remember, say so. If it is in the Reichsgesetzblatt and bears my name, then, of course, it is so; but I do not remember the contents.

I no longer remember it, but if you have the decree there, and if it is signed by me, there cannot be any doubt. I am going to ask you some further questions about it later. Did you personally sign that law? Whether it was exactly the same as you have just read, I could not say.

Do you recall all of that? Those are all parts of the decrees for the elimination of Jewry from economic life. You have no recollection of that? A law sometimes requires regulations and decrees for execution consequent upon the law.

Taken together, this is one single measure. I refer to the Reichisgesetzblatt, Volume I, , Page It says: "Complementing' not "completing" the task which has been assigned to you. Now comes the decisive word which has been mistranslated: "for total solution," not "for a final solution. Should these come within the competence of other governmental departments, then such departments are to co-operate.

Well, I just did not want it to appear that it was a part of the instrument. The last that is contained in the instrument is:. That can be seen from the first part of the letter, the last sentence. We are right about that, are we not? Therefore, this was the government department concerned, and it was to the department which had been given the task that I had to apply concerning all material and economic matters arising therefrom.

And you ordered all other governmental agencies to co-operate with the Security Police and the SS in the final solution of the Jewish question, did you not? How ever that does not mean that the SS had anything to do with it. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it recited to you the looting of Jewish shops, the arrest of persons for looting, the destruction of shops, dwellings set on fire or destroyed, and that this indicated only a fraction of the actual damage caused; synagogues were set on fire, and another 76 completely destroyed; in addition, 11 parish halls, cemetery chapels, and similar buildings were set on fire, and 3 more completely destroyed; Jews were arrested; also, 7 Aryans and 3 foreigners-the latter were arrested for their own safety; 36 deaths were reported, and the seriously injured were also numbered at Those killed and injured are Jews.

One Jew is still missing. The Jews killed include 1 Polish national, and those injured include 2 Poles. That is the report mentioned by me and which I had asked the police to supply, because I wanted to know what had happened up to then. And the note was made at the top of it, The General Field Marshal has been informed and no steps are to be taken.

It says here, "General Field Marshal has taken note. No steps are to be taken by any other Office, because I myself wanted to take them. I put it to you squarely whether you are telling this Tribunal the truth when you say that no steps were to be taken by anyone else.

In fact I went straight to the Fuehrer with this report. It is obvious from the dates of the documents. You acknowledged the receipt of that document, did you not, to Party member Buch?

That is in the report also. It is not in evidence. Since the document apparently has not been brought here, I will ask you from your recollection. Now, in the first place, the Party Court reported that it was probably understood-I quote-"by all of the Party leaders present from oral instructions of the Reich Propaganda Director, that the Party should not appear outwardly as the originator of the demonstrations, but in reality should organize and execute them.

Goebbels, had given these directives. May I ask, if we are dealing with a report dated March or maybe April?

Now, as a result of the riots, did the Court, the Party Court, not also report this to you: that the Supreme Party Court has reserved itself the right to investigate the killings, also the severe mistreatment and moral aims and will request the Fuehrer to drop proceedings against any person whom the Party Court did not find guilty of excesses? I cannot say just now, without having the document, who made up the Party Court at that time.

I see that I am being given the document. I wanted only to say I did not know which persons were taking part here. Number 1, a Party member, was guilty of a moral crime and race violation and he was expelled. Is that right? That is what it says in the last sentence. Another Party member, Case Number 2, was suspected of race violation and expelled from the Nazi Party.

I know that very well. I will not go through those in detail, but it is a fact that only minor punishments were pronounced by the Supreme Court of the Party for the killing of Jews, were they not? Goering; To quash them, to beat them down, that does not mean suppress. A penal proceeding can be "niedergeschlagen. What does beating down a proceeding mean? Does it mean that it has ended?