HEADLINE: HITLER DEFIANT! By Martin Alcuin. BBC News. October 19, 1946
“A thin but erect figure, in dark suit, came to the dock nearest the judge. As with all other appearances since his capture, the dreaded ex-leader was calm and self-assured, the old voice that once meant fear and utter authority to all Germans and most of Europe instantly recognisable. He was instructed by the judge to stand and identify himself for the purposes of the trial, but the grey-bearded figure, with his thick black hair combed stylishly to one side, was not having any of it. He buttoned up his jacket and declared: ‘Those who fought in Germany’s cause will be victorious.’ ”
Most newspapers the same day:
“Brushing off the judge’s attempts to interrupt him, Hitler declared: ‘Neither do I recognise the body that has designated and authorised you, nor the aggression, because all that has been built on a false basis’. ”
Hitler’s new wife, Eva, praised her husband’s performance. ‘It was the most wonderful thing I’ve seen in my life. He is the most wonderful and courageous husband,’ she said in an interview with Newsreel Braziliana. ‘He is a man who never surrenders. He’s a hero, and he will remain a hero,’ she added, speaking from the Amazonian town of Manaus. Some Germans watched the trial with relief; others, particularly among the Nazi minority, dismissed it as a farce. In Frankfurt a few people gathered in the main square chanting: ‘Hitler should be executed, him and his whole government.’ But in the former dictator’s hometown of Linz, in Austria, demonstrators chanted: ‘Long live Adolf Hitler’ and carried banners emblazoned with slogans such as ‘Down with the occupation and the puppet government’.”
Duncan Campbell in The Guardian, October 14, 1946
“Adolf Hitler’s family have chosen one of Britain’s best-known barristers to defend the former German dictator at his trial for mass murder. A former chairman of the Bar Council has been asked to slip through the recently opened timewarp to head the defence in what will be one of the most closely watched trials ever.
“The exiled German barrister Rudiger Rotbrun, who is another member of the defence team, will challenge the lawfulness of the legal process and argue that Hitler is entitled to sovereign immunity as a head of state. ‘An occupying power,’ he said, ‘has no right under international law to change the legal system of the occupied land. Legally Hitler is still German Chancellor. He was elected lawfully, appointed lawfully, endorsed lawfully. He is the Fü hrer, full stop’. Rotbrun added that Hitler was ‘upbeat . . . in high spirits’ and relishing the prospect of the trial.”
BBC News website
“Human rights groups have expressed concerns. A Human Rights Watch report says the Berlin trial ‘runs the risk of violating international standards for fair trials’. Amnesty International has sent three delegates to Berlin to ensure that Adolf Hitler receives a fair trial, and to oppose the death penalty if he is found guilty.”
Comment, Jonathan Steele, The Guardian October 21, 1946
“Along comes a second big German event: the trial of Adolf Hitler. Important though it is as a catharsis for the former dictator’s hundreds of thousands of surviving victims, it has little political significance since only a small minority of Germans still support him.
“Of course, it could backfire on the Allies if Hitler is humiliated in court by unfair or high-handed treatment. To a wider circle of Germans and other Central Europeans, he might then become a symbol of wounded nationalist pride.
“But manipulating the trial’s timing is the real story. Why is the trial being started suddenly this week? The date was fixed, conveniently diverting reporters’ attention from the problems of occupied Germany and the hotly disputed local elections. Was the trial a Special Action to get vote-rigging out of the headlines?”
All outlets, October 21:
“Later on in the programme we’ll be looking at the chances that the Hitler trial will backfire on the Allies, and simply stir up resentment among Germany’s minority Nazi population, many of whom still regard the former Chancellor as a national hero . . .”
BBC Today programme. October 20, 1946
Presenter: “In the studio we have international lawyer Renee Rock, who has written a book about something to do with the legal basis of the war and therefore, by association, might know something about this. Mr Rock, why have they chosen to press charges based on this one death camp — Treblinka — and not on all the other invasions and atrocities?
RR: “They’ve clearly decided, at the request of the occupying powers, not to include charges that might be embarrassing and might indicate complicity in earlier crimes. Who, after all, allowed Hitler to remilitarise the Rhineland? To occupy Czechoslovakia? Who divided Poland with him?”
Respect Party press statement, October 25, 1946
Party Official backs international petition: “We the Undersigned call for the release from custody of the Chairman of the German Peace Organisation, Joachim Von Ribbentrop, whom we believe to be held by the American Occupation Forces at the airport in Berlin, and being subjected to endless interrogation.”
A Respect Official, extract of an interview with Herman Perón, Radio Buenos Aires, October 26, 1946
“He has had two heart attacks and a stroke. Joachim is a more respectful man than the people who are holding him now. He is esteemed worldwide by figures like the Pope and other international figures who have valued his counsel, met him, discussed and negotiated with him. He is an eminent diplomatic and intellectual figure .”
Peter Hitchens column in The Mail on Sunday, October 23, 1946
“Such trials only make war criminals hang on to power: they should be allowed to slink off to South America quietly. In any case, who decides who is to be tried? How about trying Churchill and Roosevelt (posthumously) for the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg? If I am still alive I might one day go along and watch the limbless and bereaved witnesses in the box recall the day they experienced Mr Roosevelt’s righteousness or Mr Churchill’s democratic fervour in the form of a high-explosive warhead.”
Extracts from BBC website, Have Your Say:
“One needs to ask: Is Hitler that different from other rulers? The USA and Britain justified mass bombing because of national imperatives. Hitler justified his actions because of the war with the Jews.” Gerda Lindbergh, USA.
“There are many, many leaders who came to power and remained in power due to similar so-called crimes against humanity. Almost no country is free of grievances by minorities or majorities.” Thomas, Sudbury, Canada.
“Adolf Hitler cannot get a fair trial in an occupied country.” Andy O’Merrigan, Hornsey, London.
“Why does no one in Britain ever ask us what we think?” A Kurd. (Whoops, a Pole).
david.aaronovitch@thetimes.co.uk
