This volume consists of the remaining concluding speeches by the Defence.
Dönitz's counsel discusses the defendant's Laconia order, his treatment of the shipwrecked and his employment of concentration camp labour.
Raeder's counsel gives his appraisal of the violations of the Versailles Treaty and of their non-aggressive motives, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as condonation of previous treaty violations and aggression against Norway.
Schirach's counsel asserts that he had peaceful aims and methodology, and discusses his youth education programme.
Saukel's counsel argues whether the concept of slave labour and deportation, and the employment of foreign labour, is admissible under International Law. He also points out Saukel's efforts for the improvement of recruitment methods, and working and living conditions.
Jodl's counsel discusses his part in the aggressions from 1938 to 1941, and asserts that the division between the political and military spheres and their responsibilities was beyond the scope of his defendant's position.
Seyss-Inquart's counsel defends his part in the Austrian Anschluss and the famine in Holland.
Bormann's counsel argues that his defendant is already dead.
Von Papen's counsel insists that his defendant had a policy of appeasement and compromise within the Nazi Party.
Speert's counsel maintains that he counteracted Hitler's destruction orders towards the end of the war, and had a limited sphere of responsibilty in the Party.
Von Neurath's counsel argues about the individual responsibility of State officials and on the concept of conspiracy, and his resignation.
Fritzsche's counsel asserts that he had little influence within his position in the Propaganda Ministry.
Hess' counsel discusses the economic and political causes that began the Nazi rise to power, and argues against his defendant's participation in a common plan. He also brings up Hess' abortive peace mission to England.
Dönitz's counsel discusses the defendant's Laconia order, his treatment of the shipwrecked and his employment of concentration camp labour.
Raeder's counsel gives his appraisal of the violations of the Versailles Treaty and of their non-aggressive motives, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as condonation of previous treaty violations and aggression against Norway.
Schirach's counsel asserts that he had peaceful aims and methodology, and discusses his youth education programme.
Saukel's counsel argues whether the concept of slave labour and deportation, and the employment of foreign labour, is admissible under International Law. He also points out Saukel's efforts for the improvement of recruitment methods, and working and living conditions.
Jodl's counsel discusses his part in the aggressions from 1938 to 1941, and asserts that the division between the political and military spheres and their responsibilities was beyond the scope of his defendant's position.
Seyss-Inquart's counsel defends his part in the Austrian Anschluss and the famine in Holland.
Bormann's counsel argues that his defendant is already dead.
Von Papen's counsel insists that his defendant had a policy of appeasement and compromise within the Nazi Party.
Speert's counsel maintains that he counteracted Hitler's destruction orders towards the end of the war, and had a limited sphere of responsibilty in the Party.
Von Neurath's counsel argues about the individual responsibility of State officials and on the concept of conspiracy, and his resignation.
Fritzsche's counsel asserts that he had little influence within his position in the Propaganda Ministry.
Hess' counsel discusses the economic and political causes that began the Nazi rise to power, and argues against his defendant's participation in a common plan. He also brings up Hess' abortive peace mission to England.
