. NMT05-T0161
Volume V · Page 161
| simultaneously he was leader of
the Administration District Danzig-West Prussia of the Allgemeine SS and deputy
of the RKFDV. From 20 April 1943 to the end of the war, he was chief of RuSHA.
From 1939 to 1945, while serving in these capacities, he was deeply implicated
in many measures put into force in the furtherance of the Germanization
program, as has heretofore been set forth in detail in this judgment. By an
abundance of evidence, it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant Hildebrandt actively participated in and is criminally
responsible for the following criminal activities: the kidnaping of alien
children; forcible abortions on Eastern workers; taking away infants of Eastern
workers; the illegal and unjust punishment of foreign nationals for sexual
intercourse with Germans; hampering the reproduction of enemy nationals; the
forced evacuation and resettlement of populations; the forced Germanization of
enemy nationals; and the utilization of the enemy nationals as slave labor.
Hildebrandt, as the sole defendant, is charged with special responsibility for and participation in the extermination of thousands of German nationals pursuant to the so-called "Euthanasia program." It is not contended that this program, insofar as Hildebrandt might have been connected with it, was extended to foreign nationals. It is urged by the prosecution, however, that notwithstanding this fact, the extermination of German nationals under such a program constitutes a crime against humanity; and in support of this argument the prosecution cites the judgment of the International Military Tribunal as well as the judgment in the case of the United States of America vs. Brandt, Case No. 1. Neither decision substantiated the contention of the prosecution. For instance, in holding defendants guilty in the Brandt judgment, the Tribunal expressly pointed out that the defendants, in participating in this program, were responsible for exterminating foreign nationals. The Tribunal expressly stated: |
"Whether or not a state may validly enact legislation which imposes euthanasia upon certain classes of its citizens is likewise a question which does not enter into the issues. Assuming that it may do so, the Family of Nations is not obliged to give recognition to such legislation when it manifestly gives legality to plain murder and torture of defenseless and powerless human beings of other nations. |
