Visit https://ebookultra.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebooks or textbooks

Electronic Circuits with MATLAB PSpice and Smith

Chart 1st Edition Won Y. Yang

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookultra.com/download/electronic-circuits-with-
matlab-pspice-and-smith-chart-1st-edition-won-y-yang/

Explore and download more ebooks or textbooks at ebookultra.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Circuit Systems with MATLAB and PSpice 1st Edition Won Y.

Yang

https://ebookultra.com/download/circuit-systems-with-matlab-and-
pspice-1st-edition-won-y-yang/

Engineering computation with MATLAB 2nd ed Edition David M

Smith

https://ebookultra.com/download/engineering-computation-with-
matlab-2nd-ed-edition-david-m-smith/

Electronic Circuits Fundamentals and Applications 3rd

Edition Mike Tooley

https://ebookultra.com/download/electronic-circuits-fundamentals-and-
applications-3rd-edition-mike-tooley/

Semiconductor Devices Electronics and Electronic Circuits

First Edition Zambuto

https://ebookultra.com/download/semiconductor-devices-electronics-and-
electronic-circuits-first-edition-zambuto/
Electronic Devices and Integrated Circuits 2nd Edition B.
P. Singh

https://ebookultra.com/download/electronic-devices-and-integrated-
circuits-2nd-edition-b-p-singh/

Electronic Circuits Fundamentals and Applications 4th

Edition Michael H. Tooley

https://ebookultra.com/download/electronic-circuits-fundamentals-and-
applications-4th-edition-michael-h-tooley/

Introductory Electronic Devices and Circuits Conventional

Flow Version Sixth Edition Paynter

https://ebookultra.com/download/introductory-electronic-devices-and-
circuits-conventional-flow-version-sixth-edition-paynter/

Fast Analytical Techniques for Electrical Electronic

Circuits 1st Edition Vatche Vorperian

https://ebookultra.com/download/fast-analytical-techniques-for-
electrical-electronic-circuits-1st-edition-vatche-vorperian/

Schaum s Outlines Electronic Devices and Circuits Second

Edition Jimmie J. Cathey

https://ebookultra.com/download/schaum-s-outlines-electronic-devices-
and-circuits-second-edition-jimmie-j-cathey/
Electronic Circuits with MATLAB PSpice and Smith
Chart 1st Edition Won Y. Yang Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Won Y. Yang, Jaekwon Kim, Kyung W. Park, Donghyun Baek,
Sungjoon Lim, Jingon Joung, Suhyun Park, Han L. Lee, Woo June Choi,
Taeho Im
ISBN(s): 9781119598923, 1119598923
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 54.97 MB
Year: 2020
Language: english
Electronic Circuits with MATLAB®,
PSpice®, and Smith Chart
Electronic Circuits with MATLAB®,
PSpice®, and Smith Chart

Won Y. Yang, Jaekwon Kim, Kyung W. Park,

Donghyun Baek, Sungjoon Lim,
Jingon Joung, Suhyun Park, Han L. Lee,
Woo June Choi, and Taeho Im
This edition first published 2020
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from
this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Won Y. Yang, Jaekwon Kim, Kyung W. Park, Donghyun Baek, Sungjoon Lim, Jingon
Joung, Suhyun Park, Han L. Lee, Woo June Choi, and Taeho Im be identified as the authors of this
work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Office
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
Editorial Office
111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley
products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some
content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
MATLAB® is a trademark of The MathWorks, Inc. and is used with permission. The MathWorks
does not warrant the accuracy of the text or exercises in this book. This work’s use or discussion of
MATLAB® software or related products does not constitute endorsement or sponsorship by The
MathWorks of a particular pedagogical approach or particular use of the MATLAB® software.
While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no
representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of
this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied
warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or
extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work.
The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or
potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the
information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations
it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering
professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your
situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware
that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was
written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit
or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential,
or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data applied for
ISBN: 9781119598923
Cover design: Wiley
Cover image: © green_01/Shutterstock
Set in 10/12pt Warnock by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India
Printed in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
To our parents and families
who love and support us
and
to our teachers and students
who enriched our knowledge
 vii

Contents

Preface xiii
About the Companion Website xv

1 Load Line Analysis and Fourier Series 1

1.1 Load Line Analysis 1
1.1.1 Load Line Analysis of a Nonlinear Resistor Circuit 3
1.1.2 Load Line Analysis of a Nonlinear RL circuit 7
1.2 Voltage-Current Source Transformation 10
1.3 Thevenin/Norton Equivalent Circuits 11
1.4 Miller’s Theorem 18
1.5 Fourier Series 18
1.5.1 Computation of Fourier Coefficients Using Symmetry 20
1.5.2 Circuit Analysis Using Fourier Series 29
1.5.3 RMS Value and Distortion Factor of a Non-Sinusoidal
Periodic Signal 35
Problems 36

2 Diode Circuits 43
2.1 The v-i Characteristic of Diodes 43
2.1.1 Large-Signal Diode Model for Switching Operations 44
2.1.2 Small-Signal Diode Model for Amplifying Operations 44
2.2 Analysis/Simulation of Diode Circuits 46
2.2.1 Examples of Diode Circuits 46
2.2.2 Clipper/Clamper Circuits 51
2.2.3 Half-wave Rectifier 53
2.2.4 Half-wave Rectifier with Capacitor – Peak Rectifier 53
2.2.5 Full-wave Rectifier 57
2.2.6 Full-wave Rectifier with LC Filter 59
2.2.7 Precision Rectifiers 62
2.2.7.1 Improved Precision Half-wave Rectifier 63
viii Contents

2.2.7.2 Precision Full-wave Rectifier 65

2.2.8 Small-Signal (AC) Analysis of Diode Circuits 67
2.3 Zender Diodes 75
Problems 85

3 BJT Circuits 105

3.1 BJT (Bipolar Junction Transistor) 106
3.1.1 Ebers-Moll Representation of BJT 106
3.1.2 Operation Modes (Regions) of BJT 109
3.1.3 Parameters of BJT 109
3.1.4 Common-Base Configuration 111
3.1.5 Common-Emitter Configuration 113
3.1.6 Large-Signal (DC) Model of BJT 115
3.1.7 Small-Signal (AC) Model of BJT 142
3.1.8 Analysis of BJT Circuits 143
3.1.9 BJT Current Mirror 156
3.1.10 BJT Inverter/Switch 161
3.1.11 Emitter-Coupled Differential Pair 165
3.2 BJT Amplifier Circuits 168
3.2.1 Common-Emitter (CE) Amplifier 169
3.2.2 Common-Collector (CC) Amplifier (Emitter Follower) 173
3.2.3 Common-Base (CB) Amplifier 180
3.2.4 Multistage Cascaded BJT Amplifier 187
3.2.5 Composite/Compound Multi-Stage BJT Amplifier 199
3.3 Logic Gates Using Diodes/Transistors[C-3, M-1] 209
3.3.1 DTL NAND Gate 209
3.3.2 TTL NAND Gate 215
3.3.2.1 Basic TTL NAND Gate Using Two BJTs 215
3.3.2.2 TTL NAND Gate Using Three BJTs 218
3.3.2.3 Totem-Pole Output Stage 222
3.3.2.4 Open-Collector Output and Tristate Output 227
3.3.3 ECL (Emitter-Coupled Logic) OR/NOR Gate 229
3.4 Design of BJT Amplifier 239
3.4.1 Design of CE Amplifier with Specified Voltage Gain 232
3.4.2 Design of CC Amplifier (Emitter Follower) with Specified Input
Resistance 239
3.5 BJT Amplifier Frequency Response 243
3.5.1 CE Amplifier 243
3.5.2 CC Amplifier (Emitter Follower) 248
3.5.3 CB Amplifier 255
3.6 BJT Inverter Time Response 259
Problems 266
 Contents ix

4 FET Circuits 303

4.1 Field-Effect Transistor (FET) 303
4.1.1 JFET (Junction FET) 304
4.1.2 MOSFET (Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor FET) 313
4.1.3 MOSFET Used as a Resistor 327
4.1.4 FET Current Mirror 328
4.1.5 MOSFET Inverter 338
4.1.5.1 NMOS Inverter Using an Enhancement NMOS as a Load 342
4.1.5.2 NMOS Inverter Using a Depletion NMOS as a Load 347
4.1.5.3 CMOS Inverter 350
4.1.6 Source-Coupled Differential Pair 355
4.1.7 CMOS Logic Circuits 359
4.2 FET Amplifer 360
4.2.1 Common-Source (CS) Amplifier 362
4.2.2 CD Amplifier (Source Follower) 366
4.2.3 Common-Gate (CG) Amplifier 370
4.2.4 Common-Source (CS) Amplifier with FET Load 373
4.2.4.1 CS Amplifier with an Enhancement FET Load 373
4.2.4.2 CS Amplifier with a Depletion FET Load 376
4.2.5 Multistage FET Amplifiers 380
4.3 Design of FET Amplifier 398
4.3.1 Design of CS Amplifier 398
4.3.2 Design of CD Amplifier 405
4.4 FET Amplifier Frequency Response 409
4.4.1 CS Amplifier 410
4.4.2 CD Amplifier (Source Follower) 415
4.4.3 CG Amplifier 419
4.5 FET Inverter Time Response 423
Problems 428

5 OP Amp Circuits 467

5.1 OP Amp Basics [Y-1] 468
5.2 OP Amp Circuits with Resistors [Y-1] 471
5.2.1 OP Amp Circuits with Negative Feedback 471
5.2.1.1 Inverting OP Amp Circuit 471
5.2.1.2 Non-Inverting OP Amp Circuit 473
5.2.1.3 Voltage Follower 476
5.2.1.4 Linear Combiner 477
5.2.2 OP Amp Circuits with Positive Feedback 479
5.2.2.1 Inverting Positive Feedback OP Amp Circuit 480
5.2.2.2 Non-Inverting Positive Feedback OP Amp Circuit 481
5.3 First-Order OP Amp Circuits [Y-1] 485
x Contents

5.3.1 First-Order OP Amp Circuits with Negative Feedback 485

5.3.2 First-Order OP Amp Circuits with Positive Feedback 487
5.3.2.1 Square(Rectangular)-Wave Generator 487
5.3.2.2 Rectangular/Triangular-Wave Generator 490
5.3.3 555 Timer Using OP Amp as Comparator 492
5.4 Second-Order OP Amp Circuits [Y-1] 495
5.4.1 MFB (Multi-FeedBack) Topology 495
5.4.2 Sallen-Key Topology 496
5.5 Active Filter [Y-1] 502
5.5.1 First-Order Active Filter 502
5.5.2 Second-Order Active LPF/HPF 503
5.5.3 Second-Order Active BPF 505
5.5.4 Second-Order Active BSF 507
Problems 512

6 Analog Filter523
6.1 Analog Filter Design 523
6.2 Passive Filter 533
6.2.1 Low-pass Filter (LPF) 533
6.2.1.1 Series LR Circuit 533
6.2.1.2 Series RC Circuit 535
6.2.2 High-pass Filter (HPF) 535
6.2.2.1 Series CR Circuit 535
6.2.2.2 Series RL Circuit 536
6.2.3 Band-pass Filter (BPF) 537
6.2.3.1 Series Resistor, an Inductor, and a Capacitor (RLC) Circuit and Series
Resonance 536
6.2.3.2 Parallel RLC Circuit and Parallel Resonance 539
6.2.4 Band-stop Filter (BSF) 541
6.2.4.1 Series RLC Circuit 541
6.2.4.2 Parallel RLC Circuit 544
6.2.5 Quality Factor 545
6.2.6 Insertion Loss 549
6.2.7 Frequency Scaling and Transformation 549
6.3 Passive Filter Realization 553
6.3.1 LC Ladder 553
6.3.2 L-Type Impedance Matcher 561
6.3.3 T- and П-Type Impedance Matchers 565
6.3.4 Tapped-C Impedance Matchers 571
6.4 Active Filter Realization 576
Problems 586
 Contents xi

7 Smith Chart and Impedance Matching 601

7.1 Transmission Line 601
7.2 Smith Chart 608
7.3 Impedance Matching Using Smith Chart 616
7.3.1 Reactance Effect of a Lossless Line 616
7.3.2 Single-Stub Impedance Matching 618
7.3.2.1 Shunt-Connected Single Stub 618
7.3.2.2 Series-Connected Single Stub 622
7.3.3 Double-Stub Impedance Matching 626
7.3.4 The Quarter-Wave Transformer 631
7.3.4.1 Binomial Multisection QWT 633
7.3.4.2 Chebyshev Multisection QWT 634
7.3.5 Filter Implementation Using Stubs [P-1] 635
7.3.6 Impedance Matching with Lumped Elements 646
Problems 661

8 Two-Port Network and Parameters 677

8.1 Two-Port Parameters [Y-1] 677
8.1.1 Definitions and Examples of Two-Port Parameters 678
8.1.2 Relationships Among Two-Port Parameters 685
8.1.3 Interconnection of Two-Port Networks 689
8.1.3.1 Series Connection and z-parameters 690
8.1.3.2 Parallel (Shunt) Connection and y-parameters 690
8.1.3.3 Series-Parallel(Shunt) Connection and h-parameters 691
8.1.3.4 Parallel(Shunt)-Series Connection and g-parameters 691
8.1.3.5 Cascade Connection and a-parameters 692
8.1.4 Curse of Port Condition 692
8.1.5 Circuit Models with Given Parameters 697
8.1.5.1 Circuit Model with Given z-parameters 697
8.1.5.2 Circuit Model with Given y-parameters 699
8.1.5.3 Circuit Model with Given a/b-parameters 699
8.1.5.4 Circuit Model with Given h/g-parameters 699
8.1.6 Properties of Two-Port Networks with Source/Load 700
8.2 Scattering Parameters 709
8.2.1 Definition of Scattering Parameters 709
8.2.2 Two-Port Network with Source/Load 714
8.3 Gain and Stability 723
8.3.1 Two-Port Power Gains [L-1, P-1] 723
8.3.2 Stability [E-1, L-1, P-1] 728
8.3.3 Design for Maximum Gain [M-2, P-1] 733
8.3.4 Design for Specified Gain [M-2, P-1] 740
Problems 746
xii Contents

Appendix A Laplace Transform 761

Appendix B Matrix Operations with MATLAB 767
Appendix C Complex Number Operations with MATLAB 773
Appendix D Nonlinear/Differential Equations with MATLAB 775
Appendix E Symbolic Computations with MATLAB 779
Appendix F Useful Formulas 783
Appendix G Standard Values of Resistors, Capacitors, and Inductors 785
Appendix H OrCAD/PSpice® 791
Appendix I MATLAB® Introduction 831
Appendix J Diode/BJT/FET 835

Bibliography 845
Index 849
 xiii

Preface

The aim of this book is not to let the readers drowned into a sea of computa-
tions. More hopefully, it aims to inspire the readers with mind and strength
to make full use of the MATLAB and PSpice softwares so that they can feel
comfortable with mathematical equations without caring about how to solve
them and further can enjoy developing their ability to analyze/design electronic
circuits. It aims also to present the readers with a steppingstone to radio
frequency (RF) circuit design from junior–senior level to senior-graduate
level by demonstrating how MATLAB can be used for the design and imple-
mentation of microstrip filters. The features of this book can be summarized
as follows:
1) For representative examples of designing/analyzing electronic circuits, the
analytical solutions are presented together with the results of MATLAB
design and analysis (based on the theory) and PSpice simulation (similar to
the experiment) in the form of trinity. This approach gives the readers not
only information about the state of the art, but also confidence in the
legitimacy of the solution as long as the solutions obtained by using the two
software tools agree with each other.
2) For representative examples of impedance matching and filter design, the
solution using MATLAB and that using Smith chart have been presented
for comparison/crosscheck. This approach is expected to give the readers
not only confidence in the legitimacy of the solution, but also deeper
understanding of the solution.
3) The purposes of the two softwares, MATLAB and PSpice, seem to be
overlapped and it is partly true. However, they can be differentiated since
MATLAB is mainly used to design circuits and perform a preliminary
analysis of (designed) circuits while PSpice is mainly used for detailed and
almost real-world simulation of (designed) circuits.
4) Especially, it presents how to use MATLAB and PSpice not only for
designing/analyzing electronic and RF circuits but also for understanding
the underlying processes and related equations without having to struggle
with time-consuming/error-prone computations.
xiv Preface

The contents of this book are derived from the works of many (known or
unknown) great scientists, scholars, and researchers, all of whom are deeply
appreciated. We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments
and suggestions, which contribute to enriching this book.
We also thank the people of the School of Electronic and Electrical Engineer-
ing, Chung-Ang University for giving us an academic environment. Without
affections and supports of our families and friends, this book could not be
written. We gratefully acknowledge the editorial, Brett Kurzman and produc-
tion staff of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. including Project Editor Antony Sami
and Production Editor Viniprammia Premkumar for their kind, efficient, and
encouraging guide.
Program files can be downloaded from https://wyyang53.wixsite.com/mysite/
publications. Any questions, comments, and suggestions regarding this book
are welcome and they should be mailed to wyyang53@hanmail.net.

Won Y. Yang et al.

 xv

About the Companion Website

Do not forget to visit the companion website for this book:

www.wiley.com/go/yang/electroniccircuits

Scan this QR code to visit the companion website.

There you will find valuable material designed to enhance your learning,
including the following:

•• Learning Outcomes for all chapters

Exercises for all chapters
•• References for all chapters
Further reading for all chapters
• Figures for Chapters 16, 22, and 30
 1

Load Line Analysis and Fourier Series

CHAPTER OUTLINE

1.1 Load Line Analysis, 1

1.1.1 Load Line Analysis of a Nonlinear Resistor Circuit, 3
1.1.2 Load Line Analysis of a Nonlinear RL circuit, 7
1.2 Voltage-Current Source Transformation, 10
1.3 Thevenin/Norton Equivalent Circuits, 11
1.4 Miller’s Theorem, 18
1.5 Fourier Series, 18
1.5.1 Computation of Fourier Coefficients Using Symmetry, 20
1.5.2 Circuit Analysis Using Fourier Series, 29
1.5.3 RMS Value and Distortion Factor of a Non-Sinusoidal Periodic Signal, 35
Problems, 36

1.1 Load Line Analysis

The v-i characteristic of a nonlinear resistor such as a diode or a transistor is
often described by a curve on the v-i plane rather than by a mathematical rela-
tion. The v-i characteristic curve can be obtained by using a curve tracer for
nonlinear resistors. To analyze circuits containing a nonlinear resistor, we
should use the load line analysis. To grasp the concept of the load line, consider
the graphical analysis of the circuit in Figure 1.1(a), which consists of a linear
resistor R1, a nonlinear resistor R2, a DC voltage source Vs, and an AC voltage
source of small amplitude vδ Vs. Kirchhoff’s voltage law (KVL) can be applied
around the mesh to yield the mesh equation as

Electronic Circuits with MATLAB®, PSpice®, and Smith Chart, First Edition. Won Y. Yang,
Jaekwon Kim, Kyung W. Park, Donghyun Baek, Sungjoon Lim, Jingon Joung, Suhyun Park,
Han L. Lee, Woo June Choi, and Taeho Im.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Companion website: www.wiley.com/go/yang/electroniccircuits
2 1 Load Line Analysis and Fourier Series

(a) (b)
v[V] Vs = v2(IQ) + R1IQ
i1 R1 = RL i2
+ v = Vs
vδ sin ωt Vs

Nonlinear resistor
+ v = v2( i ) + R1i
i1 = i2 v2( i )
v2(i2) VQ
=i
Vs R 1i

i[A]
0 IQ
Nonlinear resistor circuit Graphical analysis method 1

(c)
v[V]
Vs v = Vs – R1i (Load line)
Operating point v2(i)
Q The characteristic curve
VQ of the nonlinear resistor
Slope
– R1
v2(IQ) = Vs – R1IQ
i[A]
0 IQ Vs / R1
Graphical analysis method 2 using load line

Figure 1.1 Graphical analysis of a linear/nonlinear resistor circuit.

R1 i + v2 i = Vs (1.1.1)
where the v-i relationship of R2 is denoted by v2(i) and represented by the char-
acteristic curve in Figure 1.1(b). We will consider a graphical method, which
yields the quiescent, operating, or bias point Q = (IQ, VQ), that is, a pair of
the current through and the voltage across R2 for vδ = 0.
Since no specific mathematical expression of v2(i) is given, we cannot use any
analytical method to solve this equation and that is why we are going to resort to
a graphical method. First, we may think of plotting the graph for the LHS (left-
hand side) of Eq. (1.1.1) and finding its intersection with a horizontal line for the
RHS (right-hand side), that is, v = Vs as depicted in Figure 1.1(b). Another way is
to leave only the nonlinear term on the LHS and move the other term(s) into the
RHS to rewrite Eq. (1.1.1) as
v2 i = Vs −R1 i (1.1.2)
 1.1 Load Line Analysis 3

and find the intersection, called the operating point and denoted by Q (quiescent
point), of the graphs for both sides as depicted in Figure 1.1(c). The straight line
with the slope of −R1 is called the load line. This graphical method is better than
the first one in the aspect that it does not require us to plot a new curve for v2(i)
+ R1i. That is why it is widely used to analyze nonlinear resistor circuits in the
name of ‘load line analysis’. Note the following:

• Most resistors appearing in this book are linear in the sense that their voltages
are linearly proportional to their currents so that their voltage-current
relationships (VCRs) are described by Ohm’s law
v=Ri (1.1.3)
and consequently, their v-i characteristics are described by straight lines pass-
ing through the origin with the slopes corresponding to their resistances on
the i-v plane. However, they may have been modeled or approximated to be
linear just for simplicity and convenience, because all physical resistors more
or less exhibit some nonlinear characteristic. The problem is whether or not
the modeling is valid in the range of practical operation so that it may yield the
solution with sufficient accuracy to serve the objective of analysis and design.
• A curve tracer is an instrument that displays the v-i characteristic curve of an
electric element on a cathode-ray tube (CRT) when the element is inserted
into an appropriate receptacle.

1.1.1 Load Line Analysis of a Nonlinear Resistor Circuit

Consider the circuit in Figure 1.1(a), where a linear load resistor R1 = RL and a
nonlinear resistor R connected in series are driven by a DC voltage source Vs
in series with a small-amplitude AC voltage source producing the virtual voltage
as
vs t = Vs + vδ sin ωt (1.1.4)
The VCR v(i) of the nonlinear resistor R is described by the characteristic curve
in Figure 1.2.
As depicted in Figure 1.2, the upper/lower limits as well as the equilibrium
value of the current i through the circuit can be obtained from the three oper-
ating points, that is, the intersections (Q1, Q, and Q2) of the characteristic curve
with the following three load lines.

v = Vs + vδ −RL i (1.1.5a)
v = Vs − RL i (1.1.5b)
v = Vs − vδ −RL i (1.1.5c)
4 1 Load Line Analysis and Fourier Series

ΔQQʹ B ΔQCQʹQC cos θ ΔAQC AQ cos θL cos θ

iδ = QB QQʹ1cos θ
cos(90° – θL – θ) sin(θL + θ)

oin e
g p lin
v[V] (F.5) cos θL cos θ 1

t
tin oad
vδ = vδ
Vs + vδ v= sin θL cos θ + cos θL sin θ tan θL+ tan θ tic

era e l
V ris

op th
vδ s +v cte
ara n θ

the r to
Vs v= δ –R A h
c a
Slope the = t

gh ula
v V Li (
Vs – vδ = Vs – s –R M (to r d

ou dic
vδ L i (L inor –RL = –tan θL i ne lope
–R

thr rpen
oa loa t l s
d dl The characteristic curve en th
Li (
Mi line
C ng wi

pe
ine of the nonlinear resistor Ta rve)
no ) )
r lo v(i) Qʹ1 c u v(i)
ad The characteristic curve
lin Q1 vδ
e) Q1 of the nonlinear resistor
Q Operating

–θ
VQ
Q2 point rd iδ
θL

L
θ–
Slope

90
–RL θ θL
Q
B
iδ
v=
V
s –R
Slope Li (
Lo
Rs ad
lin
e)

iδ θL
i[A]
0 IQ Vs / R1

Figure 1.2 Variation of the voltage and current of a nonlinear resistor around the operating
point Q.

Although this approach gives the exact solution, we gain no insight into the
solution from it. Instead, we take a rather approximate approach, which consists
of the following two steps.

• Find the equilibrium (IQ, VQ) at the major operating point Q, which is the
intersection of the characteristic curve with the DC load line (1.1.5b).
• Find the two approximate minor operating points Q1 and Q2 from the inter-
sections of the tangent to the characteristic curve at Q with the two minor
load lines (1.1.5a) and (1.1.5c).
Then we will have the current as

i t = IQ + iδ sin ωt (1.1.6)

With the dynamic, small-signal, or AC resistance rd defined to be the slope of

the tangent to the characteristic curve at Q as

dv
rd = (1.1.7)
di Q

let us find the analytical expressions of IQ and iδ in terms of Vs and vδ, respec-
tively. Referring to the encircled area around the operating point in Figure 1.2,
we can express iδ in terms of vδ as
 1.1 Load Line Analysis 5

ΔQQ B ΔQCQ1 QC cosθ ΔAQC AQcosθL cosθ

iδ = QB = 1 QQ1 cos θ = =
cos 90 − θL −θ sin θL + θ
F5 cos θL cos θ 1
= vδ = vδ (1.1.8)
sin θL cos θ+ cos θL sin θ tan θL + tan θ

This corresponds to approximating the characteristic curve in the operation

range by its tangent at the operating point. Noting that

• the load line and the tangent to the characteristic curve at Q are at angles of
(180 − θL) and θ to the positive i-axis,
• the slope of the load line is tan (180 − θL) =−tan θL and it must be −RL, which
is the proportionality coefficient in i of the load line Eq. (1.1.2); tan θL =RL, and
• the slope of the tangent to the characteristic curve at Q is the dynamic resist-
ance rd defined by Eq. (1.1.7); tan θ = rd,
we can write Eq. (1.1.8) as
vδ
iδ = (1.1.9)
RL + rd

Now we define the static or DC resistance of the nonlinear resistor R to be the

ratio of the voltage VQ to the current IQ at the operating point Q as

VQ Vs −RL IQ
Rs = = (1.1.10)
IQ IQ

so that the DC component of the current, IQ, can be written as

Vs
IQ = (1.1.11)
RL + Rs

Finally, we combine the above results to write the current through and the
voltage across the nonlinear resistor R as follows.

Vs vδ
i t = IQ + iδ sin ωt = + sin ωt (1.1.12)
RL + Rs RL + rd
Rs rd
v t = Rs IQ + rd iδ sin ωt = Vs + vδ sin ωt (1.1.13)
RL + Rs RL + r d

This result implies that the nonlinear resistor exhibits twofold resistance, that is,
the static resistance Rs to a DC input and the dynamic resistance rd to an AC
input of small amplitude. That is why rd is also called the (small-signal) AC
resistance, while Rs is called the DC resistance.
6 1 Load Line Analysis and Fourier Series

Remark 1.1 Operating Point and Static/Dynamic Resistances

of a Nonlinear Resistor
1) For a nonlinear resistor R2 connected with linear resistors in a circuit excited
by a DC source and a small-amplitude AC source, its operating point Q =
(VQ, IQ) is the intersection of its characteristic curve v(i) and the load line.
2) The v-intercept of the load line (v = Vs − RLi) is determined by the DC com-
ponent (Vs) of the voltage source. The slope of the load line is determined by
the equivalent resistance (RL) of the linear part seen from the pair of term-
inals of the nonlinear resistor (see Problem 1.2).
3) The static or DC resistance (Rs) is the ratio of the voltage VQ to the current IQ
at the operating point Q.
4) The dynamic, small-signal, AC, or incremental resistance (rd) is the slope of
the tangent to the characteristic curve at Q.
5) Once we have RL, Rs, and rd, we can use Formulas (1.1.12) and (1.1.13) to find
approximate expressions for the voltage and current of the nonlinear
resistor.
6) As for linear resistors, we do not say the static or dynamic resistance, since
they are identical.
7) The relationship between the AC (small-signal) components of voltage
across and current through the nonlinear resistor can be attributed to the
Taylor series expansion of its VCR v(i) up to the first-order term around
the operating point Q =(VQ, IQ).

dv dv
v i ≈ VQ + i − IQ = VQ + rd iδ with rd = (1.1.14)
di Q di Q

Remark 1.2 DC Analysis and Small-Signal (AC) Analysis

1) The procedure to analyze a circuit (which contains nonlinear resistors like a
diode or a transistor and is driven by a high DC voltage source Vs [for biasing]
and a low AC voltage source vδ sin ωt [for amplification]) consists of two
steps. The first step, called DC analysis, is to remove the AC voltage source
vδ sin ωt and find the operating point Q = (VQ, IQ) of the nonlinear resistor,
which corresponds to the load line analysis. The second step, called small-
signal (AC) analysis, is to find the dynamic resistance rd of the nonlinear
resistor (from the slope of its i-v characteristic curve or the derivative of
its VCR equation at Q-point), remove the DC voltage source Vs, regard
the nonlinear resistor as a linear resistor rd (corresponding to a linear
Other documents randomly have
different content
 The defendants murdered and ill-treated prisoners of war by
denying them adequate food, shelter, clothing and medical care and
attention; by forcing them to labor in inhumane conditions; by
torturing them and subjecting them to inhuman indignities and by
killing them. The German Government and the German High
Command imprisoned prisoners of war in various concentration
camps, where they were killed and subjected to inhuman treatment
by the various methods set forth in paragraph VIII (A). Members of
the armed forces of the countries with whom Germany was at war
were frequently murdered while in the act of surrendering. These
murders and ill-treatment were contrary to International
Conventions, particularly Articles 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Hague
Regulations, 1907, and to Articles 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Prisoners of
War Convention (Geneva 1929), the laws and customs of war, the
general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of
all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which
such crimes were committed, and to Article 6 (b) of the Charter.
Particulars by way of example and without prejudice to the
production of evidence of other cases, are as follows:

1. In the Western Countries:

French officers who escaped from Oflag X C were handed over to
the Gestapo and disappeared; others were murdered by their
guards; others sent to concentration camps and exterminated.
Among others, the men of Stalag VI C were sent to Buchenwald.
Frequently prisoners captured on the Western Front were obliged
to march to the camps until they completely collapsed. Some of
them walked more than 600 kilometers with hardly any food; they
marched on for 48 hours running, without being fed; among them a
certain number died of exhaustion or of hunger; stragglers were
systematically murdered.
The same crimes have been committed in 1943, 1944, and 1945
when the occupants of the camps were withdrawn before the Allied
advance; particularly during the withdrawal of the prisoners of Sagan
on 8 February 1945.
 Bodily punishments were inflicted upon non-commissioned
officers and cadets who refused to work. On 24 December 1943,
three French non-commissioned officers were murdered for that
motive in Stalag IV A. Many ill-treatments were inflicted without
motive on other ranks: stabbing with bayonets, striking with
riflebutts, and whipping; in Stalag XX B the sick themselves were
beaten many times by sentries; in Stalag III B and Stalag III C,
worn-out prisoners were murdered or grievously wounded. In
military jails in Graudenz for instance, in reprisal camps as in Rava-
Ruska, the food was so insufficient that the men lost more than 15
kilograms in a few weeks. In May 1942, one loaf of bread only was
distributed in Rava-Ruska to each group of 35 men.
Orders were given to transfer French officers in chains to the
camp of Mauthausen after they had tried to escape. At their arrival
in camp they were murdered, either by shooting or by gas, and their
bodies destroyed in the crematorium.
American prisoners, officers and men, were murdered in
Normandy during the summer of 1944 and in the Ardennes in
December 1944. American prisoners were starved, beaten, and
otherwise mistreated in numerous Stalags in Germany and in the
occupied countries, particularly in 1943, 1944, and 1945.

2. In the Eastern Countries:

At Orel prisoners of war were exterminated by starvation,
shooting, exposure, and poisoning.
Soviet prisoners of war were murdered en masse on orders from
the High Command and the Headquarters of the SIPO and SD. Tens
of thousands of Soviet prisoners of war were tortured and murdered
at the “Gross Lazaret” at Slavuta.
In addition, many thousands of the persons referred to in
paragraph VIII (A) 2, above, were Soviet prisoners of war.
Prisoners of war who escaped and were recaptured were handed
over to SIPO and SD for shooting.
Frenchmen fighting with the Soviet Army who were captured
were handed over to the Vichy Government for “proceedings”.
 In March 1944, 50 R.A.F. officers who escaped from Stalag Luft
III at Sagan, when recaptured, were murdered.
In September 1941, 11,000 Polish officers who were prisoners of
war were killed in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk.
In Yugoslavia the German Command and the occupying
authorities in the person of the chief officials of the Police, the SS
troops (Police Lieutenant General Rosener) and the Divisional Group
Command (General Kübler and others) in the period 1941-43
ordered the shooting of prisoners of war.

(D) KILLING OF HOSTAGES

Throughout the territories occupied by the German Armed Forces
in the course of waging aggressive wars, the defendants adopted
and put into effect on a wide scale the practice of taking, and of
killing, hostages from the civilian population. These acts were
contrary to international conventions, particularly Article 50 of the
Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general
principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all
civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which
such crimes were committed, and to Article 6 (b) of the Charter.
Particulars by way of example and without prejudice to the
production of evidence of other cases, are as follows:

1. In the Western Countries:

In France hostages were executed either individually or
collectively; these executions took place in all the big cities of
France, among others in Paris, Bordeaux, and Nantes, as well as at
Châteaubriant.
In Holland many hundreds of hostages were shot at the following
among other places—Rotterdam, Apeldoorn, Amsterdam, Benschop,
and Haarlem.
In Belgium many hundreds of hostages were shot during the
period 1940 to 1944.

2. In the Eastern Countries:

 At Kragnevatz in Yugoslavia 2,300 hostages were shot in October
1941.
At Kralevo in Yugoslavia 5,000 hostages were shot.

(E) PLUNDER OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROPERTY

The defendants ruthlessly exploited the people and the material
resources of the countries they occupied, in order to strengthen the
Nazi war machine, to depopulate and impoverish the rest of Europe,
to enrich themselves and their adherents, and to promote German
economic supremacy over Europe.
The defendants engaged in the following acts and practices,
among others:
1. They degraded the standard of life of the people of occupied
countries and caused starvation, by stripping occupied countries
of foodstuffs for removal to Germany.
2. They seized raw materials and industrial machinery in all of the
occupied countries, removed them to Germany and used them
in the interest of the German war effort and the German
economy.
3. In all the occupied countries, in varying degrees, they
confiscated businesses, plants, and other property.
4. In an attempt to give color of legality to illegal acquisitions of
property, they forced owners of property to go through the
forms of “voluntary” and “legal” transfers.
5. They established comprehensive controls over the economies of
all of the occupied countries and directed their resources, their
production and their labor in the interests of the German war
economy, depriving the local populations of the products of
essential industries.
6. By a variety of financial mechanisms, they despoiled all of the
occupied countries of essential commodities and accumulated
wealth, debased the local currency systems and disrupted the
local economies. They financed extensive purchases in occupied
countries through clearing arrangements by which they exacted
 loans from the occupied countries. They imposed occupation
levies, exacted financial contributions, and issued occupation
currency, far in excess of occupation costs. They used these
excess funds to finance the purchase of business properties and
supplies in the occupied countries.
7. They abrogated the rights of the local populations in the
occupied portions of the U.S.S.R. and in Poland and in other
countries to develop or manage agricultural and industrial
properties, and reserved this area for exclusive settlement,
development, and ownership by Germans and their so-called
racial brethren.
8. In further development of their plan of criminal exploitation,
they destroyed industrial cities, cultural monuments, scientific
institutions, and property of all types in the occupied territories
to eliminate the possibility of competition with Germany.
9. From their program of terror, slavery, spoliation, and organized
outrage, the Nazi conspirators created an instrument for the
personal profit and aggrandizement of themselves and their
adherents. They secured for themselves and their adherents:
(a) Positions in administration of business involving power,
influence, and lucrative perquisites.
(b) The use of cheap forced labor.
(c) The acquisition on advantageous terms of foreign properties,
business interests, and raw materials.
(d) The basis for the industrial supremacy of Germany.
These acts were contrary to international conventions,
particularly Articles 46 to 56 inclusive of the Hague Regulations,
1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal
law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the
internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were
committed and to Article 6 (b) of the Charter.

Particulars (by way of example and without prejudice to the

production of evidence of other cases) are as follows:
 1. Western Countries:
There was plundered from the Western Countries, from 1940 to
1944, works of art, artistic objects, pictures, plastics, furniture,
textiles, antique pieces, and similar articles of enormous value to the
number of 21,903.
In France statistics show the following:

Removal of Raw Materials.

Coal 63,000,000 tons
Electric energy 20,976 Mkwh
Petrol and fuel 1,943,750 tons
Iron ore 74,848,000 ”
Siderurgical products 3,822,000 ”
Bauxite 1,211,800 ”
Cement 5,984,000 ”
Lime 1,888,000 ”
Quarry products 25,872,000 ”
and various other products to a total value of 79,961,423,000 francs.

Removal of Industrial Equipment.

Total: 9,759,861,000 francs, of which 2,626,479,000 francs of
machine tools.

Removal of Agricultural Produce.

Total: 126,655,852,000 francs, i. e., for the principal products.
Wheat 2,947,337 tons
Oats 2,354,080 ”
Milk 790,000 hectolitres
” (concentrated and in
powder) 460,000 ”
Butter 76,000 tons
Cheese 49,000 ”
 Potatoes 725,975 ”
Various vegetables 575,000 ”
Wine 7,647,000 hectolitres
Champagne 87,000,000 bottles
Beer 3,821,520 hectolitres
Various kinds of alcohol 1,830,000 ”

Removal of Manufactured Products.

To a total of 184,640,000,000 francs.

Plundering.
Francs: 257,020,024,000 from private enterprise.
Francs: 55,000,100,000 from the State.

Financial Exploitation.
From June 1940 to September 1944 the French Treasury was
compelled to pay to Germany 631,866,000,000 francs.

Looting and Destruction of Works of Art.

The museums of Nantes, Nancy, Old-Marseilles were looted.
Private collections of great value were stolen. In this way
Raphaels, Vermeers, Van Dycks, and works of Rubens, Holbein,
Rembrandt, Watteau, Boucher disappeared. Germany compelled
France to deliver up “The Mystic Lamb” by Van Eyck, which Belgium
had entrusted to her.
In Norway and other occupied countries decrees were made by
which the property of many civilians, societies, etc., was confiscated.
An immense amount of property of every kind was plundered from
France, Belgium, Norway, Holland, and Luxembourg.
As a result of the economic plundering of Belgium between 1940
and 1944 the damage suffered amounted to 175 billions of Belgian
francs.

2. Eastern Countries:
 During the occupation of the Eastern Countries the German
Government and the German High Command carried out, as a
systematic policy, a continuous course of plunder and destruction
including:
On the territory of the Soviet Union the Nazi conspirators
destroyed or severely damaged 1,710 cities and more than 70,000
villages and hamlets, more than 6,000,000 buildings and made
homeless about 25,000,000 persons.
Among the cities which suffered most destruction are Stalingrad,
Sevastopol, Kiev, Minsk, Odessa, Smolensk, Novgorod, Pskov, Orel,
Kharkov, Voronezh, Rostov-on-Don, Stalino, and Leningrad.
As is evident from an official memorandum of the German
command, the Nazi conspirators planned the complete annihilation
of entire Soviet cities. In a completely secret order of the Chief of
the Naval Staff (Staff Ia No. 1601/41, dated 29. IX. 1941) addressed
only to Staff officers, it was said:
“The Führer has decided to erase from the face of the earth St.
Petersburg. The existence of this large city will have no further
interest after Soviet Russia is destroyed. Finland has also said that
the existence of this city on her new border is not desirable from her
point of view. The original request of the Navy that docks, harbor,
etc. necessary for the fleet be preserved—is known to the Supreme
Commander of the Military Forces, but the basic principles of
carrying out operations against St. Petersburg do not make it
possible to satisfy this request.
“It is proposed to approach near to the city and to destroy it with
the aid of an artillery barrage from weapons of different calibers and
with long air attacks . . . .
“The problem of the life of the population and the provisioning of
them is a problem which cannot and must not be decided by us.
“In this war . . . we are not interested in preserving even a part
of the population of this large city.”
The Germans destroyed 427 museums, among them the wealthy
museums of Leningrad, Smolensk, Stalingrad, Novgorod, Poltava,
and others.
 In Pyatigorsk the art objects brought there from the Rostov
museum were seized.
The losses suffered by the coal mining industry alone in the
Stalin region amount to 2,000,000,000 rubles. There was colossal
destruction of industrial establishments in Makerevka, Carlovka,
Yenakievo, Konstantinovka, Mariupol, from which most of the
machinery and factories were removed.
Stealing of huge dimensions and the destruction of industrial,
cultural, and other property was typified in Kiev. More than
4,000,000 books, magazines, and manuscripts (many of which were
very valuable and even unique) and a large number of artistic
productions and valuables of different kinds were stolen and carried
away.
Many valuable art productions were taken away from Riga.
The extent of the plunder of cultural valuables is evidenced by
the fact that 100,000 valuable volumes and 70 cases of ancient
periodicals and precious monographs were carried away by
ROSENBERG’S staff alone.
Among further examples of these crimes are:
Wanton devastation of the city of Novgorod and of many
historical and artistic monuments there. Wanton devastation and
plunder of the city of Rovno and of its province. The destruction of
the industrial, cultural, and other property in Odessa. The
destruction of cities and villages in Soviet Karelia. The destruction in
Estonia of cultural, industrial, and other buildings.
The destruction of medical and prophylactic institutes, the
destruction of agriculture and industry in Lithuania, the destruction
of cities in Latvia.
The Germans approached monuments of culture, dear to the
Soviet people, with special hatred. They broke up the estate of the
poet Pushkin in Mikhailovskoye, desecrating his grave, and
destroying the neighboring villages and the Svyatogor monastery.
They destroyed the estate and museum of Leo Tolstoy, “Yasnaya
Polyana,” and desecrated the grave of the great writer. They
destroyed in Klin the museum of Tchaikovsky and in Penaty, the
museum of the painter Repin and many others.
 The Nazi conspirators destroyed 1,670 Greek Orthodox churches,
237 Roman Catholic churches, 67 chapels, 532 synagogues, etc.
They broke up, desecrated, and senselessly destroyed also the most
valuable monuments of the Christian Church, such as Kievo-
Pecherskaya Lavra, Novy Jerusalem in the Istrin region, and the
most ancient monasteries and churches.
Destruction in Estonia of cultural, industrial, and other premises:
burning down of many thousands of residential buildings; removal of
10,000 works of art; destruction of medical and prophylactic
institutions; plunder and removal to Germany of immense quantities
of agricultural stock including horses, cows, pigs, poultry, beehives,
and agricultural machines of all kinds.
Destruction of agriculture, enslavement of peasants, and looting
of stock and produce in Lithuania.
In the Latvian Republic destruction of the agriculture by the
looting of all stock, machinery, and produce.
The result of this policy of plunder and destruction was to lay
waste the land and cause utter desolation.
The overall value of the material loss which the U.S.S.R. has
borne, is computed to be 679,000,000,000 rubles, in state prices of
1941.
Following the occupation of Czechoslovakia on 15 March 1939
the defendants seized and stole large stocks of raw materials,
copper, tin, iron, cotton, and food; caused to be taken to Germany
large amounts of railway rolling stock, and many engines, carriages,
steam vessels, and trolley buses; plundered libraries, laboratories,
and art museums of books, pictures, objects of art, scientific
apparatus, and furniture; stole all gold reserves and foreign
exchange of Czechoslovakia, including 23,000 kilograms of gold of a
nominal value of £5,265,000; fraudulently acquired control and
thereafter looted the Czech banks and many Czech industrial
enterprises; and otherwise stole, looted, and misappropriated
Czechoslovak public and private property. The total sum of
defendants’ economic spoliation of Czechoslovakia from 1938 to
1945 is estimated at 200,000,000,000 Czechoslovak crowns.
 (F) THE EXACTION OF COLLECTIVE PENALTIES
The Germans pursued a systematic policy of inflicting, in all the
occupied countries, collective penalties, pecuniary and otherwise,
upon the population for acts of individuals for which it could not be
regarded as collectively responsible; this was done at many places,
including Oslo, Stavanger, Trondheim, and Rogaland.
Similar instances occurred in France, among others in Dijon,
Nantes, and as regards the Jewish population in the occupied
territories. The total amount of fines imposed on French
communities add up to 1,157,179,484 francs made up as follows:
A fine on the Jewish population 1,000,000,000
Various fines 157,179,484
These acts violated Article 50, Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws
and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived
from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws
of the countries in which such crimes were committed, and Article 6
(b) of the Charter.

(G) WANTON DESTRUCTION OF CITIES, TOWNS, AND

VILLAGES AND DEVASTATION NOT JUSTIFIED BY
MILITARY NECESSITY
The defendants wantonly destroyed cities, towns, and villages
and committed other acts of devastation without military justification
or necessity. These acts violated Articles 46 and 50 of the Hague
Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general
principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all
civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which
such crimes were committed, and Article 6 (b) of the Charter.
Particulars by way of example only and without prejudice to the
production of evidence of other cases are as follows:

1. Western Countries:
In March 1941, part of Lofoten in Norway was destroyed.
 In April 1942, the town of Telerag in Norway was destroyed.
Entire villages were destroyed in France, among others Oradour-
sur-Glane, Saint-Nizier and, in the Vercors, La Mure, Vassieux, La
Chapelle en Vercors. The town of Saint Dié was burnt down and
destroyed. The Old Port District of Marseilles was dynamited in the
beginning of 1943 and resorts along the Atlantic and the
Mediterranean coasts, particularly the town of Sanary, were
demolished.
In Holland there was most widespread and extensive destruction,
not justified by military necessity, including the destruction of
harbors, locks, dikes, and bridges: immense devastation was also
caused by inundations which equally were not justified by military
necessity.

2. Eastern Countries:
In the Eastern Countries the defendants pursued a policy of
wanton destruction and devastation: some particulars of this
(without prejudice to the production of evidence of other cases) are
set out above under the heading “Plunder of Public and Private
Property”.
In Greece the villages of Amelofito, Kliston, Kizonia, Messovunos,
Selli, Ano-Kerzilion, and Kato-Kerzilion were utterly destroyed.
In Yugoslavia on 15 August 1941, the German military command
officially announced that the village of Skela was burned to the
ground and the inhabitants killed on the order of the command.
On the order of the Field Commander Hoersterberg a punitive
expedition from the SS troops and the field police destroyed the
villages of Machkovats, and Kriva Reka in Serbia and all the
inhabitants were killed.
General Fritz Neidhold (369 Infantry Division) on 11 September
1944, gave an order to destroy the villages of Zagniezde and Udora,
hanging all the men and driving away all the women and children.
In Czechoslovakia the Nazi conspirators also practiced the
senseless destruction of populated places. Lezaky and Lidice were
burned to the ground and the inhabitants killed.
 (H) CONSCRIPTION OF CIVILIAN LABOR
Throughout the occupied territories the defendants conscripted
and forced the inhabitants to labor and requisitioned their services
for purposes other than meeting the needs of the armies of
occupation and to an extent far out of proportion to the resources of
the countries involved. All the civilians so conscripted were forced to
work for the German war effort. Civilians were required to register
and many of those who registered were forced to join the Todt
Organization and the Speer Legion, both of which were semi-military
organizations involving some military training. These acts violated
Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and
customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived
from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws
of the countries in which such crimes were committed, and Article 6
(b) of the Charter.
Particulars, by way of example only and without prejudice to the
production of evidence of other cases, are as follows:

1. Western Countries:
In France, from 1942 to 1944, 963,813 persons were compelled
to work in Germany and 737,000 to work in France for the German
Army.
In Luxembourg in 1944 alone, 2,500 men and 500 girls were
conscripted for forced labor.

2. Eastern Countries:
Of the large number of citizens of the Soviet Union and of
Czechoslovakia referred to under Count Three VIII (B) 2 above many
were so conscripted for forced labor.

(I) FORCING CIVILIANS OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES TO

SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO A HOSTILE POWER
Civilians who joined the Speer Legion, as set forth in paragraph
(H) above, were required, under threat of depriving them of food,
money, and identity papers, to swear a solemn oath acknowledging
unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of Germany,
which was to them a hostile power.
In Lorraine, civil servants were obliged, in order to retain their
positions, to sign a declaration by which they acknowledged the
“return of their country to the Reich”, pledged themselves to obey
without reservation the orders of their chiefs and put themselves “at
the active service of the Führer and the Great National Socialist
Germany”.
A similar pledge was imposed on Alsatian civil servants by threat
of deportation or internment.
These acts violated Article 45 of the Hague Regulations, 1907,
the laws and customs of war, the general principles of international
law, and Article 6 (b) of the Charter.

(J) GERMANIZATION OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

In certain occupied territories purportedly annexed to Germany
the defendants methodically and pursuant to plan endeavored to
assimilate those territories politically, culturally, socially, and
economically into the German Reich. The defendants endeavored to
obliterate the former national character of these territories. In
pursuance of these plans and endeavors, the defendants forcibly
deported inhabitants who were predominantly non-German and
introduced thousands of German colonists.
This plan included economic domination, physical conquest,
installation of puppet governments, purported de jure annexation
and enforced conscription into the German Armed Forces.
This was carried out in most of the occupied countries including:
Norway, France (particularly in the Departments of Upper Rhine,
Lower Rhine, Moselle, Ardennes, Aisne, Nord, Meurthe and Moselle),
Luxembourg, the Soviet Union, Denmark, Belgium, and Holland.
In France in the Departments of Aisne, Nord, Meurthe and
Moselle, and especially in that of Ardennes, rural properties were
seized by a German state organization which tried to have them
exploited under German direction; the landowners of these
exploitations were dispossessed and turned into agricultural laborers.
In the Department of Upper Rhine, Lower Rhine, and Moselle,
the methods of Germanization were those of annexation followed by
conscription.
1. From the month of August 1940, officials who refused to take
the oath of allegiance to the Reich were expelled. On 21 September
expulsions and deportation of populations began and on 22
November 1940, more than 70,000 Lorrainers or Alsatians were
driven into the south zone of France. From 31 July 1941 onwards,
more than 100,000 persons were deported into the eastern regions
of the Reich or to Poland. All the property of the deportees or
expelled persons was confiscated. At the same time, 80,000
Germans coming from the Saar or from Westphalia were installed in
Lorraine and 2,000 farms belonging to French people were
transferred to Germans.
2. From 2 January 1942, all the young people of the Departments
of Upper Rhine and Lower Rhine, aged from 10 to 18 years, were
incorporated in the Hitler Youth. The same thing was done in Moselle
from 4 August 1942. From 1940 all the French schools were closed,
their staffs expelled, and the German school system was introduced
in the three Departments.
3. On the 28 September 1940, an order applicable to the
Department of Moselle ordained the Germanization of all the
surnames and Christian names which were French in form. The
same thing was done from 15 January 1943, in the Departments of
Upper Rhine and Lower Rhine.
4. Two orders from 23 to 24 August 1942 imposed by force
German nationality on French citizens.
5. On 8 May 1941, for Upper Rhine and Lower Rhine, 23 April
1941, for Moselle, orders were promulgated enforcing compulsory
labor service on all French citizens of either sex aged from 17 to 25
years. From 1 January 1942 for young men and from 26 January
1942 for young girls, national labor service was effectively organized
in Moselle. It was from 27 August 1942 in Upper Rhine and in Lower
Rhine for young men only. The classes 1940, 1941, 1942 were called
up.
6. These classes were retained in the Wehrmacht on the
expiration of their time and labor service. On 19 August 1942, an
order instituted compulsory military service in Moselle. On 25 August
1942, the classes 1940-44 were called up in three departments.
Conscription was enforced by the German authorities in conformity
with the provisions of German legislation. The first revision boards
took place from 3 September 1942. Later in Upper Rhine and Lower
Rhine new levies were effected everywhere on classes 1928 to 1939
inclusive. The French people who refused to obey these laws were
considered as deserters and their families were deported, while their
property was confiscated.
These acts violated Articles 43, 46, 55, and 56 of the Hague
Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general
principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all
civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which
such crimes were committed, and Article 6 (b) of the Charter.

IX. Individual, group, and organization responsibility for the offense

stated In Count Three

Reference is hereby made to Appendix A of this Indictment for a

statement of the responsibility of the individual defendants for the
offense set forth in this Count Three of the Indictment. Reference is
hereby made to Appendix B of this Indictment for a statement of the
responsibility of the groups and organizations named herein as
criminal groups and organizations for the offense set forth in this
Count Three of the Indictment.
 COUNT FOUR—CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
(Charter, Article 6, especially 6 (c))

X. Statement of the Offense

All the defendants committed Crimes against Humanity during a

period of years preceding 8 May 1945 in Germany and in all those
countries and territories occupied by the German armed forces since
1 September 1939 and in Austria and Czechoslovakia and in Italy
and on the High Seas.
All the defendants, acting in concert with others, formulated and
executed a common plan or conspiracy to commit Crimes against
Humanity as defined in Article 6 (c) of the Charter. This plan
involved, among other things, the murder and persecution of all who
were or who were suspected of being hostile to the Nazi Party and
all who were or who were suspected of being opposed to the
common plan alleged in Count One.
The said Crimes against Humanity were committed by the
defendants and by other persons for whose acts the defendants are
responsible (under Article 6 of the Charter) as such other persons,
when committing the said War Crimes, performed their acts in
execution of a common plan and conspiracy to commit the said War
Crimes, in the formulation and execution of which plan and
conspiracy all the defendants participated as leaders, organizers,
instigators, and accomplices.
These methods and crimes constituted violations of international
conventions, of internal penal laws, of the general principles of
criminal law as derived from the criminal law of all civilized nations
and were involved in and part of a systematic course of conduct.
The said acts were contrary to Article 6 of the Charter.
The Prosecution will rely upon the facts pleaded under Count
Three as also constituting Crimes against Humanity.
 (A) MURDER, EXTERMINATION, ENSLAVEMENT, DEPORTATION,
AND OTHER INHUMANE ACTS COMMITTED
AGAINST CIVILIAN POPULATIONS BEFORE AND DURING
THE WAR
For the purposes set out above, the defendants adopted a policy
of persecution, repression, and extermination of all civilians in
Germany who were, or who were believed to be, or who were
believed likely to become, hostile to the Nazi Government and the
common plan or conspiracy described in Count One. They
imprisoned such persons without judicial process, holding them in
“protective custody” and concentration camps, and subjected them
to persecution, degradation, despoilment, enslavement, torture, and
murder.
Special courts were established to carry out the will of the
conspirators; favored branches or agencies of the State and Party
were permitted to operate outside the range even of nazified law
and to crush all tendencies and elements which were considered
“undesirable”. The various concentration camps included
Buchenwald, which was established in 1933, and Dachau, which was
established in 1934. At these and other camps the civilians were put
to slave labor, and murdered and ill-treated by divers means,
including those set out in Count Three above, and these acts and
policies were continued and extended to the occupied countries after
1 September 1939, and until 8 May 1945.

(B) PERSECUTION ON POLITICAL, RACIAL, AND RELIGIOUS

GROUNDS IN EXECUTION OF AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE
COMMON PLAN MENTIONED IN COUNT ONE
As above stated, in execution of and in connection with the
common plan mentioned in Count One, opponents of the German
Government were exterminated and persecuted. These persecutions
were directed against Jews. They were also directed against persons
whose political belief or spiritual aspirations were deemed to be in
conflict with the aims of the Nazis.
Jews were systematically persecuted since 1933; they were
deprived of their liberty, thrown into concentration camps where
they were murdered and ill-treated. Their property was confiscated.
Hundreds of thousands of Jews were so treated before 1 September
1939.
Since 1 September 1939, the persecution of the Jews was
redoubled: millions of Jews from Germany and from the occupied
Western Countries were sent to the Eastern Countries for
extermination.
Particulars by way of example and without prejudice to the
production of evidence of other cases are as follows:
The Nazis murdered amongst others Chancellor Dollfuss, the
Social Democrat Breitscheid, and the Communist Thälmann. They
imprisoned in concentration camps numerous political and religious
personages, for example Chancellor Schuschnigg and Pastor
Niemöller.
In November 1938, by orders of the Chief of the Gestapo, anti-
Jewish demonstrations all over Germany took place. Jewish property
was destroyed, 30,000 Jews were arrested and sent to concentration
camps and their property confiscated.
Under paragraph VIII (A), above, millions of the persons there
mentioned as having been murdered and ill-treated were Jews.
Among other mass murders of Jews were the following:
At Kislovdosk all Jews were made to give up their property: 2,000
were shot in an anti-tank ditch at Mineraliye Vodi: 4,300 other Jews
were shot in the same ditch.
60,000 Jews were shot on an island on the Dvina near Riga.
20,000 Jews were shot at Lutsk.
32,000 Jews were shot at Sarny.
60,000 Jews were shot at Kiev and Dniepropetrovsk.
Thousands of Jews were gassed weekly by means of gas-wagons
which broke down from overwork.
As the Germans retreated before the Soviet Army they
exterminated Jews rather than allow them to be liberated. Many
concentration camps and ghettos were set up in which Jews were
incarcerated and tortured, starved, subjected to merciless atrocities,
and finally exterminated.
About 70,000 Jews were exterminated in Yugoslavia.

XI. Individual, Group and Organization Responsibility for the Offense

Stated in Count Four

Reference is hereby made to Appendix A of this Indictment for a

statement of the responsibility of the individual defendants for the
offense set forth in this Count Four of the Indictment. Reference is
hereby made to Appendix B of this Indictment for a statement of the
responsibility of the groups and organizations named herein as
criminal groups and organizations for the offense set forth in this
Count Four of the Indictment.
Wherefore, this Indictment is lodged with the Tribunal in English,
French, and Russian, each text having equal authenticity, and the
charges herein made against the above named defendants are
hereby presented to the Tribunal.
/s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON.
Acting on Behalf of the United States
of America.

/s/ FRANÇOIS DE MENTHON.

Acting on Behalf of the French
Republic.

/s/ HARTLEY SHAWCROSS.

Acting on Behalf of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland.

/s/ R. RUDENKO.
 Acting on Behalf of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics.
Berlin, 6 October 1945.
 APPENDIX A
Statement of Individual Responsibility for Crimes Set Out in
Counts One, Two, Three, and Four
The statements hereinafter set forth following the name of each
individual defendant constitute matters upon which the prosecution
will rely inter alia as establishing the individual responsibility of the
defendant according to Article 6 of the Charter of the Tribunal.

GÖRING:
The Defendant GÖRING between 1932 and 1945 was: A member
of the Nazi Party, Supreme Leader of the SA, General in the SS, a
member and President of the Reichstag, Minister of the Interior of
Prussia, Chief of the Prussian Police and Prussian Secret State Police,
Chief of the Prussian State Council, Trustee of the Four Year Plan,
Reich Minister for Air, Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, President
of the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich, member of
the Secret Cabinet Council, head of the Hermann Göring Industrial
Combine, and Successor Designate to Hitler. The Defendant GÖRING
used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his intimate
connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the
accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of
their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment;
he promoted the military and economic preparation for war set forth
in Count One of the Indictment; he participated in the planning and
preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and
Wars in Violation of International Treaties, Agreements, and
Assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; and
he authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes set forth
in Count Three of the Indictment, and the Crimes against Humanity
set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including a wide variety of
crimes against persons and property.

RIBBENTROP:
 The Defendant RIBBENTROP between 1932 and 1945 was: A
member of the Nazi Party, a member of the Nazi Reichstag, Advisor
to the Führer on matters of foreign policy, representative of the Nazi
Party for matters of foreign policy, special German delegate for
disarmament questions, Ambassador Extraordinary, Ambassador in
London, organizer and director of Dienststelle Ribbentrop, Reich
Minister for Foreign Affairs, member of the Secret Cabinet Council,
member of the Führer’s political staff at general headquarters, and
General in the SS. The Defendant RIBBENTROP used the foregoing
positions, his personal influence, and his intimate connection with
the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the accession to
power of the Nazi conspirators as set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count
One of the Indictment; he participated in the political planning and
preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and
Wars in Violation of International Treaties, Agreements, and
Assurances as set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; in
accordance with the Führer Principle he executed and assumed
responsibility for the execution of the foreign policy plans of the Nazi
conspirators set forth in Count One of the Indictment; and he
authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes set forth in
Count Three of the Indictment, and the Crimes against Humanity set
forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including more particularly the
crimes against persons and property in occupied territories.

HESS:
The Defendant HESS between 1921 and 1941 was: A member of
the Nazi Party, Deputy to the Führer, Reich Minister without Portfolio,
member of the Reichstag, member of the Council of Ministers for the
Defense of the Reich, member of the Secret Cabinet Council,
Successor Designate to the Führer after the Defendant Göring, a
General in the SS and a General in the SA. The Defendant HESS
used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his intimate
connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the
accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of
their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment;
he promoted the military, economic, and psychological preparations
for war set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he participated in
the political planning and preparation for Wars of Aggression and
Wars in Violation of International Treaties, Agreements, and
Assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; he
participated in the preparation and planning of foreign policy plans
of the Nazi conspirators set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
authorized, directed and participated in the War Crimes set forth in
Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set
forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including a wide variety of
crimes against persons and property.

KALTENBRUNNER:
The Defendant KALTENBRUNNER between 1932 and 1945 was: A
member of the Nazi Party, a General in the SS, a member of the
Reichstag, a General of the Police, State Secretary for Security in
Austria in charge of the Austrian Police, Police Leader of Vienna,
Lower and Upper Austria, Head of the Reich Main Security Office,
and Chief of the Security Police and Security Service. The Defendant
KALTENBRUNNER used the foregoing positions and his personal
influence in such a manner that: He promoted the consolidation of
control over Austria seized by the Nazi conspirators as set forth in
Count One of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and
participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four
of the Indictment, including particularly the Crimes against Humanity
involved in the system of concentration camps.

ROSENBERG:
The Defendant ROSENBERG between 1920 and 1945 was: A
member of the Nazi Party, Nazi member of the Reichstag,
Reichsleiter in the Nazi Party for Ideology and Foreign Policy, the
editor of the Nazi newspaper Völkischer Beobachter and of the NS
Monatshefte, head of the Foreign Political Office of the Nazi Party,
Special Delegate for the entire Spiritual and Ideological Training of
the Nazi Party, Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories,
organizer of the “Einsatzstab Rosenberg”, a General in the SS and a
General in the SA. The Defendant ROSENBERG used the foregoing
positions, his personal influence, and his intimate connection with
the Führer in such a manner that: He developed, disseminated, and
exploited the doctrinal techniques of the Nazi conspirators set forth
in Count One of the Indictment; he promoted the accession to
power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of their control
over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
promoted the psychological preparations for war set forth in Count
One of the Indictment; he participated in the political planning and
preparation for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of
International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set forth in
Counts One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed,
and participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four
of the Indictment, including a wide variety of crimes against persons
and property.

FRANK:
The Defendant FRANK between 1932 and 1945 was: A member
of the Nazi Party, a General in the SS, a member of the Reichstag,
Reich Minister without Portfolio, Reich Commissar for the
Coordination of Justice, President of the International Chamber of
Law and Academy of German Law, Chief of the Civil Administration
of Lodz, Supreme Administrative Chief of the military district of West
Prussia, Poznan, Lodz and Krakow, and Governor General of the
occupied Polish territories. The Defendant FRANK used the foregoing
positions, his personal influence, and his intimate connection with
the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the accession to
power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of their control
over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes set forth in
Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set
forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including particularly the War
Crimes and Crimes against Humanity involved in the administration
of occupied territories.
BORMANN:
The Defendant BORMANN between 1925 and 1945 was: A
member of the Nazi Party, member of the Reichstag, a member of
the Staff of the Supreme Command of the SA, founder and head of
“Hilfskasse der NSDAP”, Reichsleiter, Chief of Staff Office of the
Führer’s Deputy, head of the Party Chancery, Secretary of the Führer,
member of the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich,
organizer and head of the Volkssturm, a General in the SS and a
General in the SA. The Defendant BORMANN used the foregoing
positions, his personal influence, and his intimate connection with
the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the accession to
power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of their control
over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in the War
Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes
against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including
a wide variety of crimes against persons and property.

FRICK:
The Defendant FRICK between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of
the Nazi Party, Reichsleiter, General in the SS, member of the
Reichstag, Reich Minister of the Interior, Prussian Minister of the
Interior, Reich Director of Elections, General Plenipotentiary for the
Administration of the Reich, head of the Central Office for the
Reunification of Austria and the German Reich, Director of the
Central Office for the Incorporation of Sudetenland, Memel, Danzig,
the eastern incorporated territories, Eupen, Malmedy, and Moresnet,
Director of the Central Office for the Protectorate of Bohemia and
Moravia, the Governor General of Lower Styria, Upper Carinthia,
Norway, Alsace, Lorraine and all other occupied territories and Reich
Protector for Bohemia and Moravia. The Defendant FRICK used the
foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his intimate
connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the
accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of
their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment;
he participated in the planning and preparation of the Nazi
conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of
International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set forth in
Count One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed,
and participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four
of the Indictment, including more particularly the crimes against
persons and property in occupied territories.

LEY:
The Defendant LEY between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of
the Nazi Party, Reichsleiter, Nazi Party Organization Manager,
member of the Reichstag, leader of the German Labor Front, a
General in the SA, and Joint Organizer of the Central Inspection for
the Care of Foreign Workers. The Defendant LEY used the foregoing
positions, his personal influence, and his intimate connection with
the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the accession to
power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of their control
over Germany as set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
promoted the preparation for war set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he authorized, directed, and participated in the War
Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment, and in the Crimes
against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including
particularly the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity relating to
the abuse of human beings for labor in the conduct of the
aggressive wars.

SAUCKEL:
The Defendant SAUCKEL between 1921 and 1945 was: A
member of the Nazi Party, Gauleiter and Reichsstatthalter of
Thuringia, a member of the Reichstag, General Plenipotentiary for
the Employment of Labor under the Four Year Plan, Joint Organizer
with the Defendant Ley of the Central Inspection for the Care of
Foreign Workers, a General in the SS and a General in the SA. The
Defendant SAUCKEL used the foregoing positions and his personal
influence in such a manner that: He promoted the accession to
power of the Nazi conspirators set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he participated in the economic preparations for Wars of
Aggression and Wars in Violation of Treaties, Agreements, and
Assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment; he
authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes set forth in
Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set
forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including particularly the War
Crimes and Crimes against Humanity involved in forcing the
inhabitants of occupied countries to work as slave laborers in
occupied countries and in Germany.

SPEER:
The Defendant SPEER between 1932 and 1945 was: A member
of the Nazi Party, Reichsleiter, member of the Reichstag, Reich
Minister for Armament and Munitions, Chief of the Organization Todt,
General Plenipotentiary for Armaments in the Office of the Four Year
Plan, and Chairman of the Armaments Council. The Defendant
SPEER used the foregoing positions and his personal influence in
such a manner that: He participated in the military and economic
planning and preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of
Aggression and Wars in Violation of International Treaties,
Agreements, and Assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the
Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in the War
Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes
against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including
more particularly the abuse and exploitation of human beings for
forced labor in the conduct of aggressive war.

FUNK:
The Defendant FUNK between 1932 and 1945 was: A member of
the Nazi Party, Economic Adviser of Hitler, National Socialist Deputy
to the Reichstag, Press Chief of the Reich Government, State
Secretary of the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and
Propaganda, Reich Minister of Economics, Prussian Minister of
Economics, President of the German Reichsbank, Plenipotentiary for
Economy, and member of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of
the Reich. The Defendant FUNK used the foregoing positions, his
personal influence, and his close connection with the Führer in such
a manner that: He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi
conspirators and the consolidation of their control over Germany set
forth in Count One of the Indictment; he promoted the preparations
for war set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he participated in
the military and economic planning and preparation of the Nazi
conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of
International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set forth in
Counts One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed,
and participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four
of the Indictment, including more particularly crimes against persons
and property in connection with the economic exploitation of
occupied territories.

SCHACHT:
The Defendant SCHACHT between 1932 and 1945 was: A
member of the Nazi Party, a member of the Reichstag, Reich Minister
of Economics, Reich Minister without Portfolio and President of the
German Reichsbank. The Defendant SCHACHT used the foregoing
positions, his personal influence, and his connection with the Führer
in such a manner that: He promoted the accession to power of the
Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of their control over
Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he promoted the
preparations for war set forth in Count One of the Indictment; and
he participated in the military and economic plans and preparation of
the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression, and Wars in Violation
of International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set forth in
Counts One and Two of the Indictment.

PAPEN:
The Defendant PAPEN between 1932 and 1945 was: A member
of the Nazi Party, a member of the Reichstag, Reich Chancellor, Vice
Chancellor under Hitler, special Plenipotentiary for the Saar,
negotiator of the Concordat with the Vatican, Ambassador in Vienna
and Ambassador in Turkey. The Defendant PAPEN used the
foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his close connection
with the Führer in such manner that: He promoted the accession to
power of the Nazi conspirators and participated in the consolidation
of their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the
Indictment; he promoted the preparations for war set forth in Count
One of the Indictment; and he participated in the political planning
and preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and
Wars in Violation of International Treaties, Agreements, and
Assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the Indictment.

KRUPP:
The Defendant KRUPP was between 1932 and 1945: Head of
Friedrich KRUPP A.G., a member of the General Economic Council,
President of the Reich Union of German Industry, and head of the
Group for Mining and Production of Iron and Metals under the Reich
Ministry of Economics. The Defendant KRUPP used the foregoing
positions, his personal influence, and his connection with the Führer
in such a manner that: He promoted the accession to power of the
Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of their control over
Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he promoted the
preparation for war set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he
participated in the military and economic planning and preparation
of the Nazi conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation
of International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set forth in
Counts One and Two of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed,
and participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four
of the Indictment, including more particularly the exploitation and
abuse of human beings for labor in the conduct of aggressive wars.

NEURATH:
The Defendant NEURATH between 1932 and 1945 was: A
member of the Nazi Party, a General in the SS, a member of the
Reichstag, Reich Minister, Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs, President
of the Secret Cabinet Council, and Reich Protector for Bohemia and
Moravia. The Defendant NEURATH used the foregoing positions, his
personal influence, and his close connection with the Führer in such
a manner that: He promoted the accession to power of the Nazi
conspirators set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he promoted
the preparations for war set forth in Count One of the Indictment;
he participated in the political planning and preparation of the Nazi
conspirators for Wars of Aggression and Wars in Violation of
International Treaties, Agreements, and Assurances set forth in
Counts One and Two of the Indictment; in accordance with the
Führer Principle he executed, and assumed responsibility for the
execution of the foreign policy plans of the Nazi conspirators set
forth in Count One of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed,
and participated in the War Crimes set forth in Count Three of the
Indictment and the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four
of the Indictment, including particularly the crimes against persons
and property in the occupied territories.

SCHIRACH:
The Defendant SCHIRACH between 1924 and 1945 was: A
member of the Nazi Party, a member of the Reichstag, Reich Youth
Leader on the Staff of the SA Supreme Command, Reichsleiter in the
Nazi Party for Youth Education, Leader of Youth of the German
Reich, head of the Hitler Jugend, Reich Defense Commissioner and
Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter of Vienna. The Defendant SCHIRACH
used the foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his intimate
connection with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the
accession to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of
their control over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment;
he promoted the psychological and educational preparations for war
and the militarization of Nazi dominated organizations set forth in
Count One of the Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and
participated in the Crimes against Humanity set forth in Count Four
of the Indictment, including, particularly, anti-Jewish measures.

SEYSS-INQUART:
 The Defendant SEYSS-INQUART between 1932 and 1945 was: A
member of the Nazi Party, a General in the SS, State Councillor of
Austria, Minister of the Interior and Security of Austria, Chancellor of
Austria, a member of the Reichstag, a member of the Reich Cabinet,
Reich Minister without Portfolio, Chief of the Civil Administration in
South Poland, Deputy Governor-General of the Polish Occupied
Territory, and Reich Commissar for the Occupied Netherlands. The
Defendant SEYSS-INQUART used the foregoing positions and his
personal influence in such a manner that: He promoted the seizure
and the consolidation of control over Austria by the Nazi conspirators
set forth in Count One of the Indictment; he participated in the
political planning and preparation of the Nazi conspirators for Wars
of Aggression and Wars in Violation of International Treaties,
Agreements, and Assurances set forth in Counts One and Two of the
Indictment; and he authorized, directed, and participated in the War
Crimes set forth in Count Three of the Indictment and the Crimes
against Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including
a wide variety of crimes against persons and property.

STREICHER:
The Defendant STREICHER between 1932 and 1945 was: A
member of the Nazi Party, a member of the Reichstag, a General in
the SA, Gauleiter of Franconia, editor-in-chief of the anti-Semitic
newspaper Der Stürmer. The Defendant STREICHER used the
foregoing positions, his personal influence, and his close connection
with the Führer in such a manner that: He promoted the accession
to power of the Nazi conspirators and the consolidation of their
control over Germany set forth in Count One of the Indictment: he
authorized, directed, and participated in the Crimes against
Humanity set forth in Count Four of the Indictment, including
particularly the incitement of the persecution of the Jews set forth in
Count One and Count Four of the Indictment.

KEITEL:
The Defendant KEITEL between 1938 and 1945 was: Chief of the
High Command of the German Armed Forces, member of the Secret
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com