Primary Science Teaching Theory and Practice 4th Edition Achieving Qts John Sharp

Visit https://ebookultra.com to download the full version and
explore more ebooks or textbooks
Primary Science Teaching Theory and Practice 4th
Edition Achieving Qts John Sharp
_____ Click the link below to download _____
https://ebookultra.com/download/primary-science-teaching-
theory-and-practice-4th-edition-achieving-qts-john-sharp/
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.
Primary Science for Teaching Assistants 1st Edition
Rosemar Feasey
https://ebookultra.com/download/primary-science-for-teaching-
assistants-1st-edition-rosemar-feasey/
Good Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Practice Rationale and
Compliance 1st Edition John Sharp
https://ebookultra.com/download/good-pharmaceutical-manufacturing-
practice-rationale-and-compliance-1st-edition-john-sharp/
Primary Health Care Theory and Practice 1st Edition Trisha
Greenhalgh
https://ebookultra.com/download/primary-health-care-theory-and-
practice-1st-edition-trisha-greenhalgh/
Primary ICT Extending Knowledge in Practice 1st Edition
John Duffty
https://ebookultra.com/download/primary-ict-extending-knowledge-in-
practice-1st-edition-john-duffty/

Cryptography Theory and Practice 4th Edition Douglas
Robert Stinson
https://ebookultra.com/download/cryptography-theory-and-practice-4th-
edition-douglas-robert-stinson/
Software Engineering Theory and Practice 4th ed. Edition
S. Pfleeger
https://ebookultra.com/download/software-engineering-theory-and-
practice-4th-ed-edition-s-pfleeger/
Software Engineering Theory and Practice 4th Edition Shari
Lawrence Pfleeger
https://ebookultra.com/download/software-engineering-theory-and-
practice-4th-edition-shari-lawrence-pfleeger/
Engineering Noise Control Theory and Practice 4th Edition
David Bies
https://ebookultra.com/download/engineering-noise-control-theory-and-
practice-4th-edition-david-bies/
Skilled Interpersonal Communication Research Theory and
Practice 4th Edition Owen Hargie
https://ebookultra.com/download/skilled-interpersonal-communication-
research-theory-and-practice-4th-edition-owen-hargie/

Primary Science Teaching Theory and Practice 4th
Edition Achieving Qts John Sharp Digital Instant
Download
Author(s): John Sharp, GrahamPeacock, Rob Johnsey, Shirley Simon, Robin
Smith
ISBN(s): 9781844452798, 1844452794
Edition: 4
File Details: PDF, 1.45 MB
Year: 2009
Language: english

Primary
Science
Teaching Theory and Practice
Achieving QTS
Meeting the Professional Standards Framework

Primary
Science
Teaching Theory and Practice
Fourth edition
John Sharp . Graham Peacock . Rob Johnsey
Shirley Simon . Robin Smith
Alan Cross . Diane Harris
www.learningmatters.co.uk
Achieving QTS
Meeting the Professional Standards Framework

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Jill Jesson for her work on updating Chapter 10 on
Using ICT in science for the 4th edition.
Chapter 3: graphs reproduced by Joshua Harris.
Chapter 4: illustrations by Julie Bateman, aged 10.
Chapter 8: class organisation and interactive display diagrams by Joel Morris.
Chapter 9: explanatory pictures reproduced by Joshua, Laura, Jacob and
Barnaby Harris. Concept cartoon reproduced from Concept Cartoons in Science
Education (Naylor and Keogh, 2000) by kind permission of Millgate House
Publishers.
Chapter 10: screen shot of circuit diagram from Interfact: Electricity and
Magnetism CD-ROM (1997) by kind permission of Two-Can Publishing.
Chapter 11: health and safety diagrams by Joel Morris.
First published in 2000 by Learning Matters Ltd.
Reprinted in 2001.
Second edition published in 2002.
Reprinted in 2002.
Reprinted in 2003 (twice).
Reprinted in 2004.
Reprinted in 2005 (twice).
Third edition published in 2007.
Reprinted in 2007.
Reprinted in 2008.
Fourth edition published in 2009.
Reprinted in 2009.
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, without prior permission in
writing from Learning Matters.
# 2009 John Sharp, Graham Peacock, Rob Johnsey, Shirley Simon, Robin Smith,
Alan Cross and Diane Harris.
The right of John Sharp, Graham Peacock, Rob Johnsey, Shirley Simon, Robin
Smith, Alan Cross and Diane Harris to be identified as the Authors of this work
has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN 978 1 84445 279 8
Cover design by Toucan
Text design by Bob Rowinski at Code 5 Design Associates Ltd
Project management by Deer Park Productions
Typeset by PDQ Typesetting Ltd, Newcastle-under-Lyme
Printed and bound in Great Britain by Bell & Bain Ltd, Glasgow
Learning Matters
33 Southernhay East
Exeter EX1 1NX
Tel: 01392 215560
info@learningmatters.co.uk
www.learningmatters.co.uk

Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 The nature of scientific understanding 5
3 Processes and methods of scientific enquiry 11
4 Children’s ideas 24
5 Science in the Foundation Stage 36
6 Teaching strategies 51
7 Planning 64
8 Classroom organisation and management 81
9 Assessment, recording and reporting 94
10 Using ICT in science 110
11 Health and safety 125
Glossary 137
Index 141
v

1
Introduction
About this book
This book has been written to satisfy the needs of all primary trainees on all courses
of initial teacher training in England and other parts of the UK where a secure
knowledge and understanding of how to teach science is required for the award
of Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) or its equivalent. This book will also be found
useful by Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs), mentors, curriculum co-ordinators and
other professionals working in education who have identified aspects of their
science practice which require attention or who need a single resource to recom-
mend to colleagues.
Features of this book include:
. clear links with the Professional Standards for QTS;
. clear reference to Science in the National Curriculum for children and the QCA/DfES exemplar
Scheme of Work for Science at Key Stages 1 and 2;
. clear reference to the Early Years Foundation Stage framework;
. pedagogical and professional knowledge and understanding for effective science teaching and
learning;
. research summaries;
. practical tasks;
. clear links between different aspects of teaching science;
. further reading and references;
. glossary.
What is primary science and why is it
taught?
Even today, primary science means different things to different people.
Considerable and often heated debate in recent years has revolved around the
portrayal of primary science as product, in which scientific knowledge is arrived
at by objective methods capable of yielding accepted concepts, or process, in which
scientific knowledge is arrived at by subjective acts of individual discovery driven by
the development of scientific skills. In terms of the nature, teaching and learning of
primary science, both have something to offer and clearly an appropriate balance
between the two is required. Primary science is perhaps best regarded, therefore, as
an intellectual, practical, creative and social endeavour which seeks to help children
to better understand and make sense of the world in which they live. Primary
science should involve children in thinking and working in particular ways in the
pursuit of reliable knowledge. While practical work undoubtedly contributes
towards securing children’s interest, curiosity and progress in science, children’s
scientific knowledge and understanding cannot always be developed through prac-
tical work alone. Just as the methods of science need to be taught explicitly, so too
does the scientific knowledge and understanding implicit in scientific activities and
their outcomes. As Science in the National Curriculum states:
1

Science stimulates and excites children’s curiosity about phenomena and
events in the world around them. It also satisfies this curiosity with knowledge.
Because science links direct practical experience with ideas, it can engage
learners at many levels. Scientific method is about developing and evaluating
explanations through experimental evidence and modelling. This is a spur to
critical and creative thought. Through science, children understand how major
scientific ideas contribute to technological change – impacting on industry,
business and medicine and improving quality of life. Children recognise the
cultural significance of science and trace its world-wide development. They
learn to question and discuss science based issues that may affect their own
lives, the direction of society and the future of the world.
Teachers (and trainees) are, of course, instrumental in developing children’s scien-
tific ideas and practical abilities and for fostering positive attitudes towards science.
Readers wishing to find out more about primary science in general are directed
towards the further reading and references sections included at the end of this
introduction.
Professional Standards for QTS for
Primary Science
Professional Standards for QTS (DfES/TDA, 2007) deals with the subject, pedago-
gical and professional knowledge and understanding required by trainees to secure
children’s progress in science. This book refers mostly to the pedagogical and
professional requirements (see Peacock et al., 2009 for subject knowledge and
understanding). In summary, by the end of all courses of initial teacher training,
all trainees are expected to know and understand:
. the reasons why it is important for all children to learn science and the value of engaging all
children’s interest in science;
. the nature of scientific understanding;
. key aspects of science underpinning children’s progress in acquiring scientific knowledge,
understanding and skills and how progress is recognised and encouraged;
. methods of developing children’s scientific knowledge, understanding and skills;
. ways of organising and managing science in the classroom;
. assessing and evaluating science teaching and learning;
. the importance of health and safety;
. the benefits of using ICT in science.
Early Years Foundation Stage
In September 2008, the Early Years Foundations Stage (DCSF, 2008) framework
became statutory for all early years care and education providers who are regis-
tered with Ofsted. This framework applies to children from birth until they are five
years old and therefore ensures that everyone involved in the care and education of
the children is working towards common principles. Included in the experience it
specifies are aspects of science.
2
Introduction

Science in the National Curriculum
Science in the National Curriculum (DfEE/QCA, 1999) is organised on the basis of
four key stages. Key Stage 1 for five to seven year olds (Years 1 and 2) and Key
Stage 2 for seven to eleven year olds (Years 3 to 6) are for primary. The compo-
nents of each Key Stage include Programmes of Study, which set out the science
that children should be taught, Attainment Targets, which set out the science that
children should know and be able to do, and Level Descriptions, which outline what
children working at a particular level should be able to demonstrate. Science in the
National Curriculum is a minimum statutory requirement. Since its introduction in
1989 it has been significantly revised three times. A brief summary of the
Programmes of Study is presented as follows:
. Sc1: Scientific enquiry (Ideas and evidence in science; Investigative skills);
. Sc2: Life processes and living things (Life processes; Humans and other animals; Green plants;
Variation and classification; Living things in their environment);
. Sc3: Materials and their properties (Grouping materials; Changing materials; Separating
mixtures of materials – Key Stage 2 only);
. Sc4: Physical processes (Electricity; Forces and motion; Light and sound; The Earth and
beyond – Key Stage 2 only).
Science in the National Curriculum also presents some information on the contexts
in which primary science should be taught, links to other subjects, technological
application, health and safety and the use of ICT.
Science: a Scheme of Work for Key Stages
1 and 2
Use of the exemplar Scheme of Work for Science at Key Stages 1 and 2 (QCA/DfEE,
1998, with amendments 2000) is entirely optional. Designed to help implement
Science in the National Curriculum, many schools are, however, beginning to
adapt it for their own needs. The Scheme is presented as a series of Units
which attempt to provide continuity and progression in primary science provision
between Years 1 and 6. Guidance is offered on:
. the nature and place of each Unit;
. how each Unit builds on previous Units;
. technical scientific vocabulary;
. resources;
. expectations;
. teaching activities;
. teaching outcomes;
. health and safety;
. ICT links.
A summary of Units is presented overleaf.
The Teacher’s Guide which accompanies the Scheme of Work indicates that, in
their long- and medium-term planning, schools may wish to consider alternative
sequences of Units. This is, indeed, sound advice!
3
Introduction

FURTHER READING FURTHER READING FURTHER READING
Arthur, J. et al. (2006) Learning to Teach in the Primary School. Oxford: Routledge.
Harlen, W. (2004) The Teaching of Science in Primary Schools. London: Fulton.
Hollins, M. and Whitby, V. (2001) Progression in Primary Science: a Guide to the Nature and
Practice of Science in Key Stages 1 and 2. London: Fulton.
Millar, R. and Osborne, J. (1998) Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future. London:
King’s College.
Roden, J. (2005) Reflective Reader: Primary Science. Exeter: Learning Matters.
Sherrington, R. (ed.) (1998) ASE Guide to Primary Science Education. London: Stanley
Thornes.
REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCES
DCSF (2008) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: DCSF.
DfEE/QCA (1999) Science: the National Curriculum for England. London: HMSO
(http://www.nc.uk.net).
DfES/TDA (2007) Professional Standards for Qualified Teacher Status. London: TDA
(http://www.dfes.gov.uk, http://www.canteach.gov.uk and http://www.tda.gov.uk).
Peacock, G., Sharp, J., Johnsey, R., and Wright, D. (2009) Primary Science: Knowledge and
Understanding. Exeter: Learning Matters.
QCA/DfEE (1998, with amendments 2000) Science: a Scheme of Work for Key Stages 1 and
2. London: QCA (http://www.qca.org.uk and http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/
schemes).
Key Stage 1
Year 1 Units
1A Ourselves
1B Growing plants
1C Sorting and using materials
1D Light and dark
1E Pushes and pulls
1F Sound and hearing
Year 2 Units
2A Health and growth
2B Plants and animals in the local
environment
2C Variation
2D Grouping and changing materials
2E Forces and movement
2F Using electricity
Key Stage 2
Year 3 Units
3A Teeth and eating
3B Helping plants grow well
3C Characteristics of materials
3D Rocks and soils
3E Magnets and springs
3F Light and shadows
Year 4 Units
4A Moving and growing
4B Habitats
4C Keeping warm
4D Solids, liquids and how they can be
separated
4E Friction
4F Circuits and conductors
Year 5 Units
5A Keeping healthy
5B Life cycles
5C Gases around us
5D Changing state
5E Earth, Sun and Moon
5F Changing sounds
Year 6 Units
6A Interdependence and adaptation
6B Micro-organisms
6C More about dissolving
6D Reversible and irreversible reactions
6E Forces in action
6F How we see things
6G Changing circuits
5/6H Enquiry in environmental/technological
contexts
4
Introduction

2
The nature of scientific understanding
Professional Standards for QTS
Those awarded QTS must have a secure knowledge and understanding of
science that enables them to teach effectively across the age and ability for
which they are trained. To be able to do this in the context of the nature of
scientific understanding trainees should:
Professional attributes
Q4 Communicate effectively with children, young people, colleagues, parents
and carers.
Professional knowledge and understanding
Q10 Have a knowledge and understanding of a range of teaching, learning
and behaviour management strategies and know how to use and adapt them,
including how to personalise.
Q14 Have a secure knowledge and understanding of their subjects/curriculum
areas and related pedagogy to enable them to teach effectively across the
age and ability range for which they are trained.
Introduction
This chapter discusses the very nature of scientific understanding and explores the
implications for teaching science in schools. All of us behave in different ways as
we learn more about the world around us. Often, however, how and what we learn
leads to our own ‘personal’ understanding rather than that shared and accepted by
the scientific community. While not everyone will become a professional scientist,
those who use more scientific methods are more likely to have a more realistic
understanding of how things are, unlike those who depend on hearsay or make
inaccurate observations and poor interpretations.
Science. . . is the source of explanations about how and why things happen in
the world around us . . . [It should be seen] not as a set of facts to be learnt but
as a series of explanations which the community of scientists currently
considers to be best. (Watt, 1999)
It is easy to see why science has gained the reputation it has in the past. In order to
survive an often hostile world, it has been very important to establish how that
world behaves and to predict what will happen next. The notion that science can
provide watertight explanations and reasons is one we would like to believe in.
Unfortunately science cannot always provide clear-cut answers to everything
although many would like to believe so. In fact, the methods employed in science,
and the body of knowledge which has been accumulated, provide only the best
5

explanations we have so far, based on the evidence gathered and the interpreta-
tions put on that evidence.
It is true to say that there is some science that we are very sure about, largely
because all the evidence collected over a long time points towards its validity. Thus
we are fairly sure that a force due to gravity will always pull an object which is close
to the Earth downwards, and plants need a source of light in order to grow health-
ily. However, a scientist would say that if one day we found evidence that things do
not always fall towards the Earth, we should then be prepared to change our views
about how gravity works.
The ideas that are commonly accepted by the scientific community form the knowl-
edge and understanding part of any educational curriculum and provide the ideas
that scientists use to build new concepts and theories. While we should be ready to
consider and reinterpret new evidence, we have to believe in some things or we
may never leave our own homes for fear of floating off into outer space! At the
same time, however, we must realise (and make others realise, too) that many
ideas in science can never actually be proven but they can certainly be falsified.
IN THE CLASSROOM
Some teachers in a primary school noticed that often their children would be
noisier and more agitated on windy days. The children came to school across
a windy playground where the leaves themselves seemed to be swept up in
frenzied excitement. Over a period of time other teachers in the school made
the same observation. Some teachers in the school claimed that their own
classrooms were always calm despite the weather conditions outside.
Observations at playtime on windy days, however, showed that the children
from these classes were also particularly excited outside of their own
classroom.
Over a period the group of teachers talked to colleagues from other schools
and also read articles which supported their ideas about children’s behaviour
on windy days. The teachers formed a theory concerning the children’s
behaviour which was supported by keen observation and the collection of a
range of evidence. The theory built up over a period of time and in some
teachers’ minds became fact.
There are a number of points about the nature of scientific understanding which
this story can illustrate.
. The teachers had clarified their ideas about children’s behaviour and windy days by making a
general statement based on their initial experiences. Scientific understanding is based on
previously accumulated knowledge which may be expressed in terms of generalisations.
. Over a period of time they checked their ideas against new evidence and found them to be
consistent with this evidence. The more evidence that supports an idea, the more we might
accept it as valid.
. However, even now, they cannot be sure that their ideas provide the best explanation because
future observations may disprove them (in which case new, modified ideas may emerge).
Scientific ideas are often tentative.
. As the teachers made more observations and developed ideas about why the children behaved
6

as they did, a theory emerged which could be tested. As long as the theory was supported by
evidence it could be usefully employed by some teachers to predict their children’s behaviour and
adapt the day’s work to suit this. A successful theory will enable successful predictions to be
made.
. An educational researcher might have been able to take a more scientific approach to testing
this theory by making more reliable, consistent and repeated observations. Interpretation of this
evidence might have produced a more sophisticated theory which linked weather conditions to
the general behaviour of the children, or disproved the theory altogether. The quality of
scientific knowledge and understanding is dependent on the quality of the scientific skills used
to gather evidence and interpret it.
The characteristics of scientific
understanding
Harlen (2000, p. 17) describes four characteristics of a modern view of science.
. Science activity is about understanding.
. Science activity is a human endeavour.
. Science ideas are often tentative.
. Science ideas must always be evaluated against what happens in the real world.
Understanding in science involves providing explanations and searching for rela-
tionships between events, based on sound evidence. The evidence, however, is
gathered and interpreted by human beings who, as we know, don’t always get it
right. Scientific ideas, then, are not a set of abstract rules set out in a textbook but
rather a collection of (in some instances rather shaky) ideas set out by people who
have interpreted what they have observed in their own personal way. One scientist
may be mistaken or may have made an incorrect interpretation of the evidence.
The views of a community of scientists who have critically checked each other’s
findings is much more reliable.
The tentative nature of all scientific ideas can be illustrated by putting ourselves in
the place of those who believed the earth was flat. This view of the world made a
great deal of sense to most people who very rarely ventured far from home and
could see with their own eyes an approximately flat landscape. This view of the
world was acceptable and worked for those people on a day-to-day basis. Only
when travellers and explorers confirmed that there was no ‘edge’ to the world and
people began to notice that the masts of ships appeared first over the horizon was
this view challenged. The evidence simply did not fit. Nowadays we have even
more evidence that the Earth is almost spherical in photographs from outer space.
If, however, new photographs began to show that the Earth was doughnut shaped
(unlikely of course), we would have to change our minds on the subject and
develop new ideas!
Moral and ethical influences on scientific
understanding
There are often more powerful influences on what we believe and perceive of the
world besides the interpretation of scientific evidence. Galileo was persecuted by
7

the Church for suggesting a theory which put the Sun at the centre of our solar
system with our rather insignificant earth orbiting it. The Church had taught an
Earth-centred view of the Universe and felt compelled to suppress the scientific
evidence that Galileo produced. Modern debates over scientific developments can
be influenced as much by politics and prejudice as by hard scientific evidence.
Interpretations of evidence can be purposely or inadvertently misleading as a result
of the interpreter’s moral or ethical stance. Commercial pressures can encourage
unscrupulous groups to misconstrue evidence or even falsify it. In short, scientific
progress can be hindered and distorted in a variety of ways.
If children are to cope in a modern technological society they must come to
appreciate the ways in which scientific knowledge is generated and the ways in
which scientific ideas have been developed as a result of human endeavour. While
a science curriculum will define a body of knowledge that is apparently fixed and
irrefutable, teachers must issue a warning that this is not necessarily so. This can
often be achieved through a discussion of the tentative nature of the children’s
findings in their own investigations. The children themselves know just how shaky
some of their experimental results are and should understand that all scientists will
have suffered the same kind of problems.
Science and design and technology
Sometimes it is important to know what science is not, in order to understand what
it is. To many people, science and technology are spoken of in the same breath
as though they were one thing but this is to misunderstand an important fact.
Science is to do with finding out about how the world around us works and
how it behaves. This is achieved through formulating and testing theories and
models by collecting and interpreting evidence. The purpose is to generate reliable
knowledge. Design and technology, on the other hand, is primarily concerned with
solving problems and satisfying human needs. It draws heavily on the knowledge
gained in science and other disciplines, but it uses this knowledge to achieve a
different end.
A science curriculum needs examples of technology to help children further under-
stand the science. Children need to understand the implications of using science
ideas. When debates rage over such things as genetically modified crops or the use
of nuclear power stations, the argument is with the technologists – those who are
employing the knowledge gained through scientific pursuits. The pure scientists
only supply the knowledge they have gained.
RESEARCH SUMMARY RESEARCH SUMMARY RESEARCH SUMMARY RESEARCH SUMMARY
Research by McCormick (1999) into the way children carry out design and technology tasks
focused on the way in which the children applied their knowledge in a practical problem-
solving situation. He found that while children might be working on a product with a number of
scientific features, their discussions about it were not made in an abstract scientific language.
He describes how two children were designing and making a collecting box in which a coin
made a model bird move. Their discussions involved a technological language which was
closely related to the actual model rather than the scientific or mathematical language they
might have employed in a formal science lesson.
8

McCormick concluded that the information needed in the practical context was subtly different
to that gained in the more theoretical science lesson. He called this knowledge ‘device knowl-
edge’. This suggests something about the nature of science knowledge as taught in schools
and points towards a need for greater links to be made between this type of knowledge and
the device knowledge often used in the practical world.
Implications for science teaching
The science curriculum should provide young people with an understanding of
some key ideas-about-science, that is, ideas about the ways in which reliable
knowledge of the natural world has been and is being obtained. (Millar and
Osborne, 1998, Recommendation 6)
The National Curriculum for science in primary schools appears to be set out
largely in terms of science facts and concepts (Sc2, 3 and 4). These are the ‘big’
science ideas about which we are fairly certain and which are deemed appropriate
for primary-age children to understand. It is right that teachers teach these ideas as
firmly held concepts but this should be done alongside stories about the some-
times tentative nature of modern science and about how some old ideas have been
modified or replaced throughout history. At the same time teachers will want to
teach the skills described in Sc1 – Science enquiry – to illustrate the way in which
scientific ideas have been arrived at in the past and are arrived at today.
A SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
4 Science is about understanding the world around us – technology is about using this
knowledge to solve problems.
4 Scientific understanding is based on accumulating and interpreting evidence for
proposed theories or models.
4 Science ideas are often tentative but the ’big ideas’ are well established.
4 Science is a result of human endeavour and thus scientific interpretations may be
influenced by moral, ethical, political and commercial factors.
MOVING ON > > > > > > MOVING ON > > > > > > MOVING ON
During your Induction year you will be expected to develop a secure knowledge and under-
standing of the subject areas you teach (Professional Standards for Teachers, I 15). Use the
Further Reading section which follows to discover what others believe about the nature of
science.
FURTHER READING FURTHER READING FURTHER READING FURTHER READING
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. and Scott, P. (1996) Young People’s Images of Science.
Buckingham: Open University Press. This book provides an insight into the nature of
scientific understanding as a whole as well as how children’s ideas about the nature of
scientific understanding develop.
Ollerenshaw, C. and Ritchie, R. (1997) Primary Science – Making it Work. London: Fulton.
This book provides a general introduction to teaching primary science, drawing heavily
on the constructivist approach – one which has been adopted particularly by the science
education community.
9

Peacock, G. A. (2002) Teaching Science in Primary Schools. London: Letts. A clear but brief
introduction to the intricacies of teaching science in the primary school.
REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCES
DCSF (2008) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: DCSF.
Harlen, W. (2000) Teaching, Learning and Assessing Science 5–12, 3rd edn. London: Paul
Chapman.
McCormick, R. (1999) ‘Capability lost and found’, Journal of Design and Technology Education,
4(1), 5–14.
Millar, R. and Osborne, J. (1998) Beyond 2000 – Science Education for the Future. London:
King’s College.
Watt, D. (1999) ‘Science: learning to explain how the world works’, in J. Riley and R. Prentice
(eds), The Curriculum for 7–11 year olds. London: Paul Chapman.
10

3
Processes and methods of scientific
enquiry
Professional Standards for QTS
Those awarded QTS must have a secure knowledge and understanding of
science that enables them to teach effectively across the age and ability for
which they are trained. To be able to do this in the context of the nature of
scientific understanding trainees should:
Professional attributes
Q4 Communicate effectively with children, young people, colleagues, parents
and carers.
Q7(a) Reflect on and improve their practice, and take responsibility for iden-
tifying and meeting their developing professional needs.
Professional knowledge and understanding
Q10 Have a knowledge and understanding of a range of teaching, learning
and behaviour management strategies and know how to use and adapt them,
including how to personalise learning and provide opportunities for all lear-
ners to achieve their potential.
Q12 Know a range of approaches to assessment, including the importance of
formative assessment.
Q14 Have a secure knowledge and understanding of their subjects/curriculum
areas and related pedagogy to enable them to teach effectively across the
age and ability range for which they are trained.
Professional skills
Q22 Plan for progression across the age and ability range for which they are
trained, designing effective learning sequences within lessons and across
series of lessons and demonstrating secure subject/curriculum knowledge.
Q25 Teach lessons and sequences of lessons across the age and ability range
for which they are trained in which they:
(a) use a range of teaching strategies and resources, including e-learning,
taking practical account of diversity and promoting equality and inclusion;
(b) build on prior knowledge, develop concepts and processes, enable lear-
ners to apply new knowledge, understanding and skills, and meet learning
objectives.
Q28 Support and guide learners to reflect on their learning, identify the
progress they have made and identify their emerging learning needs.
11

Introduction
IN THE CLASSROOM
A class of six- and seven-year-olds were working in the small garden the
school had created. The tasks for the day were planting and weeding but
several children had become fascinated by the small creatures they found as
they worked. One group looked under stones and discovered more. Some
children had names for creatures they saw. Others pointed out how they
moved. Their teacher had not planned for this to be the focus of the science
but it fitted the school scheme of work well, since they were studying the
variety of life and conditions for living things. She recognised its potential to
develop scientific enquiry from the children’s curiosity and interest. Before
they went any further she talked with them about being careful not to harm
any creatures. Some children wanted to make homes for the ones they had
found. The teacher asked what they thought these would have to be like in
order to start them thinking about the types of environment which different
animals needed. She anticipated helping them investigate the conditions
which the small animals preferred, working with them to devise simple tests
of light/dark, damp/dry.
The class had already been shown how to use a magnifying glass and
viewers, so they would be able to make closer observations to check the
claims they were making about how many legs each creature had. The
teacher thought that drawing and maybe modelling might improve the
observations. That would also help them compare different animals with
pictures in books and she could introduce simple keys and some software the
school had. Grouping pictures, sorting activities and games might help
children get an idea of a simple classification. At present some of them were
using terms like worm and insect but there were lots of disagreements over
what to call each new find. The teacher could see opportunities for language
work in these debates, and there would be maths to apply in drawing charts
or graphs if they found lots of things. She could also see some challenges in
organising all this – not least with the two children who didn’t want to have
anything to do with ’creepy-crawlies’.
This scenario illustrates some opportunities to develop processes and methods
used in scientific enquiry, not all of which are exclusive to science. Compare it with
the way that the national science curriculum describes what children should do at
this stage.
During Key Stage 1 pupils observe, explore and ask questions about living
things, materials and phenomena. They begin to work together to collect
evidence to help them answer questions and to link this to simple scientific
ideas. They evaluate evidence and consider whether tests or comparisons are
fair. They use reference materials to find out more about scientific ideas. They
share their ideas and communicate them in language, drawing, charts and
tables. (p. 78)
12
Processes and methods of scientific enquiry

Other documents randomly have
different content

“Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices
participating in the formulation or execution of a Common
Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes
are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in
execution of such plan.”
In the opinion of the Tribunal these words do not add a new and
separate crime to those already listed. The words are designed to
establish the responsibility of persons participating in a common
plan. The Tribunal will therefore disregard the charges in Count One
that the defendants conspired to commit War Crimes and Crimes
against Humanity, and will consider only the common plan to
prepare, initiate, and wage aggressive war.

War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
The evidence relating to War Crimes has been overwhelming, in
its volume and its detail. It is impossible for this Judgment
adequately to review it, or to record the mass of documentary and
oral evidence that has been presented. The truth remains that War
Crimes were committed on a vast scale, never before seen in the
history of war. They were perpetrated in all the countries occupied
by Germany, and on the High Seas, and were attended by every
conceivable circumstance of cruelty and horror. There can be no
doubt that the majority of them arose from the Nazi conception of
“total war”, with which the aggressive wars were waged. For in this
conception of “total war”, the moral ideas underlying the conventions
which seek to make war more humane are no longer regarded as
having force or validity. Everything is made subordinate to the
overmastering dictates of war. Rules, regulations, assurances, and
treaties all alike are of no moment; and so, freed from the
restraining influence of international law, the aggressive war is
conducted by the Nazi leaders in the most barbaric way. Accordingly,
War Crimes were committed when and wherever the Führer and his
close associates thought them to be advantageous. They were for
the most part the result of cold and criminal calculation.
On some occasions, War Crimes were deliberately planned long
in advance. In the case of the Soviet Union, the plunder of the
territories to be occupied, and the ill-treatment of the civilian
population, were settled in minute detail before the attack was
begun. As early as the autumn of 1940, the invasion of the
territories of the Soviet Union was being considered. From that date
onwards, the methods to be employed in destroying all possible
opposition were continuously under discussion.
Similarly, when planning to exploit the inhabitants of the
occupied countries for slave labor on the very greatest scale, the
German Government conceived it as an integral part of the war

economy, and planned and organized this particular War Crime down
to the last elaborate detail.
Other War Crimes, such as the murder of prisoners of war who
had escaped and been recaptured, or the murder of Commandos or
captured airmen, or the destruction of the Soviet Commissars, were
the result of direct orders circulated through the highest official
channels.
The Tribunal proposes, therefore, to deal quite generally with the
question of War Crimes, and to refer to them later when examining
the responsibility of the individual defendants in relation to them.
Prisoners of war were ill-treated and tortured and murdered, not
only in defiance of the well-established rules of international law, but
in complete disregard of the elementary dictates of humanity.
Civilian populations in occupied territories suffered the same fate.
Whole populations were deported to Germany for the purposes of
slave labor upon defense works, armament production, and similar
tasks connected with the war effort. Hostages were taken in very
large numbers from the civilian populations in all the occupied
countries, and were shot as suited the German purposes. Public and
private property was systematically plundered and pillaged in order
to enlarge the resources of Germany at the expense of the rest of
Europe. Cities and towns and villages were wantonly destroyed
without military justification or necessity.

Murder and Ill-Treatment of Prisoners of War
Article 6 (b) of the Charter defines War Crimes in these
words: “War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or
customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be
limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave
labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in
occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of
war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of
public or private property, wanton destruction of cities,
towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military
necessity.”
In the course of the war, many Allied soldiers who had surrendered
to the Germans were shot immediately, often as a matter of
deliberate, calculated policy. On 18 October 1942, the Defendant
Keitel circulated a directive authorized by Hitler, which ordered that
all members of Allied “Commando” units, often when in uniform and
whether armed or not, were to be “slaughtered to the last man”,
even if they attempted to surrender. It was further provided that if
such Allied troops came into the hands of the military authorities
after being first captured by the local police, or in any other way,
they should be handed over immediately to the SD. This order was
supplemented from time to time, and was effective throughout the
remainder of the war, although after the Allied landings in Normandy
in 1944 it was made clear that the order did not apply to
“Commandos” captured within the immediate battle area. Under the
provisions of this order, Allied “Commando” troops, and other
military units operating independently, lost their lives in Norway,
France, Czechoslovakia, and Italy. Many of them were killed on the
spot, and in no case were those who were executed later in
concentration camps ever given a trial of any kind. For example, an
American military mission which landed behind the German front in
the Balkans in January 1945, numbering about twelve to fifteen men
and wearing uniform, were taken to Mauthausen under the authority

of this order, and according to the affidavit of Adolf Zutte, the
adjutant of the Mauthausen Concentration Camp, all of them were
shot.
In March 1944 the OKH issued the “Kugel” or “Bullet” decree,
which directed that every escaped officer and NCO prisoner of war
who had not been put to work, with the exception of British and
American prisoners of war, should on recapture be handed over to
the SIPO and SD. This order was distributed by the SIPO and SD to
their regional offices. These escaped officers and NCO’s were to be
sent to the concentration camp at Mauthausen, to be executed upon
arrival, by means of a bullet shot in the neck.
In March 1944 fifty officers of the British Royal Air Force, who
escaped from the camp at Sagan where they were confined as
prisoners, were shot on recapture, on the direct orders of Hitler.
Their bodies were immediately cremated, and the urns containing
their ashes were returned to the camp. It was not contended by the
defendants that this was other than plain murder, in complete
violation of international law.
When Allied airmen were forced to land in Germany, they were
sometimes killed at once by the civilian population. The police were
instructed not to interfere with these killings, and the Ministry of
Justice was informed that no one should be prosecuted for taking
part in them.
The treatment of Soviet prisoners of war was characterized by
particular inhumanity. The death of so many of them was not due
merely to the action of individual guards, or to the exigencies of life
in the camps. It was the result of systematic plans to murder. More
than a month before the German invasion of the Soviet Union, the
OKW were making special plans for dealing with political
representatives serving with the Soviet Armed Forces who might be
captured. One proposal was that “political Commissars of the Army
are not recognized as Prisoners of War, and are to be liquidated at
the latest in the transient prisoner of war camps.” The Defendant
Keitel gave evidence that instructions incorporating this proposal
were issued to the German Army.

On 8 September 1941 regulations for the treatment of Soviet
prisoners of war in all prisoner of war camps were issued, signed by
General Reinecke, the head of the prisoner of war department of the
High Command. Those orders stated:
“The Bolshevist soldier has therefore lost all claim to
treatment as an honorable opponent, in accordance with
the Geneva Convention . . . . The order for ruthless and
energetic action must be given at the slightest indication of
insubordination, especially in the case of Bolshevist
fanatics. Insubordination, active or passive resistance, must
be broken immediately by force of arms (bayonets, butts,
and firearms) . . . . Anyone carrying out the order who does
not use his weapons, or does so with insufficient energy, is
punishable . . . . Prisoners of war attempting escape are to
be fired on without previous challenge. No warning shot
must ever be fired . . . . The use of arms against prisoners
of war is as a rule legal.”
The Soviet prisoners of war were left without suitable clothing; the
wounded without medical care; they were starved, and in many
cases left to die.
On 17 July 1941, the Gestapo issued an order providing for the
killing of all Soviet prisoners of war who were or might be dangerous
to National Socialism. The order recited:
“The mission of the Commanders of the SIPO and SD
stationed in Stalags is the political investigation of all camp
inmates, the elimination and further ‘treatment’ (a) of all
political, criminal, or in some other way unbearable
elements among them, (b) of those persons who could be
used for the reconstruction of the occupied territories . . . .
Further, the commanders must make efforts from the
beginning to seek out among the prisoners elements which
appear reliable, regardless of whether there are
Communists concerned or not, in order to use them for
intelligence purposes inside of the camp, and if advisable,

later in the occupied territories also. By use of such
informers, and by use of all other existing possibilities, the
discovery of all elements to be eliminated among the
prisoners must proceed step by step at once . . . .”
“Above all, the following must be discovered: all
important functionaries of State and Party, especially
professional revolutionaries . . . all People’s Commissars in
the Red Army, leading personalities of the State . . . leading
personalities of the business world, members of the Soviet
Russian Intelligence, all Jews, all persons who are found to
be agitators or fanatical Communists. Executions are not to
be held in the camp or in the immediate vicinity of the
camp . . . . The prisoners are to be taken for special
treatment if possible into the former Soviet Russian
territory.”
The affidavit of Warlimont, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht,
and the testimony of Ohlendorf, former Chief of Amt III of the RSHA,
and of Lahousen, the head of one of the sections of the Abwehr, the
Wehrmacht’s Intelligence Service, all indicate the thoroughness with
which this order was carried out.
The affidavit of Kurt Lindown, a former Gestapo official,
states: “. . . . There existed in the prisoner of war camps on
the Eastern Front small screening teams (Einsatz
commandos), headed by lower ranking members of the
Secret Police (Gestapo). These teams were assigned to the
camp commanders and had the job of segregating the
prisoners of war who were candidates for execution
according to the orders that had been given, and to report
them to the office of the Secret Police.”
On 23 October 1941 the camp commander of the Gross Rosen
concentration camp reported to Müller, Chief of the Gestapo, a list of
the Soviet prisoners of war who had been executed there on the
previous day.

An account of the general conditions and treatment of Soviet
prisoners of war during the first eight months after the German
attack upon Russia was given in a letter which the Defendant
Rosenberg sent to the Defendant Keitel on 28 February 1942:
“The fate of the Soviet prisoners of war in Germany is on
the contrary a tragedy of the greatest extent . . . . A large
part of them has starved, or died because of the hazards of
the weather. Thousands also died from spotted fever.
“The camp commanders have forbidden the civilian
population to put food at the disposal of the prisoners, and
they have rather let them starve to death.
“In many cases, when prisoners of war could no longer
keep up on the march because of hunger and exhaustion,
they were shot before the eyes of the horrified population,
and the corpses were left.
“In numerous camps, no shelter for the prisoners of war
was provided at all. They lay under the open sky during
rain or snow. Even tools were not made available to dig
holes or caves.”
In some cases Soviet prisoners of war were branded with a special
permanent mark. There was put in evidence the OKW order dated
20 July 1942 which laid down that:
“The brand is to take the shape of an acute angle of about
45 degrees, with the long side to be 1 cm. in length,
pointing upwards and burnt on the left buttock . . . . This
brand is made with the aid of a lancet available in any
military unit. The coloring used is Chinese ink.”
The carrying out of this order was the responsibility of the military
authorities, though it was widely circulated by the Chief of the SIPO
and the SD to German police officials for information.
Soviet prisoners of war were also made the subject of medical
experiments of the most cruel and inhuman kind. In July 1943
experimental work was begun in preparation for a campaign of
bacteriological warfare; Soviet prisoners of war were used in these

medical experiments, which more often than not proved fatal. In
connection with this campaign for bacteriological warfare,
preparations were also made for the spreading of bacterial
emulsions from planes, with the object of producing widespread
failures of crops and consequent starvation. These measures were
never applied, possibly because of the rapid deterioration of
Germany’s military position.
The argument in defense of the charge with regard to the
murder and ill-treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, that the U.S.S.R.
was not a party to the Geneva Convention, is quite without
foundation. On 15 September 1941 Admiral Canaris protested
against the regulations for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war,
signed by General Reinecke on 8 September 1941. He then stated:
“The Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of
war is not binding in the relationship between Germany and
the U.S.S.R. Therefore only the principles of general
international law on the treatment of prisoners of war
apply. Since the 18th century these have gradually been
established along the lines that war captivity is neither
revenge nor punishment, but solely protective custody, the
only purpose of which is to prevent the prisoners of war
from further participation in the war. This principle was
developed in accordance with the view held by all armies
that it is contrary to military tradition to kill or injure
helpless people . . . . The decrees for the treatment of
Soviet prisoners of war enclosed are based on a
fundamentally different view-point.”
This protest, which correctly stated the legal position, was ignored.
The Defendant Keitel made a note on this memorandum:
“The objections arise from the military concept of chivalrous
warfare. This is the destruction of an ideology. Therefore I
approve and back the measures.”

Murder and Ill-treatment of Civilian Population
Article 6 (b) of the Charter provides that “ill-treatment . . . of
civilian population of or in occupied territory . . . killing of hostages
. . . wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages” shall be a war
crime. In the main, these provisions are merely declaratory of the
existing laws of war as expressed by the Hague Convention, Article
46, which stated: “Family honor and rights, the lives of persons and
private property, as well as religious convictions and practice must
be respected.”
The territories occupied by Germany were administered in
violation of the laws of war. The evidence is quite overwhelming of a
systematic rule of violence, brutality, and terror. On 7 December
1941 Hitler issued the directive since known as the “Nacht und Nebel
Erlass” (Night and Fog Decree), under which persons who committed
offenses against the Reich or the German forces in occupied
territories, except where the death sentence was certain, were to be
taken secretly to Germany and handed over to the SIPO and SD for
trial or punishment in Germany. This decree was signed by the
Defendant Keitel. After these civilians arrived in Germany, no word of
them was permitted to reach the country from which they came, or
their relatives; even in cases when they died awaiting trial the
families were not informed, the purpose being to create anxiety in
the minds of the family of the arrested person. Hitler’s purpose in
issuing this decree was stated by the Defendant Keitel in a covering
letter, dated 12 December 1941, to be as follows:
“Efficient and enduring intimidation can only be achieved
either by capital punishment or by measures by which the
relatives of the criminal and the population do not know the
fate of the criminal. This aim is achieved when the criminal
is transferred to Germany.”
Even persons who were only suspected of opposing any of the
policies of the German occupation authorities were arrested, and on
arrest were interrogated by the Gestapo and the SD in the most

shameful manner. On 12 June 1942 the Chief of the SIPO and SD
published, through Müller, the Gestapo Chief, an order authorizing
the use of “third degree” methods of interrogation, where
preliminary investigation had indicated that the person could give
information on important matters, such as subversive activities,
though not for the purpose of extorting confessions of the prisoner’s
own crimes. This order provided:
“. . . . Third degree may, under this supposition, only be
employed against Communists, Marxists, Jehovah’s
Witnesses, saboteurs, terrorists, members of resistance
movements, parachute agents, anti-social elements, Polish
or Soviet Russian loafers or tramps; in all other cases my
permission must first be obtained . . . . Third degree can,
according to circumstances, consist amongst other methods
of very simple diet (bread and water), hard bunk, dark cell,
deprivation of sleep, exhaustive drilling, also in flogging (for
more than twenty strokes a doctor must be consulted).”
The brutal suppression of all opposition to the German occupation
was not confined to severe measures against suspected members of
resistance movements themselves, but was also extended to their
families. On 19 July 1944 the Commander of the SIPO and SD in the
district of Radom, in Poland, published an order, transmitted through
the Higher SS and Police Leaders, to the effect that in all cases of
assassination or attempted assassination of Germans, or where
saboteurs had destroyed vital installations, not only the guilty
person, but also all his or her male relatives should be shot, and
female relatives over 16 years of age put into a concentration camp.
In the summer of 1944 the Einsatz Commando of the SIPO and
SD at Luxembourg caused persons to be confined at Sachsenhausen
concentration camp because they were relatives of deserters, and
were therefore “expected to endanger the interest of the German
Reich if allowed to go free.”
The practice of keeping hostages to prevent and to punish any
form of civil disorder was resorted to by the Germans; an order
issued by the Defendant Keitel on 16 September 1941 spoke in

terms of fifty or a hundred lives from the occupied areas of the
Soviet Union for one German life taken. The order stated that “it
should be remembered that a human life in unsettled countries
frequently counts for nothing, and a deterrent effect can be obtained
only by unusual severity.” The exact number of persons killed as a
result of this policy is not known, but large numbers were killed in
France and the other occupied territories in the West, while in the
East the slaughter was on an even more extensive scale. In addition
to the killing of hostages, entire towns were destroyed in some
cases; such massacres as those of Oradour-sur-Glane in France and
Lidice in Czechoslovakia, both of which were described to the
Tribunal in detail, are examples of the organized use of terror by the
occupying forces to beat down and destroy all opposition to their
rule.
One of the most notorious means of terrorizing the people in
occupied territories was the use of concentration camps. They were
first established in Germany at the moment of the seizure of power
by the Nazi Government. Their original purpose was to imprison
without trial all those persons who were opposed to the
Government, or who were in any way obnoxious to German
authority. With the aid of a secret police force, this practice was
widely extended, and in course of time concentration camps became
places of organized and systematic murder, where millions of people
were destroyed.
In the administration of the occupied territories the concentration
camps were used to destroy all opposition groups. The persons
arrested by the Gestapo were as a rule sent to concentration camps.
They were conveyed to the camps in many cases without any care
whatever being taken for them, and great numbers died on the way.
Those who arrived at the camp were subject to systematic cruelty.
They were given hard physical labor, inadequate food, clothes and
shelter, and were subject at all times to the rigors of a soulless
regime, and the private whims of individual guards. In the report of
the War Crimes Branch of the Judge Advocate’s Section of the Third
U.S. Army, under date 21 June 1945, the conditions at the

Flossenburg concentration camp were investigated, and one passage
may be quoted:
“Flossenburg concentration camp can best be described as
a factory dealing in death. Although this camp had in view
the primary object of putting to work the mass slave labor,
another of its primary objects was the elimination of human
lives by the methods employed in handling the prisoners.
Hunger and starvation rations, sadism, inadequate clothing,
medical neglect, disease, beatings, hangings, freezing,
forced suicides, shooting, etc. all played a major role in
obtaining their object. Prisoners were murdered at random;
spite killings against Jews were common, injections of
poison and shooting in the neck were everyday
occurrences; epidemics of typhus and spotted fever were
permitted to run rampant as a means of eliminating
prisoners; life in this camp meant nothing. Killing became a
common thing, so common that a quick death was
welcomed by the unfortunate ones.”
A certain number of the concentration camps were equipped with
gas chambers for the wholesale destruction of the inmates, and with
furnaces for the burning of the bodies. Some of them were in fact
used for the extermination of Jews as part of the “final solution” of
the Jewish problem. Most of the non-Jewish inmates were used for
labor, although the conditions under which they worked made labor
and death almost synonymous terms. Those inmates who became ill
and were unable to work were either destroyed in the gas chambers
or sent to special infirmaries, where they were given entirely
inadequate medical treatment, worse food if possible than the
working inmates, and left to die.
The murder and ill-treatment of civilian populations reached its
height in the treatment of the citizens of the Soviet Union and
Poland. Some four weeks before the invasion of Russia began,
special task forces of the SIPO and SD, called Einsatz Groups, were
formed on the orders of Himmler for the purpose of following the
German Armies into Russia, combating partisans and members of

Resistance Groups, and exterminating the Jews and communist
leaders and other sections of the population. In the beginning, four
such Einsatz Groups were formed, one operating in the Baltic States,
one towards Moscow, one towards Kiev, and one operating in the
south of Russia. Ohlendorf, former Chief of Amt III of the RSHA,
who led the fourth group, stated in his affidavit:
“When the German army invaded Russia, I was leader of
Einsatzgruppe D, in the southern sector, and in the course
of the year during which I was leader of the Einsatzgruppe
D it liquidated approximately 90,000 men, women, and
children. The majority of those liquidated were Jews, but
there were also among them some communist
functionaries.”
In an order issued by the Defendant Keitel on 23 July 1941, and
drafted by the Defendant Jodl, it was stated that:

“In view of the vast size of the occupied areas in the East,
the forces available for establishing security in these areas
will be sufficient only if all resistance is punished, not by
legal prosecution of the guilty, but by the spreading of such
terror by the Armed Forces as is alone appropriate to
eradicate every inclination to resist among the population
. . . . Commanders must find the means of keeping order
by applying suitable Draconian measures.”
The evidence has shown that this order was ruthlessly carried out in
the territory of the Soviet Union and in Poland. A significant
illustration of the measures actually applied occurs in the document
which was sent in 1943 to the Defendant Rosenberg by the Reich
Commissar for Eastern Territories, who wrote:
“It should be possible to avoid atrocities and to bury those
who have been liquidated. To lock men, women, and
children into barns and set fire to them does not appear to
be a suitable method of combating bands, even if it is
desired to exterminate the population. This method is not
worthy of the German cause, and hurts our reputation
severely.”
The Tribunal has before it an affidavit of one Hermann Graebe,
dated 10 November 1945, describing the immense mass murders
which he witnessed. He was the manager and engineer in charge of
the branch of the Solingen firm of Josef Jung in Spolbunow, Ukraine,
from September 1941 to January 1944. He first of all described the
attack upon the Jewish ghetto at Rowno:
“. . . . Then the electric floodlights which had been erected
all around the ghetto were switched on. SS and militia
details of four to six members entered or at least tried to
enter the houses. Where the doors and windows were
closed, and the inhabitants did not open upon the
knocking, the SS men and militia broke the windows, forced
the doors with beams and crowbars, and entered the

dwelling. The owners were driven on to the street just as
they were, regardless of whether they were dressed or
whether they had been in bed. . . . Car after car was filled.
Over it hung the screaming of women and children, the
cracking of whips and rifle shots.”
Graebe then described how a mass execution at Dubno, which he
witnessed on 5 October 1942, was carried out:
“. . . . Now we heard shots in quick succession from behind
one of the earth mounds. The people who had got off the
trucks, men, women, and children of all ages, had to
undress upon the orders of an SS man, who carried a riding
or dog whip . . . . Without screaming or crying, these
people undressed, stood around by families, kissed each
other, said farewells, and waited for the command of
another SS man, who stood near the excavation, also with
a whip in his hand. . . . At that moment the SS man at the
excavation called something to his comrade. The latter
counted off about 20 persons, and instructed them to walk
behind the earth mound . . . . I walked around the mound
and stood in front of a tremendous grave; closely pressed
together, the people were lying on top of each other so that
only their heads were visible. The excavation was already
two-thirds full; I estimated that it contained about a
thousand people. . . . Now already the next group
approached, descended into the excavation, lined
themselves up against the previous victims and were shot.”
The foregoing crimes against the civilian population are
sufficiently appalling, and yet the evidence shows that at any rate in
the East, the mass murders and cruelties were not committed solely
for the purpose of stamping out opposition or resistance to the
German occupying forces. In Poland and the Soviet Union these
crimes were part of a plan to get rid of whole native populations by
expulsion and annihilation, in order that their territory could be used
for colonization by Germans. Hitler had written in Mein Kampf on

these lines, and the plan was clearly stated by Himmler in July 1942,
when he wrote: “It is not our task to Germanize the East in the old
sense, that is to teach the people there the German language and
the German law, but to see to it that only people of purely Germanic
blood live in the East.”
In August 1942 the policy for the Eastern Territories as laid down
by Bormann was summarized by a subordinate of Rosenberg as
follows:
“The Slavs are to work for us. In so far as we do not need
them, they may die. Therefore, compulsory vaccination and
Germanic health services are superfluous. The fertility of
the Slavs is undesirable.”
It was Himmler again who stated in October 1943:
“What happens to a Russian, a Czech, does not interest me
in the slightest. What the nations can offer in the way of
good blood of our type, we will take. If necessary, by
kidnapping their children and raising them here with us.
Whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death
interests me only in so far as we need them as slaves for
our Kultur, otherwise it is of no interest to me.”
In Poland the intelligentsia had been marked down for extermination
as early as September 1939, and in May 1940 the Defendant Frank
wrote in his diary of “taking advantage of the focussing of world
interest on the Western Front, by wholesale liquidation of thousands
of Poles, first leading representatives of the Polish intelligentsia.”
Earlier, Frank had been directed to reduce the “entire Polish
economy to an absolute minimum necessary for bare existence. The
Poles shall be the slaves of the Greater German World Empire.” In
January 1940 he recorded in his diary that “cheap labor must be
removed from the General Government by hundreds of thousands.
This will hamper the native biological propagation.” So successfully
did the Germans carry out this policy in Poland that by the end of
the war one-third of the population had been killed, and the whole
of the country devastated.

It was the same story in the occupied area of the Soviet Union.
At the time of the launching of the German attack in June 1941
Rosenberg told his collaborators:
“The object of feeding the German People stands this year
without a doubt at the top of the list of Germany’s claims
on the East, and there the southern territories and the
northern Caucasus will have to serve as a balance for the
feeding of the German People . . . . A very extensive
evacuation will be necessary, without any doubt, and it is
sure that the future will hold very hard years in store for
the Russians.”
Three or four weeks later Hitler discussed with Rosenberg, Göring,
Keitel, and others his plan for the exploitation of the Soviet
population and territory, which included among other things the
evacuation of the inhabitants of the Crimea and its settlement by
Germans.
A somewhat similar fate was planned for Czechoslovakia by the
Defendant Von Neurath, in August 1940; the intelligentsia were to
be “expelled”, but the rest of the population was to be Germanized
rather than expelled or exterminated, since there was a shortage of
Germans to replace them.
In the West the population of Alsace were the victims of a
German “expulsion action.” Between July and December 1940,
105,000 Alsatians were either deported from their homes or
prevented from returning to them. A captured German report dated
7 August 1942 with regard to Alsace states that: “The problem of
race will be given first consideration, and this in such a manner that
persons of racial value will be deported to Germany proper, and
racially inferior persons to France.”

Pillage of Public and Private Property
Article 49 of the Hague Convention provides that an occupying
Power may levy a contribution of money from the occupied territory
to pay for the needs of the army of occupation, and for the
administration of the territory in question. Article 52 of the Hague
Convention provides that an occupying Power may make requisitions
in kind only for the needs of the army of occupation, and that these
requisitions shall be in proportion to the resources of the country.
These articles, together with Article 48, dealing with the expenditure
of money collected in taxes, and Articles 53, 55, and 56, dealing with
public property, make it clear that under the rules of war, the
economy of an occupied country can only be required to bear the
expense of the occupation, and these should not be greater than the
economy of the country can reasonably be expected to bear. Article
56 reads as follows:
“The property of municipalities, of religious, charitable,
educational, artistic, and scientific institutions, although
belonging to the State, is to be accorded the same standing
as private property. All pre-meditated seizure, destruction,
or damage of such institutions, historical monuments,
works of art and science, is prohibited and should be
prosecuted.”
The evidence in this case has established, however, that the
territories occupied by Germany were exploited for the German war
effort in the most ruthless way, without consideration of the local
economy, and in consequence of a deliberate design and policy.
There was in truth a systematic “plunder of public or private
property”, which was criminal under Article 6 (b) of the Charter. The
German occupation policy was clearly stated in a speech made by
the Defendant Göring on 6 August 1942 to the various German
authorities in charge of occupied territories:

“God knows, you are not sent out there to work for the
welfare of the people in your charge, but to get the utmost
out of them, so that the German People can live. That is
what I expect of your exertions. This everlasting concern
about foreign people must cease now, once and for all. I
have here before me reports on what you are expected to
deliver. It is nothing at all, when I consider your territories.
It makes no difference to me in this connection if you say
that your people will starve.”
The methods employed to exploit the resources of the occupied
territories to the full varied from country to country. In some of the
occupied countries in the East and the West, this exploitation was
carried out within the framework of the existing economic structure.
The local industries were put under German supervision, and the
distribution of war materials was rigidly controlled. The industries
thought to be of value to the German war effort were compelled to
continue, and most of the rest were closed down altogether. Raw
materials and the finished products alike were confiscated for the
needs of the German industry. As early as 19 October 1939 the
Defendant Göring had issued a directive giving detailed instructions
for the administration of the occupied territories; it provided:
“The task for the economic treatment of the various
administrative regions is different, depending on whether
the country is involved which will be incorporated politically
into the German Reich, or whether we will deal with the
Government-General, which in all probability will not be
made a part of Germany. In the first mentioned territories,
the . . . safeguarding of all their productive facilities and
supplies must be aimed at, as well as a complete
incorporation into the Greater German economic system, at
the earliest possible time. On the other hand, there must be
removed from the territories of the Government-General all
raw materials, scrap materials, machines, etc., which are of
use for the German war economy. Enterprises which are not
absolutely necessary for the meager maintenance of the

naked existence of the population must be transferred to
Germany, unless such transfer would require an
unreasonably long period of time, and would make it more
practicable to exploit those enterprises by giving them
German orders, to be executed at their present location.”
As a consequence of this order, agricultural products, raw materials
needed by German factories, machine tools, transportation
equipment, other finished products, and even foreign securities and
holdings of foreign exchange were all requisitioned and sent to
Germany. These resources were requisitioned in a manner out of all
proportion to the economic resources of those countries, and
resulted in famine, inflation, and an active black market. At first the
German occupation authorities attempted to suppress the black
market, because it was a channel of distribution keeping local
products out of German hands. When attempts at suppression failed,
a German purchasing agency was organized to make purchases for
Germany on the black market, thus carrying out the assurance made
by the Defendant Göring that it was “necessary that all should know
that if there is to be famine anywhere, it shall in no case be in
Germany.”
In many of the occupied countries of the East and the West, the
authorities maintained the pretense of paying for all the property
which they seized. This elaborate pretense of payment merely
disguised the fact that the goods sent to Germany from these
occupied countries were paid for by the occupied countries
themselves, either by the device of excessive occupation costs or by
forced loans in return for a credit balance on a “clearing account”
which was an account merely in name.
In most of the occupied countries of the East even this pretense
of legality was not maintained; economic exploitation became
deliberate plunder. This policy was first put into effect in the
administration of the Government General in Poland. The main
exploitation of the raw materials in the East was centered on
agricultural products and very large amounts of food were shipped
from the Government General to Germany.

The evidence of the widespread starvation among the Polish
People in the Government General indicates the ruthlessness and the
severity with which the policy of exploitation was carried out.
The occupation of the territories of the U.S.S.R. was
characterized by premeditated and systematic looting. Before the
attack on the U.S.S.R. an economic staff—Oldenburg—was organized
to ensure the most efficient exploitation of Soviet territories. The
German Armies were to be fed out of Soviet territory, even if “many
millions of people will be starved to death.” An OKW directive issued
before the attack said: “To obtain the greatest possible quantity of
food and crude oil for Germany—that is the main economic purpose
of the campaign.”
Similarly, a declaration by the Defendant Rosenberg of 20 June
1941 had advocated the use of the produce from Southern Russia
and of the Northern Caucasus to feed the German People, saying:
“We see absolutely no reason for any obligation on our part
to feed also the Russian People with the products of that
surplus territory. We know that this is a harsh necessity,
bare of any feelings.”
When the Soviet territory was occupied, this policy was put into
effect; there was a large scale confiscation of agricultural supplies,
with complete disregard of the needs of the inhabitants of the
occupied territory.
In addition to the seizure of raw materials and manufactured
articles, a wholesale seizure was made of art treasures, furniture,
textiles, and similar articles in all the invaded countries.
The Defendant Rosenberg was designated by Hitler on 29
January 1940 Head of the Center for National Socialist Ideological
and Educational Research, and thereafter the organization known as
the “Einsatzstab Rosenberg” conducted its operations on a very
great scale. Originally designed for the establishment of a research
library, it developed into a project for the seizure of cultural
treasures. On 1 March 1942 Hitler issued a further decree,
authorizing Rosenberg to search libraries, lodges, and cultural
establishments, to seize material from these establishments, as well

as cultural treasures owned by Jews. Similar directions were given
where the ownership could not be clearly established. The decree
directed the co-operation of the Wehrmacht High Command, and
indicated that Rosenberg’s activities in the West were to be
conducted in his capacity as Reichsleiter, and in the East in his
capacity as Reichsminister. Thereafter, Rosenberg’s activities were
extended to the occupied countries. The report of Robert Scholz,
Chief of the special staff for Pictorial Art, stated: “During the period
from March 1941 to July 1944 the special staff for Pictorial Art
brought into the Reich 29 large shipments, including 137 freight cars
with 4,174 cases of art works.”
The report of Scholz refers to 25 portfolios of pictures of the
most valuable works of the art collection seized in the West, which
portfolios were presented to the Führer. Thirty-nine volumes,
prepared by the Einsatzstab, contained photographs of paintings,
textiles, furniture, candelabra, and numerous other objects of art,
and illustrated the value and magnitude of the collection which had
been made. In many of the occupied countries private collections
were robbed, libraries were plundered, and private houses were
pillaged.
Museums, palaces, and libraries in the occupied territories of the
U.S.S.R. were systematically looted. Rosenberg’s Einsatzstab, Von
Ribbentrop’s special “Battalion”, the Reichscommissars and
representatives of the Military Command seized objects of cultural
and historical value belonging to the People of the Soviet Union,
which were sent to Germany. Thus the Reichscommissar of the
Ukraine removed paintings and objects of art from Kiev and Kharkov
and sent them to East Prussia. Rare volumes and objects of art from
the palaces of Peterhof, Tsarskoye Selo, and Pavlovsk were shipped
to Germany. In his letter to Rosenberg of 3 October 1941
Reichscommissar Kube stated that the value of the objects of art
taken from Bielorussia ran into millions of rubles. The scale of this
plundering can also be seen in the letter sent from Rosenberg’s
department to Von Milde-Schreden in which it is stated that during
the month of October 1943 alone, about 40 box-cars loaded with
objects of cultural value were transported to the Reich.

With regard to the suggestion that the purpose of the seizure of
art treasures was protective and meant for their preservation, it is
necessary to say a few words. On 1 December 1939 Himmler, as the
Reich Commissioner for the “strengthening of Germanism”, issued a
decree to the regional officers of the secret police in the annexed
eastern territories, and to the commanders of the security service in
Radom, Warsaw, and Lublin. This decree contained administrative
directions for carrying out the art seizure program, and in Clause 1 it
is stated:
To strengthen Germanism in the defense of the Reich, all
articles mentioned in Section 2 of this decree are hereby
confiscated . . . . They are confiscated for the benefit of the
German Reich, and are at the disposal of the Reich
Commissioner for the strengthening of Germanism.”
The intention to enrich Germany by the seizures, rather than to
protect the seized objects, is indicated in an undated report by Dr.
Hans Posse, director of the Dresden State Picture Gallery:
“I was able to gain some knowledge on the public and
private collections, as well as clerical property, in Cracow
and Warsaw. It is true that we cannot hope too much to
enrich ourselves from the acquisition of great art works of
paintings and sculptures, with the exception of the Veit-
Stoß altar, and the plates of Hans von Kulnback in the
Church of Maria in Cracow . . . and several other works
from the National Museum in Warsaw.”

Slave Labor Policy
Article 6 (b) of the Charter provides that the “ill-treatment or
deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose, of civilian
population of or in occupied territory” shall be a War Crime. The
laws relating to forced labor by the inhabitants of occupied territories
are found in Article 52 of the Hague Convention, which provides:
“Requisition in kind and services shall not be demanded
from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of
the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the
resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to
involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in
military operations against their own country.”
The policy of the German occupation authorities was in flagrant
violation of the terms of this convention. Some idea of this policy
may be gathered from the statement made by Hitler in a speech on
9 November 1941:
“The territory which now works for us contains more than
250,000,000 men, but the territory which works indirectly
for us includes now more than 350,000,000. In the
measure in which it concerns German territory, the domain
which we have taken under our administration, it is not
doubtful that we shall succeed in harnessing the very last
man to this work.”
The actual results achieved were not so complete as this, but the
German occupation authorities did succeed in forcing many of the
inhabitants of the occupied territories to work for the German war
effort, and in deporting at least 5,000,000 persons to Germany to
serve German industry and agriculture.
In the early stages of the war, manpower in the occupied
territories was under the control of various occupation authorities,
and the procedure varied from country to country. In all the
occupied territories compulsory labor service was promptly

instituted. Inhabitants of the occupied countries were conscripted
and compelled to work in local occupations, to assist the German
war economy. In many cases they were forced to work on German
fortifications and military installations. As local supplies of raw
materials and local industrial capacity became inadequate to meet
the German requirements, the system of deporting laborers to
Germany was put into force. By the middle of April 1940 compulsory
deportation of laborers to Germany had been ordered in the
Government General; and a similar procedure was followed in other
eastern territories as they were occupied. A description of this
compulsory deportation from Poland was given by Himmler. In an
address to SS officers he recalled how in weather 40 degrees below
zero they had to “haul away thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds
of thousands”. On a later occasion Himmler stated:
“Whether ten thousand Russian females fall down from
exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me
only insofar as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished
. . . . We must realize that we have 6-7 million foreigners in
Germany . . . . They are none of them dangerous so long
as we take severe measures at the merest trifles.”
During the first two years of the German occupation of France,
Belgium, Holland, and Norway, however, an attempt was made to
obtain the necessary workers on a voluntary basis. How unsuccessful
this was may be seen from the report of the meeting of the Central
Planning Board on 1 March 1944. The representative of the
Defendant Speer, one Koehrl, speaking of the situation in France,
said: “During all this time a great number of Frenchmen was
recruited, and voluntarily went to Germany.”
He was interrupted by the Defendant Sauckel: “Not only
voluntary, some were recruited forcibly.”
To which Koehrl replied: “The calling up started after the
recruitment no longer yielded enough results.”
To which the Defendant Sauckel replied: “Out of the five million
workers who arrived in Germany, not even 200,000 came
voluntarily”, and Koehrl rejoined: “Let us forget for the moment

whether or not some slight pressure was used. Formally, at least,
they were volunteers.”
Committees were set up to encourage recruiting, and a vigorous
propaganda campaign was begun to induce workers to volunteer for
service in Germany. This propaganda campaign included, for
example, the promise that a prisoner of war would be returned for
every laborer who volunteered to go to Germany. In some cases it
was supplemented by withdrawing the ration cards of laborers who
refused to go to Germany, or by discharging them from their jobs
and denying them unemployment benefit or an opportunity to work
elsewhere. In some cases workers and their families were
threatened with reprisals by the police if they refused to go to
Germany. It was on 21 March 1942 that the Defendant Sauckel was
appointed Plenipotentiary-General for the Utilization of Labor, with
authority over “all available manpower, including that of workers
recruited abroad, and of prisoners of war”.
The Defendant Sauckel was directly under the Defendant Göring
as Commissioner of the Four Year Plan, and a Göring decree of 27
March 1942 transferred all his authority over manpower to Sauckel.
Sauckel’s instructions, too, were that foreign labor should be
recruited on a voluntary basis, but also provided that “where,
however, in the occupied territories, the appeal for volunteers does
not suffice, obligatory service and drafting must under all
circumstances be resorted to.” Rules requiring labor service in
Germany were published in all the occupied territories. The number
of laborers to be supplied was fixed by Sauckel, and the local
authorities were instructed to meet these requirements by
conscription if necessary. That conscription was the rule rather than
the exception is shown by the statement of Sauckel already quoted,
on 1 March 1944.
The Defendant Sauckel frequently asserted that the workers
belonging to foreign nations were treated humanely, and that the
conditions in which they lived were good. But whatever the intention
of Sauckel may have been, and however much he may have desired
that foreign laborers should be treated humanely, the evidence
before the Tribunal establishes the fact that the conscription of labor

was accomplished in many cases by drastic and violent methods.
The “mistakes and blunders” were on a very great scale. Man-hunts
took place in the streets, at motion picture houses, even at churches
and at night in private houses. Houses were sometimes burnt down,
and the families taken as hostages, practices which were described
by the Defendant Rosenberg as having their origin “in the blackest
periods of the slave trade”. The methods used in obtaining forced
labor from the Ukraine appear from an order issued to SD officers
which stated:
“It will not be possible always to refrain from using force
. . . . When searching villages, especially when it has been
necessary to burn down a village, the whole population will
be put at the disposal of the Commissioner by force . . . .
As a rule no more children will be shot . . . . If we limit
harsh measures through the above orders for the time
being, it is only done for the following reason . . . . The
most important thing is the recruitment of workers.”
The resources and needs of the occupied countries were completely
disregarded in carrying out this policy. The treatment of the laborers
was governed, by Sauckel’s instructions of 20 April 1942 to the effect
that: “All the men must be fed, sheltered and treated in such a way
as to exploit them to the highest possible extent, at the lowest
conceivable degree of expenditure.”
The evidence showed that workers destined for the Reich were
sent under guard to Germany, often packed in trains without
adequate heat, food, clothing, or sanitary facilities. The evidence
further showed that the treatment of the laborers in Germany in
many cases was brutal and degrading. The evidence relating to the
Krupp Works at Essen showed that punishments of the most cruel
kind were inflicted on the workers. Theoretically at least the workers
were paid, housed, and fed by the DAF, and even permitted to
transfer their savings and to send mail and parcels back to their
native country; but restrictive regulations took a proportion of the
pay; the camps in which they were housed were unsanitary; and the
food was very often less than the minimum necessary to give the

workers strength to do their jobs. In the case of Poles employed on
farms in Germany, the employers were given authority to inflict
corporal punishment and were ordered, if possible, to house them in
stables, not in their own homes. They were subject to constant
supervision by the Gestapo and the SS, and if they attempted to
leave their jobs they were sent to correction camps or concentration
camps. The concentration camps were also used to increase the
supply of labor. Concentration camp commanders were ordered to
work their prisoners to the limits of their physical power. During the
latter stages of the war the concentration camps were so productive
in certain types of work that the Gestapo was actually instructed to
arrest certain classes of laborers so that they could be used in this
way. Allied prisoners of war were also regarded as a possible source
of labor. Pressure was exercised on non-commissioned officers to
force them to consent to work, by transferring to disciplinary camps
those who did not consent. Many of the prisoners of war were
assigned to work directly related to military operations, in violation
of Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. They were put to work in
munition factories and even made to load bombers, to carry
ammunition and to dig trenches, often under the most hazardous
conditions. This condition applied particularly to the Soviet prisoners
of war. On 16 February 1943, at a meeting of the Central Planning
Board, at which the Defendants Sauckel and Speer were present,
Milch said:
“We have made a request for an order that a certain
percentage of men in the Ack-Ack artillery must be
Russians; 50,000 will be taken altogether. Thirty thousand
are already employed as gunners. This is an amusing thing,
that Russians must work the guns.”
And on 4 October 1943, at Posen, Himmler, speaking of the Russian
prisoners, captured in the early days of the war, said:
“As that time we did not value the mass of humanity as we
value it today, as raw material, as labor. What, after all,
thinking in terms of generations, is not to be regretted, but

is now deplorable by reason of the loss of labor, is that the
prisoners died in tens and hundreds of thousands of
exhaustion and hunger.”
The general policy underlying the mobilization of slave labor was
stated by Sauckel on 20 April 1942. He said:
“The aim of this new gigantic labor mobilization is to use all
the rich and tremendous sources conquered and secured
for us by our fighting Armed Forces under the leadership of
Adolf Hitler, for the armament of the Armed Forces, and
also for the nutrition of the Homeland. The raw materials,
as well as the fertility of the conquered territories and their
human labor power, are to be used completely and
conscientiously to the profit of Germany and her allies . . . .
All prisoners of war from the territories of the West, as well
as the East, actually in Germany, must be completely
incorporated into the German armament and nutrition
industries . . . . Consequently it is an immediate necessity
to use the human reserves of the conquered Soviet territory
to the fullest extent. Should we not succeed in obtaining
the necessary amount of labor on a voluntary basis, we
must immediately institute conscription or forced labor. . . .
The complete employment of all prisoners of war, as well as
the use of a gigantic number of new foreign civilian
workers, men and women, has become an indisputable
necessity for the solution of the mobilization of the labor
program in this war.”
Reference should also be made to the policy which was in existence
in Germany by the summer of 1940, under which all aged, insane,
and incurable people, “useless eaters,” were transferred to special
institutions where they were killed, and their relatives informed that
they had died from natural causes. The victims were not confined to
German citizens, but included foreign laborers, who were no longer
able to work, and were therefore useless to the German war
machine. It has been estimated that at least some 275,000 people

were killed in this manner in nursing homes, hospitals and asylums,
which were under the jurisdiction of the Defendant Frick, in his
capacity as Minister of the Interior. How many foreign workers were
included in this total it has been quite impossible to determine.

Persecution of the Jews
The persecution of the Jews at the hands of the Nazi
Government has been proved in the greatest detail before the
Tribunal. It is a record of consistent and systematic inhumanity on
the greatest scale. Ohlendorf, Chief of Amt III in the RSHA from
1939 to 1943, and who was in command of one of the Einsatz
groups in the campaign against the Soviet Union testified as to the
methods employed in the extermination of the Jews. He said that he
employed firing squads to shoot the victims in order to lessen the
sense of individual guilt on the part of his men; and the 90,000 men,
women, and children who were murdered in one year by his
particular group were mostly Jews.
When the witness Bach Zelewski was asked how Ohlendorf could
admit the murder of 90,000 people, he replied: “I am of the opinion
that when, for years, for decades, the doctrine is preached that the
Slav race is an inferior race, and Jews not even human, then such an
outcome is inevitable.”
But the Defendant Frank spoke the final words of this chapter of
Nazi history when he testified in this Court:
“We have fought against Jewry: we have fought against it
for years: and we have allowed ourselves to make
utterances and my own diary has become a witness against
me in this connection—utterances which are terrible . . . . A
thousand years will pass and this guilt of Germany will still
not be erased.”
The anti-Jewish policy was formulated in Point 4 of the Party
Program which declared “Only a member of the race can be a
citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German
blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently, no Jew can be
a member of the race.” Other points of the program declared that
Jews should be treated as foreigners, that they should not be
permitted to hold public office, that they should be expelled from the
Reich if it were impossible to nourish the entire population of the

State, that they should be denied any further immigration into
Germany, and that they should be prohibited from publishing
German newspapers. The Nazi Party preached these doctrines
throughout its history. Der Stürmer and other publications were
allowed to disseminate hatred of the Jews, and in the speeches and
public declarations of the Nazi leaders, the Jews were held up to
public ridicule and contempt.
With the seizure of power, the persecution of the Jews was
intensified. A series of discriminatory laws was passed, which limited
the offices and professions permitted to Jews; and restrictions were
placed on their family life and their rights of citizenship. By the
autumn of 1938, the Nazi policy towards the Jews had reached the
stage where it was directed towards the complete exclusion of Jews
from German life. Pogroms were organized, which included the
burning and demolishing of synagogues, the looting of Jewish
businesses, and the arrest of prominent Jewish business men. A
collective fine of 1 billion marks was imposed on the Jews, the
seizure of Jewish assets was authorized, and the movement of Jews
was restricted by regulations to certain specified districts and hours.
The creation of ghettos was carried out on an extensive scale, and
by an order of the Security Police Jews were compelled to wear a
yellow star to be worn on the breast and back.
It was contended for the Prosecution that certain aspects of this
anti-Semitic policy were connected with the plans for aggressive war.
The violent measures taken against the Jews in November 1938
were nominally in retaliation for the killing of an official of the
German Embassy in Paris. But the decision to seize Austria and
Czechoslovakia had been made a year before. The imposition of a
fine of one billion marks was made, and the confiscation of the
financial holdings of the Jews was decreed, at a time when German
armament expenditure had put the German treasury in difficulties,
and when the reduction of expenditure on armaments was being
considered. These steps were taken, moreover, with the approval of
the Defendant Göring, who had been given responsibility for
economic matters of this kind, and who was the strongest advocate

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

Primary Science Teaching Theory and Practice 4th Edition Achieving Qts John Sharp

More Related Content

Similar to Primary Science Teaching Theory and Practice 4th Edition Achieving Qts John Sharp (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Primary Science Teaching Theory and Practice 4th Edition Achieving Qts John Sharp