dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the non-rescue order is before 27 May 1940. We cannot give the exact date, but we know from a reference in another order that it must have been before 27 May 1940. And the order with regard to the destruction of the crews of merchant ships is 17 September 1942. Now, My Lord, the Document Number 29 contains four documents dealing with the evidence of the witness Heisig. The first purports to be an affidavit by a witness who speaks to the sort of statements the Defendant Doenitz usually made and does not remember what was said on the particular occasion referred to by the witness Heisig; and it contains a good deal of argument. The second is a letter sent to counsel for the Defendant Doenitz, and, with the exception of one sentence, denying that the defendant spoke in the sense alleged by Heisig; the remainder of the statement which, of course, is unsworn, is either argument or is vague or irrelevant. The remaining two documents, both apparently unsworn, contain allegations against the character of the witness Heisig. The Tribunal will remember that no allegations were made against him; that there was no crossexamination in regard to his character when he gave his evidence. And the second deals with other lectures which are not those in question. Now, My Lord, the next document, D-48, deals with the alleged good treatment of Allied prisoners in German Naval prisoner-of-war camps, on which subject no issue has been raised with this defendant. D-60, Page 209 deals with Italian- and French-declared danger zones, which, the Prosecution submits, has no relevance to those declared by the Germans. D-74 and D-60, Page 256, deal with the relationship between the British and French merchant marines and their respective navies; and the Prosecution submits that they are irrelevant as far as the British Navy is concerned, if they have any relevance cumulative of D-67. Now, My Lord, the third group are details of the Contraband Control System and they are D-60, Pages 173 to 198; D-72; D-60, Pages 204 and 205 and Pages 219 to 225.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, these documents deal with the details of the contraband control, what articles were contraband, declarations of different governments; and it is submitted that details of the contraband control are remote from the issues raised and entirely irrelevant. I do not think in the presentation against either of the Naval defendants questions of declarations of contraband were mentioned at all, certainly not in regard to the Defendant Doenitz; and, in the submission of the Prosecution, it's really introducing matters which are, I am sure, not helpful to the problems of this case. The fourth group, which can only be described in very general terms, are allegations against the Allies. My Lord, the general objection I set out in the first paragraph is this: Those documents consist of various allegations against the Allies; they appear to have little or no relevance to the issues and, if submitted, might necessitate the Prosecution's seeking the facilities to rebut the allegations; in which case a large volume of evidence in rebuttal might be entailed. Then I have isolated those which deal with allegations that the Allies did not pick up survivors; there are two: 43, 67; Pages 96 and 90. 31 and 32 deal with Allied attacks on German air-sea rescue planes; 33 accuses a Soviet submarine of sinking a hospital ship. And three, Numbers 37, 38, and 40, the last being a newspaper report, allege that the Allies shot survivors. My Lord, the question of Allied treatment of survivors is dealt with exhaustively by extract from the German Naval Diary and, My Lord, that we are not objecting to because there it is important not as evidence of the facts stated but as evidence of the matters that had an effect on the German Naval Command. For that purpose I am quite ready that Dr. Kranzbuehler should put them in and the Tribunal should consider them. And there is another document which deals with that point quite fully, and I am quite prepared to let that go in.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, My Lord, the remainder allege either ruthless actions or breaches of International Law by the Allies; and these are Number 19, Page 24, the Goering exhibit; Numbers 7 and C-21, Page 91; 47, Pages 120, 121, which is also a newspaper report; 52, 60, Pages 152 and 208; D-75, 81, 82, 85, and 89. Now, as I understand the defense that is developed here-the allegation with regard to the order which we say sets out the destruction of survivors-it is not that it was a reprisal, but the defense is that the order did not mean destruction but merely meant non-rescue. On that basis it seems difficult, indeed impossible, to appreciate how these matters become relevant at all. And similarly with regard to the order for ghosting Commandos. The justification alleged for the order is set out in the order itself. I haven't heard any defendant develop any justification of that order in giving evidence before the Tribunal. Every one of the defendants so far has said this order was given by Hitler and "whether we approved of it or not we had to carry it out." So that, in my submission, there isn't even the argument which is foreshadowed, that breaches of the laws and usages of war can be in certain occasions properly committed as reprisals. It is not put forward from that point of view; there is no admission here, as I understand the Defense, of breaches for which reprisal is the answer. Therefore, the Prosecution submits that these documents are also irrelevant. My Lord, again I tried to put it as shortly as possible because I didn't want to occupy too much time, but I tried to correct them and describe those which seemed of greatest importance.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know why this matter of the admissibility of these documents hasn't been argued before. In the other cases with which we have dealt, the question of the admissibility has been dealt with first of all by your offering your criticisms and objections, and then the defendant's counsel's being heard in reply. Then the Tribunal has ruled.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, as I understand the position, we did put in objections to the documents and Dr. Kranzbuehler suggested that he would very much prefer the documents to be translated and the objections taken at a later stage. And I was certainly informed that the Tribunal agreed with that and ordered the document to be translated.
THE PRESIDENT: That may be, for the purposes of translation. But that doesn't mean that they are necessarily admissible. And in most of the other cases, if not all, as you will remember, we have had an argument in open session in which you, or one other member of the Prosecution, have made your objections, and then the defendant's counsel has replied to those objections. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE;: My Lord, Dr. Kranzbuehler has just handed-yes... The ruling is: "The Tribunal has ruled that the documents mentioned in your application may be translated, but that the question of their admissibility is to be decided later." My Lord, I am afraid I am at fault there. It didn't occur to me, if I may be quite frank with the Tribunal, that I should have come before the beginning of the case Doenitz to make this argument. I am very sorry, and I must accept responsibility. I assumed, without real justification, that that meant the argument of admissibility would come at the beginning, or at some convenient time, in the case of Doenitz. I am very sorry, My Lord, and I can only express my regret. My Lord, there is this excuse: We had three of the books on Saturday, and we only got the last one yesterday. Therefore, we really couldn't have done it before today, even if I had thought of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuehler, the Tribunal considers that in view of the large number of documents to which the Prosecution objects, it will be highly inconvenient to have you answer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe's argument as you go through your documents; and therefore that you must answer now and deal with them in the way in which the other counsel have dealt with these objections to the admissibility of documents. Then the Tribunal will be able to consider the arguments that Sir David Maxwell Fyfe has put forward and the arguments that you put forward in support of the documents.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: Mr. President, I should like to point out that just because of the many objections which the Prosecution makes against the documents, I have for practical purposes to present all my documents, for the line of thought pursued in presenting documentary evidence implies a definite order of presentation and I cannot take out one document or another without disturbing this line of thought. Therefore, I believe it would save considerable time if the Tribunal would permit me to answer the objections when I come to the particular document.
THE PRESIDENT: What difference could it make, assuming that the decision of the Tribunal is the same, whether you argue the matter now or whether you argue the matter afterwards? The documents which will remain, which will have been held to be admissible, will be the same. Therefore, there is no difference. I can't see any argument in favor of what you are saying.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBOHLER: Mr. President, my documentary material, exactly like that of the Prosecution, is organized with a definite purpose in mind and according to a definite idea. If, of the 50 documents which are contained in my documentary material, I have to argue about 40, then 10 are lacking. Therefore, it seems to me proper for me to discuss all 50, in the order in which I intended to submit them to the Tribunal. If the Tribunal is of the opinion that the reasons given for the relevancy of the different documents are not sufficient, then the objectionable document can be withdrawn or refused. However, it seems expedient to me that I present my arguments in the order which I have been intending to follow, and not in the order in which the Prosecution is now making its objections. That defeats my purpose and disturbs my line of thought and, as defense counsel, I believe it is my task to present my own line of thought and not to reply to the line of thought pursued by the Prosecution or to their objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if that is so, then you can present your argument upon the relevancy of the documents in the order in which they come.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZB0HLER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: But you have to do it now.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZB0HLER: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: You can begin with D-5, which is the first, and then go on with D-9 and D-10; take them in the order in which they stand. Dr. Kranzbuehler, the Tribunal doesn't see any reason why you should be dealt with in a different way from which the other defendants have been treated. Therefore, they think that you ought to be prepared to deal with these documents in the way in which they are grouped here. They would prefer that you should deal with them now, if you can deal with them in a reasonably short space of time. Then they will be able to determine the question of which documents shall be admitted during the adjournment. Otherwise, they will have to adjourn tomorrow for a consideration of that matter, which will still further hold up the trial. FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBt1HLER: Mr. President, of course, I can make general statements as to the groups which the Prosecution has referred to, but I cannot refer to the individual documents with the necessary detail to establish their relevancy unequivocally. That is impossible for me, confronted as I am by a list which I have not seen before. Therefore I should like to ask, if I am to give reasons for each individual document now, that I be given an opportunity to do that tomorrow morning. However, if the Tribunal wishes only to hear general remarks about the groups, I can do that right now.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Kranzbuehler. The Tribunal will adjourn now, and we will hear you upon these documents at 9:30 tomorrow morning.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUEHLER: In open session, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: In open session, certainly, yes. [The Tribunal adjourned until 8 May 1946, at 0930  hours.]
MARSHAL: May it please the Tribunal, the report is made that Defendant Schirach is absent.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal, I shall now state my opinion on the documents to which the Prosecution has objected. Before I refer to the individual documents, I should like to say two things concerning the groups. First: I ask the Tribunal to recall that in general questions on naval warfare I also defend Admiral Raeder. I already mentioned, when I first applied for documents, that all the charges against naval warfare cannot be dealt with separately as concerning Doenitz or Raeder; therefore Dr. Siemers and I agreed that I should deal with these charges together. I ask the Tribunal in evaluating the question to take into consideration whether the charges are relevant. Second: A large number of the objections which the Prosecution has made are directed against the fact that the war measures of the Allies are mentioned in the documents. I believe that I have been completely misunderstood especially in this field. I am not interested and it is not my intention to disparage any war methods, and I shall demonstrate later in detail that the documents are not suitable or this. But I should like to state from the beginning that I want to show with these documents what naval warfare was really like. I could not demonstrate this by showing only the German methods; but I also have to submit to this Tribunal the methods of the Allies in order to prove that the German methods, which are similar to the Allies' methods, were legal. The Tribunal has even recognized this to be correct by approving the use of British Admiralty orders and an interrogatory of the Commander-in-Chief of the American Navy, Admiral Nimitz. I am very grateful that these documents were approved; and my own documents in this field are along the same line. I shall now refer to the individual documents against which objections have been raised; first to the Document Doenitz-5, which is in Document Book 1, Page 7.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuhler, the Tribunal has examined all these documents so I think you can deal with them as far as possible in groups.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: If possible, follow the order of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Mr. President, it will not be possible for me to follow the order of Sir David, because then I shall have to return repeatedly to the line of ideas which I have already mentioned. I believe it will facilitate and speed up the proceedings if I form groups according to the order in which I intended to present them; and I should like to remind the Tribunal that that was expressly approved for me yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kranzbuhler, it would be very much more convenient to the Tribunal if you followed the order in the groups. But if you find that impossible, the Tribunal would not make it a matter of an order.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: I should be very grateful, Mr. President, if I could keep the order which I had prepared. It corresponds to the order of Sir David.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Concerning the question of aggressive war, I have another document to submit which is Doenitz-5. It is an excerpt from Documente der Deutschen Politik , and concerns the question of bases in Norway. I consider this document relevant because it shows that on the part of the British Admiralty an interrogatory was prepared on the question of the necessity of such a base, which corresponds exactly to the one with which the Prosecution has charged Admiral Doenitz in Document GB-83 as proof for aggressive war. Thereby I wish to say that the answers on such interrogatories have nothing to do with any considerations concerning an aggressive war, which a subordinate office could not even make. The document is in Group 2 of Sir David's classification.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you saying that the footnote stands on the same footing as the other part of the document?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: The footnote is the essential part for me, Mr. President. I had the other part copied only to keep the connection with the footnote.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, who wrote the footnote? Doesn't the footnote represent information which was not before the German Admiralty at the time?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: No, no.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, does the footnote state that it was before the German Admiralty at the time?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: No, Mr. President. The footnote was not known to the German Admiralty at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I said; the footnote was not known to the German Admiralty. Who wrote it?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: The footnote is part of this document, which can be found in the collection Dokamente der Deutschen Politik ...
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Defendant Ribbentrop the author of it?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: No, Mr. President. The Dokamente der Deutschen Politik are an official collection, and the footnotes have been written by the editor of that collection on the basis of official material.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Now I come to the documents concerning naval warfare in general. A large part of those are in Sir David's Group 3. The first document is Doenitz-60, on Page 152. It concerns an American note of 6 October 1939, and is in connection with the Document Doenitz-61, to which the Prosecution has not objected. It is in Volume III of the document book, Mr. President. Volume III, Page 152. This document is an American reply to the document which you will find two pages before this, on Page 150. Both documents deal with the warning of neutral nations against suspicious actions of their merchant vessels. The question is relevant in respect to Exhibit GB-193 of the Prosecution. In this document a charge is made against an order that ships which act suspiciously-that is, proceed without lights-should be sunk. The next document is from Sir David's Group 1, Doenitz-69, on Page 170, in Book 3. It is an excerpt from several copies of the Volkischer Beobachter of November and December 1939. In these copies are published lifts of armed British and French passenger ships. This document also is in connection with a preceding document and the one following. All these documents deal with the question of treatment of passenger ships by the naval warfare command.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better give the numbers of the documents. You said the next document and the one before it. I think you had better give the numbers of the documents.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: Yes. That is Document 69, Mr. President, Doenitz-69, and it is on Page 170, in Book 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know it is, but you said something about documents that were akin, or some words to that effect, to the documents next to it.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: It is in relation to Doenitz-68, on Page 169 of the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that objected to?
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then, you need not bother with it.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: I only wanted to show, MR. PRESIDENT, that this document is only part of the proof about the treatment of passenger ships, and should prove that the German press had warned against the using of armed passenger ships. The next documents objected to by the Prosecution concern Group 3, "The Contraband and Control System." These are the documents Doenitz-60, from Page 173 to Page 197 of the document book, and I should like to form three groups of these. The first group, from Page 173 to Page 181, concerns the question of contraband. I consider this question relevant because Document GB-191 has stated that the German U-boats sank a large number of Allied ships while these ships were on a legal merchant trip. The development of rules against contraband will show the Tribunal that from 12 December 1939 on, a legal import to England no longer existed but actually only contraband. These documents concerning contraband are important, furthermore, for the German point of view, which became known under the slogan of "Hunger Blockade" and which played an important part in all German deliberations about the conduct and the intensification of naval warfare. The documents contain in detail the German contraband regulations, the British regulations, and two German statements concerning these contraband regulations. The next group is Doenitz-60, from Page 183 to Page 191. That concerns the regulations about putting into control ports; that is to say, the British Admiralty removed the control over neutral merchant shipping from the high seas into certain British ports. This group is also relevant in connection with Exhibit GB-191 because in this document the German Naval Operations Staff is accused of carrying out war measures against England without consideration of the danger to neutrals.
FLOTTENRICHTER KRANZBUHLER: The group which I have dealt with shows that it was not possible for the British Admiralty either to take war measures without endangering the neutrals, because, by the establishment of control ports, the neutrals were forced into German zones of operations and thereby, of course, endangered. This danger was confirmed by the neutrals themselves, and the documents on Pages 186 to 189 will prove this. An excerpt from the document of the Prosecution GB-194 on Page 198 belongs to that same group. It contains a renewed American protest against the control ports. The third group goes from Page 192 to 197, also Doenitz-60, and is concerned with the question of an export embargo. This export blockade was declared against Germany in an Order in Council of 27 November 1939. This measure is important in the question of legal trade because thereby legal export was no longer possible either. The export blockade therefore is a basis for the total blockade which was later declared by Germany against England. Since the Exhibit GB-191 disputes the legality of a total blockade I must prove the basic grounds and also the export blockade. The next document objected to is Doenitz-72 on Page 185. It deals with a note by Great Britain to Belgium of 22 September. In this note the British Government state that they will not tolerate any increase of trade between Belgium and Germany. I use it as evidence for the fact that the economic pressure which can be seen from this note was a natural and accepted means of warfare. This question is relevant concerning the document of the Prosecution, Exhibit GB-224. There on Page 6 under heading (c) it is stated that Germany would necessarily have to exert economic pressure on the neutrals, and these statements were submitted by the Prosecution as measures contrary to international law. The next group contains the following documents: Doenitz-60, Page 204; Doenitz-72, Page 207; Doenitz-60, Page 208; Doenitz-60, Page 209; and Doenitz-75, Page 218.