dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would like to put a further question to Dr. Dix before they hear you, and also ...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would like to make a simple statement of fact...
THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: ... which I think will clarify this situation some in justice to the United States of America. As to the fairness, I call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that we have printed, mimeographed, 250 copies of Dr. Stahmer's entire document book, and it is in the press room waiting for delivery to the press when it is received by this Tribunal, so that we have done everything that we could, everything that we did for ourselves, to make public his documents. In the second place, we have gone so far as to print even things that the Court ruled out, rather than to have controversy with them. In the third place, it is not the function of the Tribunal, under the Charter, to spread propaganda. A large part of this is stuff that is 20 years old and is in every good library and will not be used by newspapers and constitutes a waste of our money. We have tried to do everything in order to make this Trial completely fair to these people, and now that I have discovered that we are printing documents that the Court have already ruled out, I must say that I shall stop it. I think we have been imposed upon, and this document book will show it. There are documents after documents that the Tribunal have already ruled irrelevant, and we have gone to the expense of printing them in order to be more than fair.
DR. DIX: May I answer to that very briefly? As far as the point of view of propaganda is concerned, I regret that my suggestion has not been followed, according to which the public and the world would hear only those parts of our document books which have een recognized as relevant by the Tribunal, and then presented by us. If the contents of the document book do produce certain propaganda effects, which is unknown to me and which would be entirely against our intentions, then it is merely due to the fact that the contents of these document books have been submitted to the press not through legal and normal channels or let us say not by due procedure, that is, from the sessions' records; instead these document books of the Defense were placed at the disposal of the press without our knowledge, and therefore also such things were communicated to the press and the world public which, in the opinion of the Tribunal, circumstances permitting, may be irrelevant or perhaps biased. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that they are; I am merely talking in the abstract. But if you want to avoid just what Mr. Justice Jackson wishes to avoid, namely, that political propaganda is made by means of this Trial, then you must follow my suggestion; I want only that to be presented and brought to the knowledge of the world which has here been considered relevant by the Tribunal and admitted for presentation. Due to the excitement in Court it is very difficult to understand every word correctly through the earphones, but if Mr. Justice Jackson meant that we are trying to obtain a propaganda effect here, that is not the case. If he further mentions the point of fairness insofar as the Prosecution had done everything to inform the world public by placing at its disposal all the document books, then I have no criticism to offer in that respect. Far be it from me to call that unfair. But here we are in Court, having proper proceedings.
DR. DIX: We are not making press propaganda; rather the press is to gather information and report to the world about this Trial from this courtroom. The Defense are only grateful if their efforts to carry through proper proceedings with full information to the press are supported by the Tribunal. But this is not the crucial point. I have not accused anybody of being unfair. I have merely emphasized that it is a requirement of fairness to let the Defense do the same things which have continually and repeatedly been done by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Dix, will you tell me this: What suggestion do you have for shortening the Trial? You must recollect in the criticism that you have been making of the Prosecution's case with reference to their documents, that their case has been based almost entirely upon documents. They have called -- I do not know how many witnesses, but very few witnesses. You and the other defendants' counsel are proposing to call a very great number of witnesses, and what I would ask you is: How do you propose that the Trial should be shortened so that it may not last until the end of July or August?
DR. DIX: If I make a suggestion, then I can of course do so only for myself and for the case I have to defend. May I suggest, Your Lordship, that we begin with producing the documentary evidence, and I would ask you to realize that, if I am not mistaken, none of the Defense Counsel intends to read his entire document book here before the Tribunal. Whomever I have asked, at any rate the majority, certainly did not intend to do that. Those with whom I have spoken want to quote excerpts only, and in the choice of these excerpts and, in the discussion of whether their presentation would be relevant, a measure could be applied which would, of course, take into consideration the necessity of the matter as well as the question of time. I do not think that the presentation of the documents will take a very long time. My colleague, Dr. Stahmer, for instance, has told me that although he has an enormous and important case to defend, he believes that he will probably complete his case in about 2 hours or maybe in even less than 2 hours. I am not a prophet, but I think the Tribunal is considering the matter as more hazardous than it is in fact. Please give us a chance. You may certainly assume that all of us are anxious not to delay the proceedings. Also we are quite willing to take advice if the Court says, "We do not consider this or that important," or, "This or that we consider already demonstrated," or "We presume this or that," et cetera . That way we will make fast progress. May I, therefore, suggest not to lay down now any obligatory abstract rule for the procedure to be followed but to go to work with us now in a practical manner and to accept our assurances that we want to assist in shortening the Trial and, to begin with, start from the standpoint that we may present what we consider relevant. If it should turn out that too much time is being taken up -- which, as I have said, I do not believe -- then we could still discuss that matter once more and after all, the Tribunal is at liberty to make its decisions.
DR. DIX: All I ask is that it not be done now because I am afraid that the Tribunal, on the strength of the experience with the documentary evidence of the Prosecution, is overestimating the time required for the presentation of our documentary evidence, in which connection I again repeat that this is neither reproach nor criticism. I know that the Prosecution have based their case mostly on documents, and therefore naturally had to take more time.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Dix. The Tribunal would like to hear -- of course, they cannot hear all the defendants' counsel on this matter, but they would like to hear one other representative of Counsel.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I draw the attention of the Tribunal back to the legal aspect of the matter? The Tribunal quite rightly raised the question: What does the Charter say regarding evidence? The difficulty is caused by the fact that specific rules on this matter are not contained in the Charter. Regarding the procedure, we have Article 24. This Article 24 refers to the session -- the session, which, according to the legal language used in all kinds of criminal procedure, can mean nothing but the oral hearing and the verbal debate. What is lacking in Article 24 is a paragraph which concerns specifically the taking of documentary evidence. But may I draw your attention to subparagraph (e). There the rebuttal of evidence given by witnesses is discussed, the rebuttal, which of course, is concerned not only with the presentation of witnesses but also with the submission of documents. It is specifically provided there that the evidence should be taken. At any rate, based on the German text and German usage of language, it would not be permissible at all if this evidence taken in the presentation were not produced now during Court sessions but if that evidence, on the basis of the presented extensive written material, were dealt with in the separate rooms of the Judges. It is a particularly important principle of a colleague-like Tribunal, of a Tribunal which consists of several Judges, that the impression which is to be conveyed to the Tribunal should be coherent and direct. That can be achieved only if the material is presented and discussed in oral proceedings. May I ask you to consider also that we have already acquired some experience in that respect during this Trial. I am sure that everyone who has presented a document has been very grateful to the President of the Tribunal when he interfered during the quotation of the document by limiting here or extending there, and, by doing so, let the Prosecution or the Defense Counsel, who were quoting the document, know the opinion of the Tribunal as to what is relevant.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Our experience has been that this guidance by the Tribunal had favorable results later on. As for the legal aspect, may I draw your attention to Article 21, which contains a special provision, a special provision regarding those facts which are of common knowledge and do not require any discussion. This special provision of Article 21 clearly reveals the difference between these facts and those which may be and need to be discussed. Everything that may be and needs to be discussed must be presented in court in some way so that the Tribunal has the possibility to intervene here also and to make explanatory and guiding comments. That is what I have to say as to the legal aspect of the matter. Apart from that, I believe that I understood Mr. Justice Jackson's suggestion somewhat differently. First of all, I think Mr. Justice Jackson's suggestion has been somewhat enlarged during the debate. I think his suggestion was that we, as Defense Counsel, should impose certain restrictions upon ourselves not to present the submitted documentary material indiscriminately, but to confine ourselves to choosing those parts which are really worth mentioning and which call for presentation at the present stage of the Trial. To undergo such a restriction is certainly in line with the practical duty of the Defense Counsel. Nothing is more fatal to the Defense or the Prosecution than going into detail, that is, elaborating on irrelevant facts. Particularly under firm and strict guidance of the procedure, every Defense Counsel will soon notice whether he is on the wrong track, whether he is presenting superfluous material and, by presenting superfluous material is achieving an effect which he in no case wishes to obtain. I therefore believe that, as my colleague, Dr. Dix, just said, the self-control of the Defense Counsel and a well-concerned interest in his case and in his client will automatically impose on him the necessary limitation in his presentation. [Dr. Seidl approached the lectern.]
TBE PRESIDENT: I said on behalf of the Tribunal that we wished to hear two counsel.
DR. SEIDL: I wanted to add only very briefly some remarks to what my two colleagues have already said -- very briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but then it may be possible that every one of the 20 or more counsel who are present wish to add something.
DR. SEIDL: I do not know, but I do not think so.
THE PRESIDENT: I said two counsel, and I meant two counsel.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would like to know whether you have anything to add in reply to what has been said.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think nothing. I thought I was saving time. I begin to doubt it.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, I think the Tribunal would like to know exactly how far your suggestion went. Were you really making any further suggestion than this: That the defendants' counsel should not think it necessary to read every document in their document book in the course of the presentation of their defense, or were you intending to move the Tribunal to order that they should not be allowed to read any document in their document book at this stage?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I thought their document book should be directed to be filed as an exhibit at this stage of the case, without reading. I would not be particular about it if they have passages they think are of particular importance which they want to call to your attention, but this document book consists of speeches made 15 years ago and published in the press in every complete library in the country, largely, together with a good deal that has been excluded. It would seem to me that they should go in, so they are available to them, and that if there are matters in them which particular countries wish to object to, they might raise the question by motion to strike or raise it now if they desire. As far as the United States is concerned, we have no objection to any of it; I think some of it is highly objectionable on the ground of relevancy, but it would take longer to argue it and it goes to certain large questions of reprisals and things of that character that will have to be settled in larger ways than questions of admission of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you, on behalf of the Chief Prosecutors, have any objection or think it inadvisable to adopt the suggestion which Dr. Dix made that we should see how far the defendants' counsel were prepared to limit the amount of the documents which they read at this stage and see how long it takes and see whether it is necessary to make any further ruling in order to accelerate the Trial?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I am quite willing to experiment, but I do suggest that we are now handed a document book containing a numberof documents that the Court has passed upon, and, as I recall, Your Honor called Dr. Stahmer's attention to this at the opening of his case. I do not have so much faith, perhaps, as I ought to have.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is very likely that documents have got into Dr. Stahmer's book by mistake, owing to the fact that he, being for the first defendant, there were some difficulties in preparation for instance, and I have already drawn attention to it. I think there is in Dr. Stahmer's book -- I am not quite sure -- a speech of Mr. Paul-Boncour which has been expressly denied by the Tribunal, and those are the sort of documents to which you are referring, no doubt. And I had to draw attention also in the case of one other counsel, I think, or one other witness to a document being put to him which the Tribunal had expressly denied. But of course, that is very wrong that any document should be put into a document book which the Tribunal has expressly denied, but as I say, I think that is very likely due to some mistake.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am quite ready, and I am sure my colleagues are, to experiment with this and see how it goes. It is -- and I think I should say this for all of us -- it is a difficult thing where we come from different systems and do not always understand what the other man is driving at; it is a difficult thing to reconcile these different procedures, and I am quite willing to be patient and forbearing about it and see how it works.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. You must quite understand, Dr. Stahmer, that I am not making any ruling on behalf of the Tribunal at this moment as to whether or not Dr. Dix's suggestion will be adopted, because the Tribunal will proceed now to consider the matter, and then the ruling will be made.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I make just a personal explanation? The inclusion in my document book of the documents which had been denied is due to the following facts: At the request of the Translation Division the document book had already been handed to that division before the Tribunal had made its negative decision, and that accounts for the inclusion. I was put under considerable pressure at the time to hand the book over so that it might be submitted to the Court in translated form. That is how it happened.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought it was probably that, Dr. Stahmer. The Tribunal will adjourn now until 2:30. [The Tribunal recessed until 1430 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: In considering the matters which have been raised this morning, the Tribunal has had in mind the necessity for a fair trial and at the same time for an expeditious trial, and the Tribunal has decided that for the present it will proceed under rules heretofore announced; that is to say: First, documents translated into the four languages maybe introduced without being read but in introducing them counsel may summarize them, or otherwise call their relevance to the attention of the Court, and may read such brief passages as are strictly relevant and are deemed important. Second, when a document is offered, the Tribunal will hear any objections that may be offered to it and in this connection, I would refer to the rule which the Tribunal made on the 8th of March 1946, which reads as follows: The Tribunal has allowed the Defendant Goering, who has given evidence first of the defendants and who has proclaimed himself to be responsible as the second leader of Nazi Germany, to give his evidence without any interruption whatever, and he has covered the whole history of the Nazi regime from its inception to the defeat of Germany. The Tribunal does not propose to allow any of the other defendants to go over the same ground in their evidence except insofar as it is necessary for their own defense. Defense Counsel are advised that the Tribunal will not ordinarily regard as competent evidence, extracts from books or articles expressing the opinions of particular authors on matters of ethics, history, or particular events. Now, as to tomorrow's business, the Tribunal will sit in open session for the purpose of hearing applications for witnesses and documents, supplementary applications; and after sitting in that open session, the Tribunal will adjourn into a closed session. Now, Dr. Stahmer, are you going to refer us to book Number 1? Which is your book? Or are you referring us to your trial brief?
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I shall refer to the trial brief, Page 5. As far as I am informed, the translations show the same numbers as the original German text: Page 5, Paragraph 11. Since this book is translated into the three languages, and the document book, I am informed, is also translated, I can limit myself to referring to them briefly to present only what I consider essential. At the beginning of my presentation from this book I pointed out that Germany had renounced the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pact, and that this renunciation as such was justified. After this renunciation had taken place, Germany could proceed to rearm and also to reintroduce general conscription. Moreover, rearmament and the reintroduction of military conscription were ordered by Hitler only after he had previously and repeatedly submitted, without success, offers of disarmament to the powers concerned. Therefore the conclusion cannot be drawn from that fact alone that at that time the intention existed to prepare or to plan German wars of aggression. In this connection I draw your attention to the fact that also in foreign countries rearmament took place to a considerable degree from 1936 on, and as evidence for this fact I have submitted the speeches and essays which are contained in Churchill's book Step by Step . The individual excerpts have been designated by me. I am referring to the following in particular. On Page 5 of this book it says ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, you must offer these things in evidence as a matter of formality.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, of course. I have the book here with me. I shall submit it immediately; I also have the individual excerpts here which are included in the document book. It is Document Book 2, Page 44, the first excerpt in Volume 2, Page 44.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to number your exhibit in some way?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You have numbered it 40 I see, is that right?
DR. STAHMER: Yes. That is the number in this book. I have numbered these books right through.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but whatever number you propose to use you must say what the number is when you offer it in evidence, so that it will go into the transcript.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President. The quotation is from Document Book Number 2 and it is Number 40 on Page 9: On Page 35: From the article "In the Waters of the Mediterranean" dated 13 November 1936, I quote, on Page 86, where it says literally: Furthermore, I wish to produce evidence of the fact that the Defendant Goering particularly, at various times, beginning after the seizure of power, consistently emphasized his serious desire to maintain peace and to avoid a war. He has also repeatedly stated clearly that the measures taken by Germany were not to serve purposes of aggression. As evidence of this I refer to several speeches made by the Defendant Goering, and to begin with I cite a speech of 4 December 1934, which he made at the Krupp works in Essen, and which is contained in the book Hermann Goering's Speeches and Compositions , Pages 174 to 176, and is reprinted in Document Book Number 1, Page 18. From this excerpt I wish to quote only the following:
THE PRESEDENT: I do not think the shorthand writer has yet heard what the exhibit number is.
DR. STAHMER: I beg your pardon. It is Exhibit Number 6. I quote -- and it is the last sentence of the first paragraph: And on the following page, I quote the last paragraph: Sir Nevile Henderson emphasizes Goering's love of peace in various passages of his book Failure of a Mission . The passages are quoted again in Document Book Number 1, Page 63, and I offer it as Document Number 23, Exhibit Number Goering-2. I quote from Page 78 of the book. On Page 83 of the book, it says: On Page 273, which is the next page, there is the following sentence which I quote: On Page 276 of the book, you will find the following sentences which I quote from the last paragraph: In February of 1937, the Defendant Goering, on the occasion of an international meeting of war veterans in Berlin, made the following speech, which is contained in the book Hermann Goering, the Man and His Work , on Page 265, and which is contained in Document Book-2, Page 42, which is Exhibit Number 39, and from which I quote the following sentences: I skip two sentences and then quote further: The same desire is evident in the answers given by Lord Halifax to the questions put him. I now read the following passages from this interrogatory and I offer the original as Document Number Goering-22. It is contained in Document Book I, Page 59. I think I can omit the first two questions.. The third question is: The next questions concern the conversation with Dahlerus ...