dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HERR PELCKMANN: May it please the High Tribunal, I am in complete agreement with what Mr. Elwyn Jones has said, as far as it applies to the rest of the witnesses. Regarding his statement about the witness Rauschning, I should like to say the following. The decision of 13 March, Figure 6a, Paragraph 3, specifies that it is relevant to submit evidence on whether the possible criminal aims and activities of the SS were quite obvious, or were known to the bulk of the members. I tried before the Commission to prove that the aims and activities were not criminal, that the crimes committed were only individual acts or acts of certain groups, and that these acts were not known to the majority of the members. I tried to prove this by means of relatively very few witnesses, compared with the number of members as the Prosecutor has stated, by means of 29 witnesses from among thousands of affidavits. All this material will still be submitted to the High Tribunal in due course, but it all concerns the so-called 24 July 46 ' legal standing of membership. The Prosecution, on the other hand, submitted their evidence against the SS, as well as against the other organizations, directly to the Tribunal through documents and through the direct testimony of witnesses, a procedure which took many weeks. With regard to the further assertion that the bulk of the SS knew of such criminal aims of the SS and of the criminal acts of individual members or certain groups, the Prosecution did not present any proof, but merely asserted that this could be seen from the circumstances, and was a matter of course.
HERR PELCKMANN: I consider it only just and proper that in addition to the statements of SS members, which as indirect proof I shall submit in large numbers in the form of affidavits, and the probative value of which could be disputed by the Prosecution because they are statements of the people in question themselves, of the SS members-as I say, I consider it only right and proper that in addition the witness Rauschning, the only one of my witnesses who is not under automatic arrest, should testify before this Tribunal, and should testify in person. The only other witnesses who will appear in person are the five witnesses of the SS who held a relatively high rank in the SS and, therefore, have an over-all knowledge; but it can be held against them that their testimony is not quite credible. As for the person of Rauschning and the relevance of his testimony I should like briefly to say the following: As has already been stated, he was an SS Standartenfuehrer and President of the Danzig Senate. He had the complete confidence of Hitler until 1936, when the rupture with Hitler occurred. Rauschning emigrated and was very active in publishing material abroad. In his books, which have become well known throughout the world, he constantly warned against Hitler and his plans, and he is still known everywhere as a man who did not defend or protect the Hitler regime and its guilty members. In his many conversations with Hitler, he learned-and now I come to the main point of my application-first, that, at least in the years 1936 and 1937, Hitler did not intend to exterminate the Jewish population. He has given detailed reasons for this statement, and the objection of the Prosecution that it was impossible to recognize Hitler's intentions is not quite apposite, because this precisely is the task of the Tribunal, to recognize Hitler's intentions with regard to the salient points of the Indictment. If Hitler's intentions are recognized then perhaps one can judge the responsibility of the bulk of the members of the organizations.
HERR PELCKMANN: Of course, we have only circumstantial evidence and must, if possible, obtain and evaluate direct evidence of Hitler's intentions. This direct evidence of Hitler's intentions, the witness Rauschning can give on the basis of his conversations with Hitler, and I do not think that one can find a better witness for this subject. Second-continuing with the points of my application-Rauschning learned that Hitler...
THE PRESIDENT: What is it, Dr. Pelckmann, that makes you think that Rauschning would be able to give this evidence?
HERR PELCKMANN: I know his books, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Then if it is in his book, how will it help to have him say what is in his book again?
HERR PELCKMANN: Of course, his books represent only a very small part of his entire knowledge, and he certainly did not write them with this Trial in mind. The chief points brought up by the Prosecution in this Trial can now be answered much more satisfactorily by the witness himself than by quotations from his book torn out of their context.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand you to be saying that the only reason you have got for thinking that he would be able to answer these questions is because of what you see in the book. Then you do not know that he can give any further evidence than is in the book.
HERR PELCKMANN: Of course, I do not know that but it is probable, and my assumption that he can do it is based on experience. I do not think that I am asking for anything out of the ordinary. I expect a man who in the years from 1933 to 1936 concerned himself so intensively with Hitler and Nazism, and then studied this regime in later years and discussed it with foreigners-I expect such a man to know much more than is set down in his books. And I also have the following reasons for my application. In preferring their charges the Prosecution used quotations from the books of Rauschning, and these quotations are practically identical with affidavits. The Prosecution would equally well have been able to obtain affidavits on the pertinent passages in Rauschning's book which would perhaps have contained his assertions in more detail. According to the rules of procedure established by this Tribunal, I am entitled to ask that witnesses who have deposed affidavits for the Prosecution be cross-examined by the Defense before the Tribunal. I believe that if...
THE PRESIDENT: I am not aware that such a rule applied to witnesses in the United States. The rule, insofar as any rule at all was made, was that people who were in this country, if they had made affidavits, might be brought here for cross-examination. That rule has never been applied to persons who were in the United States or in any other country outside this country. The case of Mr. Messersmith is an instance, and there has never been a case of anybody being brought in, except perhaps the witness Dahlerus.
HERR PELCKMANN: Since the Indictment and the Tribunal's verdict is of great importance for all members of the SS, and since, unlike the cases of the individual defendants, I can only call members of the organization as witnesses-and this is a considerable restriction-I think I may ask the Tribunal that this witness-the only one who is not implicated and can tell the Tribunal something about conditions at that time and his views on them-that this witness be brought here; for technical difficulties should play no part in this Trial of surely world-wide significance. This is my full conviction. May I continue, My Lord?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
HERR PELCKMANN: The witness is to testify further that it was Hitler's deliberate policy to deceive the German people, as well as foreign countries, about his plans and intentions-for instance, about his war intentions. In very intimate conversations with Rauschning, Hitler remarked-and almost joked about it-how successful he was in leading by the nose not only foreign countries but- even his own people. These questions are relevant for the decision regarding evidence. With reference to the Jewish question, I refer to the assertion of the Prosecution that the Party program resulted directly in the extermination camp at Auschwitz. The Party program, as the bulk of the SS members saw it, provided only for a solution of the Jewish question on the basis of the statute of minorities, supplemented by the somewhat more severe Nuremberg Laws of 1935. But, however this may be, it would not yet constitute a crime against humanity. If it could be proved that during this time Hitler actually did not intend to exceed this program, then the assertion of the Prosecution could no longer be upheld. If this attitude of Hitler, at that time, can be proved, then the SS and the simple SS man who followed this program could not have ha* any other attitude either. Secondly, the deception of the German people. The following is clear. 1) We know today from the various documents just what did take place at that time. We need only read the Reichstag speech about Hitler's will for peace, or the reasons given for the murders on 30 June 1934. But it would be startling if a witness asserted that Hitler had confided to him that it was his principle to deceive the Germans about his true intentions. In answer to this, the Prosecution would have to prove that just the SS was not to be deceived- that the SS, in agreement with Hitler, knew what Hitler actually wanted.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, the Tribunal did not desire to hear a general argument from you upon the whole case. They are simply dealing with the question of whether this man Rauschning should be brought from the United States.
HERR PELCKMANN: If the relevance of his testimony is not disputed, then I can very well understand...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, we have your written application before us, and you are dealing with a variety of matters which are not mentioned in that written application.
HERR PELCKMANN: I cannot, of course, set down in my application everything that I would want to include. This application, naturally, contains only my main points: (1) The Jewish question, (2) the deception of the German people, and (3) of the SS members.
THE PRESIDENT: We have indicated to you what the view of the Tribunal is-that we think that you have dealt with the application, and we do not desire to hear a general argument.
HERR PELCKMANN: Air. President, I tried only to show the relevance of my three points of evidence. If the Tribunal can assume that these points are relevant, then, I think, I need only add this: A single witness who is outside the SS, who, it is true, at one time. . .
THE PRESIDENT: You have already said that, Dr. Pelckmann, more than once, and the Tribunal are quite aware of what you have said.
HERR PELCKMANN: Mr. President, do you not want an answer to the question why we should deviate from the general rule and bring this witness here from America? Do you not want an answer to that?
THE PRESIDENT: You have already presented argument to that effect. Now we will deal with the SD.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, counsel for the SD has asked for only two witnesses, and the Prosecution have no objection to, these two witnesses being heard by the Tribunal. It seems like a reasonable number. · , While I am before the Tribunal, may I go on with the applications for the Reich Cabinet and High Command as well?
THE PRESIDENT: The Reich Cabinet, we understood' was not going to be dealt with today.
MR.DODD: We received the application for one witness this morning
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. Certainly, go on and deal with these.
MR. DODD: With respect to the High Command, counsel for the defendant organization has asked for six witnesses, and our position is that it is at least twice as many as are necessary, and that three- something like three-would be a much more reasonable number to present before the Tribunal. We have no particular preferences or no objections-no particular objections-to any of the three. I understand, however, that counsel prefers Von Rundstedt, Von Brauchitsch, and Von Manstein, and we have no objections if that is his choice of the six, but we do object to six, on the ground that they axe too numerous, and all of them have been heard before the Commission. With respect to the application of the Gestapo, only two witnesses are asked for-the witness Best and the witness Hoffmann-and we have no objection to the appearances of these two witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The two names, Karl Heinz, are Christian names, I suppose?
MR. DODD: Yes, so I have understood, Mr. President. I am not clear, Mr. President, whether or not you wish to have me deal with the Reich Cabinet. Shall I make known our attitude toward the one witness?
THE PRESIDENT: I think so. Certainly, you may deal with them now if they are ready. Dr. Kubuschok . . .
MR.DODD: In any event, he has only asked for one witness, Mr. President, and we have no objection-the witness Schlegelberger.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Dodd. Unless counsel for the SD, Gestapo, and the Reich Cabinet want to say anything, the Tribunal do not think it is necessary to hear them. Then, they would hear counsel for the High Command, Dr. Laternser. Yes, Dr. Laternser.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, in view of the importance of the accusations raised against the military leaders, I am convinced that the application for six witnesses is justified. In order to be able to decide the question whether the military leaders were criminal or not, the Tribunal must first obtain a personal picture and a personal impression of some of these military leaders. If only a few of the 129 persons affected by the Indictment against the organization I defend are heard here, can one assume that the High Tribunal will have gained a true picture? My definite answer is "no."
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell me how many of the 129 we have already heard before the Tribunal?
DR. LATERNSER: Before this Tribunal, Mr. President-before the Commission, seven members of the group were heard, two are still outstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not say before the Commission; I said before the Tribunal. ,
DR. LATERNSER: I put questions to about five or six persons, I believe, of this group when they appeared here.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Go on.
DR. LATERNSER: In estimating the number of witnesses to be heard here, I ask that the following also be taken into consideration. In regard to the calling of witnesses who could refute the statements made by the witnesses of the Prosecution, the defense of the organizations are handicapped greatly by the resolution of the Tribunal which says that witnesses can be heard before the Tribunal only if they have previously been heard before the Commission, even though in any other legal proceedings there would be extensive examinations of witnesses on many points. The circle of witnesses is thus restricted from the beginning and dependent upon the scope of the Commission's activities. I consider it necessary, Mr. President, to be in a position to convey to the Tribunal a personal picture of the group indicted, and I should, therefore, like to make the following suggestion, which I believe to be practicable. May I suggest that for the group which I represent-only for my group, since I am not entitled to make a similar application on behalf of the other organizations-that for my group the Tribunal fix a certain time within which I may examine my witnesses before the Tribunal, and that the actual distribution of the time allotted be left to the defense. Then I should be able to question the six witnesses for whom I asked. I would even be prepared to use only two-thirds of the time to be allotted by the Tribunal, and to put one-third of it at the disposal of the Prosecution for cross-examination. In this way, Mr. President, I merely want to accomplish one thing-in my opinion the most important point-I want the Tribunal to gain a personal impression of the persons falling under the Indictment. I assume that the Tribunal will not object to this. I would also like to suggest for the consideration of the Tribunal that the case against the organizations...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, let me make certain that I understand the suggestion. You are suggesting that the Tribunal should allot a certain time for the witnesses for the High Command, and that you, as counsel examining the witnesses, should take up two-thirds of the time. and that the Prosecution, in cross-examination, should take up one-third of the time. Is that correct?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes. I agree that within this time I may examine as many witnesses as I choose.
THE PRESIDENT: How much time are you contemplating?
DR. LATERNSER: That is rather difficult for me to answer.
THE PRESIDENT: It is your suggestion. The Tribunal would like to know how much time you are suggesting.
DR. LATERNSER: One and a half to two days in all. I should like to make two more suggestions to the Tribunal which have some significance in this connection. All the witnesses appearing here have already been heard by the Commission, and the transcripts of the interrogations are in the hands of the Tribunal. If the same questions are put again, the evidence would certainly be cumulative. How then is the examination of the witnesses to be carried through without interruptions? Looked at from this angle, the suggestion I have just made becomes even more important, and also seems to remove the difficulties which I have described. If this is taken into consideration I believe the Tribunal would be able to follow my suggestion. Finally, I should like to suggest the Tribunal also make a decision with regard to the handling of the final words on behalf of the accused organizations. That is ale
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to hear you with reference to Dr. Laternser's suggestions, Mr. Dodd.
MR. DODD: Very well, Mr. President. We have, insofar as. we recall, made a list of the names of the people who have appeared before the Commission as members of the organization, or of the groups, and those who have appeared before the Tribunal. I stated a few minutes ago that all of those who have not appeared-such as Von Brauchitsch, who was to appear, and who may have appeared yesterday, I am not informed- will appear in a day or so. With reference to the suggestion of Dr. 1aternser that he be allowed a specific time and may use as many witnesses in that time as he sees fit, we find two difficulties. First of all, we do not feel that he is being generous enough in allotting us one-third of the time. Possibly we may require more time for such a number of witnesses. In any event, we do not want to have a restriction placed on us to the effect that we have only one-third of the time that he has. If we are to examine witnesses on the time standpoint, we feel that much of the time would be taken up before the Tribunal on matters that have already been thoroughly dealt with before the Commission. All the witnesses have been heard before the Commission, and Dr. Laternser has had a full opportunity to examine and cross-examine before the Commission, and it seems unnecessary to burden the Tribunal with a great number of witnesses here.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know whether it would make any difference to the arguments just presented to us if the Prosecution were allotted the same amount of time as Dr. Laternser?
MR. DODD: Well, it would make a little difference. Frankly, I did not consider that too important a point.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps there is one other thing which bears upon it. The Tribunal would like to know how you think the difficulty is to be met, that it seems unnecessary for the witnesses who are called before us here to give the whole of the evidence given before the Commission, or even to enter upon the subjects which have been entered upon before the Commission; and the Tribunal would like to know how that difficulty is to be met.
MR.DODD: We have been thinking about this very problem, and we had assumed that the witnesses who have appeared before the Commission, and who have been examined there, would not go over the same grounds before the Tribunal, otherwise the proceedings of the Commission would be rather senseless, and we might just as well get up and read the record of what was said before the Commission. We had understood that the witnesses would have something new to add to what they had already said before the Commission. That is our understanding.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, I think Dr. Laternser has said on various occasions that he attached importance to the actual presence of the witness so that the Tribunal could see him and form their own opinion of the witness' credibility.
MR.DODD: Yes, that is what I understood to be one of the reasons, but three members...
THE PRESIDENT: In addition to our seeing the witnesses and forming an opinion of their credibility, he would be able to summarize the evidence given.
MR. DODD: Yes, I assume that would be so. Of course, four of these members of the groups we are in the dark about-and two of the members of Naval Command, Von Brauchitsch and Milch, and a number of others.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR.DODD: With respect to the time suggestion which I made, I repeat I do not think that is too important. I know we can confine ourselves in cross-examination to the important matters, but I think it is the experience of the Tribunal that we seldom stayed within the limits which were established.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think it is necessary to hear further argument. We will consider your suggestion; and your arguments, Dr. Laternser, are unnecessary unless there is anything particularly new that you wish to say. The Tribunal will consider your suggestion. We will now deal with the political leaders.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: The Leadership Group has asked for seven witnesses: Two of them are Gauleiter, and are witnesses Kaufmann and Wahl; one Kreisleiter, Meyer-Wendeborn; one Ortsgruppenleiter, Wegscheider; Blockleiter Hirth and two experts on the staff of the Hoheitstrager-namely, a farming expert who was also a political leader, and Hupfauar who was a political leader in the DAF. The Prosecution have no objection to any of these witnesses, but we feel that the grounds could not be adequately and properly covered. And it may be of help to the Tribunal if I suggested the witnesses most important, and those which might be dispensed with.
THE PRESIDENT: Probably the Defense Counsel would wish to make their own selection.
LT. COL.GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I fully appreciate that. I was only trying to assist the Tribunal if I could.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, in indicating which appeared to you to be the most important.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, perhaps you could do that.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: The Blockleiter Hirth, I respectfully submit, ought to be called, as he is the only Blockleiter represented. The witness Hupfauer ought to be called, because he represents the experts on these staffs. There is a certain amount of dispute about them. And also, he represents a number of political leaders who were in the DAY itself. Of the Gauleiter, Kaufmann and Wahl are experienced. Kaufmann comes from an industrial district and Wahl from an agricultural district, and I understand, if there were to be any preference, that Dr. Servatius prefers Kaufmann. There are also representing the agricultural districts, in addition to the Gauleiter Wahl, the Ortsgruppenleiter Wegscheider and the farmer Mohr. My Lord, I would respectfully suggest that certainly three of those witnesses are unnecessary. They really cover very much the same ground as each other and the Prosecution, quite frankly, would have preferred the witness Wahl. I simply put that forward to explain that they are all from agricultural areas and perhaps one, or certainly two, would be sufficient. Meyer-Wendeborn is an experienced Kreisleiter from an industrial district, and does, to a great extent, cover the same ground as the Gauleiter Kaufmann, so that the Tribunal might consider having one or the other if they felt that the present number was excessive. Now, I do not think I can assist the Tribunal further than that.