dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. MARTIN LOFFLER (Counsel for the SA): If only a few so far have written to the Court, this is almost exclusively due to the fact that, since the SA in this country is generally considered inoffensive, they can hardly imagine that a Court with the experience and the high standing of this Tribunal could reach a decision which would differ from public opinion. Should the Court, however, adhere to its conception of the SA, then I should like to support the suggestion made yesterday by the Prosecution to the effect that the notice be published once more for the members to make an effort to defend their interests. However, I share the opinion of counsel for the Leadership Corps, that it would not serve the interests of the proceedings if the direct contact between the Defense Counsel and his client were destroyed. In the case of the SA men who are free, a technically simple method could be used by having the main Defense Counsel in Nuremberg appoint deputies, preferably lawyers, in every province, for example, Baden, Bavaria, and Wurttemberg. The provincial press should make mention of these men. Every individual member of an organization could, with the help of these lawyers, answer by means of an affidavit those questions which the Court has found to be relevant. In a very gratifying manner the American Chief Prosecutor stated yesterday, if I understood him correctly, that in the trial of the organizations, because of its fateful importance for millions of people, the principle of justice is much more important than the question of speedy proceedings. I should therefore like to join in the request made by Counsel for the Leadership Corps, that the trial of the organizations, which is to be regarded from different points of view, be separated from the trial of the main defendants. Members of the Tribunal, I am at the conclusion of my remarks. I should like, however, to reply to the words, words worth heeding, spoken by Justice Jackson yesterday at the beginning of his address.
DR. MARTIN LOFFLER (Counsel for the SA): He said that for the first time in history a modern state had completely collapsed, and that this surrender created for the victorious nations completely novel problems; that one of the most important tasks was to destroy the structure of those organizations and to prevent this country forever from waging wars of aggression or carrying out pogroms. All people of good will must sincerely welcome this elm and support Justice Jackson. It is, however, questionable whether the right way toward that end is to defame all members of organizations as such, involving millions of people. I ask the Tribunal to consider that there is hardly a family in this country which did not have near relatives in some one of these organizations at some time. The organizations are dead, the system of terror and falsehood has disintegrated, millions of misled and deceived people have turned away from their leaders and seducers. But if they find themselves ostracized and stigmatized along with them the effect might easily be the opposite of that which we all hope for. Justice Jackson correctly pointed out in his speech yesterday that the Control Council will possibly change the method of denazification used so far, which has been rather mechanical, and make it more individual. Present experience that mechanical treatment evokes the feeling of injustice and thereby a false solidarity, might contribute to this. The millions of simple misled camp followers of the organizations would consider such a verdict an act of revenge rather than a manifestation of justice. The ringleaders, however, could conceal their actual guilt behind the backs of millions of people. The educational and corrective effect of a verdict as well as the idea of just atonement would consequently be weakened.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now for 10 minutes. [A recess was taken.]
DR. LOFFLER: I ask the Tribunal that I be permitted to make one more remark. In my previous request I did not ask for the exemption of one particular group, namely, the Stahlhelm; this was only because, according to my information, the Stahlhelm was transferred in its entirety to the SA Reserve after the seizure of power and therefore, in my opinion, is included in the declaration made yesterday by Justice Jackson exempting the SA Reserve.
HERR BABEL: May it please the Tribunal, I should have considered it appropriate in the interest of a speedy trial that the Defense not answer the inquiries of the Tribunal and reply to the arguments of the Prosecution until they have received in writing the extensive and important arguments of the Prosecution and are thereby in a position to deal with the whole complex of problems comprehensively and conclusively. Since a number of Defense Counsel for the organizations have already spoken, I feel prompted to do the same, insofar as I am in a position to do so at this time and consider it necessary and appropriate. The Tribunal desire to have a discussion in order to define the legal concept of the criminal organization and desire in particular to examine the question of which qualifying elements of a factual nature are necessary in order to declare an organization criminal. The Defense believe that a final and basic definition of this concept, which is entirely new to any legal system, can be given only at the end of the proceedings by means of a special hearing of evidence after all necessary factual information has been collected and examined. The Prosecution have already presented a definition, which, however, raises very serious objections, because it is derived from legal ideas which have grown in countries other than Germany, under different conditions and circumstances, and which involve far less important legal consequences than those now considered by the Tribunal, the public opinion of the world, the German people and jurisprudence, and jurisdiction in general. The organizations now indicted are mostly large mass organizations, without aims and ideas of their own, organizations whose Party-political aims and purposes and Party activities developed to national dimensions. A just and pertinent definition can be found for these organizations only on the basis of the evidence to be presented concerning the nature and aims of these organizations and the knowledge, intentions, and activities of their members.
HERR BABEL: Considering the basic difference of the organizations which have been and are now being investigated, it is more than questionable whether it will be possible to take the legal basis applied so far to single cases as a basis for proceedings against political organizations comprising millions of people. The Prosecution and the Defense are probably agreed that the Indictment is actually not directed against the organizations, which do not exist any more anyhow, but in fact against the former membership. Likewise the opinion seems to be held unanimously that the Tribunal as a matter of principle will give the members an actual opportunity, not only a theoretical one, to be heard on the question of the criminal character of the organizations; that follows all the more since, according to Law Number 10, the possibility seems to be excluded that the members may make essential objections in regard to the organizations and their own person during the subsequent individual trials. If the Tribunal does not measure the responsibility of the entire organization on the basis of the responsibility of the individuals comprising it, the danger of collective liability arises, which would create such a degree of injustice affecting individuals in such a way that it would be much worse than the justly attacked Sippenhaftung of the Third Reich, which in a criminal way aimed at involving innocent members of the family in proceedings taken against any one of its members. In order to define a criminal organization, evidence and information as to the knowledge, intentions, and actions of the members of the organizations must be provided; similarly, before convicting individuals, either singly or in the mass, justice and human dignity alike demand that they should each be informed of the indictment and should each have an opportunity to be heard in his own defense.
HERR BABEL: This requirement is imperative in view of the serious legal consequence threatening the members of the organizations in case of a verdict against them, such as loss of property, long-term imprisonment, and even the death penalty. Last but not least, the hearing of all members of the organizations is also necessary because the unrestricted compilation of judicial evidence appears to be inevitable in order to work out the legal definition of criminal character. The Defense do not ignore the fact that, considering the scope of the Trial, these basic demands are confronted with tremendous difficulties. The scope of the Trial, however, should not reduce the thoroughness of the procedure but, on the contrary, should increase it. May it please the Tribunal, there are businessmen who are owners of several firms. If, now, the owner uses one of these firms to commit criminal acts, can we say that the other firms and their employees are also criminal? On the basis of this principle, I consider it necessary to point out which organizations, according to the reasons given by the Prosecution so far, are affected by the Indictment as units of the SS. They are: 1. The General SS -- strength at the beginning of the war, about 350,000 men. This number includes the variety of special units like cavalry, motor, information, music, and medical units. 2. The Waffen-SS, of which, at the end of the war, there were still under arms about 600,000 men. In the over-all number of Waffen-SS must be included about 36 divisions of the combat troops and a large number of reserve units of the reserve of the Armed Forces, as well as all those who were discharged from the Waffen-SS or who left in some other way. The verdict in this Trial would also affect the honor of the dead and the fate of their surviving relatives, so that the dead also will have to be included in this number which demonstrates the far-reaching significance of this Trial.
HERR BABEL: Consequently, the total number of members of the Waffen-SS, especially when including those discharged as unfit for war service, would be many times larger than the figure representing the final strength. On the basis of investigations under way the Defense will submit still more accurate figures, unless this is to be done by the Prosecution, which in my opinion ought to submit to the Court the information necessary for a verdict. 3. The Death's-Head Units -- before 1939, about 6,000 men. 4. SS troops for special employment, including the Adolf Hitler Bodyguard -- before 1939, about 9,000 men. 5. Honorary Fuehrer of the SS, whose number will probably turn out to be very large, as, for instance, the Farmer Leaders (BauernFuehrer) of the Reich Food Estate down to the District Farmer Leaders (KreisbauernFuehrer) were for the most part appointed honorary Fuehrer of the SS. Similar conditions prevail with respect to the chiefs of several branches of the state administration, who were often made honorary Fuehrer of the SS without any initiative on their part and without being able to do anything about it. Likewise many leaders of the Reich Veterans' League received honorary ranks in the SS. 6. The "supporting members" of the SS, among whom were also many non-Party members; their number is not yet known but it is certainly very considerable. 7. SS Front Line Auxiliaries of the Reich Post Office. 8. SS Construction Units. 9. SS Front laborers. 10.
HERR BABEL: The entire Regular Police, to which belonged: (a) The Municipal Police of the Reich with several special units, such as traffic squads, accident squads, information, cavalry, police dog squads, radio, and medical units; (b) the Gendarmerie with innumerable stations and posts, distributed all over the country, even in the smallest villages, which had rendered service without essential changes since Napoleon's time -- the motorized Gendarmerie supervised traffic; (c) the Municipal Police of smaller communities; (d) the Water Police; (e) the Fire Police; (I) the Technical Auxiliary Police Units, the Technical Emergency Service...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, you are going rather fast if you want us to take down these categories.
HERR BABEL: Mr. President, I shall submit a copy to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Personally, I prefer to understand the argument when I hear it.
HERR BABEL: I repeat: (f) the Technical Emergency Service, the Compulsory, Industrial, and Voluntary Fire Brigades; (g) Police and Gendarmerie Reserves; (h) the Air Raid Police, with security and auxiliary service; (i) the Town and Country Guard. Further, there belonged to the Regular Police a great many central institutions, such as the State Hospital for Police, the Police Officers' Schools, the Technical Police School, the Police Sports and Cavalry Schools, Police and Gendarmerie Schools, the Water Police School and the Reich Fire Brigade School, the Driving and Traffic Schools, the Air Raid Precautions Teaching Staff, the School and Experimental Station for Police Dogs, and the Horse Depot of the Police. In 1942 all the above-named units of the Regular Police, including the police troop units, totaled about 570,000 men. If we follow the presentation of the Prosecution, then all the groups, institutions, and organizations enumerated so far belong to the SS. 11. All those units of the Security Police which did not belong to the separately indicted Gestapo and SD, that is, offices and officials of the Criminal Police. 12. The Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle. 13. The offices of the Reich Commissioner for the Preservation of German Nationality. 14. National Political Institutes. 15. The Lebensborn Association. 16. The SS women auxiliaries. All these groups, institutions, and suborganizations were under the administration and jurisdiction of the SS. By way of summary, the Defense estimate the group of persons indicted as SS members at several millions. The verdict, however, will also affect the members of the families of all SS members, at least indirectly, so that additional millions will be affected personally, morally, and financially. Since, besides the SS, the mass organizations of the SA and the Leadership Corps are also indicted, a verdict against the indicted organizations would amount to a considerable part of the German nation's being considered criminal.
HERR BABEL: According to Law Number 10 of the Control Council, of 20 December 1945, every member may be subject to any penalty, including the death penalty, merely because he was a member of an organization which has been declared criminal. The question put to discussion by the Court as to what objections can be made in this collective Trial and what objections can be made later in the individual trials has, in my opinion, been decided already by Law Number 10 to the effect that in the individual objections of a defendant, for example, ignorance of the criminal aims of the organization, cannot be given any consideration. It is, therefore, necessary that evidence in this present Trial should be admitted to the widest extent possible. It should be made possible for the Defense to rebut, by means of evidence of the factual situation at the date of the respective act, the conclusions drawn by the Prosecution retrospectively from individual acts and facts. When evidence on behalf of the individual defendants was submitted, the Tribunal declared its readiness to admit evidence if there is only the slightest degree of relevancy. Considering the significance of the decision of this Court for the millions of people affected and for their families, it appears to be an absolutely necessary condition that evidence be admitted to the largest extent possible in order to permit a just verdict, to clarify the facts, and especially to find out to what extent members of the SS participated in any criminal acts according to Article 6 of the Charter.
HERR BABEL: To clarify the question of whether it is permissible to conclude from the fact of the extent of the indicted actions, as maintained by the Prosecution, that the members of the SS had knowledge of these actions, it will also be necessary to admit evidence to the widest extent possible about the question as to whether or not and, if so, to what extent the members of the SS knew of these actions, as well as evidence of the facts which prove that the members of the SS, like the majority of the German people, did not know anything about these matters, owing to the precautions taken to keep them secret. The discussions initiated by the Tribunal make it necessary to anticipate essential parts of the final pleadings. A ruling by the Tribunal on the question of evidence would at this time signify a ruling by the Tribunal on an essential part of its future decisions without any hearing of the evidence on the objections of the Defense having taken place. The Charter has a gap, insofar as it has not defined the facts which qualify an organization as criminal This gap cannot be filled by admitting evidence only in a certain direction. By doing so the Tribunal would anticipate an essential part of its final verdict. According to what I have said, I believe that it will be necessary for the evidence to include all elements which might influence the decision of the question as to whether the organization of the SS was criminal. This, however, would hardly be possible within the framework of this Trial which, according to the Charter, is to be conducted as expeditiously as feasible. Therefore, I consider it necessary to separate the procedure against the SS and the SD from the trial of the individual defendants. On 15 January 1946, partly for other reasons, I made a motion for separation. As far as I know, no ruling has yet been given.
HERR BABEL: I repeat this motion as follows: Judging from the course of the Trial and the procedure up to now, I have come to the opinion that the Indictment against the organizations of the SS and the SD -- for which I have been appointed Defense Counsel by an order of the International Military Tribunal of 22 November 1945 -- and probably against the other indicted organizations also, cannot be dealt with within the framework of this Trial for factual and legal reasons. 1. So far as the legal aspect is concerned, I restrict myself to a few brief points reserving for myself the right to present additional arguments at a later date: (a) The International Military Tribunal has no jurisdiction. To this point I should like to remark that a few days ago I learned from a newspaper article that the objection of lack of jurisdiction has already been raised during the session of 20 November 1945 and has been overruled by the Court. I asked for a copy of the record of 20 November 1945 -- and also of the following days -- but I have not received it to date. Therefore, I could not take note either of the motion and the reasons given or of the decision of the Tribunal and its reasons. (b) A criminal procedure against an organization is not possible or permissible, especially against an organization which has been dissolved. (c) To appoint a Defense Counsel for a dissolved organization, that is, for something non-existing, is not possible and admissible. 2. As to the facts, I am compelled to makes more detailed statements in support of my motion. On 19 November 1945 I was told orally that the International Military Tribunal intended my nomination as counsel for the organization of the Leadership Corps. After discussion I declared in writing my agreement to take over the obligatory defense. On 20 November 1945 I was told orally that I should take over the defense of the organizations of the SS and SD. On 21 November 1945 I was told orally that I had been appointed counsel for the SS and SD, and that I would receive the written appointment very soon.
HERR BABEL: On 23 November 1945 I received the letter of appointment, dated 22 November 1945, and in the English language, and a few days later I received the German translation which I had requested. This letter, in the translation which I received, reads as follows: "Pursuant to the direction of the International Military Tribunal you are hereby appointed to serve as counsel in the case of United States et al. v. Goering et al. for the members of the defendant organizations, the Schutzstaffeln der Nationalsozialistischen Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the SS) and the Sicherheitsdienst (commonly known as the SD), who may make application to the General Secretary under the order of the International Military Tribunal attached hereto." A few days later a file was handed to me with about 25 letters addressed to the General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal, partly from members of the SS and partly from relatives of such members. When I asked about my position and the position of these applicants in the Trial, I was told orally that these applications were to be submitted by me to the Tribunal in proper form. On 23 November 1945 there was a conference, during which a number of questions and suggestions were brought up concerning the position and rights of these members of the indicted organizations, who had applied for and been granted leave to be heard, and of the defense counsel provided for them. From 28 November 1945 until 11 December 1945 I was not able to obtain the applications filed by members of the SS and SD although I asked for them several times each day. At that time about 25 applications were handed to me each day, upon request, and I had to return them in the evening of the same day. I was told every time that the Tribunal needed them and that they had not yet been returned. When I received the folder again on 11 December 1945 the number of petitions had increased considerably.
HERR BABEL: By notice of 10 December 1945, according to the German translation which I received on 11 December 1945, the Tribunal made known its view that a member of an indicted organization who has applied to be heard on the question of the criminal character of the organization is not to be considered a defendant but will have the individual status of a witness only, although he will be permitted to give evidence; furthermore, that counsel representing any group or organization may, for this group or organization, exercise the rights accorded by the Charter to counsel for individual defendants. After a closed session of the Court on 11 December 1945, in which counsel for the indicted organizations also took part, the Tribunal by notice of 17 December 1945 -- of which I did not receive a German translation until a few days later -- directed that the respective counsel, that is, counsel for the organizations, should represent only the indicted groups and organizations and not individual applicants. Not until this date was the extent of my duties unambiguously stated and defined.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know what your application now is. The object of this session is to have an argument from Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense in order that the legal questions with reference to these organizations should be clear, and what your personal experience during November and December of 1945 has to do with it the Tribunal is unable to see.