dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
M. MOUNIER: The Air Force General, Korten, sent the Defendant Keitel a memorandum pointing out that Hitler had decided that enemy airmen who were shot down should be put to death without trial if they had participated in acts described as terroristic. This is Document Number 731-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1407), which we submit to the Court in the form of a photostatic copy. I ask the Tribunal's permission not to read this document. I think the Tribunal will prefer to read it for themselves. However, I am at their disposal if they wish me to read it.
THE PRESIDENT: No; it has already been put in, has it not?
M. MOUNIER: Yes, Mr. President. In consequence, an agreement was made with the OKW that Himmler, Goering, and Ribbentrop should be consulted on the measures to be taken in this matter. Ribbentrop proposed that any attack upon German cities should be considered as an act of terrorism. General Warlimont also, in the name of the OKW, proposed two Lynching and what he called Sonderbehandlung or special treatment, which consisted in delivering the parties concerned to the Sicherheitsdienst where they were subjected to diverse treatments, one of the most notorious being the well known Kugel action, of which the Tribunal has already heard and which was simply a way of doing away with those in question. Document Number 735-PS (Exhibit Number RF-1452) was submitted to this effect on 9 January 1946. On 17 June 1944 Keitel wrote to Goering to ask him to approve the definition of acts of terrorism drawn up by Warlimont. On 19 June 1944 Goering replied through his aide-de-camp that the population should be forbidden to act as it had done against enemy airmen and that these enemy airmen should be brought to trial, since the Allied Governments had forbidden their airmen to commit acts of terrorism. I refer here to Document Number 732-PS, which I submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-1405. Consequently, I draw the Tribunal's attention to this document, dated 26 June 1944, where Reich Marshal Goering declared that he would support the taking of judicial action against these airmen. Remember this date, 19 June 1944, because it is important. But on 26 June 1944 the Defendant Goering's aide' de-camp telephoned to the OKW headquarters staff, who had insisted upon a definite reply, and notified them that his chief, Reich Marshal Goering, was in agreement with their definition of acts of terrorism and the procedure proposed which, as I recall it, included two alternatives: The handing over of those in question for Sonderbehandlung or their immediate execution.
M. MOUNIER: I refer to Document Numbers 733-PS and 740-PS, cited on 30 January 1946 by the French Prosecution, under the Exhibit Numbers RF-374 and RF-375 (Exhibit Numbers RF-1423 and RF-1424). In a memorandum dated 4 July 1944 Hitler made it known that since the British and the Americans had bombed small towns of no military importance as a reprisal for V-1, he was asking the German radio and press to announce that all enemy airmen shot down in an attack of that kind would be put to death as soon as they were caught. Such are the facts found in these absolutely irrefutable documents, and if I cited in detail the reply made on 19 June 1944 by the Defendant Goering, or to be more exact, by his aide-de-camp, it is because I am anxious to introduce into the proceedings the documents concerning this question in their entirety. But I see that in spite of the existence of the order of 19 June 1944 I am obliged to infer the full responsibility of the Defendant Hermann Goering. In fact, the Defendant Hermann Goering states that he never agreed to these measures, and that Captain Breuer, who telephoned to the General Staff of the OKW, acted-according to the Defendant Goering-without having previously consulted him. Goering added, in the statements which he made, that he could not be held responsible for all the absurd or insignificant actions carried out by his subordinates. But, Gentlemen, without even reference to the famous Leadership Principle-for I see no reason to apply German law to the accused in any way-the Defendant Goering is in any case responsible in his capacity as leader. Responsibility begins with authority. Moreover, what did he do to stop the massacre of airmen by people whom he had ordered to do the opposite, according to orders which it was forbidden to formulate in writing?
M. MOUNIER: Even if we consider the position which he takes up in the order dated 19 June 1944, to which I have referred as establishing accurately his views at that date on the massacre of airmen and parachutists, we are compelled to see that at that date, 19 June 1944, even in Germany, the most shortsighted knew that the German forces would soon succumb to the weight of the Allied Armies. Allied aviators were put to death in Germany throughout the war. Moreover, if the Defendant Hermann Goering maintains that the letter of 19 June 1944 was written by his aide-de-camp, he is obliged to admit that the letter of 26 June 1944, also written by the aide-de-camp, can be imputed to him, although signed by one of his subordinates. We consider, then, that this document signed by an aide-de-camp involves Goering as much as if he had signed it himself. Mr. President and Gentlemen, I shall not enlarge upon the responsibility of the Defendant Goering for compulsory labor, but I respectfully beg the Court to refer in due course to certain rays of illumination that I have tried to indicate in this brief in order to clarify the position of the defendant in this matter. I shall make no further mention of the employment of prisoners of war and internees from concentration camps, which I detailed on Page 10 of my brief. I should like simply to say a word concerning economic pillaging and the pillaging of art treasures. These questions are dealt with at the bottom of Page 11 of my brief. Concerning economic pillage, Gentlemen, I shall not stress the considerable part played by the Defendant Goering as leader of the Four Year Plan in all the measures which contributed to strip literally all the western countries of their substance. I shall simply point out one fact which, I believe, has not yet been brought to your knowledge but which is found in the next to the last subheading on Page 12.
M. MOUNIER: This fact is the following: After the Armistice in 1940, the Defendant Goering had brought about through Roechling, the official sequestrator, the cession to the Hermann Goering Werke of all the factories of Lorraine belonging to the family of Wendell This is connected with all the operations of economic pillaging about which the Economic Section of the French Prosecution have already informed the Court. With regard to this, the Court will not fail to realize that the Defendant Goering shares jointly with the Defendants Rosenberg, Ribbentrop, and Seyss-Inquart-for the Netherlands-the responsibility for this spoliation. With regard to the pillaging of works of art, Gentlemen, we have documents which permit us to draw our conclusions with regard to this matter which is obviously an unpleasant one for a man who has occupied the position of the Defendant Goering, namely, that a part of the works of art and objects of value which were pillaged from the western countries were reserved for him without any kind of compensation. I shall not discuss the exact meaning of this act in municipal law; I leave it to the Tribunal to apply the proper legal terms for this matter, when it delivers its judgment. But what I should like to say today is that the appropriation of works of art by the Defendant Hermann Goering for his private purposes is proved in documents which cannot be contested and which have already been submitted to the Tribunal. I refer particularly to Exhibit Number USA-368 (Document Number 141-PS) submitted on 18 December 1945. This document was submitted by the Economic Section of the French Prosecution under the Exhibit Number RF-1309. I may rapidly recall that this document prescribes that works of art brought to the Louvre are to be classified in a certain way: "Firstly, those works of art of which the Fuehrer reserved the right to dispose of himself. Secondly, those works of art destined to complete the collection of the Reich Marshal"- et cetera. I won't read the rest of the document.
M. MOUNIER: What followed these levies or these privative appropriations? Did the Defendant Goering pay anything for these? The opposite seems to be the case; for in the interrogation of the Defendant Rosenberg, which was given under the Exhibit Number RF-1332 and to which I referred in the course of the hearing, it is pointed out that the Defendant Goering made his selection from the works of art assembled by Rosenberg's staff and made no corresponding payment to the Reich treasury. Not to abuse the patience of the Tribunal, I respectfully beg it to go back to Page 10 of the transcript previously cited, where it will see the part played by the Defendant Goering in the appropriation of works of art, and the fact that no money was paid in compensation. I simply emphasize, in passing, that at the top of Page 11 you will find this statement, in reply to a question asked by Colonel Hinkel. Colonel Hinkel said this to him.
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to Page 10 and Page 11 of which document?
M. MOUNIER: Page 11, Mr. President, of Document Number ECH-25, which was submitted yesterday under the Exhibit Number RF-1331, by my colleague M. Gerthoffer. It is not there, for reasons which I have already pointed out to the Tribunal. Colonel Hinkel, at the bottom of Page 10, asked the following question: "Well, doesn't that letter state in the last paragraph that you don't think that Goering should pay for these articles that he had selected because he was going to put these articles in an art gallery?" The reply of the Defendant Rosenberg: "Not exactly. I would like to add the following:"-which I consider important-"I was rather uneasy when at the outset I heard art treasures which the Einsatzstab had sent to Germany. . . " That is all, Gentlemen, I won't say anything more. I merely want to point out to you the annoyance which the chief of the Einsatzstab himself felt on learning this fact. Mr. President, Gentlemen, in regard to the participation of the Defendant Goering in Crimes against Humanity, particularly the concentration camps, I shall not insist; but I shall ask the Tribunal, when they have time, to refer to a few paragraphs in which I briefly recall the question. But there is a document which, as far as I know, has not been submitted to the Tribunal and which I should like to submit today. It concerns pseudomedical experiments which I believe have not yet been discussed. You have frequently been told of Dr. Rascher's experiments in the exposure of certain persons to alternate heat and cold, but there is a question which I treat on Page 17 of my brief and which concerns the document which I submit today as Exhibit Number RF-1427. This is a document which originally had the Number L-170. It is a report made by Major Leo Alexander of the United States Army, on an institution known as the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut. Major Leo Alexander, at the time of the defeat of Germany by the Allied Forces, had to conduct certain investigations. He conducted one in connection with experiments made by Dr.
M. MOUNIER: Rascher and another in connection with these carried out in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institut. This report which I submit to the Tribunal is entitled, "Neuropathology in Wartime Germany." This Kaiser Wilhelm Institut was an institute designed for cerebral research. This institution had formerly been in Berlin-Buch (Page 18 in my brief) and was split up into three establishments, the first in Munich-I pass over the one in Munich-the third in Gottingen. The second, the one which interests me, was established at Dillenburg, in Hessen-Nassau, where there was a department for special pathology directed by Dr. Hallervorden. What is interesting, Mr. President...
THE PRESIDENT: Could we see the original?
M. MOUNIER: The original? Here it is, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the series "L" referred to in Major Coogan's affidavit?
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I should like to point out that this Number L-170 is the same as that referring to that same Major Leo Alexander's document book concerning the experiments of Dr. Rascher. It is the same number.. .
THE PRESIDENT: As this document has already been produced in evidence in the series "L"-it is L-170 I think-the Tribunal will treat it for the moment as being in evidence and will further consider its admissibility.
M. MOUNIER: Yes, sir. At all events, I should like to remind the President, who has certainly noticed it, that I reproduce in this brief, which has already been communicated to the Defense, the passage which I regard as relevant to my brief. The passage is quoted in full in my brief.
THE PRESIDENT: [Turning to Dr. Stahmer.] Yes, we will listen to you in a few minutes. [Turning to M. Mounier.] Which passage do you wish to refer to?
M.MOUNIER: Pages 20 and 21 in my brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, do you wish to read them?
M. MOUNIER: I accept the decision of the Tribunal. If the Court considers this reading superfluous, I shall limit myself to pointing out that what I find striking in this document is the manner in which Dr. Hallervorden ordered the delivery of brains for examination when he says: " 'I had heard that they were going to do that."'-That is, to say, to kill some sick people in different establishments by means of carbon monoxide.-Dr. Hallervorden explained to his American interrogator, Major Alexander. " '. . . I went up to them and told them "Look here now, boys, if you are going to kill all these people, at least take the brains out so that the material could be utilized. "'They asked me, "How many can you examine?" and so I told them an unlimited number-the more the better. I gave them the fixatives, jars and boxes, and instructions for removing and fixing the brains...."' I call the attention of the Tribunal to the truly horrible nature of the measures taken in regard to the people who were to be killed merely to have their brains examined, for they were, so he said, " '. . . selected from the various wards of the institutions according to an excessively simple and quick method. Most institutions did not have enough physicians, and what physicians there were were either too busy or did not care, and they delegated the selection to the nurses and attendants. Whoever looked sick or was otherwise a problem patient from the nurses' or attendants' point of view, was put on a list and was transported to the killing center. The worst thing about this business was that it produced a certain brutalization of the nursing personnel. They got to simply picking out those whom they did not like, and the doctors had so many patients that they did not even know them, and put their names on the list."' I shall stop my citation there, Mr. President, but what I should like to do subsequently, unless the Tribunal is going to call upon Dr. Stahmer to speak...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we are now going to hear what Dr. Stahmer wants to say.
DR. OTTO STAMMER (Counsel for the Defendant Goering): I am sorry that I must contradict what has just been said, for there is no proof that these things took place or that the Defendant Goering is responsible. The Defendant Goering states that he was quite unaware of these events and that he had nothing whatever to do with matters of that kind. As far as I know, the Prosecution itself ...
THE PRESIDENT: I have to interrupt you, Dr. Stahmer. You will have a full opportunity of presenting arguments to us to. show that the evidence which is adduced, which is brought forward now against the Defendant Goering, has really no reference to him. You will have a full opportunity to do that at the appropriate stage when you present the defense. The only question we are considering now, the technical question, is whether this document is a document which is admissible. We are considering it, of course, but it is not the appropriate time for you to present your argument that the document does not refer to Goering and that Goering had no knowledge of it. That will be your defense. It isn't an objection to the admissibility of the document. It is an argument to show that Goering didn't know anything about the document and didn't know anything about the experiments. Do you understand what I mean?
DR. STAMMER: Yes, sir.
M. MOUNIER: Mr. President, I only wanted, by introducing . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, M. Mounier, continue.
M.MOUNIER: Mr. President, I take leave to point out to you that my friend, Mr. Elwyn Jones, has just pointed out to me that this is admitted as proof in view of the conditions under which it was submitted. This is the document entitled, "Neuropathology and Neurophysiology, including Electroencephalography, in Wartime Germany." Besides this reference is found in the English copy which I submitted in the modest document book which I submitted to the Tribunal just now. I should like to tell you, Mr. President, in citing this short passage...
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe the Tribunal had better keep the original document for the present.
M.MOUNIER: My aim, Mr. President, in citing this short passage, is to demonstrate the truly atrocious way in which they treated people in order to procure the necessary material for these so-called experiments. According to the Prosecution this relates to Hermann Goering, for the Tribunal will take into account the fact that these experiments were made for the purpose of obtaining information of a scientific or pseudoscientific nature concerning the effects upon the brains of airmen of all the accidents which might happen to them. These experiments are connected with those of Dr. Rascher, concerning which some correspondence took place. The Defendant Hermann Goering cannot have been ignorant of this correspondence, for it directly concerned the Air Force, which he commanded. I cite, for instance, a letter dated 24 October 1942, which was addressed by Himmler to Dr. Rascher and which I submit to the Tribunal under the Exhibit Number RF-1409 (Document Number 1609-PS). To. save the time of the Tribunal I shall not read this letter. I shall simply refer to another document which has already been cited as Document Number 343-PS. It was submitted by the American Prosecution as Exhibit Number USA-463, 20 December 1945 (Exhibit Number RF-1428), and it is a letter which proves that as early as 20 May 1942 Field Marshal Milch was charged by the Defendant Goering with the task of transmitting to the SS his special thanks for the aid which they had given the Luftwaffe with these pseudo-medical experiments. Consequently, we consider that ? Feb. 46 in this respect the responsibility of the Defendant Hermann Goering is clearly established. Mr. President and Gentlemen, I have concluded the points concerning the Defendant Hermann Goering to which I wanted to draw the attention of the Tribunal. There is a conclusion in my brief against the Defendant Hermann Goering. With the permission of the Tribunal I shall not read it. I shall say that this conclusion is an extract from an old book dating from 1669, which is certainly known to everyone in Germany at least.
M.MOUNIER: Its title is Simplizius Simplizissimus by Grimmelshausen. It is a work in which persons are seen invoking dreams. Unfortunately the realization seems to have been achieved by the National Socialist regime. I now go on to the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, whose case concerns most particularly our friends in the Netherlands on behalf of whom France is acting as counsel Consequently, Mr. President and Gentlemen, as regards the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, the French Prosecution is going to outline as briefly as possible both in the name of the Netherlands Government and in its own name the separate charges against this defendant. The part played by the Defendant Seyss-Inquart, his participation in the annexation of Austria, were carefully studied during the course of this Trial. But it is his operations in Holland which deserve to be thrown into special relief today. On 13 May 1940 the Netherlands Government left Holland for a friendly Allied country. Its presence there was indicative of its firm determination not to yield up in any way its sovereign rights. On 29 May 1940 the Defendant Seyss-Inquart who had the rank of Reich Minister without Portfolio, was appointed Reich Commissioner for the occupied Netherlands. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart has therefore been considered responsible, by virtue of his functions, for an the acts committed by the so-called German Civil Government from that date up to the capitulation of the German Army. The speeches which he made afford evidence that he was invested not only with purely administrative functions but also with political authority. It is, therefore, useless for him to try, as he did when he was interrogated by my friend Mr. Thomas Dodd, to maintain that in Holland he was nothing more than an official empowered to put his seal on orders, in the same way that in Austria earlier he was practically only a telegraph operator. This interrogation is dated 18 September 1945, Pages 20 to 22.
M.MOUNIER: I do not insist further, as I did not wish to produce these interrogations in order to avoid wasting the time of the Court with the numerous interrogations which would have had to be cited in cross-examination, and these documents will really remain for the edification of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, has the interrogation been put in? M. MOUNIER: No, Mr. President. THE; PRESIDENT: Well, as a matter of technical procedure...
M. MOUNIER: I know in advance that you cannot accept this as proof already constituted in your eyes, considering the rule...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it can be given if the rule is complied with.
M.MOUNIER: My intention, Mr. President, is the following-to state . . .
THE PRESIDENT: M. Mounier, I think you are misunderstanding me. Under the article the prosecutors have got the right to interrogate any of the defendants, and this was an interrogation of one of the defendants. If the Prosecution choose to do so, they can offer their interrogation in evidence. If they do not choose to do so, they need not do so. Under such circumstances the interrogation is not in evidence, and need not be furnished to the defendant until it is.