dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
Final Report on the Evidence of Witnesses for the Defense of Organizations Alleged to be Criminal, Heard Before a Commission Appointed by the Tribunal Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Order of the 13th of March, 1946 Colonel Neave Report Final Report on the Evidence of Witnesses for the Defense of Organizations Alleged to be Criminal, Heard Before a Commission Appointed by the Tribunal Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Order of the 13th of March, 1946. TO: THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL I have the honour to submit a final report on the hearing of witnesses for Organizations alleged to be criminal in accordance with Paragraph 4 of the Tribunal's Order of March 13th, under which I was appointed Commissioner. My thanks are due to the following gentlemen who acted as Assistant Commissioners in the hearing of witnesses: Capt. Joseph F. Tubridy (United States) Mr. George R. Taylor (United States) Mr. I. D. McIlwraith (Great Britain) Mr. I. Rasumov (U.S.S.R.) M. Martin-Havard (France) The report is divided as follows: Part One: Administrative. The carrying out of the Order of March 13th. Part Two: Summary of evidence of the witnesses heard on Commission. A.M. S. NEAVE Lt. Colonel, A.A.G. AUGUST 1946 NURNBERG, GERMANY TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE: Administrative: The carrying out of the Tribunal's Order of March 13 PART TWO: Summary of the Evidence Preface Note by the Commissioner Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party Gestapo SS SD General Staff & High Command Reich Cabinet SA 1 Col. Neave Rep. PART ONE The carrying out of the Tribunal's order of March 13th In October 1945 the Tribunal ordered that notice be given to members of indicted Organizations of their right to apply to be heard by the Tribunal under Article 9 of the Charter . This notice was published in all four zones of occupation. It was distributed in internment camps and published in the German language over the wireless, in newspapers, and in the form of notices posted by Military Government authorities. As a result of the publication of the notice, the General Secretary's Office received a total of 47,114 applications to be heard by the 8th of February. An analysis of these applications and the camps and areas from which they came is to be found in a report
Military Government authorities. As a result of the publication of the notice, the General Secretary's Office received a total of 47,114 applications to be heard by the 8th of February. An analysis of these applications and the camps and areas from which they came is to be found in a report issued by the Office of the General Secretary, dated the 8th of February. The majority of these applications came from prisoner of war camps in the American zone in Germany. By the 26th of April, when a further report was issued, the total number of applications to be heard had reached the figure of 81,433. Members of the SS alone sent in a total of 58,597. The total number received up to the present date is estimated to be more than 110,000. These applications were acknowledged by the General Secretary's Office and forwarded to Defense Counsel. The large majority of them consisted of personal statements by members of organizations to the effect that they had committed no crimes. Many of them were in collective form and consisted of petitions signed by hundreds of inmates of internment camps. On the 21st of November the Tribunal appointed Defense Counsel for the SS, the Gestapo and the SA, and at a later date for the General Staff, Reich Cabinet and Corps of Political Leaders. In February it was decided that the SD, which was indicted as part of the SS but whose interests appeared to conflict with those of the SS and GESTAPO, should be represented by a special counsel. At the time of the hearings on Commission the organizations were represented by 8 Counsel and 23 Assistants. The provisions of the Tribunal's Order of the 13th of March which lays down the procedure for the selection and hearing of witnesses, were carried out as follows: 2 Col. Neave Rep. 1. In accordance with Paragraph 1 of the Order, the General Secretary's Office arranged for Defense Counsel to visit internment camps in all the four zones in order to interview the inmates and to select prospective witnesses. During the months of March and April special tours were organized with the assistance of the Military authorities, when the Counsel were accompanied by escorting officers whose duties were to facilitate their entry into the
camps in all the four zones in order to interview the inmates and to select prospective witnesses. During the months of March and April special tours were organized with the assistance of the Military authorities, when the Counsel were accompanied by escorting officers whose duties were to facilitate their entry into the camps for free consultation with members of Organizations. After these tours had been organized Defense Counsel were permitted to continue their visits. The total number of individual camps visited by Defense Counsel is 80. The Tribunal decided in March not to limit witnesses to those who had sent in applications and that any person who was available could be called as a witness whether he was technically a member of the Organization or not. As a result of these visits and in accordance with Paragraphs I and 2 of the Order, 603 persons were brought to Nurnberg for consultation and selection as witnesses. 2. The Commission established in accordance with Paragraph 4 of the Order began work on the 20th of May. Applications for witnesses selected by Defense Counsel from persons brought to Nurnberg were first discussed with the Commissioners who made decisions as to whether their evidence could be considered relevant in accordance with Paragraph 6. Progress was at first slow, a number of administrative difficulties being encountered. The Commission were unable to employ the microphone system of interpreting and in consequence the hearing of witnesses took considerably longer. It must also be realized that it was understood to be the object of the Commission that these witnesses should be heard as fully as possible and that they should cover a wide field. It was thought that as a result the Tribunal would be able to decide on the most important witnesses to be heard in Court when the time came for their selection. Every effort was made by the Commissioners to see that the witnesses selected represented as many aspects of the Organization as possible and that opportunity was given to refute the charges of the Prosecution. How far this was done can be judged from the lists of the witnesses included in the Summaries of evidence which follow. 3. On the 13th of June a second Commission was set
as many aspects of the Organization as possible and that opportunity was given to refute the charges of the Prosecution. How far this was done can be judged from the lists of the witnesses included in the Summaries of evidence which follow. 3. On the 13th of June a second Commission was set up and as a result, the number of witnesses heard was greatly increased. When the Commission ceased its work by order of the Tribunal on the 3 Col. Neave Rep. 3rd of August, the total number heard was 101. The number heard for each Organization was as follows: Reich Cabinet 1 Political Leaders 22 SS 29 SD 6 Gestapo 13 SA 17 General Staff 13 4. Paragraph 5 of the Order states that after the examination of witnesses, Counsel may apply to the Tribunal to call selected oral witnesses and to offer the evidence of the persons examined on Commission. Defense Counsel applied to the Tribunal for 31 witnesses and 22 of them were granted. The numbers allowed for each Organization were as follows: Reich Cabinet 1 Political Leaders 5 SS 5 SD 2 Gestapo 2 SA 4 General Staff 3 All the witnesses subsequently heard in Court were with but one exception people who had already been heard on Commission. The Tribunal had ruled on the 17th of April that all persons appearing for the Defense of Organizations should first be heard by the Commissioners. 5. By order of the Tribunal, Defense Counsel were permitted to take affidavits and issue interrogatories to witnesses in appropriate cases. As a result a gigantic number of affidavits from members of organizations interned in camps was collected. These affidavits which were largely cumulative in nature were summarized by the Defense Counsel or by prisoners with legal qualifications in the Nurnberg jail where special facilities were provided. These affidavits are referred to as "collective" affidavits. There were, however, a considerable number of affidavits taken from prospective witnesses brought to Nurnberg who were not selected for hearing on Commission. By an order dated July the 5th it was decided that such affidavits should be submitted to the Commissioners before being offered as evidence to the Tribunal. Special hearings of the Commission were arranged at
taken from prospective witnesses brought to Nurnberg who were not selected for hearing on Commission. By an order dated July the 5th it was decided that such affidavits should be submitted to the Commissioners before being offered as evidence to the Tribunal. Special hearings of the Commission were arranged at which Defense Counsel read summaries of affidavits into the transcript and the 4 Col. Neave Rep. Prosecution were entitled to comment or object. If the Commissioners decided that the affidavit was relevant, it was given a number and filed with the General Secretary. 1809 affidavits were submitted to the Commissioners. Of these about 90 were ordered to be fully translated. Summaries of the rest are to be found in the transcript of the Commission proceedings, or, in the case of the General Staff, in a special report prepared by Defense Counsel. The total number of affidavits submitted to the Commission for each organization was: Reich Cabinet 4 Political Leaders 100 SS 123 SD 69 Gestapo 92 SA 89 General Staff 1,200 It is not known at the time of writing how many of these affidavits will actually be presented or discussed in open court. As for the collective affidavits mentioned above, six separate reports were submitted by the Defense. The Reich Cabinet did not submit a report, having submitted only 3 affidavits to the Commissioners). When the time limit for affidavits was reached on August 5th, the total number of collective affidavits submitted was 313,213. The total for each organization was as follows: Political Leaders 155,000 SS 136,213 SD 7,000 Gestapo 2,000 SA 10,000 General Staff 3,000 6. In carrying out an administrative task of such magnitude, particularly in the bringing of witnesses to Nurnberg from all parts of Germany, the Commissioners were greatly assisted by the General Secretary's Office, Headquarters Command IMT, and 6850th Internal Security Detachment, U.S. Army, and by Military authorities in all the four zones of Occupation. The thanks of the Commission are also due to all those who contributed to giving as wide a selection of representative witnesses to the defense as was possible in the circumstances. 5 Col. Neave Rep. PART TWO Summary of Evidence Heard on
Military authorities in all the four zones of Occupation. The thanks of the Commission are also due to all those who contributed to giving as wide a selection of representative witnesses to the defense as was possible in the circumstances. 5 Col. Neave Rep. PART TWO Summary of Evidence Heard on Commission PREFACE The definition of the evidence considered to be relevant when hearing witnesses for the organizations is to be found in Paragraph 6 of the Order of March the 13th. In complying with this paragraph the Commissioners encountered a number of problems. In some cases it was possible for them to rule that the evidence given was irrelevant since it was clearly not within the wording of the Order. In cases of serious doubt they made certain comments but allowed the hearing to continue so that the argument which ensued of the Defense or Prosecution could be read in the transcripts. It was considered that the hearings should be as full as possible so that the Tribunal could decide when they came to the hearing of witnesses in Court what matters they thought had been sufficiently covered and what new questions should be discussed. The Commissioners, therefore, allowed the witnesses to continue in many cases where the evidence was of doubtful relevancy but where it was thought that the Tribunal should read a full report of the questions discussed. In general, the order worked quite satisfactorily and was not difficult to interpret. There were, however, certain phrases such as "physical compulsion" and "open and notorious or otherwise generally known to the members" which required a good deal of definition. It may be convenient to consider the various paragraphs of the Order. Paragraph 6 a (1) reads: "Whether the organization or group charged consisted substantially of an aggregation of persons sharing a general common purpose to engage in activities defined as criminal under Article 6 of the Charter and in this connection what the aims, tasks, activities, methods, structure and component parts of the Organization were." The Defense Counsel seemed to be in some doubt as to the meaning of this paragraph. A great deal of evidence which, was given concerning the structure and component parts of the
the Charter and in this connection what the aims, tasks, activities, methods, structure and component parts of the Organization were." The Defense Counsel seemed to be in some doubt as to the meaning of this paragraph. A great deal of evidence which, was given concerning the structure and component parts of the organization did not strictly fall within this paragraph and the Commissioners were constantly obliged to draw the attention of Defense Counsel to this fact. 6 Col. Neave Rep. The paragraph indicates that the question to be decided is whether the Organization was designed to commit crimes mentioned in Article 6 of the Charter and in this connection what its activities, etc., were. The words "In this connection" were frequently overlooked by the Defense Counsel. As a result, an exhaustive description of practically all the departments concerned has been given in very great detail and while this is of considerable interest to the historian, in the opinion of the Commissioners it is largely irrelevant. The point made by the Commissioners was that it was not the intention that the structure of the organization as such should be given. It was intended that the details of the organization should only be described insofar as they were intended to refute the particular crimes alleged under Article 6 of the Charter . It was, for instance, considered quite relevant to show that disciplinary action was taken against people who committed atrocities in concentration camps and what was the practice of the SS Court in dealing with these because these were crimes mentioned in the Charter. The Commission, however, stopped the examination of a witness on proceedings taken against individual members of an Organization for fraud and embezzlement since this was considered to relate only to a matter of internal discipline. It was, however, considered that the Organization should be allowed to call representative witnesses to give a clear general picture of the Organization as a whole. For this reason the witnesses were allowed to describe local branches in different parts of Germany though they all said substantially the same thing. They did, however, manage to add "local color" to evidence which otherwise would
witnesses to give a clear general picture of the Organization as a whole. For this reason the witnesses were allowed to describe local branches in different parts of Germany though they all said substantially the same thing. They did, however, manage to add "local color" to evidence which otherwise would have been regarded as cumulative. As a result, it is believed as complete as possible a description has been given. The Commissioners had no difficulty in deciding that the Defense should be allowed to describe the structure of the Organization in order to show that the charts submitted by the Prosecution were incorrect. The majority of charts submitted by the Prosecution in the case against the SS and General Staff have been challenged on the grounds that they were liable to misunderstanding and would create a false impression of the duties and chain of command in the mind of the Tribunal. Another purpose of the Defense in describing structural details was to show that ' the Organizations were not united groups. They claim that they aid not function as complete units, e.g., the various sections of the SS operated entirely independently of each other 7 Col. Neave Rep. and the General Staff was a mere loose association of Staff Officers and Commanders who received orders from the top but never functioned as a Council of War. It appears to be the contention of the Defense that if they can show that a majority of the members were innocent or ignorant of crimes mentioned in Article 6 of the Charter , the Organization as a whole should not be declared criminal. They have, therefore, tried to dissect the Organization into different groups which had no relation to each other and to show that the actual criminals were a very limited number of people who kept their activities secret. This is particularly true of the SS, the GESTAPO and the SD, all of whom claim that there were thousands of subordinate or even honorary members of those organizations who did not belong to the inner executive circle. The next point to be considered is paragraph 6 a (2); whether membership in the organization was generally voluntary or the result of physical compulsion or legal decree. Here, as in other
of subordinate or even honorary members of those organizations who did not belong to the inner executive circle. The next point to be considered is paragraph 6 a (2); whether membership in the organization was generally voluntary or the result of physical compulsion or legal decree. Here, as in other cases, it has been very necessary to ensure that the evidence given does give a clear general picture of the conditions of membership. As far as possible, individual stories have been ruled out except insofar as the witness concerned might be said to be speaking for a considerable number of people. His evidence was also allowed if he was the head of a department which controlled recruiting and statistics since it was within the scope of his duty to have knowledge of such things. Evidence, for instance, that all civil servants were compelled to join the Organization by legal decree was clearly admissible, particularly if the evidence was given by a witness who was responsible for the administration of the civil service. Evidence, however, that particular individuals were placed at a disadvantage by not belonging to the Organization was only allowed insofar as the matter related to a general practice in Germany. Evidence that a father strongly advised his son to join an Organization because it was considered to have high ideals was not allowed. The question of "physical compulsion" was from the first the subject of considerable argument. Before the Commission actually began its proceedings an attempt was made to come to some decision as to the interpretation of this phrase through a meeting by the Prosecution and Defense at which the Commissioners heard their views. The Defense stated that in their opinion "economic" compulsion should be included. By this they meant the fear of business or social disadvantage as a result of refusal to join the Organization. They also wished to include what they called 8 Col. Neave Rep. 44 psychological compulsion. That is to say, the general fear pervading the people of Germany that they might be punished or be declared outcasts if they were not members. This idea of psychological compulsion was objected to by the Prosecution who considered that the order
called 8 Col. Neave Rep. 44 psychological compulsion. That is to say, the general fear pervading the people of Germany that they might be punished or be declared outcasts if they were not members. This idea of psychological compulsion was objected to by the Prosecution who considered that the order meant what it said and that the compulsion described involved the threat of actual physical force. As to what might be considered economic compulsion, no formal decision was made. The Commissioners felt that' it was not necessary to make any final ruling but to adhere as closely as possible to the wording of the order, but they agreed that physical compulsion as a rule should include the threat of disciplinary measures or imprisonment. It was thought that the vital point to decide was what the actual consequences of refusal would have been. Perhaps more important was the question whether there was any evidence of such consequences having ensued in actual cases. A considerable amount of evidence was given that disciplinary measures or even internment in concentration camps might have followed but there was no evidence that any actual refusal occurred. (See evidence for the Order Police who allege that some of their members joined the SS under pressure). The reasons for the contention of the Defense that the term "physical compulsion" should be enlarged to include pressure of other kinds seems to be as follows: It has already been said that it is their contention that if it could be proved that a large majority of members were innocent of any actual crime the Organization as a whole cannot be declared criminal. According to the same reasoning, therefore, they wish to show that as large as possible a number of members joined the Organization unwillingly and also that they demonstrated their unwillingness. This is particularly to be seen in the evidence for the Stahlhelm, an ex-servicemen's organization which was transferred by decree to the SA in the spring of 1934. The members of this organization numbered at least one million at the time of their transfer. They claim that they were not consulted about it and that they were so indignant that they remained in opposition to the principles of the SA for the next eleven years, i.e. until 1945. If they were