dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
CHIEF COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE COLONEL L. N. SMIRNOV (Assistant Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Mr. President, I ask to make two short applications on behalf of the Soviet Prosecution. The first one is concerned with the excluding from the record of the morning and afternoon sessions of 23 April 1946 of the discussion which ...
THE PRESIDENT: Don't go too fast, April what?
COL. SMIRNOV: 23 April, Mr. President; the morning and afternoon sessions of 23 April. The discussion which arose about the official appendix to the report of the Government of the Polish Republic. I mean the directive from the Department of Propaganda in Poland. The witness Biffiler declared here that he doubted the authenticity of this document and referred to certain expressions which seemed to him not quite German, but alien to the German language. Upon investigation of this episode, it appears that the witness had not seen the German original but a translation from. German into Polish and then from Polish into English and then from English back into German which, of course, caused a certain confusion in terminology. As far as I was informed, Dr. Seidl, counsel for the Defendant Frank, became familiar with this document and has not objected to excluding this part from the minutes inasmuch as it was caused by the defects of translation. All these documents have, therefore, been submitted -to the Secretariat of the Tribunal. That is the first application which I would like to submit to the tribunal. The second one is ...
THE PRESIDENT: I am not certain, but I thought we had already dealt with that point, in view of Dr. Seidl's withdrawing his objection to that document, and perhaps you can find out afterward whether we have already dealt with it. There was certainly a document presented to us from Dr. Seidl in which he said that, having checked up on the particular document with which he was dealing, he was now convinced that it was all right.
COL. SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. As far as I know, Dr. Seidl does not object to excluding this part from the record because the confusion was caused by a faulty translation.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that your application is to strike out Biffiler's evidence?
COL. SMIRNOV: On the part concerning this document.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider your application, Colonel Smirnov.
COL. SMIRNOV: The second application consists of the following., In the report of the Polish Government submitted to the Tribunal, in many cases only incomplete figures are stated for the losses suffered by Poland as a result of the war. This was caused by the fact that at the time when the report was made, these losses had not been calculated yet, and I would like to ask the Tribunal to admit an official memorandum of the Presidency of Polish Ministers, War Reparations Branch, which contains the complete figures of the losses suffered by Poland during the second World War. The text of this document has been translated into all four languages; that is to say, into English, Russian, French, and German. That is my second application to the Tribunal. I have no more applications to make, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you suggesting that this is evidence in rebuttal?
COL. SMIRNOV: No, Mr. President, it was caused by the inexact translation. This is a document supplementing the governmental report of the Polish Republic with the exact figures of the losses suffered by Poland during the war. It contains data on the military losses of Poland during the second World War, on the losses in manpower and in property. It is a supplementary document and not one in rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, the document is dated 29 January 1946, and now you wish to offer this document in evidence at the end of August 1946, at the very end of this Trial.
COL. SMIRNOV: Mr. President, this document was given to the Soviet Delegation only recently, quite recently. Obviously some time was needed for the translation of this document into four languages. Anyhow we received it only very recently.
THE PRESIDENT: I wasn't suggesting that you were in any way to blame, Colonel Smirnov. The Tribunal thinks that this document can't be put in at this late stage; the document appears to have been made a long time ago and though it may have been received by you recently, it isn't proper that it should be admitted at this stage.
COL. SMIRNOV: I submitted this document, Mr. President, exclusively for one reason; I considered that the data contained in this document lend substantial significance to the picture of the general losses suffered by the Polish Republic. I think that the data could only be completed by submitting this document and that was the reason why I submitted this application to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That may very well be, Colonel Smirnov, but the reason why the Tribunal rejects it is because it is submitted at such a late stage when it is impossible for the Tribunal to go into the facts which are alleged in it or to give the defendants the opportunity of contradicting it. We will consider the other matters you have drawn our attention to.
DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for Defendant Keitel): Mr. President, since Dr. Servatius, my colleague, has just been called upon to deliver his final plea, I believe I may assume that the presentation of evidence against the Organizations is now to be considered as concluded. Now, I should like to ask the High Tribunal when the right time would be to settle the applications for evidence which still have to be attended to. This concerns the individual defendants who have made applications for evidence or have submitted affidavits in the course of the proceedings against the Organizations. Can that be done right now, or when should it be done?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal understands that you have got some evidence which you have already applied for, which you want to offer. You have it all ready, is that right?
DR. NELTE: Yes, indeed, I have already handed it in and submitted it to the Prosecution and I informed the High Tribunal about this in writing on 9 August. It is a question of just when I should ... it is a question of how I can introduce three affidavits here.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the evidence now?
DR. NELTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Nelte, we think that you might offer these affidavits now unless they are objected to by the Prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection as far as I know. There is certainly none from Mr. Dodd and myself. I haven't heard from any of my colleagues, but I haven't heard of any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: You may offer them now. With reference to the other defendants, they will...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I beg your pardon, there is no objection from either one.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the other defendants, counsel will understand that if they have any fresh evidence arising out of the evidence submitted on behalf of the Organizations, they will have to offer it during the course of the speeches for the Organizations or immediately at the end of the speeches for the Organizations; and that after that has been done, no further evidence can be offered. We will take the offering of your evidence now.
DR. NELTE: These affidavits, however, have not yet been translated, since I could not apply for the translation until I had the approval of the Prosecution. May I submit ...
THE PRESIDENT: You are suggesting that we postpone hearing the affidavits until we get the translations?
DR. NELTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I still have two interrogatories to pass in. Two interrogatories which were duly approved by the High Tribunal, and which in the meantime have been returned, and which I have already submitted in the prescribed way. One is Interrogatory Number 137, Baldur von Schirach, Document Von Schirach 137, an interrogatory by a certain Gunther Kaufmann, who used to work on the staff of the Defendant Von Schirach in the Hitler Youth Leadership. This interrogatory deals chiefly with Schirach's attitude on the question of war, his attitude to foreign policy, his attitude on the treatment of Eastern peoples, and his attitude on the Jewish question, and finally, on propaganda abroad. This interrogatory is being given Number 137 in the Document Book Von Schirach. The next interrogatory will receive Von Schirach Number 138. It is a Russian interrogatory deposed by a witness, Ida Vasseau, I repeat, Ida Vasseau, who, in the meantime, has been interrogated once more. In this interrogatory I consider only two sentences on Pages 4 and 5 of any value, which I have marked in red in the 22 Aug. -56 margin. This interrogatory, as I said, is being given Von Schirach Number 138. And finally, may I give you the number for another piece of evidence. On 11 July 1946 1 submitted to the High Tribunal the original copy of a newspaper, the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung of 6 July 1946, together with a supplementary document, for the purpose of proving that the witness Lauterbacher, who was heard before the Court in the case of Schirach, has in the meantime been acquitted by a British Superior Court in the well-known matter where a certain Kremer had accused Gauleiter Lauterbacher of ordering the murder of the inmates of the Hamelin penitentiary. An original copy of this newspaper article was already submitted to you on 11 July 1946., It is being given Schirach Exhibit Number 139.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, that matter has been raised so many times by Dr. Sauter; I think we should make the record clear. The time that I used that paper that was in our hands for the purpose of cross-examining the witness Lauterbacher, the Tribunal ruled that the matter should not be submitted or would not be accepted in evidence, and so it never has become evidence before this Tribunal. I pressed for it at the time, I am frank to say, but the Tribunal very briefly, as the later events revealed, refused to have it submitted in evidence. If Dr. Sauter takes pleasure in talking about it once in a while, I have no objection to it, but it doesn't help this Court very much, and it doesn't seem to do very much good to constantly bring it up.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the newspaper article which I submitted on 11 July bears the date of 6 July 1946, the sixth day of the seventh month of the year, and thus dates from a time after the witness Lauterbacher was interrogated. Therefore, it obviously could not have been taken into consideration during Lauterbacher's interrogation; however, it might be of importance for judging the character of the witness Lauterbacher. For the High Tribunal will perhaps remember that it was precisely Mr. Dodd who at that time confronted Lauterbacher with this business of the Hamelin penitentiary. Lauterbacher contested this under oath, whereas a witness named Kremer asserted everything in an affidavit. In the meantime this witness Kremer has been convicted, but the witness Lauterbacher has been acquitted, and I believe that this fact would appear to be of importance to the High Tribunal in judging the credibility, the reliability, of the witness Lauterbacher.
MR. DODD: I will withdraw my objection. If Dr. Sauter wants to prove that he wasn't a hangman, I have no objection to it. I don't suppose it is very important. I won't object to it if he wants to put it in that he wasn't poisoning some people and hanged nobody. Von Schirach rejected the document. Now, Dr. Sauter wants to prove that he wasn't anyway. I don't suppose we should object to it.
THE PRESIDENT: He just wants to show that Lauterbacher was freed by some ...
MR. DODD: He was freed of the charge I raised against him here. Dr. Sauter is not content with that; he wants to prove it over again. He wants to prove that he wasn't a hangman and not a poisoner. We don't object to that.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, of course, I do not wish to prove that Mr. Lauterbacher is not a hangman, for up to now even the Prosecution has not been seriously able to maintain that. I merely want to prove that the witness whom the Prosecution brought forward with an affidavit-namely, this Dr. Kremer-is not a trustworthy witness and that he did not tell the truth. And that in the meantime has been legally established by the judgment of a British court. That might be of importance in the question of the credibility of the witness Dr. Kremer in his affidavit, on the one hand, and that of the witness Lauterbacher who appeared here, on the other.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the document you are wanting to put in? A newspaper article?
DR. SAUTER: The -name of the newspaper-I have submitted it to you-is the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung, R-h-e-i-n N-e-c-k-a-r Z-e-it-u-n-g, of 6 July 1946, and I submitted it to the Tribunal with the proper form on 11 July 1946. Mr. President, I think that will be all I should like to say regarding requests for evidence. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider it. Now, Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the English translations were to have been completed this morning, and it is quite possible that they are ready now. But I am not certain on that point. Therefore only the German text is available. I gave a 'copy to the interpreters. Mr. President: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution has moved to have the Corps of Political Leaders declared as criminal. What is the charge against the persons grouped together under this name? Topics of investigations were: the persecution of the Jews, the conflict with the Church, and the dissolution of the trade unions; the incitement to lynch flyers who made emergency landings; the maltreatment of foreigners; the arrest of political opponents, and methods of surveillance and police spying- In relation to this, the fundamental legal point involved in the accusation raised by the Prosecution has to be expounded. The accusation is to the effect that the Corps of Political Leaders collectively committed the deeds mentioned for the purpose of unleashing a war of aggression, or that they had banded together in order to commit the above-mentioned war crimes. It must be made clear at the outset that deeds which do not result from these motives, or which as individual actions do not belong to the Common Plan of the Conspiracy, are not included in this accusation. The major crimes, such as the extermination of the Jews and the killing of political opponents in concentration camps, are not crimes against humanity within the meaning of the Charter, and the minor measures of police spying or election frauds are in them selves insignificant in this ' Trial, provided that they were not carried out with the aim of being crimes against international law, crimes against peace, and war crimes as set down in Article 6 of the Charter. I have already referred to this legal position without meeting with any contradiction. In order to support this opinion, I should like to refer to the Supplementary Berlin Agreement to the Charter of 6 October 1945.
DR. SERVATIUS: This concerns an agreement of the four Signatory Powers to the Charter, the sole point of the agreement being the changing of a semicolon to a comma. Through this agreement, we have the correction of the text of Article 6 c, which had been ,separated into two parts by the semicolon in the English and French texts. The result had been that crimes against humanity could have been prosecuted without being connected with crimes against peace or war crimes, which are under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. This possibility of interference with the internal matters of a state without any connection with a war does not now apply, after Article 6 c has been drawn up in accordance with the Russian text. Any interference for humanitarian reasons alone is, therefore, denied the Tribunal. In all of their basic statements, the Prosecution have continually tried to establish the connection of all their charges with crimes against peace and war crimes by proving a conspiracy. Who is included in the Indictment brought against the Corps of Political Leaders? According to the Charter, it is for the Prosecution to determine that circle of individuals which is to be declared criminal as an organization or as a group. Here the Indictment is directed against the Corps of Political Leaders, according to 1~ational Socialist terminology. Despite the designation which refers to an organization, such an organization did not exist. The designation "Political Organization," which had been chosen for the same group of persons, was even expressly prohibited by a decree of the Fuehrer's Deputy in the Party, Hess~, on 27 July 1935 (Document PL-12). The reason given I for this was that there could not exist any special organization within the Party. Actually, this group of persons consisted only of functionaries such as exist within every party as executive and administrative agents., But there is no doubt that there are a great number of people who, because of their titles, must be defined as Political Leaders.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is not a group which banded together, for one could not enter the circle of Political Leaders merely by joining, but only through an appointment which took place, without any effort on the part of the person concerned, by an act of sovereignty. The legal position is comparable to that of any civil servant who enters the circle of his colleagues through his appointment. How does this circle denote a special group? Besides being appointed, only by the right to wear a uniform, which was connected with it. In addition, there is the oath, but that did not represent, anything special, inasmuch as all civil servants and soldiers had to take this in the same way. The duties and activities of the members of the Corps of Political Leaders, however, are completely varied according to their nature and importance. There were Political Leaders who worked in associations, such as the German Labor Front and the National Socialist Peoples' Welfare Association, and who wore uniforms during their practical administrative work only for decorative reasons. These are the members of the various affiliated associations who have deliberately not been included in the charges of the Prosecution. Besides these, there are Political Leaders who directed the actual political machinery; these were the Hoheitstr5ger and the members of the Political Staffs, who are characterized by the Prosecution as "top leaders" or "main leaders". From the reasons given by the Prosecution to support their Indictment it appears that by the Corps of Political Leaders they mean only the latter individuals who are enumerated from Reich Leaders to the Block Leaders. From the affiliated organizations, Political Leaders were included only insofar as they were active on the Political Staffs which grouped themselves around the Hoheitstr5ger. This circle of persons can be comprised in a special definable group, insofar as a connection exists between them through the relationship of subordination, disciplinary power, and business routine.
DR. SERVATIUS: The number of persons so affected has been estimated by the Prosecution at about 600,000, according to the number of offices existing in the year 1939. As the document used as a basis for this shows (2958-PS), the posts in the staffs are not included. The figures show that, in addition to the Hoheitstr5ger, including the Cell and Block Leaders, there were some 475,000 such posts which were filled by Political Leaders. The number of Political Leaders on the Political Staffs for the year 1939 is thereby increased to about one million. As can be estimated from Party statistics, the figure is increased one and a half times because of the heavy turnover of personnel over 12 years, that is, to about two and a half million. In this connection, the fact is taken into account that in the beginning the number of posts was only half that number. If the members of the Ortsgruppenstelle are deducted a figure of about one and a half million remains. Not included in these figures are the office holders from the staffs who were not appointed Political Leaders, nor those who were ordered to serve on an honorary basis as Political Leaders during the war in subordinate positions; during the war the latter were primarily Cell and Block Leaders. According to the testimony given by witnesses, their number may be estimated at 600,000. If, as the Prosecution does, one includes these individuals in the circle of Political Leaders, then the entire figure of persons involved rises to 2,100,000. This figure is still further increased because there were also other office holders on the Political Staffs who were not appointed Political Leaders. Because of the fact that the charge raised by the Prosecution is restricted to Political Leaders, a part of the persons on the- staffs are not included. They are the ones who were not appointed Political Leaders even though they held office.
DR. SERVATIUS: An extension of the charge to these persons cannot now take place subsequently without legal prejudice to those affected, since they were not given an opportunity to apply for a legal hearing in the first proclamation by the Tribunal. Before dealing with the question as to whether this specific group is to be declared criminal, we must discuss the question of whether the charges are admissible under international law. According to Article 50 of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare, a collective punishment of the population is only admissible if all the population are considered jointly guilty for individual actions. This is an exceptional regulation which serves solely for the protection of the occupying power. Thus a similar measure arising out of general political considerations is prohibited. You may not punish a group because the guilt for a war is imputed to its members, or because you held them responsible for moral resistance. You cannot arrest all "Political Commissars" or Jews, and condemn them because of their political attitude. This prohibition of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare is based on the individual principle of democratic criminal law, which has not lost its prestige. Whether the charges of the Prosecution are legal or whether the Charter has invalidated Article 50 of the Hague Rules on Land Warfare, must be examined officially. If you consider the proceedings admissible, then we shall have to examine whether the group's complicity in guilt can be considered proved. How such proof is to be furnished neither the Hague Rules of Land Warfare nor the Charter indicates. We can follow two principles: either that of justice or that of expediency. The principle of justice demands proof of individual guilt, and the condemnation of a group is to be rejected, "if there is only one just man among them." The principle of expediency admits the possibility of outvoting the innocent ones, and thus shows a preference to punish the innocent rather than to let the guilty ones go unprosecuted.