dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Nine, I believe it is. The Supreme Party Court asks the Fuehrer to quash the proceedings in the State criminal courts. Goering: To quash them, to beat them down, that does not mean suppress. A penal proceeding can be "niedergeschlagen." In Germany that is a different thing from "suppress."
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you give us your version of it and tell us what it is. What does beating down a proceeding mean? Does it mean that it has ended? Goering: That is what it means, but it can only be ordered by an office which has authority to do it; that is to say, the Fuehrer can at any time "beat down" a proceeding by way of an amnesty. The Cabinet could at any time pass a resolution to "beat down" a proceeding -- suppressing it would have been illegal. In Germany, "niedergeschlagen" is a legal term meaning "to suspend."
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And one further question. It was also reported to you, was it not, in that report -- I refer to Page 11: "The public down to the last man realize that political drives, like those of 9 November, were organized and directed by the Party, whether this is admitted or not. When all the synagogues burned down in one night, it must have been organized in some way and can only have been organized by the Party." That also was in the report of the Supreme Party Court, was it not? Goering: I have not found it yet. It is not the same page as mine.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let us find it and not have any mistake about it. Page 11. I should think it would be at the very bottom of Page 10, perhaps, where it starts. Goering: Yes, I have just found it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did I give a reasonably correct translation of it? Goering: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off? Before we break off, will you offer in evidence these documents that you have been putting to the witness? Those which are not already in evidence?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, they should be, Your Honor, I will do that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think Document 3575-PS may have been offered yesterday, but not strictly offered in evidence; and Document 3063-PS today; and one other document the number of which I have not got.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I appreciate very much your calling my attention to it. [A recess was taken.]
DR. HORN: Mr. President: I ask you, Your Honor, to permi the Defendant Von Ribbentrop to be absent from tomorrow's session, as there are still some fundamental questions I have to discuss with him in order to prepare his counterevidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, your suggestion as I understand it, is that the Defendant Ribbentrop should be absent from tomorrow morning's sitting in order that you may consult with him in reference to the preparation of his defense. Is that right?
DR. HORN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no objection to that course being taken provided that you make arrangements with some other Defense Counsel to look after Defendant Ribbentrop's interests if any questions arise. The Tribunal does not wish that you should come hereafter and say that you and Defendant Ribbentrop were out of court and object to what may have happened in your absence. You understand what I mean?
DR. HORN: Yes, Mr. President, and I give you my assurance that I will not use an objection of that nature, and shall ask one of my colleagues to act on my behalf.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no objection to your taking that course of action, but of course you realize that the Trial cannot be held up by any delay which might be caused in the future by the fact that you were not present.
DR. HORN: Mr. President, the purpose of my request is such that it will help me to avoid future delays.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I quite understand that. I was only saying that in allowing you to do this, which is perfectly reasonable, the Tribunal is merely indicating they will not allow any future delays. The Trial must continue.
DR. HORN: I understand that and I wish to thank you.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: [Turning to the witness.] Now, the Volkischer Beobachter of the 12th of March 1933 quotes a speech of yours delivered at Essen on the 11th of March 1933, including the following -- and I refresh your recollection by calling it to your attention: Did you say that? Goering: When did you say that was?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you say that on the 11th of March 1933 in a speech at Essen, either that or that in substance? Goering: That is correct, but the circumstances were different. Before I answer, I would like to ask whether you have finished with the document in the book that was submitted to me previously. I gave no explanation and will ask my counsel to have me questioned later in regard to that document.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is satisfactory. After the riots of November 9th and 10th, you have testified that you called a meeting on the 12th of November and ordered all officials concerned to be present, and that the Fuehrer had insisted on Goebbels being present. Goering: Yes, all chiefs of the economic departments.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Could you tell us who was there in addition to yourself and Goebbels? Goering: As far as I recall, the following were there for the purpose of reporting: The Chief of the Secret State Police, concerning the events, the Minister of Economy, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of the Interior...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Will you please state their names so that there will not be any mistake about who was there at that time. Goering: I can quote only from memory. There were present to draw up a report: The leader of the Secret State Police in Berlin, Heydrich; the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick ; Dr. Goebbels you have mentioned already; the then Minister of Economy, Funk , was there; the Finance Minister, Count Schwerin von Krosigk; and Fischbock from Austria. Those are the only names I can recall at present, but there may have been a few others there too.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Part of the time, Hilgard, representing the insurance companies, was also present, was he not? Goering: He was summoned and waited there. His views were asked on special questions.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you have been shown the stenographic minutes of that meeting which are in evidence as Exhibit Number USA-261, being Document Number 1816-PS, have you not, in your interrogation? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will ask that they be shown to you, and now, so that we may have no misunderstanding about the translations. You opened the meeting with this statement. I will read it: "Gentlemen..." I think perhaps we had better be clear about which meeting it was. This is the meeting held on the 12th day of November 1938 at the office of the Reich Air Ministry. That is correct, is it not? Goering: Yes, that is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You opened the meeting: Is that correct? Goering: Yes, that is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Further down, I find this: Am I correct? Goering: Yes, quite correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Skipping two or three paragraphs, I come to this ... Goering: But the supplement has been omitted.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, you can supplement it any way you want to. Goering:
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. You read any part of it that you want to as we go along, in addition to what I read. Is that correct? Goering: That is absolutely correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Goering: That is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I then skip a considerable portion, unless there is more that you wish to put in, and come to this statement: And they assented. Goering: Yes, I said that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Would you care to read anything further in connection with that? Goering: Perhaps only the next sentence:
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is, if any individual was attempting to profit by Jewish possessions -- is that what you meant? Goering: By Aryanization.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will quote another portion: I will skip a line or two: Is that correct? Goering: Just a moment, please, I believe you skipped something.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, we did. If you want to put it in, you may read it. Goering: No, I want to put it quite briefly, so that it will not take too long. I said what you have already said, that all things being equal, the Party member is to be given preference, the first on the list being the member who suffered prejudice by having his business license cancelled because he was a Party member. Then follows the paragraph which you read and which is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you then speak at considerable length of the method by which you intended to Aryanize Jewish businesses, is that right? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And then you take up the Aryanization of Jewish factories. Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You speak of the smaller factories first. Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Have you found the place where you speak of the factories? Goering: Yes, I have found it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I quote. That is correct, isn't it? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you care to say any more on that subject? Goering: No, those are the basic elements for the laws.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I call your attention to the second paragraph, starting, "Take now the larger factories." Do you find that? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Dealing with the larger factories, do you not say the solution is very simple, that the factory can be compensated in the same manner as the stores, that is, at a rate which we shall determine, and the Trustee shall take over the Jew's interest, as well as his shares, and in turn sell or transfer them to the State as he thinks fit. Goering: That means any one who has any interest in the factories will receive compensation, according to the scale laid down by us.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the reparation will be turned over to the State Trustee, will it not? Goering: Yes, to the State Trustee. The matter was simply this: The Jew relinquished his ownership and received bonds. That was to be settled by the Trustee through 3 percent bonds.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, we will pass on to where you deal with the foreign Jews, do you recall that? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: At that point a representative of the Foreign Office claimed the right to participate on behalf of the Foreign Minister, is that right? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, now, we will pass on to the point of the conversation between yourself and Heydrich. Goering: Just a moment, please. Part of the minutes are missing. All right. I have found the place where Heydrich is mentioned for the first time.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You inquired how many synagogues were actually burned, and Heydrich replied, "Altogether there were 101 synagogues destroyed by fire, 76 synagogues demolished, and 7,500 stores destroyed in the Reich." Have I quoted that correctly? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, then Dr. Goebbels interposed, "I am of the opinion that this is our chance to dissolve the synagogues." And then you have a discussion about the dissolving of the synagogues, have you not? Goering: By Dr. Goebbels, yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, Dr. Goebbels raised the question of Jews traveling in railway trains? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let me know if I quote correctly the dialogue between you and Dr. Goebbels on that subject. Dr. Goebbels said: Is that right? Goering: Yes, that is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Is that correct? Goering: Yes. I was getting irritated when Goebbels came with his small details when important laws were being discussed. I refused to do anything. I issued no decrees or laws in this connection. Of course, today, it is very pleasant for the Prosecution to bring it up, but I wish to state that it was a very lively meeting at which Goebbels made demands which were quite outside the economic sphere, and I used these expressions to give vent to my feelings.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then Goebbels, who felt very strongly about these things, said that Jews should stand in the corridor, and you said that they would have to sit in the toilet. That is the way you said it? Goering: No, it is not. I said that they should have a special compartment; and when Goebbels still was not satisfied, and harped on it, I finally told him, "I do not need a law. He can either sit in the toilet or leave the train." These are utterances made in this connection which, however, have nothing to do with the world-wide importance of the great conflict.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let us go down to where Goebbels brings up the subject of the German forests. Goering: Just a moment. Yes. It starts where Goebbels asked for a decree which would prevent Jews from going to German holiday resorts. To which I replied "Give them their own." And then he suggested that it would have to be considered whether we should give them their own resorts, or place some German bathing places at their disposal, but not the best ones so that people might say: "You allow the Jews to get fit by using our bathing resorts." The question must also be considered whether it was necessary to forbid the Jews to go into the German forests. Herds of Jews are today running around in Grunewald; that is a constant provocation -- and so on. Then when he broke in again, I replied very sharply, "It would be better to put a certain part of the forest at the disposal of the Jews," as he wanted them out of the whole of the forests. Then I made the remark which seems to be of so much interest.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Let us have that remark. Is it not correct, you did state: Is that what you said? Goering: Yes, I said it, but it should be linked up with the whole atmosphere of the meeting. Goebbels comes back on it again in the next sentence and says he considers my attitude provoking. I too can say I was provoked by his insistence on unimportant things, when such far-reaching and decisive matters were being discussed.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you come to the point where you ask Mr. Hilgard from the insurance company to come in. Can you find that? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then you made a statement Mr. Hilgard when he came in. Is that what you said? Goering: Yes, I said all that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Hilgard then outlined three kinds of insurance. He pointed out that at least as far as plate glass insurance was concerned, the majority of the sufferers were Aryans who owned buildings and that, as a rule, the Jews only rented them. Is that right? Goering: Yes, those are the details of the discussion.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Hilgard said:
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, before you pass from that page, in the third paragraph, just for the sake of accuracy, it appears that the name "Mr. Hilgard" is wrongly placed, does it not, because he seems both to put the question and to answer it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think that is ...
THE PRESIDENT: Probably the Defendant Goering put the question. It is the third paragraph on my page.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I take the minutes to read that when Hilgard appeared, Goering addressed him as "Mr. Hilgard."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But it is correct, as Your Honor suggests. Goering: I wish to point out what was said before concerning the broken glass. Goebbels said: "The Jews must pay for the damage," and I said, "It is no use, we have no raw material, it is all foreign glass. That will require foreign currency. It is like asking for the moon." Then Hilgard comes with the discussions just mentioned.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, and Hilgard pointed out that: Do you recall that? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, passing down, you come to a point at which Hilgard tells you about a store on Unter den Linden which was attacked. Can you find that? Goering: He said, "The biggest incident is the case of Margraf, Unter den Linden." Isn't that so?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is right. Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "The damage reported to us amounts to 1,700,000 because the store was completely ransacked." Is that right? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "Goering: Daluege and Heydrich, you must get me these jewels by large-scale raids." Is that the order you gave? Goering: Yes, of course, so that the stolen goods should be brought back.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Brought back to you, not to the Jews? Goering: Not to me personally, I beg your pardon, that is quite clear.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Brought back to the State -- you did not intend to return them to the Jews? Goering: It does not say that here. The main thing is, that they should be brought back.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "We are trying to get the loot back," as Heydrich put it, is that right? And you added, "And the jewels?" Goering: If a large jewelry shop is plundered, something must be done about it because with these valuables a great deal of trouble could be caused. Therefore, I ordered raids to be carried out to have these things, as well as other stolen goods, brought back. When a business was Aryanized, its stock was also transferred to the new owner. The main point, however, was that action should be taken against those who had stolen and plundered, and in fact 150 had already been arrested.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Heydrich went on to report on the method of these raids after you reminded him to bring back, to get the jewels. Goering: Yes, so it says.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And Daluege then suggests: Correct? Goering: This is absolutely correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, Hilgard objected to your plan of releasing the insurance companies from paying the claims, did he not? Goering: Yes, this is also correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And he gave the reasons: Am I quoting correct? Goering: Yes, and in Hilgard's reply -- and that is the reply I wanted to come to -- he pointed out that the insurance companies could not get out of paying claims unless a law provided for it. If the sovereign state passes a law to the effect that the insurance sums must be forfeited to the state, then the insurance companies are no longer under any obligation.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I suggest to you that that is not correct, but that even though you proposed to issue a decree absolving the German insurance companies, the companies insisted on meeting their obligations; and then Heydrich interposed and said: "By all means, let them pay the claims and when payment is made it will be confiscated. Thus we will save our face." Correct? Goering: Heydrich said that, but I issued a law.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you not then say: Goering: I have just said so.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You accepted Heydrich's suggestion, which was quite contrary to the one you made? Goering: No, I did not accept Heydrich's suggestion, but I issued a law to the effect that insurance money due to Jews must be paid to the Minister of Finance, as I did not agree with Heydrich that insurance money should be paid out and then surreptitiously confiscated. I went about it in a legal way and was not afraid to make the necessary law and to take the responsibility for the claims to be paid to the State, that is, to the Minister of Finance.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, the Tribunal will judge for itself, we have the evidence. Now, Hilgard, representing the insurance companies, then raised the question that the amount of glass insurance premium was very important, that glass insurance was the companies' greatest asset, "but the amount of the damage now caused is twice as high as in an ordinary year," and he pointed out that the whole of the profits of the German insurance companies would be absorbed, did he not? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And also the question of the number of the stores destroyed -- Heydrich reported 7,500, is that right? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I call your attention to the following conversation. Daluege... Who, by the way, was he? Goering: Daluege was the leader of the Schutzpolizei.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do I read that correctly? Goering: Yes, this was said in a moment of bad temper and excitement.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Spontaneously sincere, wasn't it? Goering: As I said, it was not meant seriously. It was the expression of spontaneous excitement caused by the events, and by the destruction of valuables, and by the difficulties which arose. Of course, if you are going to bring up every word I said in the course of 25 years in these circles, I myself could give you instances of even stronger remarks.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then Funk interposed to discuss the foreign exchange point, did he not? He contributed to the discussion, did he not, for a while? I will not bother to go into it. Goering: Yes, but not everything is put down in the minutes, which are not clear on this point. I regret the minutes are incomplete. That is strange.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I join you in that. Hilgard returned again to the subject of the profit of the insurance companies, did he not? Goering: Yes, of course.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you made this statement, did you not? Am I quoting correctly? Goering: Yes,of course, I said all that.
THE PRESIDENT: We will break off now. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Hess ): Mr. President, the Defendant Hess has expressed the wish to be excused from attending this afternoon's session, because he wants to prepare himself for his exainination as a witness, which will take place in the next few days. I do not believe that this will cause a delay in the proceedings, and I should like to ask the Tribunal to grant this request.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, on the same conditions as before, namely, that you arrange with somebody to protect your interests while you are absent.
DR. SEIDL: I will not be absent myself, only Hess.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: [To the witness.] I would like to call your attention again to the Exhibit USA-261, Document 1816-PS. Would you turn to Part 5, where you were speaking of Margraf's jewels that disappeared? Goering: That is going back to something already dealt with.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, for a time, to Part 5. I call your attention to your statement as follows: Do you find that? Goering: Yes, that is correct, but on the basis of the laws he was compensated for that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, there was a representative of Austria present at this meeting, was there not? Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And I ask you to turn to his statement in reference to conditions in Austria, a page or so farther on. Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And I ask you whether he did not report to your meeting as follows: Goering: The interpreter did not follow ...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you find it? Goering: I have found it, but the interpreter has not.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Goering: Of course. This concerns a law for the curtailment of the heavy retail trade which, even apart from the Jewish question, would have reduced the number of retailers. That can be seen from the minutes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Very well, let us go on a little further. Do you mean to inform the Tribunal that this did not apply to Jewish shops; that it had no connection with the Jewish question? Goering: I have said that independently of the Jewish question, in view of the overfilled retail trade, a limitation of the number of tradesmen would have followed, and that it can be seen from the following statement by Mr. Fischbock, which you have read, that I asked for a law which would authorize us to withdraw licenses, without any connection with the Jewish question. That would be a brief law. Whereupon I answered, "I will issue the decree today."
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, if you will... Goering: Naturally, above all, Jewish stores were to be eliminated, as I said in the beginning.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Please go on down two paragraphs to where this was reported: Goering: Yes, yes, that was the import of that meeting.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Goering: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now I ask you to pass a considerable dialogue relating to the Vienna situation, and I call your attention to the point at which Funk inquires of you: Goering: Yes, that was the purpose, to get him out of the enterprise. If he kept the bonds, on the basis of his rights as stockholder he still had an interest in the enterprise, and on the basis of ownership of stocks his will would still carry weight in the enterprise.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You turned Funk's suggestion down that the Jews be allowed to keep bonds? Goering: Yes. I replaced the bonds with securities.