dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
Military Tribunal to The Members of the International Military Tribunal Nuremberg, 20 November 1945 I have the honor to inform you that the decision rendered by you on 17 November at 1500 hours , to reject the motion signed the 16th by Mr. Justice JACKSON, Colonel POKROVSKY and M. de MENTHON cannot reject the declaration contained, according to which "The Committee of the Prosecutors created according to the Charter, designates Alfried KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH as a defendant" because this declaration has been made as the last resort, under
Article 14 b of the Charter
.
Accordingly, Alfried KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH is specifically designated as a major war criminal.
Consequently, I have the honor to inform you that the following declaration has been published by the Chief Prosecutors representing Great Britain and the Government of the French Republic:
"The Prosecutors representing the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics having agreed in the designation of Alfried KRUPP as a major war criminal under
Article 14 b of the Charter
of the International Military Tribunal, the French and British Delegations are now engaged in the examination of the cases of other leading German industrialists, as well as certain other major war criminals, with a view to their attachment with Alfried KRUPP, in an indictment to be presented at a subsequent trial."
We will let you know of this new indictment as soon as it is established.
For the Delegate
/ s / CHARLES DUBOST to:
4-The Members of the I.M.T.
1-General Secretary of the I.M.T.
3-The Members of the Prosecution (for information)
2-Files
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
FOR POSTPONEMENT OF THE TRIAL
AS TO HIM
(*)
Schwaig, 5 November 1945
TO: The International Military Tribunal.
I
As defense counsel for the accused Julius Streicher I should like to request that it be considered whether the time of commencement of the Trial of the major war criminals fixed for 20 November could not be postponed to a later date. My reasons for this request are as follows:
It is not possible for me properly to prepare the defense of the accused Streicher by 20 November 1945, nor especially to work through all the relevant papers and documents which are in the possession of the Court nor to produce the evidence which the accused proposes to submit nor to discover or cause to be discovered the witnesses named by him. Therefore I propose a postponement of the commencement of the Trial for three or four weeks.
II
Furthermore I request that these documents, books, and other records in which reference is made by the Prosecution in support of the
Indictment
and which have been lodged with the Court, be put at my disposal for the purpose of inspection and thorough examination.
III
Lastly I take the liberty of suggesting that the films which have been taken of the atrocities in concentration camps and other criminal acts be shown to all the defense counsel of the persons accused as this seems necessary for the instruction of counsel for the defense.
/ s / Dr. MARX
Notes:
(*)
Part I
of this motion was withdrawn by Dr. Marx, 15 November 1945, with permission of the Tribunal.
Return to the Text
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES
PROSECUTION ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF
OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT
BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
- against -
HERMANN WILHELM GOERING, et al.,
Defendants.
The United States of America, acting through its Chief Prosecutor, opposes the
Motion of Counsel for Defendant STREICHER
for the following reasons:
(1)
Since Counsel accepted the assignment to represent said defendant on 27 October 1945, he has been provided with a list of documents relied upon by the Prosecutor, and has been permitted to examine the documents and decrees referred to in such list; that such documents and exhibits will remain available to said Counsel throughout the Trial in the Defendant's Information Center in Room No. 54 of the Court House in Nuremberg where German-speaking custodians are available for assistance in expediting such examination.
(2)
Said defendant will have additional time to examine documentary evidence and further prepare his defense until the Prosecution presents its Case in Chief.
(3)
Defendant STREICHER is the only defendant who has requested postponement, and his application does not show any facts of hardship that would follow which would be limited to his particular defense. Further he does not show any specific injury to his defense if the Motion should be denied.
(4)
No objection is made to request in
Section II of the Motion
.
(5)
It is agreed that the film on Concentration Camps may be shown to Defense Counsel prior to the Trial.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Motion be overruled.
ROBERT H. JACKSON
U. S. Chief of Counsel
by
/ s / ROBERT G. STOREY
Asst. U. S. Chief of Counsel
14 November 1945
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
MEMORANDUM OF THE BRITISH PROSECUTION
ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
STREICHER
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
- against -
HERMANN WILHELM GOERING, et al.,
Defendants.
The Chief Prosecutor of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectfully opposes the
application for an adjournment
of Counsel for the Defendant STREICHER for the following reasons:
I.
1)
Counsel for the Defendant Streicher accepted that position on 27 October 1945.
2)
The Indictment against the said defendant and others was published on 13 October 1945 and served on the Defendant Streicher shortly thereafter.
3)
The said Counsel has therefore had a considerable time to familiarise himself with the contents of the
Indictment
and especially these which, as appears in the part of the
Appendix A
, page 33 relating to the said defendant, are particularly relevant to him
Streicher shortly thereafter. 3) The said Counsel has therefore had a considerable time to familiarise himself with the contents of the Indictment and especially these which, as appears in the part of the Appendix A , page 33 relating to the said defendant, are particularly relevant to him. In this connection the Chief Prosecutor respectfully refers to Page 5,
Section IV(D)(3)(d)
and page 26
Section X(A)
and
(B)
of the
Indictment
.
4)
This Chief Prosecutor further respectfully reminds the Court that the said Counsel has got a week from the filing of this answer until the commencement of the Trial, and in addition any time which may be occupied by the opening of the case and any matters preliminary to evidence being produced requiring cross-examination by Counsel for the Defendant Streicher.
5)
If oral evidence is called relating to the part alleged to have been played by the said defendant and the said Counsel is not ready to cross-examine, he will be able to ask for a postponement of his cross-examination.
6)
It is therefore respectfully submitted that this
Application
is premature, and that the time for applying for an adjournment to assist Counsel for the said defendant is when a difficulty actually arises at the Trial.
7)
This Chief Prosecutor respectfully reminds the Tribunal of the words of General Nikitchenko, then its President, uttered at Berlin on
18 October 1945
: "It must be understood that the Tribunal which is directed by the Charter to secure an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the charges will not permit any delay either in the preparation of the defense or of the Trial."
II.
This Chief Prosecutor has no objection to the request made in
Section II
of the said application.
III.
This Chief Prosecutor has also no objection to the suggestion contained in
Section III
thereof.
/ s / HARTLEY SHAWCROSS
14 November 1945
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1 Previous Document Volume 1 Contents Next Document MOTION OF THE SOVIET PROSECUTION FOR A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT STREICHER CHIEF PROSECUTOR OF THE U.S.S.R. TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL As shown by the Indictment of the major war criminals, Julius Streicher is to be tried in common with the other major war criminals and also for acts committed by himself, including, in particular, the incitement of the persecution of the Jews- set forth in Count One and Count Four of the Indictment. Thus, Streicher must bear the personal responsibility in the first place, for deriding the Jews, for their being tortured and murdered as a direct result of his propaganda and of that of his followers. Pursuant to this Indictment the interrogations of Streicher were carried on. At the interrogation of 10 November 1945 by representatives of the Delegation of the Soviet Union, Streicher declared quite unexpectedly that he "had been holding the viewpoint of Zionism." If, in addition to this, we remember the motion of Streicher's Defense Counsel at the session of the Military Tribunal of 15 November 1945 of the irresponsibility (psychical) of his client, it seems to me evident that there is every reason for appointing psychiatric experts. This measure should not encounter any difficulties, as right at this moment there are in Nuremberg a sufficient number of highly qualified specialists, who have just solved a similar problem in connection with the Defendant Hess. An immediate examination would give the Tribunal, before even the beginning of the session, exact information as to whether the Defendant Streicher is responsible or irresponsible There is still amply sufficient time to do so. To resort to experts when the Trial had already begun, would undoubtedly delay the normal procedure of the Tribunal. Given consideration to the above, I request that the Defendant Streicher be submitted to a psychiatric examination before the beginning of the Trial. / s / POKROVSKY Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R. 16 November 1945 Previous Document Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REGARDING
A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION
OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
17 November 1945
MEMORANDUM TO:
DR. JEAN DELAY, Professor of Psychiatry at the Faculty of Medicine in Paris.
PROFESSOR EUGENE KRASNUSHKIN,
Professor of the Scientific Research Institute in Moscow.
COLONEL PAUL L. SCHROEDER, U.S. Army.
The Tribunal desires that you examine the Defendant
JULIUS STREICHER
to determine:
1.
Is he sane or insane?
2.
Is he fit to appear before the Tribunal and present his defense?
3.
If he is insane, was he for that reason incapable of under standing the nature and quality of his acts during the period of time covered by the Indictment?
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL:
/s/ WILLIAM L. MITCHELL
Brig. General, GSC
General Secretary
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
REPORT OF EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT
STREICHER
18 November 1945
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Brig. Gen. William L. Mitchell,
General Secretary.
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL.
In response to the
Tribunal's request
that the Defendant Julius Streicher be examined, the undersigned psychiatrists did examine the Defendant Julius Streicher on 17 November 1945. The following examinations were made: Physical, neurological and psychiatric examinations.
In addition, the following documents were studied: All available interrogations, biographical data, inspection of examples of his written works, all psychological investigations and observations of the prison psychiatrist.
The following results of the examination and unanimous conclusions are submitted:
1)
Defendant Julius Streicher is sane.
2)
Defendant Julius Streicher is fit to appear before the Tribunal and to present his defense.
3)
It being the unanimous conclusion of the examiners that Julius Streicher is sane, he is for that reason capable of understanding the nature and quality of his acts during the period of time covered by the
Indictment
.
/ s / DR. JEAN. DELAY,
Professor of Psychiatry at the Faculty of
Medicine in Paris.
/ s / EUGENE KRASNUSHKIN,
Professor of the Scientific Research Institute
in Moscow.
/s/ COLONEL PAUL L. SCHROEDER, AUS,
Neuropsychiatric Consultant.
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT HESS FOR
AN EXAMINATION BY A NEUTRAL EXPERT WITH
REFERENCE TO HIS MENTAL COMPETENCE AND
CAPACITY TO STAND TRIAL
TO: The General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg.
On behalf of the Defendant Hess I, hereby make the following application in my capacity of counsel:
I
A.
That a medical expert be asked by the Court to make a thorough examination of the Defendant Hess and to report in an exhaustive manner as to whether the said defendant is
a)
mentally competent,
b)
capable of being tried, and to summon the medical expert as a witness at the Trial.
The expert should be named to the Tribunal by the medical faculty of the University of Zurich or, if a competent expert should not be available there, by the medical faculty of Lausanne.
B.
If the Court has already appointed an expert, that the expert applied for and appointed as in
I A
. be appointed and summoned to act together with the Court's own expert at the examination, and to testify in Court.
C.
In the event of the Court's having already in the meantime ordered a report by a board of experts, that this panel be completed by the appointment, as well as the expert mentioned in I A., of another expert also to be named by the medical faculty of Zurich or Lausanne.
II
. . . .
Reasons:
Re I. The undersigned Counsel has grave doubts as to the mental responsibility and the fitness for Trial of the Defendant Hess owing to defendant's behavior during his numerous talks with him, and owing to the numerous publications, past and present, in the German and foreign press about the "Hess Case". The defendant is not in a position to give his Counsel any information whatsoever regarding the crimes imputed to him in the
Indictment
. The expression of his face is lifeless and his attitude towards his Counsel and in view of the impending Trial is the reverse of every natural reaction of any other defendant.
is not in a position to give his Counsel any information whatsoever regarding the crimes imputed to him in the Indictment . The expression of his face is lifeless and his attitude towards his Counsel and in view of the impending Trial is the reverse of every natural reaction of any other defendant.
The defendant declares that he has completely lost his memory since a long period of time, the period of which he; can no longer determine.
The official Party declaration issued by the German Propaganda Ministry of 12 May 1941 even mentions "a disease which had been increasing over a period of years" and of "signs of mental derangement". English press reports also state that defendant's conduct after his landing in Scotland showed an absence of "mental clarity".
Those facts are important for the allegation of Defendant's irresponsibility as a result of morbid disorder of his mental capacity, and sufficient grounds for application numbered I.
Those facts at the same time justify the examination of defendant's ability to plead. In the event of the Court's having already, on its own authority, entrusted a panel of experts with the preparation of a report, it would be fair to the defendant to concede the addition of several experts to be appointed by the Defense.
/ s / VON ROHRSCHEIDT
Attorney
Nuremberg, 7 November 1945
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REJECTING
THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT HESS,
AND DESIGNATING A COMMISSION TO
EXAMINE DEFENDANT HESS WITH REFERENCE
TO HIS MENTAL COMPETENCE AND CAPACITY
TO STAND TRIAL
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC,
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
- against -
HERMANN WILHELM GOERING, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
1.
Counsel for the Defendant Hess has made application to the Tribunal to appoint an expert designated by the medical faculty of the University of Zurich or of Lausanne to examine the Defendant Hess with reference to his mental competence and capacity to stand trial. This application is denied.
2.
The Tribunal has designated a commission composed of the following members:
Eugene Krasnushkin, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry,
Medical Institute of Moscow, assisted by
Eugene Sepp, M.D., Professor of Neurology,
Medical Institute of Moscow
Member, Academy of Medical Sciences, U.S.S.R., and
Nicolas Kurshakov, M.D., Professor of Medicine
Medical Institute of Moscow
Chief Internist, Commissariat of Public Health, U.S.S.R.
Lord Moran, M.D. F.R.C.P.
President of the Royal College of Physicians, assisted by
Dr. T. Rees, M.D. F.R.C.P.
Chief Consultant Psychiatrist to the War Office, and
Dr. George Riddoch, M.D. F.R.C.P.
Director of Neurology at the London Hospital and
Chief Consultant Neurologist to the War Office
Dr. Nolan D. C. Lewis, assisted by
Dr. D. Ewen Cameron and
Colonel Paul Schroeder, M.D.
Professor Jean Delay.
The Tribunal has requested the commission to examine the Defendant Hess and furnish a report on the mental state of the defendant with particular reference to the question whether he is able to take his part in the Trial, specifically:
1.
Is the defendant able to plead to the
Indictment
?
2.
The Tribunal has requested the commission to examine the Defendant Hess and furnish a report on the mental state of the defendant with particular reference to the question whether he is able to take his part in the Trial, specifically: 1. Is the defendant able to plead to the Indictment ? 2.
Is the defendant sane or not, and on this last issue the Tribunal wishes to be advised whether the defendant is of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings of the Trial so as to make a proper defense, to challenge a witness to whom he might wish to object and to understand the details of the evidence.
3.
The examiners have presented their reports to the Tribunal in the form which commends itself to them. It is directed that copies of the reports be furnished to each of the Chief Prosecutors and to Defense Counsel. The Tribunal will hear argument by the Prosecution and by Defense Counsel on the issues presented by the reports on Friday, 30 November at 4 P.M.
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
/s/ GEOFFREY LAWRENCE
President
Dated at Nuremberg, Germany, this
24th day of November 1945.
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1
Previous Document
Volume 1 Contents
Next Document
REPORT OF COMMISSION TO EXAMINE
DEFENDANT
HESS
(*)
A
To the International Military Tribunal:
In pursuance of the assignment by the Tribunal, we, the medical experts of the Soviet Delegation, together with the physicians of the English Delegation and in the presence of one representative of the American Medical Delegation, have examined Rudolf Hess and made a report on our examination of Mr. Hess together with our conclusions and interpretation of the behavior of Mr. Hess.
The statement of the general conclusions has been signed only by the physicians of the Soviet Delegation and by Professor Delay, the medical expert of the French Delegation.
Attachments: I. Conclusions, and
II. Report on the examination of Mr. Hess.
/ s / KRASNUSHKIN
Doctor of Medicine /s/ E. SEPP
Honorary Scientist; Regular Member of the Academy of Medicine
/s/ KURSHAKOV
Doctor of Medicine, Chief Therapeutist of the Commissariat of Health of the U.S.S.R.
17 November 1945
Attachment I. Conclusions
After observation and an examination of Rudolf Hess the undersigned have reached the following conclusions:
1.
No essential physical deviations from normality were observed.
2.
His mental conditions are of a mixed type. He is an unstable person, which in technical terms is called a psychopathic personality. The data concerning his illness during the period of the last four years submitted by one of us who had him under observation in England, show that he had a delusion of being poisoned and other similar paranoic notions.
Partly as a reaction to the failure of his mission there, the abnormal manifestations increased and led to attempts at suicide.
In addition to the above mentioned manifestations he has noticeable hysterical tendencies which caused a development of various symptoms, primarily, of amnesia that lasted from November 1943 to June of 1944 and resisted all attempts to be cured.
The amnesia symptom may disappear with changing circumstances.
In addition to the above mentioned manifestations he has noticeable hysterical tendencies which caused a development of various symptoms, primarily, of amnesia that lasted from November 1943 to June of 1944 and resisted all attempts to be cured. The amnesia symptom may disappear with changing circumstances.
The second period of amnesia started in February of 1945 and has lasted up through the present.
3.
At present, he is not insane in the strict sense of the word. His amnesia does not prevent him completely from understanding what is going on around him but it will interfere with his ability to conduct his defense and to understand details of the past which would appear as factual data.
4.
To clarify the situation we recommend that a narco-analysis be performed on him and, if the Court decides to submit him to trial, the' problem should be subsequently re-examined from a psychiatric point of view.
The conclusion reached on November 14 by the physicians of the British Delegation, Lord Moran, Dr. T. Rees and Dr. G. Riddoch, and the physicians of the Soviet Delegation, Professors Krasnushkin, Sepp, and Kurshakov, was also arrived at on 15 November by the representative of the French Delegation, Professor Jean Delay.
After an examination of Mr. Hess which took place on 15 November 1945, the undersigned Professors and experts of the Soviet Delegation, Krasnushkin, Sepp and Kurshakov, and Professor Jean Delay, the expert from the French Delegation, have agreed on the following statement:
Mr: Hess categorically refused to be submitted to narco-analysis and resisted all other procedures intended to effect a cure of his aranesia, and stated that he would agree to undergo treatment only after the trial. The behavior of Mr. Hess makes it impossible to apply the methods suggested in Paragraph 4 of the report of 14 November and to follow the suggestion of that Paragraph in present form.
/ s / KRASNUSHKIN
Doctor of Medicine
/ s / E. SEPP
Honorary Scientist, Regular Member
of the Academy of Medicine
/ s / KURSHAKOV
it impossible to apply the methods suggested in Paragraph 4 of the report of 14 November and to follow the suggestion of that Paragraph in present form. / s / KRASNUSHKIN Doctor of Medicine / s / E. SEPP Honorary Scientist, Regular Member of the Academy of Medicine / s / KURSHAKOV
Doctor of Medicine, Chief Therapeutist of
the Commissariat of Health of the U.S.S.R.
/ s / JEAN DELAY
Professor, School of Medicine in Paris.
16 November 1945
Attachment II. Report
According to the information obtained on 16 November 1945, during the interrogation of Rosenberg who had seen Hess immediately before the latter's flight to England, Hess gave no evidence of any abnormality either in appearance or conversation. He was, as usual, quiet and composed. Nor was it apparent that he might have been nervous. Prior to this, he was a calm person, habitually suffering pains in the region of the stomach.