dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal, I wish to bring to the attention of the Tribunal and of the Defense Counsel some matters concerning the case as it will take its course next week, in the belief that it will result in expediting our procedure if, over the weekend, our program can be considered. Captain Harris' presentation will take a short time longer on Monday; and when it has concluded, the presentation by the United States will have reached that part of the Indictment which seeks a declaratory judgment of this Tribunal that six of the organizations named therein are criminal organizations. They effect such a finding only that they may constitute such a basis for prosecution against individual members in other courts than this, proceedings in which every defense will be open to an accused individual, except that he may not deny the findings made by this Tribunal as to the character of the organization of which he was a member. The United States desires to offer this evidence under conditions which will save the time of the Tribunal and advance the prosecution as rapidly as possible so that United States personnel can be released. We also desire defendants' counsel to have before them as much as possible of our evidence against organizations before the Christmas recess so that they may use that recess time to examine it and to prepare their defenses and that we may be spared any further applications for delay for that purpose. The substance of our proposal is that all of the ultimate questions on this branch of the case be reserved for consideration after the evidence is before the Tribunal. The real question, we submit, is not whether to admit the evidence. The real question is its value and its legal consequences under the provisions of this Charter . All of the evidence which we will tender will be tendered in the belief that it cannot be denied to have some probative value and that it is relevant to the charges made in the Indictment . And those are the grounds upon which the Charter authorizes a rejection of evidence. .
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: At the time we seek no advantage from this suggestion except the advantage of saving time to the Tribunal and to ourselves to get as much of the case as possible in the hands of the defendants before the Christmas recess and to urge the ultimate issues only when they can be intelligibly argued and understood on the basis of a real record instead of on assumptions and hypothetical statements of fact. In offering this evidence as to the organizations, therefore, we propose to stipulate as follows: Every objection of any character to any item of the evidence offered by the United States, as against these organizations may be deemed to be reserved and fully available to Defense Counsel at any time before the close of the United States case with the same effect as if the objection had been made when the evidence was offered. All evidence on this subject shaft remain subject to a continuing power of the Tribunal, on motion d any counsel or on its own motion, to strike, unprejudiced by the absence of objection. Every question as to the effect of the evidence shall be considered open and unprejudiced by the fact it has been received without objection. Now we recognize the adherent controversial character of the issues which may be raised concerning this branch of the case. What this evidence proves, what organizations it is sufficient to condemn, and how the Charter applies to it are questions capable of debate, which we are quite ready to argue when it can be done in orderly and intelligible fashion. We had expected to do it in final summation, but we will do it at any time suggested by the Tribunal, after there is a record on which to found the argument; and we are willing to do it either before or after the defendants take up the case. But we do suggest that, if it is done step by step as the evidence is produced and on questions of admissibility, it will be disorderly and time-consuming.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Piecemeal argument will consume time by requiring counsel on both sides to recite evidence that is either in the case, or to speculate as to evidence that is not yet in, to resort to hypothetical eases, and to do it over and over again to each separate objection. It will also be disorderly because of our plan. of presentation. Questions which relate to these organizations go to the very basis of the proposal made by President Roosevelt to the Yalta Conference , agreement upon which was the basis for this proceeding. The United States would not have participated in this kind of determination of question of guilt but for this or some equivalent plan of reaching thousands of others, who, if less conspicuous, are just as guilty of these crimes as the men in the dock. Because of participation in the framing of the Charter and knowledge of the problem it was designed to reach, I shall expect to reach the legal issues involved in these questions. The evidence, however, win be presented by the lawyers who have specialized in the search for the arrangement of evidence on a particular and limited charge or indictment. Piecemeal argument, therefore, would not be orderly, but would be repetitious, incomplete, poorly organized, and of little help to the Tribunal. The issues deserve careful, prepared presentation of the contentions on both sides. We will ask, therefore, upon these conditions, which we think protect everybody's rights and enable the Defense as well as ourselves to make a better presentation of their questions because they will have time to prepare them, to lay before the Tribunal, as rapidly as possible next week and as uninterruptedly as possible, the evidence which bears upon the accusations against the organizations.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, have you yet communicated that to the defendants' counsel in writing or not?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have not communicated it, unless it has been sent to the Information Center since noon.
THE PRESIDENT: I think, perhaps, it might be convenient that you should state what you have stated to us as to objections to the evidence in writing so they may thoroughly understand it.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I have prepared to do that and to supply sufficient copies for members of the Tribunal and for all defense counsel
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
HERR BOHM: I represent the members of the SA. who have volunteered to be questioned before the Tribunal. I understood the statement of Justice Jackson only partially. As Defense Counsel I have no one who can supply me with information and I cannot, under any circumstances, agree to give my views on statements which I do not know or which are made known to me in such a way that I am not in a position to get information. I should Like to ask first that I be supplied with a German translation of the statement which the Prosecution has made on the future course of the Trial, so that I can express my views on it. I do not represent here just one person but millions of people who will, after the Trial, come forward with all sorts of accusations against me, possibly even justified accusations. My own responsibility, as well as that of my colleagues who represent the organizations, is immense. I should therefore lake to request, as a matter of principle, that anything which is presented in this Trial at all be submitted to me in the German language, because I am not in a position to have whole volumes of documents translated into German from one day to the next-documents which could quite easily be given to me in the German original. This is a circumstance which makes it dreadfully hard for me, as well as for a number of my colleagues, to follow the Trial at an. Of the incriminatory evidence against the organizations, I have previously gathered little in the proceedings up to now. Since, according to today's statements, however, the evidence against the organizations is to be presented shortly, I should like to ask emphatically that, if we are to continue to represent the organizations, the proceedings be conducted in such a way that, in a technical respect, too, we shall be in a position to carry on the defense in a responsible manner.
THE PRESIDENT: As you know or have been told, only those parts of documents which are read before the Tribunal are treated as being in evidence and therefore you hear through your earphones everything that is in evidence read to you in German. You know also that there are two copies of the documents in your Information' Center which are in German. So much for that. That has been the procedure up to now. In order to meet the legitimate wishes of German counsel, the proposal which Mr. Justice Jackson has just made is perfectly simple, as I understand it, and it is this: That the question of the criminality of these organizations should not be argued before the evidence is put in; that the United States counsel should put in their evidence first, and that they hope to put the majority of it in evidence before the Christmas recess, but that the German counsel (defendants' counsels shall be at liberty at any time, up to the time the United States case is finished, to make objection to any part of the evidence on these criminal organizations. Is that not clear?
HERR BOHM: Yes, that is clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any objection to that procedure?
HERR BOHM: Yes. The procedure as suggested is clear, but I think it is highly inadequate. I have as yet had no opportunity to get into my hands either of the two copies, which are said to be downstairs in Room 54, maybe because Two copies are not sufficient for the purposes of 25 lawyers, especially if these copies are placed in Room 54 at 10:30 in the morning, when the session starts at 10:00 o'clock. It would not even suffice if these two copies for 25 of us were placed into our room on the day before, since it is not possible for all of us to make satisfactory use of these two copies in so short a time. Arrangements should therefore be made-just how the Prosecution will make them, I cannot say-to enable us to know at the proper time-and I emphasize again, in the German language-what the Prosecution expects of us, so that our work may be of avail to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: What you have just stated is a general objection to the procedure which has been adopted up to now and has nothing to do with the procedure which has been suggested by Mr. Justice Jackson with reference to these criminal organizations. His suggestion was that argument on the law of the criminal issue or the criminal nature of these organizations should be postponed unto the evidence was put in and that the right of Counsel for the Defense should be to make objection at any stage or, rather, to defer their objections until the evidence had been put in; and it was hoped that the evidence would be completed or nearly completed by the Christmas recess. What you say about the general procedure may be considered by the Tribunal. So far as the particular question is concerned, namely, the question of the procedure suggested by Mr. Justice Jackson, have you any objection to that?
HERR BOHM: I have objections to this procedure only-and in this respect I reserve for myself all rights, for the sake of the great number of people I represent-if it handicaps or hinders me in any way in representing the interests of my many clients.
THE PRESIDENT: We are aware of that fact, but that does not seem to be material to the question whether the legal argument should be deferred until after the evidence is presented. The fact that you have millions of people to represent has nothing to do with the question whether the legal argument shall take place before, or in the middle of, or at the end of the presentation of the evidence. What I am asking you is: Have you any objection to the legal argument taking place at the end of the presentation of the evidence?
HERR BOHM: I have no objection to these suggestions if they do not impair my defense in any way.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal win now adjourn.
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): I have four announcements to make on behalf of the Tribunal. I will read those announcements now and they will be posted upon the board in the defendants' counsel's Information Center in German as soon as possible. The first announcement is this: The attention of the Tribunal has been drawn to publications in the press of what appear to have been interviews with some of the defendants in this case, given through the agency of their counsel. The Tribunal considers it necessary to state with the greatest emphasis that this is a procedure which cannot and will not be countenanced. Therefore, counsel are warned that they should observe the highest professional standards in such matters and should not use the opportunity afforded to them of conferring freely with their clients to act in any way as intermediaries between the defendants and the press, and they must exercise the greatest professional discretion in making any statement on their own behalf. The Tribunal recognizes that in a trial of this kind, where the public interest is world-wide, it is in the highest degree important that all those who take part in the trial in any capacity whatever should be aware of their responsibility to see that nothing is done to detract from the proper conduct of the proceedings. The press of the world is rendering a very great service in giving publicity to the proceedings of the Tribunal, and the Tribunal feels that it may properly ask for the co-operation of all concerned to avoid anything which might conflict with the impartial administration of justice. The second announcement that I have to make is this: The Tribunal understands that the counsel appointed under Article 9 of the Charter are in doubt whether they have been appointed to represent the groups and organizations charged in the Indictment as criminal or to represent individual applicants who have applied to be heard under the said article. The Tribunal directs that counsel represent the groups and organizations charged, and not the applicants.
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): As the Tribunal has already directed, counsel will be entitled to call as witnesses representative applicants and may also call other persons whose attendance may be ordered by the Tribunal. Application to call any witness be made in the ordinary way. The evidence of such witnesses and the arguments of counsel must be confined to the question of the criminal nature of the group or organization. Counsel will not be entitled to call evidence or to discuss any question as to the individual responsibility of particular applicants, except in so far as this may bear upon the criminal character of the organizations. Counsel will be permitted, as far as possible, to communicate with applicants in order to decide what witnesses they wish to apply to call. The third announcement is this: The Chief Prosecutor for the United States has requested the Tribunal to make a change in its formal order which provided that only such portions of documents which are read in court would be admitted as evidence. In order to meet the needs, so far as possible, of the members of the Tribunal, of the Prosecution, and of counsel for the defendants to have before them all the evidence in the case, the Tribunal, having carefully considered the request, makes the following order: All documents may be filed in court. The Tribunal shall only admit in evidence, however: 1. Documents or portions of documents which are read in court; 2. Documents or portions of documents which are cited in court, on the condition that they have been translated into the respective languages of the members of the Tribunal for their use and that sufficient numbers in German are filed in the Information Center for the use of Defense Counsel. This does not apply to the documents of which the Court will take judicial notice, in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter ; and the Prosecution and the defendants will be at liberty to read those documents or to refer to them without reading them.
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): Trial briefs and document books may be furnished to the Tribunal if sufficient copies thereof are, at the same time, filed for Defense Counsel in the Information Center. As far as possible, these should be furnished in advance of their introduction in court. In order to permit the Interpretation and Translation Division to make translations in time, it is suggested that all documents be submitted to the division at least 5 days before they are to be offered in evidence. This is the fourth announcement: The Tribunal has passed upon a number of applications for witnesses. Some of these have been granted, subject to their evidence being relevant. Some have been declined. And in some cases orders have been made that the witness be alerted; that is to say, that if he can be located, he be advised to hold himself in readiness to come here as a witness, if the application is granted. It is the desire of the Tribunal to secure for the defendants those witnesses who are material and relevant to their defense. To prevent the unnecessary prolonging of the Trial, however, it is clear that the witnesses whose testimony is irrelevant or merely cumulative should not be summoned. At the conclusion of the Prosecution's testimony, the Tribunal shall hear from defendants' counsel as to which of the witnesses granted or alerted they think necessary to bring here to testify. At that time, the Tribunal may hear from them further as to any witnesses that have been declined, if in view of the case, it then appears to the Tribunal that the testimony of such witnesses is material and not cumulative. Counsel appearing for any defendant may question any other defendant as to any relevant matter, and may interrogate him as a witness for that purpose. If the other defendant takes the stand in his own behalf, the right shall be exercised at the conclusion of his testimony. Examination of witnesses called by other defendants: The same person has been asked as a witness by a number of defendants in some cases. It is only necessary that such witness be called to the stand once.
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): He may then be interrogated by counsel for any defendant as to any material matter. That is all. I call on counsel for the United States.
CAPTAIN SAMUEL HARRIS (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, we are resuming the presentation of evidence of the conspirators' plans for Germanization and spoliation. The next general subject upon which we propose to introduce evidence is the conspirators' plans for the spoliation and Germanization of the Soviet Union. As Mr. Alderman has shown, the invasion of the Soviet Union was the culmination of plans meticulously laid by the conspirators. We wish now to introduce evidence upon the conspirators' plans for the exploitation and Germanization of the Soviet Union after their anticipated conquest. The Chief Prosecutor for the Soviet Union will demonstrate what the execution of these plans meant in terms of human suffering and misery. We submit that the few exhibits which we propose to offer at this time will show the following: 1. The conspirators planned to remove to Germany all foodstuffs and raw materials from the south and southeast of the Soviet Union over and above the needs of the Nazi invading forces and the absolute minimum necessary to supply the bare needs of the people in these particular regions, who produced the materials which were to be removed to Germany. This region had previously supplied the northern area of the Soviet Union, which the conspirators called the forest zone. The latter zone embraced some of the leading industrial areas of the Soviet Union, including Moscow and Leningrad. 2. They deliberately and systematically planned to starve millions of Russians. Starvation was to be accomplished by the following means: a. As indicated under point 1, products from the south and southeast of the Soviet Union, which ordinarily were sent to the industrial regions of the north, were to be forcibly diverted to Germany. Moreover, all livestock in the industrial regions was to be seized for use by the Wehrmacht and the German civilian population. The necessary consequence was that the population of the northern regions would be reduced to starvation. b.
CAPTAIN SAMUEL HARRIS (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): They established the following order of priority in which food produced by the Russians would be allocated: First, the combat troops; second, the remainder of the troops in enemy territory; third, troops stationed in Germany; fourth, the German civilian population; and lastly, the population of the Occupied countries. Thus even Russians in the food surplus area of the Ukraine, who were not essential to the production of products for the German war machine, were to be systematically starved. 3. They planned the permanent destruction of all industry in the northern area of the Soviet Union in order that the remnants of the Russian population would be completely dependent upon Germany for their consumer goods. 4. They planned to incorporate a part of Galicia and all of the Baltic countries into Germany and to convert the Crimea, an area north of the Crimea, the Volga territory, and the district around Baku into German colonies. I now turn to the specific items of proof. I first offer in evidence Document Number EC-472, Exhibit Number USA-315. This document is offered for the particular purpose of showing the status and functions of the Economic Staff East, Group La. The exhibit which we shall next offer in evidence was prepared by this organization. Document Number EC-472 is a directive issued by Defendant Goering's office for "The Operation of the Economy in the Newly Occupied Eastern Territories." It is the second edition and it is dated Berlin, July 1941. The first edition was obviously published some time before July 1941. The document was found among the captured OKW files at Fechenheim. Under this directive, Defendant Goering established the Economic Executive Staff East, which was directly responsible to him, and under it created the Economic Staff East. The Economic Staff East, in turn, was subdivided into four groups: The Chief of the Economic Staff, Group La, Group W. and Group M. I now quote from Page 2, lines 7-9 of the English text; in the German text it is at Page 7, lines 7-9. I quote: "Group La.