dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
he has completely lost the knowledge of previous events and of people of former acquaintance. Since the expert establishment of his mental disorder which impairs the defendant in the full execution of his defense, makes proceedings against him inadmissible, the statement of the defendant that he thinks himself capable of being tried has no significance. According to expert opinion, the impairment of the defendant cannot be removed within a measurable space of time. It is not sure whether treatment through Narco-Analysis, as proposed by the medical experts, will have the desired result. The defendant has refused to submit to this treatment only because he thinks of himself as capable of being tried and consequently not in need of such treatment. Furthermore, because he is opposed to any forcible influence upon the body, and finally, he is afraid of physical disturbances which would prevent him from participating in the trial if such method of treatment is used at this time. The proceedings would have to be dropped in case of an illness of long duration which excludes his fitness to be tried. ad 1-b: According to Article 12 of the Statutes, the Tribunal has the right to proceed against a defendant in absentia if he, the defendant, cannot be located or if the Tribunal thinks it necessary, for other reasons, in the interests of justice. If the Tribunal, on the basis of convincing expert opinions, establishes that the defendant is not in a position to put up a pertinent defense and consequently decides not to proceed against him, proceedings in absentia, according to Article 12, could then only be carried on if this is in the interest of justice. It would not be compatible with objective justice, in case that actual proof of this fact is available, if the defendant is impeded by an impairment based upon health reasons, in personally standing up for his rights and in being present at the trial. In proceedings which accuse the defendant of such serious crimes and possibly carry the death penalty, it would not be compatible with objective justice if he were personally denied the opportunity to look after his rights as stated in Article 16 of the Statutes. These rights provide for
and in being present at the trial. In proceedings which accuse the defendant of such serious crimes and possibly carry the death penalty, it would not be compatible with objective justice if he were personally denied the opportunity to look after his rights as stated in Article 16 of the Statutes. These rights provide for his self-defense. The possibility to "personally present evidence for one's defense and to cross-examine each witness of the prosecution" is of such importance that any exclusion of such rights has to be considered an injustice toward the defendant. Proceedings in absentia can, under no circumstances, be accepted as a "fair trial." The same is true for the exclusion of the defendant from the rights which are granted him during the proceedings according to Article 24. If the defendant is impaired in his ability to defend himself for the reasons of the expert opinions, and to the extent explained therein, then he is just as little in a position to give his Counsel the necessary information and to enable him to take care of the defense in his absence. Since the Statutes establish the rights for the defense in this precise manner, it does not seem fair to withhold these from a defendant in a case when he is prevented from personally taking care of his defense during the proceedings. The rules in Article 12, regarding the proceedings against an absent defendant, have to be considered as an exception which should only be used against a defendant who tries to dodge in spite of his being in a position to be tried. The Defendant Hess has always been prepared to be tried in order to avoid proceedings in absentia, which he considers an injustice of the highest measure. ad 1-c: In case the Court should not agree with the explanations and should not consider the statements of the expert opinion in the sense of the defense, and therefore come to a denial of the Application ad a, it seems necessary to obtain the super opinion because the opinions testify to the fact that the defendant is a psychopathic personality who suffers from hallucinations and still today shows, in the loss of memory, clear signs of a serious hysteria. If the Tribunal does not consider these
the Application ad a, it seems necessary to obtain the super opinion because the opinions testify to the fact that the defendant is a psychopathic personality who suffers from hallucinations and still today shows, in the loss of memory, clear signs of a serious hysteria. If the Tribunal does not consider these sentiments alone as sufficient for the establishment of incapability to be tried, a more intensive examination would have to follow which would not be confined to an examination of only one or two hours on several days, but require a clinical observation. The opinions, themselves, provide for another examination of the mental condition of the defendant, which seems to prove that the experts possibly have a "disturbance of the mental capacity" in mind if the condition of the defendant lasts and the Tribunal, against expectations, declares the defendant unfit to be tried and therewith incompetent under all circumstances. /Signed/ von Rohrscheidt Attorney-at-Law Translator: Dr. H. v. V. Veith C. ANSWER BY THE FOUR CHIEF PROSECUTORS TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL: MATTER OF RUDOLF Hess The undersigned representatives of their respective nations answer the request of the Tribunal of 28 November, 1945 respectfully as follows: 1. We do not challenge or question the report of the Committee. 2. It is our position that the defendant Rudolf Hess is fit to stand trial. 3. Observations may be filed by any of the undersigned based on their respective relationships to the subject matter. [signed] R. RUDENKO For the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [signed] C. DUBOST For the Provisional Government of France [signed] DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE For the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [signed] ROBERT H. JACKSON For the United States of America 29 November 1945 (1) Answer by the United States Chief of Counsel TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL: The United States respectfully files the following observations on the application of RUDOLF Hess: Hess' condition was known to the undersigned representative of the United States immediately after his delivery to the Nurnberg prison and was the subject of a report by Major Douglas McG. Kelley of the Medical Corps of the United States Army, which report
files the following observations on the application of RUDOLF Hess: Hess' condition was known to the undersigned representative of the United States immediately after his delivery to the Nurnberg prison and was the subject of a report by Major Douglas McG. Kelley of the Medical Corps of the United States Army, which report is attached hereto. The report of Major Kelley and his recommendation for treatment were submitted to me and on October 20, 1945, I advised that "any treatment of this case involving the use of drugs which might cause injury to the subject is disapproved." This was not because I disapproved of the treatment. I approve of the treatment and would insist on its being employed if the victim were a member of my own family. But I was of the opinion that the private administration of any kind of drug to Hess would be dangerous because if he should thereafter die, even of natural causes, it would become the subject of public controversy. This completely agreed with the opinion of the Security Officer, Colonel B. C. Andrus, whose report is attached. In view of the statements contained in the medical report of the Commission and in view of the facts which I have recited, the United States must regard Hess as a victim, at most, of a voluntary amnesia and presenting no case for excuse from trial. Respectfully submitted [signed] Robert H. Jackson Chief of Counsel for the United States. 29 November 1945. [Enclosure] HEADQUARTERS INTERNAL SECURITY DETACHMENT OFFICE US CHIEF OF COUNSEL APO 403, US ARMY 16 October 1945 SUBJECT: Psychiatric Status of Internee. TO: Commanding Officer, Internal Security Detachment. 1. Internee Rudolf HESS has been carefully studied since his admission to Nurnberg Prison. 2. On entry HESS manifested a spotty amnesia. The British psychiatrist accompanying him stated that from 4 October 43 to 4 February 45 HESS presented symptoms of total amnesia. from 4 February 45 to 12 July 45 he recovered, and is said to have made a statement that his previous amnesia was simulated. On 12 July 45 he again developed amnesia which has lasted to the present. Also while in England HESS claimed he was being poisoned and sealed up numerous samples of food, chocolate, medicine, etc.
to 12 July 45 he recovered, and is said to have made a statement that his previous amnesia was simulated. On 12 July 45 he again developed amnesia which has lasted to the present. Also while in England HESS claimed he was being poisoned and sealed up numerous samples of food, chocolate, medicine, etc. as "evidence" to be analyzed prior to his trials. Such behavior could be either simulated or a true paranoid reaction. 3. Present examination reveals a normal mental status with the exception of the amnesia. Attitude and general behavior are normal, mood and affect, while slightly depressed, are intact and normal. Sensorium is intact and insight is good. Content reveals vague paranoid trends, but there is no evidence of any actual psychosis. His reactions to his suspicions are not fixed-and delusioned trends-are distinctly spotty and disconnected. His reactions are those of an individual who has given up a simulated behavior pattern rather than those of the psychotic. Oddly enough his memory for this phase of behavior is excellent. 4. Special examinations with Rorschach cards indicate some neurotic patterns. They point to a highly schizoid personality with hysterical and obsessive components. Such findings are confirmed in the patient's present reactions. He complains bitterly of "stomach cramps" which are obviously neurotic manifestations. He is over-dramatic in his actions presenting typical hysterical gestures, complaints and symptoms. His amnesia is at present limited to personal events concerning his history after joining the party. The amnesia however shifts in a highly suspicious fashion. Such amnesias may be hysterical in nature but in such cases do not change in depth from day to day and facts recently learned are not lost as with Hess. 5. In HESS' case there is also the factor of his long amnesia in England. It is quite possible that he has suggested an amnesia to himself for so long that he partially believes in it. In a person of hysterical make-up such auto suggestion could readily produce an amnesic state. Also the "gain" or protection found in amnesia, fancied or real, would be a bar to its easy clearance. Finally a large conscious element may well be present. 6. In this case I believe all those factors are
believes in it. In a person of hysterical make-up such auto suggestion could readily produce an amnesic state. Also the "gain" or protection found in amnesia, fancied or real, would be a bar to its easy clearance. Finally a large conscious element may well be present. 6. In this case I believe all those factors are present. Treatment will have to be formulated along lines attacking the suggestive factors and overcoming conscious restraints. Hypnosis would be a value but probably chemical hypnosis will be required. Such narco-hypnosis and analysis require the use of intra venous drugs of the barbitol series, either sodium amytol or sodium pentothal. Such treatment is in general innocuous if proper precautions are taken. It must be borne in mind, however, that occasional accidents happen in any intravenous technique. With the drugs mentioned above rare fatalities have been reported although in more than 1000 such cases personally treated, I have never seen one. 7. Essentially the present situation is as follows: a. Internee HESS is sane and responsible. b. Internee HESS is a profound neurotic of the hysterical type. c. His amnesia is of mixed etuology, stemming from auto suggestions and conscious malingering in a hysterical personality. d. Treatment will be required if it is felt desirable to remove this amnesia. e. Such treatment, though it cannot eliminate the conscious element is of great value in estimating its importance. With such techniques accurate estimates of malingering can be made. If this is a true amnesia, total recovery can be predicted. f. Such treatment is essentially harmless except in extremely rare instances. In ordinary practice the value of the treatment far outweighs any of its hazards. 8. Clarification as to the desired degree of treatment in this case is requested. [signed] DOUGLAS McG. KELLEY Major, MC 1st Ind HEADQUARTERS, INTERNAL SECURITY DETACHMENT, OFFICE US CHIEF OF COUNSEL-APO 403, U. S. ARMY-17 OCTOBER 1945 TO: Mr. Justice Jackson's Office US Chief of Counsel APO 403, U. S. Army (Attention: Colonel Gill) HESS believes or has pretended that the British attempted to poison him. Treatment with drugs might call forth the same suspicion or allegation against us by him. Undue alarm might be injurious to
U. S. ARMY-17 OCTOBER 1945 TO: Mr. Justice Jackson's Office US Chief of Counsel APO 403, U. S. Army (Attention: Colonel Gill) HESS believes or has pretended that the British attempted to poison him. Treatment with drugs might call forth the same suspicion or allegation against us by him. Undue alarm might be injurious to the patient. /s/ B. C. Andrus /t/ B. C. ANDRUS Colonel Cav Commandant 2nd Ind OFFICE US CHIEF OF COUNSEL, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, APO, 403, U. S. ARMY 20 October 1945 TO: Headquarters, Internal Security Detachment. Office US Chief of Counsel Any treatment of this case involving the use of drugs which might cause injury to the subject is disapproved. ROBT. J. GILL Colonel, CMP Executive D. STATEMENT BY HESS TO THE TRIBUNAL CONCERNING HIS MEMORY 30 November 1945 Afternoon Session Mr. President: At the beginning of this afternoon's proceedings, I handed my defense counsel a note stating that I am of the opinion that these proceedings could be shortened if I could speak Briefly. What I have to say is as follows: In order to prevent any possibility of my being declared incapable of pleading-although I am willing to take part in the rest of the proceedings with the rest of them, I would like to make the following declaration to the Tribunal although I originally intended not to make this declaration until a later time. My memory is again in order. The reason why I simulated loss of memory was tactical. In fact, it is only that my power for concentration is slightly reduced but in conflict to that my capacity to follow the trial, my capacity to defend myself, to put questions to witnesses or even to answer questions-in these, my capacities are not influenced. I emphasize the fact that I bear full responsibility for everything that I have done, signed or have signed as co-signatory. My fundamental attitude that the Tribunal is not legally competent, is not affected by the statement I have just made. Hitherto, in my conversations with my official defense counsel, I have maintained my loss of memory. He was, therefore, acting in good faith when he asserted I had lost my memory." E. RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL The ruling of the International Military Tribunal was
statement I have just made. Hitherto, in my conversations with my official defense counsel, I have maintained my loss of memory. He was, therefore, acting in good faith when he asserted I had lost my memory." E. RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL The ruling of the International Military Tribunal was announced orally by Lord Justice Lawrence, presiding, on 1 December 1945: "The Tribunal has given careful consideration to the motion of Counsel for the Defendant Hess, and it has had the advantage of hearing full argument upon it both from the Defense and from the Prosecution. The Tribunal has also considered the very full medical reports, which have been made on the condition of the Defendant Hess, and has come to the conclusion that no grounds whatever exist for a further examination to be ordered. "After hearing the statement of the Defendant Hess in court yesterday, and in view of all the evidence, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the Defendant Hess is capable of standing his trial at the present time, and the motion of Counsel for the Defense is, therefore, denied, and the trial will proceed." Preface Contents Chapter V
ORGANIZATION OF THE NAZI PARTY AND STATE
1. THE NAZI PARTY
In the opinion of the prosecution, some preliminary references must be made to the National Socialist German Labor Party, the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) which is not itself one of the defendant organizations in this proceeding, but which is represented among the defendant organizations by its most important formations, viz., the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party (Das korps der Politischen leiter der NSDAP), the SS (Die Schutzstaffeln der NSDAP), and the SA (Die Sturmabteilungen der NSDAP).
The prosecution has prepared a chart (Chart No. 1) showing the structure and organization of the NSDAP Substantially As It Existed At The Peak Of Its Development In March 1945. This chart has been prepared on the basis of information contained in important publications of the National Socialist Party, with which the defendants must be presumed to have been well acquainted. Particular reference is made to the Organization Book of the Party (Das Organisationsbuch der NSDAP) and to the National Socialist Year Book (Nationalsozialistisches Jahrbuch), of both of which Robert Ley was publisher. Both books were printed in many editions and appeared in hundreds of thousands of copies, throughout the period when the National Socialist party was in control of the German Reich and of the German people. this Chart has been certified on its face as correct by a high official of the nazi party, viz. Franz Xaver Schwarz, its Treasurer (Reichsschatzmeister der NSDAP), and its official in charge of party administration, whose affidavit is submitted with the chart.
Certain explanatory remarks concerning the organization of the National Socialist party may be useful.
The Leadership Corps of the NSDAP, named as a defendant organization, comprised the sum of the officials of the Nazi party. It was divided into seven categories:
1. The Fuehrer
2. Reichsleiter
3. Gauleiter
4. Kreisleiter
Hoheitstraeger
5. Ortsgruppenleiter
6. Zellenleiter
7. Blockleiter
be useful. The Leadership Corps of the NSDAP, named as a defendant organization, comprised the sum of the officials of the Nazi party. It was divided into seven categories: 1. The Fuehrer 2. Reichsleiter 3. Gauleiter 4. Kreisleiter Hoheitstraeger 5. Ortsgruppenleiter 6. Zellenleiter 7. Blockleiter
The Fuehrer was the supreme and only leader who stood at the top of the party hierarchy. His successor designate was first, Hermann Goering, and second, Rudolf Hess.
The Reichsleiter, of whom 16 are shown on the chart, made up the Party Directorate (Reichsleitung). Through them, coordination of party and state machinery was assured. A number of these Reichsleiter, each of whom, at some time, was in charge at least one office within the Party Directorate, were also the heads of party formations and of affiliated or supervised organizations of the party, or of agencies of the state, or even held ministerial positions. The Reichsleitung may be said to have represented the horizontal organization of the party according to functions, within which all threads controlling the varied life of the German people met. Each office within the Reichsleitung of the NSDAP executed definite tasks assigned to it by the Fuehrer, or by the leader of the Party Chancellory (Chef der Parteikanzlei), who in 1945 was Martin Bormann and before him, Rudolph Hess.
functions, within which all threads controlling the varied life of the German people met. Each office within the Reichsleitung of the NSDAP executed definite tasks assigned to it by the Fuehrer, or by the leader of the Party Chancellory (Chef der Parteikanzlei), who in 1945 was Martin Bormann and before him, Rudolph Hess.
It was the duty of the Reichsleitung to make certain these tasks were carried out so that the will of the Fuehrer was quickly communicated to the lowliest Zelle or Block. The individual offices of the Reichsleitung had the mission to remain in constant and closest contact with the life of the people through the subdivisions of the Party organization, in the Gaue, Kreisen, and Ortsgruppen. These leaders had been taught that the right to organize human beings accrued through appreciation of the fact that a people must be educated ideologically (weltanschaulich), that is to say, according to the philosophy of National Socialism. Among the former Reichsleiter on trial in this cause are the following defendants:
Alfred Rosenberg-The delegate to the Fuehrer for Ideological Training and Education of the Party. (Der Beauftragte des Fuehrer's fuer die Ueberwachung der gesammten geistigen und weltanschaulichen Schulung und Erziehung der NSDAP).
Hans Frank-At one time head of the Legal Office of the Party (Reichsleiter des Reichsrechtsamtes).
Baldur von Schirach-Leader of Youth Education (Leiter fuer die Jugenderziehung).
and the late
Robert Ley-Leader of the Party Organization (Reichsorganisationsleiter der NSDAP) and Leader of the German Labor Front (Leiter der Deutschen Arbeitsfront).
The next categories to be considered are the Hoheitstraeger, the "bearers of sovereignty." To them was assigned political sovereignty over specially designated subdivisions of the state of which they were the appointed leaders. The Hoheitstraeger may be said to represent the vertical organization of the party. These leaders included all:
the Hoheitstraeger, the "bearers of sovereignty." To them was assigned political sovereignty over specially designated subdivisions of the state of which they were the appointed leaders. The Hoheitstraeger may be said to represent the vertical organization of the party. These leaders included all:
a. Gauleiter, of which there were 42 within the Reich in 1945. A Gauleiter was the political leader of the largest subdivision of the State. He was charged by the Fuehrer with political, cultural, and economic control over the life of the people, which he was to coordinate with the National Socialist ideology. A number of the defendants before the bar of the Tribunal were former Gauleiter of the NSDAP. Among them are Julius Streicher (Franconia) whose seat was in Nurnberg, Baldur von Schirach (Vienna), and Fritz Sauckel (Thuringia).
b. Kreisleiter, the political leaders of the largest subdivision of a Gau.
c. Ortsgruppenleiter, the political leaders of the largest subdivision of a Kreis consisting of several towns or villages, or of a part of a larger city, and including from 1500 to 3000 households.
d. Zellenleiter, the political leaders of a group of from 4 to 8 city blocks or of a corresponding grouping of households in the country.
e. Blockleiter, the political leaders of from 40 to 60 households.
Each of these Hoheitstraeger, or "bearers of sovereignty," was directly responsible to the next highest leader in the Nazi hierarchy. The Gauleiter was directly subordinate to the Fuehrer himself, the kreisleiter was directly subordinate to the Gauleiter, the Ortsgruppenleiter to the kreisleiter, and so no. The Fuehrer himself appointed all Gauleiter and Kreisleiter, all Reichsleiter, and all other political leaders within the Party Directorate (Reichsleitung) down to the grade of Gauamtsleiter, the head of a subdivision of the party organization within a Gau.