dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would wish that you should not make speeches. The Tribunal is perfectly well able to understand the difference between formal responsibility and actual responsibility for orders given by you.
GORI14G: I acknowledge my responsibility for having done everything to carry out the preparations for the seizure of power, and to have made the power firm in order to make Germany free and great. I did everything to avoid this war. But after it had started, it was my duty to do everything to win it.
THE PRESIDENT: We have already heard you say that more than once and we do not wish to hear it again. Goering: On the question of labor: During the war, the inhabitants of the occupied territories were brought in to work in Germany and their countries were exploited economically.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, you are supposed to be asking questions of the witness. Now, what question is that in answer to?
DR. STAHMER: I had asked him about his responsibility ...
THE PRESIDENT: You can ask him questions, but you cannot ask him general questions which invite speeches. If you have any particular questions to ask him which arise out of the cross-examination, now is the time to ask them.
DR.STAHMER: I put this question: To what extent does he consider himself responsible for the points mentioned here in the cross-examination regarding the deportation of workers, ...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I object to this question being put.
THE PRESIDENT: He has already told us about that. He answered that question more than once.
DR. STAHMER: In that case, I have no further questions to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the defendant can retire. [The defendant left the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: May I first of all give a short review of the present stage of the Trial so that the Tribunal can see what the list of witnesses still granted to me is like now. I was going to forego Dr. Lohse.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lohse, did you say?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, I abstain from calling Dr. Lohse, because the defendant has in my opinion already made sufficient statements on that subject. Furthermore, I had been granted Ambassador Dr. Paul Schmidt as a witness. That witness, of whom I want to ask a few questions only, I should like to hear later, subsequent to his examination by the Defendant Ribbentrop , because he will, have to answer a wide range of questions during that examination, and it appears to me appropriate if I ask him subsequent to that -- which is also in accord with the wish of Dr. Horn -- if the Tribunal will agree to that procedure, the witness Koller ...
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. STAHMER: The witness Koller, as it has now been ascertained, is in Belgium, and not in Germany. His hearing was provided in case he was in Germany. Consequently, I shall have to submit an interrogatory to that witness. That has been done, but the interrogatory has not yet been returned.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: Furthermore, I have received permission to submit interrogatories to the witnesses Ondarza, Freiherr Von Hammerstein, Kammhuber, Student, and Bunjes. The interrogatories have been submitted but have not been returned yet. The situation is that the addresses of Ondarza and Kammhuber have since been ascertained; as to the other three witnesses, inquiries are still being made, so that also here I cannot yet submit anything. Then there are interrogatories of Uiberreither, Lord Halifax, and Forbes; from Halifax and Forbes the interrogatories have been received, and I am going to read them; from Uiberreither there is a written statement as well. Then it concerns ...
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by "a written statement as well"? You said there are the interrogatories from Lord Halifax and Sir George Ogilvie-Forbes.
DR. STAHMER: Interrogatories have been received from Lord Halifax and Forbes. There is a written affidavit from Uiberreither and I assume that that may take the place of an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand.
DR. STAHMER: Furthermore, there is the Katyn case, Mr. President. Five witnesses are involved. I am still making inquiries regarding their addresses. I am therefore not in a position to have these witnesses called before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer. Was that all that you wished to say at this stage?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, upon the question of these witnesses; in, addition I must present what I have in the way of documents and then I shall have completed my case for the time being. I have put down in writing what I have to say about the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal approves of the course which you suggest.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May I, in the interest of time, make a suggestion, Your Honor, that these documents which Dr. Stahmer proposes to offer, I understand, have been translated into all four languages, so that the reason for reading them in open court does not sustain. I cannot speak for my colleagues since I have not consulted them, but so far as the United States is concerned, we will not raise a question of relevancy; we spend no time arguing points of relevancy. I suggest that the reading of a whole document book seems a waste of time of the Trial Court since the documents are available in all four languages.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, before we consider that course which has been suggested by Mr. Justice Jackson, we should like to hear whether any of the other Chief Prosecutors have anything to add to it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I respectfully submit that it is an excellent suggestion and I want to make it clear to the Defense Counsel that I feel that it will, one the one side, avoid arguments of relevancy on comparatively small points and, on the other side, the Defense Counsel will be able to use any of the excerpts in their final speeches with more effect and probably with more help to the Tribunal than merely by reading them at this stage. I respectfully support it and consider that it will improve the general condition.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. We will hear you in a moment, Dr. Stahmer, but I do not want you to go away; I want you to be able to hear. I want to hear General Rudenko, too.
GEN. RUDENYO: I am fully in agreement with the suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson and that of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe and I also consider that the Tribunal accept these documents which have been translated in four languages. This does not exclude the premise, namely that the Defense has no right to submit documents that have nothing to do with the present case. In particular I have a definite objection against submitting as exhibits the extracts from documents of the so-called White Book which are being submitted by Dr. Stahmer in the document book. These extracts have nothing to do with the present case and they should not be submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the French Chief Prosecutor wish to add anything to what has been said?
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: The French Prosecution has laid before the Tribunal a note requesting rejection of Document Number Goering-26. It concerns indeed an extract from a note from the German Government to the French Government regarding the treatment of German prisoners of war in France. This extract refers to a secret order from the headquarters of the general commanding the 9th French Army. This extract says that the general commanding the 9th French Army published an order; this order was not given to us. We are dealing only with an assertion of the German Government, which is the government of the defendant. The extract kvhich is offered to us has therefore no relevancy and we ask the Tribunal to reject it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, at the moment, is not considering the question of relevancy of particular documents. They are considering only the general question of method as to whether all these documents have to be read out to the Tribunal or whether they can be laid before the Tribunal for the Tribunal's con deration. If they have got to be read out in full It will take a very considerable time, and therefore Mr. Justice Jackson has suggested that instead of all these documents being read out in full, which will take a very long time, as they have been translated, the reason for that no longer exists as it did exist in the case of the documents put in by the Prosecution which had not been translated. But that does not mean that the question of relevancy of individual documents or particular passages in the documents is decided by the document book's being presented for the consideration of the Tribunal. Such questions as that may, in important cases, have to be considered after argument, but as a general rule and for the purpose of avoiding delay, the suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson appears to have a very great deal to recommend it.
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: The matter which is before us today is to find out whether all of the documents which have been submitted are relevant, and that is why I asked that the Tribunal reject one of the documents as irrelevant. If it is understood that this question may be brought up later when the document is produced then I see no objection to postponing my explanation. I wish to state concerning Document Number Goering-26 only that the quotation read by Dr. Stahmer is mutilated and I shall ask the Tribunal to hear this document read in full.
THE PRESIDENT: We would like to consider this matter, but before doing so we would like to know whether you have any objection to the suggestion that has been made. You understand what Mr. Justice Jackson's suggestion is?
DR. STAIMER: Yes, Mr. President, I understand. It touches upon a fundamental question of the defense, and I should like to discuss this question briefly with the other Defense Counsel. I should like to suggest that the Court take a short recess now so that there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter. I would then make my statement afterwards. I should like to point out now that at the time we were willing to forego the reading of the Indictment, and its being read was not due to our objections. The gentlemen probably were of the opinion that it had to be read as a matter of principle. I shall clarify the question and report immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about the reading of the Indictment? Are you making a complaint because the Indictment had been read?
DR. STAHMER: No, no, no.
THE PRESIDENT: The matter stands upon a different footing. The Charter, which is the document which governs the actions of the Tribunal, provided that the Indictment must be read. It does not follow that what is now being suggested is not provided for in the Charter. The only reason why we ruled that every document which the Prosecution wished to rely upon be read in open court was because the Prosecution, at that time had not found it possible to translate into four different languages every document which it wished to put in evidence and for the convenience and in fairness to the defendants and their counsel. We ordered, as you remember at an earlier stage, that every sentence in a document upon which the Prosecution relied and which we could consider as evidence should be read into the microphone so that it could come to you in German and would appear in the record, in the transcript. That principle no longer applies to the documents which are now put in because they have been translated into four different languages by the Prosecution's Translation Division. Therefore, in the interest of time, which must be almost equally important to the Defense as well as to everyone else concerned, it seems to the Tribunal that the suggestion which Mr. Justice Jackson has made is a very sound one and you will, of course, be able to comment in any way you think right during the course of your final speeches upon the documents on which you rely, subject to any question of relevancy which may be of real importance. There may be certain documents which may be objected to by the Prosecution, but, as Mr. Justice Jackson said, he will not now raise any question of relevancy, and he is ready to have all these documents referred to in your document book considered by the Tribunal. Remernber also, when we approved your documents, we expressly reserved any question of relevancy of particular passages in these documents which you might want to use. Perhaps it will be appropriate for us to adjourn now and you can discuss the question with your colleagues. [A recess was taken.]
DR. DIX: Gentlemen of the Tribunal: I was, of course, not in a position to have a vote taken among my colleagues of the Defense on the proposal of Mr. Justice Jackson, for the reason alone that not all Defense Counsel are present here. But I have been able to convince myself that the majority of the Defense Counsel agree with the reasons for what I am going to say, and I have no doubt that all Defense Counsel support the application which I am about to make to the effect that the suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson should be rejected. But to be correct and loyal I feel obliged to emphasize that naturally every one of the gentlemen is entitled present his point of view on this question for himself and within the scope of his own subject matter. And now to the matter itself. The suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson, especially if it is followed in principle with regard to the documents which are to be submitted by the Defense, would aim at the introduction of a tremendous volume of documents subject matter in the Trial without their being made known by oral presentation in open session to the public and thus to the whol world, which is passionately and wholeheartedly interested in this Trial. I abstain from quoting, with judicial dialectics, provisions, for instance from the Charter set up for this Trial, which could be use to conduct a polemic against Mr. Justice Jackson's proposal. I start with the principle about the unconditional and absolute importance of which there will certainly be no difference of opinion between the Tribunal and us or between the Prosecution and us namely, the principle that this whole Trial must be subject to the absolute postulate of justice and fairness. These are exactly the motives which prompted the authors of the Charter to give Part IV of the Charter a very pronounced heading.
DR. DIX: It says: "Fair Trial for Defendants." But I cannot consider it just and I cannot consider it fair if the Prosecution had the right, for months, not only once but sometimes repeatedly and often, to bring their evidence to the knowledge the public and of the world by reading it into the microphone; and in this regard it should be noted that when these documents were presented often only parts of documents were read which, in th opinion of the Prosecution, were incriminating to the defendants while those parts were omitted which, in our opinion, were exonerating for the defendants. It must therefore be considered an injustice that a defendant should not also have the opportunity to bring to the knowledge of the world through his defense, those matters which in his opinion and the opinion of his counsel, speak in his favor when the Prosecution had previously had the right and the opportunity to apply that procedure to the incriminating documents. May I draw attention to this fact -- and I have pointed it out repeatedly -- that certain incriminating points have not only been brought to the knowledge of the world public by reading the documentary evidence, but were repeated in the form of representation to the defendants when they were examined as witnesses, and thereby they have been drilled into the ears of the listening world again and again. I am asking you urgently and implore Your Honors in the interest of just proceedings, which I am sure are desired by you as well as by the authors of the Charter, to give the same opportunity to the defendants. In support of his suggestion Mr. Justice Jackson has furthermore even emphasized formally the point of view that the Trial would be shortened. The Defense does in no way deny the necessity of limiting this Trial to the time necessary.
DR. DIX: But perhaps I may in this connection draw your attention to a statement made by the president of the court at the Belsen trial in reply to press criticism about the allegedly too lengthy duration of the trial; the gist of which was that no duration however long was to be regretted as long as it helped to reveal the truth in the end. I ask you to put this principle before the necessity of saving time in this Trial as well. And finally, may I -- without assuming authority to criticize the measures decided upon and carried out by the Prosecution in accordance with their duties -- may I point out that the duration of the Trial thus far, should anyone consider it too long -- I do not think it is too long -- was at any rate not brought about by the Defense. I think I can say with a clear conscience that so far we have not done anything, said anything, or caused anything which could be used in justly reproaching us for delaying the Trial unnecessarily. If, furthermore, as your Lordship has pointed out, the reason no longer exists which caused the Tribunal duly to order that those parts of documents which were to become the subject matter of the Trial should be presented orally, then I should like to point out that the vast majority of the documents which were produced at the time and accordingly also presented verbally in part were already at that time available in fourfold translation. Furthermore, I should like to point out that this documentary evidence, if it is to be comprehensible to the Tribunal and if it is to serve the purpose of establishing the truth, without doubt in many cases calls for explanatory comments by the Defense Counsel. The possibility of such comment would be removed if we are instructed to submit these documents to the Tribunal in toto. As far as I have been able to ascertain, without wanting to prejudice anybody, my colleagues have by no means any intention of quoting the entire contents of the document books.
DR. DIX: As far as I understand it, they have in most cases rather the intention of presenting excerpts which they are going to designate, and the relevancy of which may then be discussed if occasion arises. Even such selection of those parts of the documents which are considered to be really relevant would not be possible if the Tribunal followed Mr. Justice Jackson's suggestion. Likewise, as I said before, it would not be possible to point out, in documents already read by the Prosecution, those parts which have not been read but which are exonerating for the defendant. If it has been said -- and your Lordship has pointed it out -- that the Defense Counsel have an opportunity to quote these parts of the documents during their address, then I believe I agree with the Judges that the address should, if possible, be a coherent and terse summary, evaluating the entire substance of the Trial. If we arc now instructed to refer to parts of documents during the address and quote explicitly once more those to which we attach importance as evidence, but which we would not mention at all or only incidentally or summarily in connection with a comprehensive evaluation then the danger arises that the coherence or, let us say, the bold outline of our address would suffer by a recital of the subject matter in detail. And the further danger arises that the time which Mr. Justice Jackson wishes to save through his suggestion will be lost again because the final address will take so much longer, which need not be if it is strictly a summary, an over-all evaluation, in accordance with its purpose.
DR. DIX: I consider it even possible that later on, if possibly in the confines of our address a difference of opinion as to the relevancy of an individual document might arise, there might be considerable delay and disturbance in the proceedings, whereas, if one can submit the document in its essential parts at this time, together with statements to explain and connect them, one would have an immediate opportunity to state just why one considers the part presented as relevant, so that the Tribunal would have an opportunity to make a decision as to relevancy now. In my opinion there are many points which speak against Mr. Justice Jackson's suggestion. I summarize: As far as I am concerned, the most important point of view is that of fairness and justice. The Defense Counsel, as I have ascertained beyond any doubt by conversations during the recess, must and would consider it a severe and intolerable limitation of the Defense, if, contrary to the procedure exercised so far by the Prosecution, it were deprived of the possibility of presenting, in its turn, at least the relevant parts of its own documentary evidence to the Tribunal verbally and with comments. I am of the olainion that it is a simple postulate of fairness in the forensic engagement between Prosecution and Defense that now the Defense, too, should be given the same opportunity. And this is not meant to be criticism either but merely a statement of fact, of which the Prosecution have availed themselves to a considerable and sometimes cumulative extent. May I request, therefore, and I think my request is supported by the entire Defense that the suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson be rejected.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You began your address by saying that you would not refer to the Charter. On what Article of the Charter do you rely for your argument that all documents which are presented must now be read?
DR. DIX: I said that I would not refer to individual provisions of the Charter as a basis for my application. As a basis for my application I have merely mentioned the heading of Part IV of the Charter which says, "Fair Trial for Defendants," and I have explained and need not repeat that I would not consider it a fair trial if Mr. Justice Jackson's suggestion were followed. However, I have deliberately -- although my attention was drawn to specific provisions of the Charter which, directly or indirectly, might be used as a legal construction to support my application -- I have refrained deliberately from doing so, since these individual rules in my opinion are not convincing. The principle of justice and fairness however is sufficiently strong in my opinion, and so are the other arguments of practicability and feasibility which I took the liberty to present to the Tribunal. I think there must be a misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: But you will not have omitted to notice that Article 24 deals expressly with the course of the Trial. Do you rely upon any part of Article 24?
DR. DIX: No, no. I have deliberately not referred to any part of Article 24, since that article gives considerable powers of discretion to the Tribunal, regarding the general rules of procedure which, in my opinion, have nothing to do with the question under discussion at present. This is merely a question of justice and fairness, and, if I may add this, it is a fundamental rule of oral trial. We now have an oral trial, we now have a trial in open session. It is in existence here. I am not sure whether or not the open session is prescribed by the Charter, but it exists. Since it is in existence, we must proceed in accordance with these principles and therefore, in my opinion, the defendant has also the right to present to the public of the world what is in his favor after the Prosecution have presented to the public of the world what is not in his favor.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to ask you another question: Are you suggesting that the Defense should be able to quote, to read documents, more than once?
DR. DIX: I am not suggesting that in any way. As far as I am concerned, my documents of course will be read only in part and certainly not twice. I have merely said that the Prosecution have done so, that is, have read documents twice; sometimes even three times, I am told. But it is not my task to criticize that conduct of the Prosecution; that is the Prosecution's business. I am not here to make criticism; that is up to the Tribunal and the Prosecution. I have merely stated the fact.