dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS (Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): Well, now, Sir, so far as that application is concerned, I would say only this: The case against the existing defendants, whether Gustav Krupp von Bohlen is included amongst them or not, can be fully established without the joinder of any additional person, whoever he might be. The general part played by the industrialists can be fully established without the joinder of any particular industrialist, whoever he might be. That case will indeed be developed, and win be made clear in the course of this Trial. That is not to say that Alfried Krupp should not be brought to justice. There is provision under the Charter for the holding of further trials, and it may be according to the result of the present proceedings, that hereafter other proceedings ought to be taken, possibly against Alfried Krupp, possibly against other industrialists, possibly against other people as well At present, we are concerned with the existing defendants. For our part, the case against them has been ready for some time, and it can be shortly and succinctly stated; and in my submission to the Tribunal, the interests of justice demand, and world opinion expects, that these men should be put upon their defense without further delay. And I respectfully remind the Tribunal of what was said at the opening session in Berlin by General Nikitchenko, in these terms: "The individual defendants in custody will be notified that they must be ready for trial within 30 days after the service of the Indictment upon them.
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS (Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): Promptly thereafter, the Tribunal shall fix and announce the date of the Trial in Nuremberg, to take place not less than 30 days after the service of the Indictment ; and the defendants shall be advised of such date as soon as it is fixed." And then these words: "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." Of course, if it happened that Alfried Krupp were prepared to step into his father's shoes in this matter, without any delay in the proceedings, the British Prosecutors would welcome that procedure, but if his joinder involves any further delay in the Trial of the existing defendants, we are opposed to it.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you: Do you agree that according to the Municipal Law of Great Britain, in the same way that I understood it to be the law of the United States of America, a man in the mental and physical condition of Gustav Krupp could not be tried?
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: I do, Sir. I take the same view, if I may say so, with respect, as Mr. Justice Jackson took upon the question you addressed to him.
THE PRESIDENT: And in such circumstances, the prosecution against him would not be dismissed, but he would be detained during the pleasure of the sovereign power concerned. SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: That is one question that I wanted to put to you. Do you then suggest that, in the present circumstances, Gustav Krupp ought to be tried in his absence, in view of the medical reports that we have before us?
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: Well, it is a matter which is entirely in the discretion of the Tribunal, and which I do not wish to press in any way; but as the evidence involving his firm will in any event be laid before the Tribunal, it might be convenient that he should be represented by counsel, and that the Tribunal, in arriving at its decision, should take account, as it necessarily would, of his then condition.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any precedent for such a course as that, to hold that he could not be tried and found guilty or not guilty and yet to retain counsel to appear for him before the Tribunal?
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: No, Sir, I was not suggesting that he should not be treated as being an existing defendant before the Tribunal and held guilty or not. I was dealing with the subsequent course which the Tribunal might adopt in regard to him if they held him guilty of some or all of these offenses.
THE PRESIDENT: But I thought you agreed that according to, at any rate, Municipal Law, a man in his physical condition ought not be tried.
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: I am not agreed that according to English Municipal Law he could not be tried.
THE PRESIDENT: And that law is based upon the interests of justice?
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: Mr. President, I cannot dispute that, but our law of course contains no provision at all for trial in absentia . Express provision is made for such trials in the Charter constituting this Tribunal, provided that the Tribunal considers it in the interests of justice.
THE PRESIDENT: What exactly is it you are suggesting to us, that he should be tried in absence or that he should not be tried in absence?
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: Mr. President, we have suggested that advantage should be taken of the provision for trial in absentia , but as I said at the beginning, it is, as it appears to me, entirely a matter for the discretion of the Tribunal, not one in which I wish to press any particular view.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Chief Prosecutor for the Soviet Union desire to speak? You were authorized, I think, Mr. Justice Jackson, to speak on behalf of the Chief Prosecutor of the Soviet Union.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I was authorized to state that they take the same position as the United States. I don't know that in answering their questions I would have always given the answers that they would have given. I understand, for example, that they do try cases in absentia , and I think their position on that would be somewhat different from the position I have given.
THE PRESIDENT: This question I asked you, of course, was directed solely to the Municipal Law of the United States. Does the Chief Prosecutor of the Soviet Union wish to address the Tribunal?
COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): No.
THE PRESIDENT: Then does the Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic wish to address the Tribunal?
M. CHARLES DUBOST (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the French Republic): It would be easy to justify the position taken today by the French Delegation by merely reminding oneself that on numerous occasions the French Delegation has advocated the immediate preparation of a second trial in order that it might be possible to proceed with it as soon as the first trial was completed. We could in this way have prosecuted the German industrialists without any interruption. This point of view has never been adopted. We have rallied to the point of view of the United States as being the most expedient and most susceptible of giving complete satisfaction to French interests. We are anxious that Krupp the son should be tried. There are serious charges against him, and no one could possibly understand that there should be no representative in this trial of the greatest German industrial enterprise, as being one of the principal guilty parties in this war. We should have preferred that a second trial be made against the industrialists, but since this second trial is not to take place, we consider the presence of Alfried Krupp to be absolutely necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the position, which you take up if the substitution of Alfried Krupp would necessarily lead to delay?
M. DUBOST: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, but I believe you have in your hand a second note which I submitted this morning to the Court after having received a telephone call from Paris.
THE PRESIDENT: I have in my hand a document of 13 November 1945 , signed by you, I think.
M. DUBOST: That is right. There is, however, a supplementary note, which I submitted this morning, according to which I adopt the same viewpoint as that expressed by Mr. Justice Jackson. I was in fact able to find out between the document of last night and that of this morning the consequences that would be brought about . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the best course would be to read this document which has now been put before us.
M. DUBOST: "We consider that the trial of Krupp's father is not possible at the present time. The trial of a dying old man who is unable to attend is out of the question. We are anxious that Krupp's son should be prosecuted for there are very serious charges against him. We had asked up to this point that he should be prosecuted without any delay in the trial, but for reasons of expediency which led us to adopt this point of view, this has ceased to be a pressing problem since the Soviet Delegation has adopted the point of view of Mr. Justice Jackson. Consequently we no longer raise any objection, and we likewise have come to this point of view."
THE PRESIDENT: Does what you say now mean that you wish Alfried Krupp to be substituted notwithstanding the fact that it must cause delay?
A. DUBOST: Yes, that's right.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you suggesting on behalf of France that Gustav should be tried in his absence or not?
M. DUBOST: No, no, not that, no.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Volchkov): What does the French prosecutor and the French Republic offer so far as Gustav Krupp is concerned?
M. DUBOST: As to Krupp, the father, we consider it is not possible to prosecute him because of the state of his health; he will not be able to appear before the Court. He will not be able to defend himself. He will not be able to tell us about his acts. It is necessary to drop his case or to postpone the Trial to a time when he shall be cured, unless before that he appears before the judgment of God. We also believe, since we cannot obtain a second trial against the industrialists, that it is necessary to substitute Krupp, the son, against whom serious charges exist, for Krupp, the father, who cannot be tried.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you agree or disagree with the Attorney General for Great Britain that in the course of the Trial, whether Gustav Krupp or Alfried Krupp are included as defendants, the evidence against the industrialists of Germany must be exposed?
M. DUBOST: We have been anxious, Mr. President, that a second trial should be prepared intermediately to follow the first trial in which the question of the industrialists would be thoroughly examined. Since it is not possible to have a second trial, we are anxious that one of the representatives of the Krupp firm, who is personally responsible and against whom there are charges, shall be called upon to appear before this Tribunal to defend himself against the charges that we shall bring against the Krupp firm, and in a more general manner also against the industrialists who were associated with the Krupp firm and who participated in the conspiracy which is presented in the Indictment, who supported the seizure of power by the Nazis, supported the Nazi Government and propaganda, financed the Nazis and finally helped the rearmament of Germany in order that it might continue its war of aggression.
THE PRESIDENT: Forgive me. I don't think you have answered the question which I put to you. Do you agree with the Attorney General that whether Gustav Krupp or Alfried Krupp are or are not defendants in this Trial, the evidence against the German industrialists will necessarily be thoroughly exposed in the course of bringing forward the evidence of the conspiracy charged?
M. DUBOST: I agree that it is possible to bring the proof of a conspiracy without this or that member of the Krupp family being brought before the Court, but it will only be fragmentary proof and evidence, because there are personal responsibilities which go beyond the general responsibilities of the authors of the conspiracy, and these personal responsibilities are particularly attributable to Krupp the son and Krupp the father.
THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Vabres): You said just now that it was your opinion that the name of Krupp the son should be substituted for that of Krupp the father? Do you really mean the word "substitute"? Did you use this word intentionally or do you not rather wish to say that it was your opinion that there should be an amendment to the Indictment and that we should apply a supplement to the Indictment ? Do you consider that you can propose to the Court to substitute one name for another in the Indict- ment or do you suggest on the contrary a supplement be added to the Indictment ?
M. DUBOST: I have thought for a long time that it was necessary to propose an amendment to the Indictment . It is still my opinion, but it is not legally possible to modify the Indictment by a supplement.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Does counsel for the Defendant Gustav Krupp wish to address the Tribunal again?
DR. KLEFISCH: I deduce from the explanation of the Prosecution that the principal objection against our point of view is that it would not be in accordance with justice if the Trial were to be carried out in absence of Krupp senior. When, in representing the opposite point of view, it is pointed out that the public opinion of the entire world demands the trial against the defendant, Mr. Krupp, then the main reason offered is that Krupp senior is to be regarded as one of the principal war criminals. I have already pointed out that this reasoning would be an anticipation of the final judgment of the Court. It is my opinion, that this is not the place and the time to discuss these questions and I wish to limit myself to what I already said before: Namely, that all that has been said in this direction is for the moment only a thesis of the Prosecution, which, in the course of the Trial, will be confronted with an antithesis of the Defense, so that then the High Court can arrive at a synthesis of this thesis and antithesis and make a fair judgment. One more point regarding this question: It has also been pointed out that Krupp senior, could be tried in absentia for the reason that the entire evidence regarding the question of guilt has already been presented and was no secret. In view of the facts this is not correct. So far we have seen only a part of the evidence, that is, that which is contained in the bundle of documents. But may I point out that from the firm of Krupp and the private quarters of the Krupp family; the entire written material which consisted of whole truck-loads was confiscated, and we did not see any of this material. Thus, the defense is difficult to undertake, since, due to the confiscation of this entire material, only the Defendant Krupp senior would be in a position to describe at least to a certain extent the documents necessary for his defense, so that they could be submitted in the regular form of application for evidence to this High Court.
DR. KLEFISCH: As far as the question of an additional indictment against the son, Alfried Krupp, is concerned I wish to state first of all that I have not officially been charged with the defense of this defendant. I suppose, however, that I will be charged with the defense and that is why, with the permission of the Court, I wish to say a few words here about this motion, perhaps as a representative without commission. I do not know whether it is possible, that is, legally possible, subsequently to put Mr. Alfried Krupp on the list of the principal war criminals. However, even if I were to let this legal possibility open to discussion, I should like to call attention to the following: In view of the changed situation, it seems to me to be a bit strange, to say the least, if Alfried Krupp were to be put on the list a principal war criminal now, not because he was marked as one from the beginning, but because his father cannot be tried. I see in that a certain game played by the representative of the United States which cannot be sanctioned by the Court in my opinion. In addition, I wish to make the following brief remark: In case a supplementary indictment should be made against Alfried Krupp, and if I were definitely charged with his defense, my conscience would oblige me to request that the period of 30 days between the serving of the Indictment and the main Trial as provided in Rule 2 (a) , would have to be kept under all circumstances. Finally, I should like to point out the following: In conclusion, I should like to emphasize that, so far as I am informed, the circumstances and facts regarding the person of Alfried Krupp are basically different from the circumstances concerning the person of the present defendant, Krupp senior. In the documents that have been put at our disposal so far, and which are bound in one volume, I have hardly found a single word about any complicity or participation of Alfried Krupp in the crimes with which Krupp senior is charged.
DR. KLEFISCH: I should also like to emphasize that, as has already been discussed, Alfried Krupp became the owner of the Krupp firm, I believe, only in November 1943 and that previously, from 1937 to 1943, he was merely director of one department of the entire concern, but in this capacity he did not have the slightest influence on the management of the firm, nor did he have anything to do with orders for the production and delivery of war materials. For the reasons stated, I believe I am justified in expressing the wish to refrain from introducing Alfried Krupp into this Trial of the principal war criminals.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now and announce its decision on this application later. [The Tribunal adjourned until 15 November 1945 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has invited the Defense Counsel to be present here today as it desires that they shall thoroughly understand the course which the Tribunal proposes the proceedings at trial should take. The Tribunal is aware that the procedure provided for by the Charter is in some respects different from the procedure to which Defense Counsel are accustomed. They therefore desire that Defense Counsel should be under no misapprehension as to course which must be followed. Article 24 of the Charter provides for the reading of the indictment in Court, but in view of its length, and the fact its contents are now probably well known, it may be that Defense Counsel will not think it necessary that it should be read in full. The opening of cases for the Prosecution will necessarily take a long time, and during that time Defense Counsel will have an opportunity to complete their preparations for defense. When witnesses for the Prosecution are called, it must be understood that it is the function of Counsel for the Defense to cross-examine the witnesses, and that it is not the intention of the Tribunal to cross-examine the witnesses themselves. The Tribunal will not call upon the Defense Counsel to state what evidence they wish to submit until the case for the Prosecution has been closed. As Defense Counsel already know, the General Secretary of the Tribunal makes every effort to obtain such evidence, both witnesses and documents, as the Defense wish to adduce and the Tribunal approves. The General Secretary is providing, and will provide, lodging, food, and transportation for Defense Counsel and witnesses while in Nuremberg. And though the living conditions provided may not be all that can be desired, Defense Counsel will understand that there are great difficulties in the present circumstances and efforts will be made to meet any reasonable request. Defense Counsel have been provided with a Document Room and an Information Center where documents translated into German are available for the Defense, subject to the necessary security regulations.
THE PRESIDENT: It is important that Defense Counsel should notify the General Secretary as long as possible, and at least 3 weeks in ordinary cases, in advance, of witnesses or documents they require. The services which Defense Counsel are performing are important public services for the interests of justice, and they will have the protection of the Tribunal in the performance of their duties. In order that the Trial should proceed with due expedition, it would seem desirable that Defense Counsel should settle among themselves the order in which they wish to cross-examine the Prosecution witnesses and propose to present their defenses, and that they should communicate their wishes in this regard to the General Secretary. I hope that what I have said will be of assistance to Defense Counsel in the preparation of their defenses. If there are any questions in connection with what I have said which they wish to ask, I will endeavor to answer them.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you come to the desk please, if you wish to speak. Will you state your name and for whom you appear here?
DR. THOMA: Dr. Thoma, defense counsel for the Defendant Rosenberg .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. THOMA: I should like to ask whether the Defense will immediately get copies of the interrogation of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Copies of the Indictment ? Those have been served upon each defendant. Do I understand that you want further copies for the use of defendants' counsel?
DR. THOMA: May I put my question more precisely? I presume that all the statements of the defendants are to be taken down in shorthand, and I would like to ask whether these will then be translated into German and given to the Defense Counsel as soon as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: If you mean a transcript of the evidence which is given before the Tribunal, that will be taken down, and if it is given in a language other than German it will be translated into German and copies furnished to defendants' counsel. If it is in German it will be furnished to them in German.
DR. THOMA: Will we get copies of the interrogation of all witnesses?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; that is what I meant by a transcript of the evidence given before the Tribunal That will be a copy, in German, of the evidence of each witness.
DR. THOMA: Thank you.
DR. RUDOLPH DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Your Lordship, gentlemen of the Tribunal, my colleagues of the Defense have entrusted me with the honorable task of expressing our thanks for the words you have addressed to the Defense Counsel We members of the Defense consider ourselves the associates of the Tribunal in reaching a just verdict and we have full confidence in Your Lordship's wise and experienced conduct of the Trial proceedings. Your Lordship may be convinced that in this spirit we shall participate in the difficult task of reaching a just decision in the case before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume that there are no further questions at the present stage which Counsel for the Defense wish to ask. They will understand that if at any stage in the future they have inquiries which they wish to make, they should address them to the General Secretary and they will then be considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal will now adjourn until 2 o'clock, when the application on behalf of the Defendant Streicher will be heard. [The Tribunal adjourned until 1400 hours.]