dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, in this sense. If I may recall, I answered a question that you were good enough to put to me a day or two ago as to when the conspiracy started. A man who took an active and voluntary part as a member of the SA in 1921 certainly, in supporting the Nazi Party, was supporting the published program of the Party which had the aims which you have just put to me. That is certainly put clearly in Article 2 of the Party Program as the getting rid of the dictate of Versailles and the Anschluss, getting the Germans back to the Reich, which, of course, is only a polite way of saying destroying Austria and Czechoslovakia. Therefore, that man had these aims in view. With regard to War Crimes, I respectfully repeat the answer that I put to you the other day, that it was an essential tenet of the Nazi Party that they should disregard the life and safety of any other people who stood in the way of the securing of their ambitions. A person who deliberately joins an organization with that aim, and with that aim getting more and more clearly related to practical problems as week succeeded week, was taking part in a first essential step of involving mankind in the miseries that we have seen; because it is that tenet, applied to every facet of human life and human suffering, which has caused the crimes which this Tribunal is investigating.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, I can see how you might say that with respect to conspiracy in War Crimes, but I want to be perfectly clear also that you say, on the substantive crime of committing War Crimes, that a man joining the SA in 1921 and leaving in 1922 would have committed those War Crimes in the beginning of 1939.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you put to me the substantive War Crimes, I respectfully remind you that under Article 6 the last words are: "Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in the execution of such a plan." Under the Charter, in my respectful submission, that is enough to make them responsible for the crimes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Now only one other question. What do you contend was the function of the SA after the Rohm purge?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The function was still to support all Nazi manifestations in the life of Germany. You remember that Dr. Loffler was careful to except -- very frankly and fairly he excepted the 10th of November 1938. The SA -- and I gave another example how they were formed in the Government General -- we have also given examples, which I think you will find in my appendix, of the participation -- limited participation, but still a participation -- in the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. But the main point of the SA after that time was to show that here were 3 million people who had come into the organization which had provided the force to bring the Nazis into power, and it had the forceful size needed to bring the Nazis into power in those days. They were then joined by 2 1/2 million people, which brought their numbers up at that time very high. They went down again later on, but they were high in 1939, and they provided a great immoral force behind the Nazi Party. They provided strong support and were ready on all occasions; whenever a demonstration had to be staged, the SA were there to give their support. They were an essential instrument for maintaining the Nazi control over the German Reich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I take it, then, that the function, in your opinion, did not change in substance after the purge? Would you say that?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The aim did not change. It did not need to do half as much, because, of course, by the end of 1933 all the other political parties were broken. Part of the SA's original task, as I think Dr. Loffler put it, had been to safeguard the Defendant Goering when he was making a speech -- I should have put it that it was to prevent the other people from having a free run when they made speeches -- and to deal with the clashes between the various groups. That was unnecessary, because all political opposition had been destroyed. Therefore they became rather -- I forget the exact term -- a sort of cheer leader or a collection of people who would always be ready to give vociferous support. You must have heard, Your Honor, of the meetings coming over the wireless with regulated cheers. It became more supporting, rather than dealing with opposition, but essentially the aim was the same, to keep the grip.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, it is now nearly quarter past 5. Do you think that this discussion can be closed this evening before 6 o'clock?
DR. RUDOLPH DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Mr. President, I believe I can finish in 5 minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Do the other prosecutors wish to add anything?
GEN. RUDENKO: I would like to make a few short remarks, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think you will be, General Rudenko?
GEN. RUDENKO: I think about 10 minutes; no more.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the French prosecutor wish to add anything?
THE TRIBUNAL (M. De Ribes): I have nothing to add.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, what I really want to know is whether there is any prospect of our finishing this discussion tonight. General Rudenko wishes to speak for about 10 minutes, and if the defendant's counsel -- of course, you will understand that a discussion of this sort, an argument of this sort, cannot go on forever; and in the ordinary course one hears counsel on one side and counsel on the other side, and then a reply; one does not go on after that. Do you know how many of the defendants' counsel want to speak?
DR. DIX: Mr. President, I know that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think probably the best thing would be if we were to adjourn now and to sit in open session tomorrow, and then we shall probably be, able to conclude this argument in about an hour tomorrow. Do you agree with that, General Rudenko?
GEN. RUDENKO: I agree.
THE PRESIDENT: Do defendants' counsel think we shall be able to conclude it in about an hour tomorrow morning? [Several counsel nodded assent.]
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; we will adjourn now and sit at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. [The Tribunal adjourned until 2 March 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko.
GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors, permit me to make a few supplementary remarks concerning the criminal organizations, a problem to which the Tribunal has devoted much attention in the last few days. I consider it essential, in the first instance, to clarify completely the legal aspect of this problem. There is in the Charter of the Tribunal a marked absence of any statement to the effect that the recognition of an organization as being of a criminal nature would automatically entail the bringing to trial and, further, the condemning of all the members of these organizations. On the contrary, the Charter contains a definite indication of an opposite nature. Article 10 of the Charter, repeatedly quoted at this Trial, states that the national courts have the right, though not the obligation, to bring to trial members of organizations declared as criminal. Consequently, the question of the problem of the trial and the punishment of individual members of criminal organizations lies exclusively within the scope of the national tribunals. The legal sovereignty of every country that has adopted the Charter of the Tribunal is thus limited in one respect only: The national courts cannot deny the criminal character of an organization, once it has been declared to be criminal. The Tribunal can impose no further limitation on the legal sovereignty of the contracting parties. Therefore, Justice Jackson has stated here -- and with reason -- that the recognition of an organization as being of a criminal nature and therefore automatically entailing the mass condemnation of all its members, is a mere figment of the imagination; I would add, that has not sprung from legal grounds but from some entirely different source. It appears to me that this legal problem is also based on a definite misunderstanding. One of the Counsel for the Defense, Dr. Servatius, was speaking here of the legislative authority of the Tribunal.
GEN. RUDENKO: The authority of the International Military Tribunal, organized by four states in the interests of all freedom-loving peoples, is enormous; but, of course, this Tribunal, as a legal organization, does not and cannot possess any legislative authority. When solving the problem of the criminal character of an organization, the Tribunal is only exercising the right entrusted to it by the Charter, that is, to solve independently the question of the criminality of the organizations. Of course, the verdict of this Tribunal, when coming into force, acquires the value of a law, but that is the value attached to any of the verdicts of the courts once it has been delivered. Counsel for the Defense Kubuschok has stated here that the decision of the Charter with regard to the criminal organizations is a legal innovation. This, to a certain extent, is true. The innovation consists in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal and all its articles, whose creation, per se, is an innovation in the first instance. But should the Defense consider it possible to deplore this fact, I would consider it opportune to remind them of the causes of these legal innovations. The very evil deeds committed by the defendants and their associates, deeds hitherto unknown in the history of mankind, have, of necessity, imposed new legislative measures for protecting the peace, the liberty, and the lives of the nations against criminal attempts. Moreover, the states which created this Tribunal and all peace-loving people remain invariably faithful to the ideals of law and to the principles of justice. Therefore, responsibility for participation in criminal organizations will be established only when personal guilt has been proved. In reality, the national courts will decide the problems of individual responsibility. A few words now on the tactical side of the problem: It has been stated here that several detachments of the SS did not follow any criminal objective.
GEN. RUDENKO: It is difficult, Your Honors, to find within the fascist machinery neutral organizations which did not follow criminal objectives. Thus, the Defense Counsel for the SS, Mr. Babel, mentioned the existence of a research department for dog breeding within the SS. It would appear that this was an organization of general utility. It seems, however, that the learned dog breeders in this organization were engaged in training hounds to attack human beings and to tear their appointed victims to pieces. Can we isolate these dog breeders from the SS? In Danzig another scientific research institute was engaged in the preparation of soap from human fat. Perhaps we should exonerate these soap boilers as well from all criminal responsibility? At this point two practical suggestions have been put forward by the Defense Counsel: The isolation, as a separate activity, of the case of the criminal organizations and the establishment in the various camps of a Defense organization having as its purpose the collection of information and evidence. In practice, however, both proposals would create insoluble difficulties for the Tribunal in the execution of the immense task imposed upon it by the nations. This task is precisely formulated in the Charter which instructs the Tribunal to solve the problem of the investigation of concrete facts concerning members of these organizations. Therefore an appeal to the Tribunal to isolate and consider the case of the criminal organizations as an independent activity is tantamount to an appeal to the Tribunal to infringe the articles of the Charter. Article 9 of the Charter decides the problem of the criminal organizations when investigating the case of any one particular member, but it also has one other meaning for the Trial. It shows, as I have already mentioned, that the fact on which the statements and the solution of the question of the criminality of the organization are based is the presence in the dock of the accused representatives from the corresponding organizations.
GEN. RUDENKO: As is known, in the present case all the organizations which the Prosecution suggests should be considered as criminal are represented in the dock. There is evidence in this case which amply suffices to admit the criminality of these organizations. Therefore the calling of special witnesses, capable of giving evidence on these organizations, can appear only as a supplementary source of evidence. I am bringing these matters to a close, Your Honors, and in closing I cannot omit one argument of the Defense. It was stated here by the Defense that as a result of the admission of the criminality of these organizations millions of Germans, members of these organizations, would be brought to trial. Together with my colleagues of the Prosecution I am not of this opinion, but there is something more I would like to say. By this reference to hypothetical millions the Defense is attempting to hinder the progress of justice. However, before us, the representatives of the nations who have borne the burden and the suffering of the struggle against Hitlerite aggression, before the conscience and consciousness of all freedom-loving people, appear other figures, other millions of victims irrevocably lost, tortured to death in Treblinka, Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald, Maidanek and Kiev. It is our duty to spare no effort to crush the criminal system directed by the fascist organizations against humanity. Your Honors, the extent of the crimes committed by the Hitlerite brigands cannot be imagined. However, we are not blinded by sentiments of revenge and have no intention of destroying the entire German people in retaliation. But justice does not permit us to swerve and thus give free play to the committing of new crimes. We are deeply convinced that the Tribunal will unswervingly follow the path towards a just and rapid verdict and that it will, in full measure, chastise those whose crimes have shattered the earth.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): General Rudenko, may I ask you a few questions? General Rudenko, you remember that Mr. Justice Jackson suggested certain tests that we should use before we found an organization criminal, whether the tasks and the purpose of the organization were open and notorious, in order to show that the members knew what they were doing. Now, if we find that any organization is criminal we would necessarily find, I presume, on that test, that its actions were open and notorious. Now, if a member of that organization found to be criminal was then tried by one of the national courts, I suppose under that finding he would not have any right to show that he did not know about it, because we would have found that the knowledge was so open and notorious that he must have known, so he could not raise as a defense that he had no knowledge of the criminal acts, could he?
GEN. RUDENKO: That is quite true. But we are bearing in mind the fact that the national courts investigating the problem of the individual responsibility of individual members of the organizations will, of course, proceed from the principle of individual guilt, since, naturally, we cannot exclude the possibility that in the organization of the SA, which fundamentally and in an overwhelming majority was aware of its criminal purpose, there might yet be individual members who might have been lured into the organization, either by deception or by some other reasons, and have been unaware of its criminal purpose.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But that would not be any defense to him, would it? He could not say he had no knowledge, because we would have already found that the knowledge was so open and notorious that he must have known.
GEN. RUDENKO: Why? I personally proceed from the standpoint that if the national court investigates the case of members who plead ignorance of the criminal purpose of the organization to which they belonged, the national court must examine these arguments submitted in their defense and estimate them accordingly.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How could they consider that, if we make a rule that the activities of the organization are so notorious that he must have known? How can he then say he did not know?
GEN. RUDENKO: I still maintain the point of view, and I still interpret and understand the Charter to mean that the judgment of the International Military Tribunal should determine and decide the question of the criminal character of the organizations, but where the question of individual responsibility and guilt of every member of this organization is concerned, the decision falls exclusively within the competence of the national courts. It is therefore extremely difficult to foresee all the possible individual cases and the eventualities which might arise when investigating a category of individual defendants. You yesterday submitted a question to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe concerning a member of the SA who had joined the organization in 1921 and left a year later. These, of course, are special cases and I cannot state how numerous they are; they are unavoidable, and when we come to the question of the extent of his information, the reasons for his entering and the reasons for his leaving this organization, when we come to estimate the value of his actions, it seems to me that it should be done by a national court which will examine the findings of the defense and appreciate them accordingly.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Can you say now what defense he would have before the national court, except the defense that he was never a member? Does he have any other defenses so far as we know? Does the Law Number 10 permit him any other defenses?
GEN.RUDENKO: It is difficult for me, at the present moment, to say what arguments the members of these organizations may put forward, for were I to speak, it would be on assumption. But I, for instance, consider, that the argument produced -- if produced -- which might be considered sufficient to exonerate this member of the organization would be that he had been coerced into joining.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): May I ask you two more questions. You used the expression that any evidence given by the defendants would be merely supplementary. That expression is not known to our law, and I would be very interested in your telling us what you meant by supplementary evidence. I do not know what the term means.
GEN. RUDENKO: I did not put it that way. This is perhaps an inaccuracy of translation. What I did say, speaking of questions connected with further investigations of the matter of the criminal organizations, was that this investigation should be carried out together with the investigation of the case of any one member of this organization, inasmuch as representatives of those criminal institutions are now in the dock. But I do say that this is already conclusive material for the recognition, or the denial, of the criminal nature of this organization. But the Tribunal can, of course, consider this evidence as inadequate, or, shall we say, the Defense may consider that further supplementary evidence may be needed. In this connection, I consider that the calling of witnesses capable of submitting special evidence on the problem of the criminal or non-criminal character of these organizations may be presented to the Tribunal as supplementary evidence.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): One other question on the SA, which I asked Sir David yesterday. What do you consider was the function of the SA after the Rohm Purge, or, to put it a little differently, what criminal act do you believe the SA was engaged in?
GEN. RUDENKO: I consider that the SA after the Rohm incident committed the same criminal acts as the other organizations of Hitlerite Germany. I wish in confirmation of this evidence to refer to facts like the seizure of the Sudeten territory. As is well known, detachments of the SA played an active part in this affair. All the subsequent events which occurred in Germany in connection with the Jews and, later, in the territories seized by Germany --  Czechoslovakia and others -- these criminal events took place with the connivance of this organization -- the SA.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecutor for the French Republic wish to say anything?
THE FRENCH PROSECUTOR: No.
DR. DIX: I have, as counsel for the Defendant Schacht, an indirect interest in the question of the criminality of the group Reich Cabinet (Reichsregierung) because Schacht was a member of the Reich Cabinet. I want to point out, however, at the very beginning that I do not want to make detailed statements now either of a legal nature or in regard to the facts of the case. I shall do that rather at the time of my concluding speech. What I want and seek now, and for which I ask the support of the Tribunal, is a clarification and amplification of those answers vhich Mr. Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe gave yesterday to your questions, Mr. Biddle. I should like to point out that it is, of course, clear to me that I have no right to ask any questions of the members of the Prosecution. Formally speaking, I could at the most ask the Tribunal to supplement the questions which were put yesterday by the Tribunal. I believe, however, that this formal objection has no practical significance, because I am convinced that Sir David, who will see the pertinence of my request to have his answer extended, will be prepared to amplify the answer given to the question by Mr. Biddle without discussing the theoretical question, whether he is under any obligation to do so. Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was asked yesterday whether he considers the Reichsregierung, that is to say, the Reich Cabinet, as it was composed on 30 January 1933, in view of the then relatively small number of National Socialist cabinet members, criminal ever at that time and if so, whether he is of the opinion that this hypothetic criminal character was at that time discernible to other people. Sir David answered this question of Mr. Biddle's in the affirmative and based this answer (1) on the contents of the Party program and (2) on the fact that already at that time the Leadership Principle had been set forth in the program.
DR. DIX: I should like to ask if Sir David would supplement his answers along the following lines: Does Sir David really mean to say that the Leadership Principle as such, that is to say, purely as an abstract theory, is not only to be rejected politically or for other reasons but is also to be considered criminal? I want to make it understood that I am speaking about the abstract principle, without considering any factual developments in the ensuing period of time. Concerning his second answer, that the Party program occasions him to declare that even at that time the Reich Cabinet is to be considered criminal and was recognizable as such, this answer -- not directly in response to Mr. Biddle's first question put in the course of further questions addressed to him by the Tribunal -- he added to and substantiated by declaring that the aim expressed in the Party program of eliminating the Treaty of Versailles and the announcement therein of the desire for the annexation of Austria were the criminal points in this program. May I ask Sir David to state, first, whether these two points of the Party program, that is to say, the abrogation of the Treaty of Versailles and the Anschluss, were with the exception of the Leadership Principle, the only points of the Party program which caused him to consider that program criminal, that is, to consider a government criminal which knew that program? Secondly, I should like to ask whether he really wants to put forward the opinion that an attempt to attain a revision or an abrogation in a peaceful fashion, that is, by way of negotiations, of a treaty found to be oppressive, very oppressive, by a nation, can be considered criminal.