dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: Does that purport to be a verbatim account of what the Defendant Goering said? Did he refer to himself in the third person, "Goering does not want a war," meaning, "I do not want a war"?
DR. STAHMER: He did not want a war either. England would be able to contribute much to the peaceful solution of this question. He does not want war either for these reasons. He, that is, Goering does not want war either, but these questions have to be settled under all circumstances. This is, of course, indirect speech. In direct speech it would be, "I, Goering, do not want war, but the questions have to be settled under all circumstances." The next questions refer to Dahlerus. Question 15, which is the question but to Halifax, is also of importance in my opinion: The answer of Halifax is: At the end of June or the beginning of July 1938, the Defendant Goering made a speech to the Gauleiter at Karinhall which was distinctly a speech for peace. I am referring to a statement from Dr. Uiberreither of 27 February 1946, the original of which is being presented as Document Number 38, Exhibit Number Goering-4, and is given 'in Document Book Number 2 on Page 37.
THE PRESIDENT: You are putting in these originals, are you?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, indeed. In that statement from Dr. Uiberreither, dated 27 February 1946, at Page 38 in Document Book Number 2, Your Honor, it says: In the solution of the Austrian problem no aggressive action on the part of Germany is to be seen. It took place in response to the desires of the majority of the Austrian population for reunion with the Reich. The defendant's view of this problem can be seen from the telephone conversation he had with the Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop on 13 March 1938. The record of this conversation has already been produced under Document Number 2949-PS, Exhibit Number USA-75. I shall quote from this conversation some passages which have not yet been read. The conversation is contained in Document Book Number 1, Pages 55-56. I am going to quote only the following passages: And a few sentences later: Then it goes on, I skip two sentences: The Defendant Goering -- I am referring to Page 11 of the book next to the last paragraph -- did not only wish to maintain peace abroad; he also supported the preservation of peace at home. In this respect he declared in a speech he made on 9 April 1933 at the Berlin Sports Palace -- it appears in the book Hermann Goering's Speeches and Compositions , and is reproduced in Document Book Number 1, Page 35, and I am offering it as Document Number 13; I quote the first sentence: And then a little further down: I further quote from a speech of the defendant on 26 March 1938, Document Book Number 1, Page 37, likewise a quotation from Hermann Goering's Speeches and Compositions , the exhibit number of which is 14. I quote only one sentence from it: His attitude towards the Church the defendant has...
THE PRESEDENT: Dr. Stahmer, can you not give the exhibit number?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, I think it was Number 13. I shall look again. It was Number 14. His attitude towards the Church was expressed by the Defendant Goering in several speeches. In this respect, on 26 October 1935, he made the following statement. I am quoting from Hermann Goering's Speeches and Compositions , Document Book 1, Page 39, Document Number 15, the following sentences: And from another speech of 26 March 1938, which is also quoted from Hermann Goering's Speeches and Compositions , Document Book Number 1, Page 41, Document Number 16, I quote the first and the second sentences: I refer further to a document submitted by a clergyman Werner Jentsch, dated 30 October 1945, addressed to this Tribunal, Document Book Number 1, Pages 44 to 46, Exhibit Number 17. I quote only one sentence, Figure 8: The affidavit from Gauleiter Dr. Uiberreither, dated 27 February 1946, deals with the question which I mentioned earlier and which is contained in Document Book Number 1, Page 31. It, under Figure 2, deals with the events of the night of 9 to 10 November 1938 and the knowledge thereof, as follows: And in the last paragraph, under Number 2, it says: I can skip Page 16, Paragraph 5, as an explanation on that has already been given. That the Defendant Goering took his duty as Supreme Administrator of Justice very seriously becomes apparent from an affidavit of Judge Advocate General Dr. Lehmann of 21 February 1946. I shall read from this affidavit in Document Book Number 1, Page 106, Document Number 27, Exhibit Number Goering-6. I quote from Figure II onwards: From the following paragraph: Then from Paragraph III: In the course of this Trial, the Prosecution has repeatedly referred to the so-called Green File, which was submitted under Document Number 1743-PS. This is not, as the Prosecution maintains, a regulation for the spoliation and annihilation of the population.
DR. STAHMER: Its object was rather the economic mobilization and the uninterrupted operation of industry, the procurement and regular utilization of supplies, and of transport facilities in the territories to be occupied by military operations, with special consideration of the fact that Russia had no private enterprise, but only a strict centrally regulated state economy. In addition to that, vast destruction had to be anticipated in view of the Russian attitude. Nowhere does it contain an order or directive to exploit certain groups of the population beyond the necessities caused by the war. From that Green File I have cited a whole series of passages which are to prove my statements. I cannot refer to them in detail; I should like to draw your attention only to one very characteristic passage which is on Page 94 of this Green File, second paragraph: Somewhat below, on the same page: I am now coming to the next paragraph: The German Armed Forces entered the war fully respecting the international conventions.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is this part?
DR. STAHMER: Page 23, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Which volume?
DR. STAHMER: In the trial brief.
THE PRESIDENT: We seem to have only 22 pages in our trial brief. Are there two volumes?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, I believe it is in the second trial brief. The division was made to accelerate the translation. May I continue? The German Wehrmacht entered the war fully respecting the international conventions. No large-scale excesses by German soldiers were noted. Individual offenses were severely punished. However, immediately after the beginning of hostilities there appeared reports and descriptions of atrocities committed against German soldiers. These reports were carefully investigated. The result was recorded by the German Foreign Office in White Papers , which were sent to Geneva. In this way the White Book came into being which deals with the crimes against the laws of war and humanity committed by the Russian soldiers.
GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors, Defense Counsel for Goering, Dr. Stahmer, intends to submit to the Tribunal and to read into the record excerpts from the so-called White Book which was published by the Hitler Government in 1941 in connection with some of the violations which supposedly took place concerning German prisoners of war. I consider that these excerpts cannot be submitted and read into the record here because of the following reasons: There can be put in evidence only facts which refer to this case; there can be submitted to the Tribunal only documents which refer to the crimes which were perpetrated by the German major war criminals. The White Book is a series of documents of invented data regarding violations which were perpetrated not by the fascist Germans but by other countries. Therefore the data contained in the White Book cannot serve as evidence in this case. This conclusion is all the more justified in that the White Book is a publication which served the purpose of fascist propaganda, and which tried by inventions and forged documents to justify or hide crimes which were perpetrated by the fascists. Therefore I request the Tribunal to refuse the reading into the record, or submitting to the Tribunal, excerpts from the so-called White Book .
THE PRESIDENT: On what theory do you justify the presentation of this evidence, DR. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: The question whether it is possible and permissible to refer to these White Papers during this Trial as a means of evidence, has been discussed repeatedly. In particular it was the subject of debate when we were concerned with the question of whether I should be allowed to refer to this White Book as evidence. So far as I know, it has been admitted as evidence for the time being. It was already pointed out, during the debate which arose in regard to this subject, that, as far as evidence is concerned, it is relevant for the evaluation of the motives. At the time I already pointed out that the crimes committed against German prisoners of war are of importance in order to understand the measures taken on the part of Germany. One cannot evaluate the underlying motives of the men who committed these offenses, or gave orders to commit them, if one fails to consider the background against which these deeds were enacted, or investigate the motives which caused them to commit these acts. And because of the importance of the motive, in order to know about the accusations raised by the Germans, it seems to me that this reference to this document is absolutely necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we are here to try major war criminals; we are not here to try any of the signatory powers. Therefore you must justify the introduction of evidence against the signatory powers in some legal way.
DR. STAHMER: The presentation, if I may repeat, is made for the following reasons: The defendants here are accused that under their leadership crimes and offenses against members of foreign armed forces were committed which are not in accordance with the Geneva Convention. On our part we plead that if harsh treatment and excesses occurred on the German side, they were caused by the fact that similar violations occurred also on the other side, and that consequently these offenses must be judged differently and not be considered as grave as would be the case if the opposite side had conducted itself correctly. Anyway, these facts are relevant for the evaluation of the motive.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you attempting to justify the introduction of this evidence on the ground of reprisals?
DR. STAHMER: Not only on the ground of reprisals, but from the point of view of the motive for the deed.
THE PRESIDENT: You are asking us to admit a document, a German dovernmental document. Now, under the Charter we are bound to admit documents, governmental documents, and reports of the United Nations, but it is nowhere said that we are bound to admit or are at liberty to admit documents issued by the German Government. We cannot tell whether those documents contained facts truly stated or not.
DR. STAHMER: We have here in the document books, court records of legal inquiries. These must in my opinion have the same value as evidence as official documents. They were records of court proceedings which are quoted in the White Book .
GEN. RUDENKO: I should like, Your Honors, to point out only one thing here. Defense Counsel Stahmer tries to submit these documents in order, as he says, to present his reasons which would explain the crimes of the Germans. I should like to state here that these documents, which have already been submitted to the Prosecution, and which were mentioned yesterday here during the crossexamination of the Defendant Goering, show quite clearly that the document regarding the crimes was drafted before the beginning of the war.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, what are the dates of these documents that you are asking us to admit?
DR. STAHMER: I have the individual ones here. Meanwhile I am having the records looked for.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I suggest, Your Honor, that I support fully the objection made by General Rudenko. I had supposed that the one thing counsel on both sides were agreed upon, when this matter was under discussion before, was that no reprisals against prisoners of war are tolerated. Even my learned adversary, Dr. Exner, agreed that that is the law. Secondly, certainly, we must know what crimes it is that are sought to be excused. Are these the motives for what crimes? Counsel says they are bare on their motives. Was it their motive in shooting American or British fliers, that there were some violations on the part of the Russians as they claim? The only way, it seems to me, that evidence of this character is admissible would be to bring it under the doctrine of reprisal very strictly by taking specific offenses and saying: "This offense we admit, but we committed it in reprisal for certain other specified offenses." I submit that general allegations of this character and relating to prisoners of war are admittedly inadmissible and carry us far afield in the trial of this case.
DR. STAHMER: May I point out one more fact: For instance, I have here a telegram sent by the Foreign Office representative with the High Command of the Army to the Foreign Office, dated 12 August 1941. In other words, this is an official document, and until now the Prosecution has submitted official documents in considerable numbers which have been used as evidence against the defendants. If now an official document is being produced here to exonerate the defendants, I think that this also ought to be adinitted and to the same extent, provided that this is legally permissible. The formal side of the matter is that we have here a telegram, as I said, from a representative of the Foreign Office with the Army High Command, that is, from an official authority, addressed to the Foreign Office, dated 12 August 1941. It says here, for instance: "In the captured operational report Number 11, of the 13th of last month, 10 o'clock, of the staff of the 26th Division, 1 kilometer west of Slastjena in the forest north of Opuschka it says: 'The enemy left about 400 dead on the battlefield..."'
THE PRESIDENT: You must not read it, as we are discussing its admissibility.
DR. STAHMER: I beg your pardon. I misunderstood you, Mr. President, you asked me what document...
THE PRESIDENT: The date of the White Book .
DR. STAHMER: The date of the White Book , I see, we misunderstood each other; it is Berlin, 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not a date, that is a year.
DR. STAHMER: It says, "Bolshevist Crimes against the Laws of War and Humanity. Documents compiled by the Foreign Office, First Volume, Berlin, 1941." That is the name of the document; the date of its publication is not apparent from the book itself. The individual documents and preliminary proceedings are contained in this book, followed by a number of records which have individual dates.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is nothing to show when that document was communicated, either to the Soviet Government or when it was communicated -- if it was -- to Geneva or to the Protecting Power.
DR. STAHMER: It was forwarded to Geneva. It was duly handed to the Red Cross in Geneva.
THE PRESIDENT: When?
DR. STAHMER: In 1941. I had proposed to obtain these books from Geneva and to bring in information from the Geneva Red Cross. Mr. President, may I once more point out that it is an official document published by the Foreign Office. It is a series of reports compiled in an official publication.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not the real point that the Tribunal is considering. The question is, how can you justify in a trial of the major war criminals of Germany, evidence against Great Britain, or against the United States of America or against the U.S.S.R. or against France? If you are going to try the actions of all those four signatory powers, apart from other considerations, there would be no end to the Trial at all, and their conduct has no relevance to the guilt of the major war criminals of Germany, unless it can be justified by reference to the doctrine of reprisal, and this cannot be justified in that way. And therefore the Tribunal considers the document is irrelevant.
DR. STAHMER: I now turn to the subject of aerial warfare, evidence on Page 25 of my trial brief. Relevant to the question of guilt is the question whether the German Air Force started to attack open cities only after the British Air Force had carried out a great number of raids against nonmilitary targets.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I object to this evidence. I was not quite sure whether Dr. Stahmer had passed dealing with this evidence with regard to the air war, or whether he was illustrating his argument. I want to make it quite clear that I object to the first part of it as being too remote, that is, the evidence about the various conferences which took place with regard to the regulation of aerial warfare. With regard to the second part of the evidence, I object to the documents which purport to show that Great Britain attacked nonmilitary targets. Where I have been able to check the allegations, I find there is a complete dispute as to whether the targets were military or nonmilitary targets, and therefore I cannot accept the German official reports as being evidence of any purported value on their part, and I respectfully submit that, unless the Tribunal had authority from the Charter, it ought to take the same line. I make these two additional points to the points raised by my learned friends, General Rudenko and Mr. Justice Jackson, on the general question. I do not want to take up more time with the argument by developing that point. I will be pleased to help with any ispect of it. "
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me, Dr. Stahmer, that this matter stands upon exactly the same footing as the matter upon which we have just ruled.
DR. STAHMER: That is right. I believe that from this book on aerial warfare one document is of importance in my opinion, which is quoted on Page 27. It. is merely a statement by the French General Armengaud concerning the fact that the German Air Force operated in Poland in accordance with the laws of warfare and attacked military targets exclusively. I believe there will be no objection to reading at least this quotation. It is Page 27.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 27 of the trial brief?
DR. STAHMER: Page 27 of the trial brief. There I give a quotation from General Armengaud, the French Air Attache in Warsaw, of 14 September 1939.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: There it says: After the outbreak of war the German Air Force under its Commander-in-Chief, Goering, did not, by order of Hitler, attack any open cities in Poland; this was confirmed by Buttler, the British Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on 6 September 1939, and by the French Air Attache in Warsaw on 14 September 1939 (Documents 41 and 46 of the White Book ). The latter, General Armengaud, says literally:
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, what is the origin of that?
DR. STAHMER: May I have a look? It is contained in the document concerning the bombing war, Number 46, "Report of the French Air Attache in Warsaw, General Armengaud." It is dated 14 September 1939, and then comes the report from which I have already quoted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: I have submitted it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: And now I proceed to Page 30 of the trial brief. And in Paragraph 10, 1 refer to the creation of the Secret State Police by the Defendant Goering. A passage is quoted there from the book, Hermann Goering, the Man and His Work , Document Book 2, Page 53 and 54. 1 submit it as Document Number 44, and I quote from it the following passage: And from the last paragraph, I read the second sentence: In this connection I beg to offer a telegram which I received a few days ago, and I request that it be admitted as evidence. It is an unsolicited telegram originating from a certain Hermann Winter, Berlin W 20, Eisenach Street, 118. It has been included in the document book which I submit. I believe it is the last document in my document book.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If we are to examine unsolicited correspondence or telegrams, if it is to become evidence, I have a washbasket full of it in my office that, if that kind of material could be used as evidence in this case without any verification, I could bring here in rebuttal. It does seem to me that we should know something more about this than that just a wire has come in from some unknown person who may not even have been the signer; maybe it is an assumed name. I think we are entitled to a little better foundation than that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, have you any other basis?
DR. STAHMER: I have no other basis, and I beg to have your decision whether this telegram is admissible as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I do not think we could admit it simply as a telegram which has been received by you from an unknown person.
DR. STAHMER: I request your decision. Is it being refused? I am coming to the end, Page 34.
THE PRESIDENT: Of the trial brief?
DR. STAHMER: Page 34 of the trial brief, Figure 12. With respect to the question of whether one could blame the defendants for having had confidence in Hitler and following him, it is important to know Churchill's attitude, expressed in his book Step by Step, and I am quoting two passages, Document Book Number 2, Page 46.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: This is in 1937, before the events with which we have mainly been dealing here. I do not think it is very important. Mr. Churchill's speeches are well known, but I do think that we waste time going into Mr. Churchill's opinions back in 1937, before the event, when he is doubtless in the same position as Dahlerus, the witness, with reference to his knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes.
THE PRESIDENT: Inasmuch as we have already received this book and some passages from it, you may state this.
DR. STAHMER: I may state it? Thank you. On Page 187, in an article, "Friendship with Germany," of 17 September 1937, is written:
THE PRESIDENT: I only said that you could read it because you had read from this book of Mr. Churchill's, but at the same time it seems to be absolutely irrelevant.
DR. STAHMER: I did not -- Oh, I see. May I refer to the quotation on Page 323 which is also a description of Hitler's personality. I consider it of importance especially because I attach considerable weight in particular to Churchill's judgment. It says: "Our leadership must at least..."
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Stahmer, do you not think we have heard sufficient about Hitler's personality?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, but not from that source. If the Tribunal....
THE PRESIDENT: Presumably the Defendant Goering knows more about Hitler than Mr. Churchill.
DR. STAHMER: If the Tribunal does not wish it to be read, then of course, I will abide by that wish.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is cumulative.
DR. STAHMER: Well, in that case I have finished. I may still of course keep in reserve the evidence which I have not been able to submit up to now, about which I spoke this morning. I said this morning, I had a certain amount of evidence which I have not been able to submit because I have not received it yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Would this be a convenient time, if Your Honor please, to make the record concerning the documents which I was to offer formally for the record?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not quite follow? What documents are you referring to?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The ones used in cross examination...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: ... which Your Honor spoke to me about.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.