dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
HERR PELCKMANN: No, it does not at all mean that the Versailles Treaty should be fought against by war. Now, as to Documents Number SS-85 and SS-86. Hearst, the American publisher of world-wide reputation, who as far as I know had considerable influence at that time in America, says, as the Prosecution correctly point out, in September 1934, a few months after the bloody events of 30 June 1934, that when he was in Germany 3 years ago he found the greatest chaos and that today under Hitler's leadership Germany is a land of perfect order. Please note-and I must emphasize once more-that I am not referring to the objective facts; I am stating what was said about conditions in Germany by circles abroad-which in my opinion, were of weight in the publishing field-what was spread abroad and what was brought to the notice of the German people by means of the National Socialist propaganda machine, so that the German people, and with them also the bulk of the members of the SS, could not believe anything else than these published statements and saw in them a confirmation of their real belief at the time that here something really was being done for order and thereby also for world peace. The second statement, in Document Number SS-86, is on somewhat similar lines. It is a report of 27 September headed "America is participating in the Olympic Games." The man in charge of American athletics had gone into the question very carefully as to whether the American nation ought to participate in the Olympic Games, and he then made a report in America in which he made statements about his experiences in various parts of Germany. He expressed himself very satisfied and was very much in favor of American participation in the Olympic Games. The result was, as expected, that the committee decided that America would participate in the games.
HERR PELCKMANN: This again constitutes a corroboration, a consolidation and strengthening of German public opinion, and therefore also of the opinion of the bulk of the SS members, that in certain respects foreign countries were adopting an absolutely positive attitude toward the new Germany. It should not be forgotten that the different years, the different dates are most important. When the fundamental questions affecting the Indictment against the organizations were discussed before the Tribunal, from 28 February to 2 March, it was also pointed out that the time at which membership of an organization was acquired must very likely be regarded as a deciding factor. One must take into account in this connection that, when after 1933 the membership of the SS grew considerably, it was surely a decisive factor for the individual contemplating membership to know that, especially in those years following the rise to power, foreign countries too were giving some evidence-I am giving only examples-of their approval. I regret, Mr. President, that I have to dwell on this subject more than perhaps was expected, but it is necessary, because the fundamentals of the defense-at least the defense of the organizations-have not yet been discussed before the Tribunal. Then we come to Document Number SS-96. Here again it is a voice from abroad-an American journalist. Of course, I am not in a position to investigate what standing this journalist has. But again, the objective importance is that it is the voice of an American journalist whose comments were published in Germany by a well-known German publisher in a book which had a tremendous sale. This American journalist describes, in the pages which I am quoting, among other things, conditions in Germany and conditions in the concentration camps. To summarize them, they are described as not unfavorable, and I am of the opinion that again this, in 1935, was of importance to the question...
THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell the Tribunal the name of the journalist? HERR PELCKMANN Yes; his name is Doug Brinkley, for Douglas Brinkley-D-o-u-g-l-a-s B-r-i-n-k-l-e-y.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you spell it again?
HERR PELCKMANN: Douglas-D-o-u-g-l-a-s; Brinkley- B-r-i-n-k-l-e-y. I had already said that I, of course, know this man even less than the Judges. But one must remember that after all this was published in Germany; and the average German cannot know whether there is a well-known or unknown American journalist of this name. At any rate, he speaks in detail about conditions in concentration camps, and about the knowledge the Germans and also the SS members had. This statement is relevant because during future hearings and before the commissions I shall show, and have shown, that the knowledge of these conditions in concentration camps was confined to the very small circle of those who were occupied with them. Finally, Documents SS-101 and 102. Here we are concerned with the question of the medical experiments on living human beings. First of all, I should like to say that I do not by any means maintain that experiments undertaken in concentration camps conform with the principles of humanity. Without detailed evidence I am not capable of passing judgment on this point; but I can prove from scientific publications of recent date that the question of whether experiments which might cause death should be carried out on living men to save the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of human beings is, at least, argued in scientific circles and, at least according to these documents, has certainly been affirmed by wellknown foreign-American and British-scientists. In this connection, I am assuming that internees in concentration camps-as I have been trying to prove before the Commission and, perhaps, shall continue to prove-volunteered for such experiments. I must point out, however, that evidence that such experiments were carried out abroad on people who did not volunteer is supplied, in-my opinion, by the wording of this statement. Document SS-101...
THE PRESIDENT: Would you mind pausing there? I thought you said that they had volunteered for it.
HERR PELCKMANN: I said that those documents do not show clearly that experiments made abroad were made on real volunteers, whereas I contend and must contend that according to testimony given up to now, experiments in concentration camps were carried out on volunteers. It...
THE PRESIDENT: I was only asking you what these documents that you are speaking of, 101 and 102, said. Did you say that they show that the people who were experimented on volunteered for the experiments?
HERR PELCKMANN: No. I said, Mr. President, that it is different, and neither one nor the other of the documents states quite clearly what the position was. One document seems to indicate that the people did not volunteer. What appears of more importance to me is that...
MAJOR JONES: If the Tribunal please, I do not think that the defending counsel's statement should go without challenge. It appears from the Document 101, the report from the magazine, which is not a scientific magazine-it is the Time magazine, which I understand is not a work of science-that the extract is silent on the question whether the persons who were used for these experiments were volunteers. The second extract from Document 102 states quite clearly that the subjects of the experiments were volunteers.
HERR PELCKMANN: Quite right. The second document deals with voluntary experiments. The first document, however, leaves the question open. But I conclude from circumstances shown in the document that it does not seem to be absolutely certain whether there were volunteers. It is an extract from a fairly recent publication, Time of 24 June 1946. It deals with a new remedy for tuberculosis. American scientists carried out experiments with antituberculosis inoculations on 3,000 Indians. Half of them were inoculated with this drug. Half were given a harmless salt injection; 40 tuberculosis cases developed; 185 cases did not show any react-ion, and 38 died. And these experiments were carried out on Indians who were free from tuberculosis. The other document is a German translation of an American book, An American Doctor's Odyssey, written by an American doctor. In it he describes how the research worker, Fraser, experimented with the well-known disease of beriberi on criminals in Bilibid who, as the Prosecution have mentioned, earned for that a small perquisite and, if the experiments were dangerous, they could obtain a reduction in their sentence. These experiments were tried on the inmates of the lunatic asylum of Kuvala Lumpur and were carried out in the following manner: Part of the inmates were given unpolished rice to eat, and part were given polished rice. The second group of these inmates became ill. Then the two groups were exchanged, and the sick became healthy and the healthy, sick. The effect of these experiments and of the disease in general is very severe. The patients cannot leave the bed and often die of a weak heart. I quote from this book: "I shall not forget the impression made upon me by the huge hospital for beriberi incurables at Singapore, where these poor people were crawling around on their hands..."
THE PRESIDENT: We do not need all the details of it.
HERR PELCKMANN: I am merely going to say that we are concerned here with a contested scientific opinion...
MAJOR JONES: I am intervening again. But such a sinister implication is being given by the alleged purport of these extracts by defending counsel that I really must protest. The report that is given is of the symptoms of beriberi disease; it is not an account of the result of these experiments at all. The experiments took this form: some Malayans were tested with their ordinary diet of polished rice, which is said to bring on beriberi; other prisoners were tested with a diet of unpolished rice. And it was proven that a diet of polished rice, which is their usual diet, brought on beriberi. There is no sinister import. There is no Dr. Rascher element about this.
HERR PELCKMANN: I should like finally to come to the subjective angle. It is alleged by the Defense that these experiments too were kept extraordinarily secret. And if they had become known . . .
THE PRESIDENT: We have got the essentials of the arguments.
HERR PELCKMANN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear now from the United States Prosecutor with reference to the General Staff and High Command, the SD, and the Gestapo.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): Mr. President, with reference to the SD and the Gestapo we have come to a complete agreement with the defense counsel so there is no contest concerning the documents. They number some 150 pages for the Gestapo and some 80 pages for the SD. With reference to the High Command and the General Staff, we have not been able to agree on a few documents. In the first Document Book Number 1, Document Number 5, we have objected to its translation certainly, because it has to do with the knowledge of General Busse, about the political feelings of some of the generals toward National Socialism, and it's simply his own opinion and does not purport to be anything more. Attached to it are graphs and charts and so on, and it's made to appear that it is based upon opinions which General Busse has gathered from conversations- nothing to show that he is any authority on the subject or would be in a position to know anything beyond the ordinary capacities of any other man. Document Number 8 we also object to because again it is an instrument based upon General Winter's collection of the opinions of other people. Insofar as we can tell, General Winter made some kind of a poll-a private poll, to be sure-of his associates, and asked them what their opinions were. And he.. .
THE PRESIDENT: What is the nature of the actual document. Is it a publication?
MR. DODD: No, Sir, it is not. It is in the form of a statement by General Winter.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it sworn to?
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir, it is.
THE PRESIDENT: Busse and Winter, they are both sworn, are they?
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir, they are and they submitted their statements, these two men.
THE PRESIDENT: And what is the date of them, 1946?
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir, very recently. Sometime in June 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: What's the date of that one?
MR.DODD: One of them is July-anyway within the last 2 months. The Document Number 9 is of the same character again. It is a statement based on written opinion. In all our statements which have been supplied by members of the German armed services, and in any case all of these statements which are affirmed to and sworn, no statement has been sworn to by themselves. The individual who makes the affidavit goes about and inquires and he, on his oath, states that these things are true or represents that they are, without showing that the persons who gave him the information have done so on an affirmation or on oath. Document Number 11 is a newspaper article about General Marshall's report to the Secretary of War of the United States. That has already been introduced here by the Defense and our objection is somewhat technical, but I think nevertheless necessary and valuable. We feel that a newspaper extract should not be used, particularly when the document itself is in evidence, and if the counsel will only use what already is in evidence, it will have no troubles. It is Exhibit Jodl-56. We have not been able to make that clear to the Defense Counsel, so far. Document Number 13 is again a poll, conducted by-a statement by General Winter rather, based on another one of his private polls of his fellow prisoners, concerning their attitude toward the so-called Commissar Order, and besides this matter has been handled before the Commission established by the Tribunal, and there the matters were objected to and sustained by the Commissioners. But in any event we object again here, even to the translation, because it seems of no value at all to have General Winter's submitted statement, based on this kind of information. Document Number 20 is a letter written by a General Seidler. The letter written by General Seidler, of course, is not a sworn statement. This is Document Number 20, and we objected to it on that ground. Besides we have very grave doubt about its value in any event. Document Book 2 contains one document which we object to. That is Document Number 15.
MR.DODD: That also is not an affidavit, but instead it is an unsworn letter from General Von Graevenitz to General Von Kleist-it is written under the date of June 24, 1946- which, in our judgment, is of no value; and we do not see that it would be helpful in any event to the Tribunal. Other than that, we have no differences.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, will you tell us with reference to these documents that you object to, how long they are?
MR.DODD: They average about-from what I see of the German text-two to three pages, and attached to some are drafts. Do you mean the whole, in total?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, take them in order, starting with Number 5.
MR.DODD: That has two pages. It is the statement with the draft attached to it.
THE PRESIDENT: What about Winter's Number 8?
MR. DODD: That's seven pages and two pages of drafts, which makes it altogether nine pages. The newspaper article about General Marshall's report, I don't know. So far, only one typewritten page. Document Number 13 is a 10-page document. General Seidler's letter is one page, and Document Number 15 is only one page. It is also a letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now, Dr. Laternser. DR.HANS LATERNSER (Counsel for General Staff and High Command of the Armed Forces): There still remain certain documents which are disputed. First of all, Document Number Mil-5. The table submitted with Number 5, on Page 29, refers only to historically established facts which are graphically represented in that table in order to show their extent and the effect they had within the accused military leadership. The affidavit of General Busse, which is attached, is not intended to prove facts which are historically known in any case, but merely to explain the table. It is not, therefore, a private opinion on the part of General Busse. The admissibility of that table can therefore not be objected to. I will take Documents Mil-8 and 9 together, because the objections raised against them are similar. The lists contained therein are meant to facilitate the Tribunal's judgment on the circle of persons falling under the Indictment. Thus we are not concerned with written statements but with lists and I am only too willing, if the technical department is too busy, to furnish the necessary number of copies of these lists myself. The basis for these lists is Exhibit Number USA-778, (Document Number 3739-PS) which was submitted by the Prosecution on 2 March 1946. This Document USA-778 which was prepared by the Prosecution contains the names of all the persons who are said to come under the Indictment and also shows the periods during which they held office. This Prosecution document, Exhibit USA-778, does not state the source from which these details originate, therefore they are merely assertions on the part of the Prosecution. Using this Exhibit Number USA-778 as a basis, however, I asked General Winter to draw up the submitted lists, Number Mil-8 and 9, to the best of his knowledge and conscience. In contrast to the lists submitted by the Prosecution the Tribunal will be able to judge the source of these lists particularly well, for General Winter appeared personally before the Tribunal as a witness in Jodl's case.
THE PRESIDENT: The list Number 8 contains the names of persons dead and further those of individually accused persons and those whose posts were only temporary, not permanent. According to the lists that makes 56 persons and for all practical purposes of judgment that number need not be taken into account. In this list are shown also the many cases where commanding generals were relieved of their positions on account of serious differences of opinion. The list Number Mil-9 gives the names of 31 people who occupied positions for less than 6 months and to whom the Prosecution have referred. This document is relevant with regard to alleged conspiracy. If therefore the Tribunal desires to have a good factual basis for judging the composition of the Circle of persons indicted, then these lists should be accepted. Moreover, the list already accepted by the Prosecution, USA-778, can only refer to the same or similar sources as those of the lists which I am submitting, and the lists of the Defense quote the sources and can be checked. If I had used the same method as the Prosecution, I would only have had to submit the lists without the addition of an affidavit. Therefore, I beg that these documents be admitted. Number Mil-ll has already been accepted in the same form by the Tribunal as Document Number Jodl-56, a fact which, incidentally, I mentioned at once to the Prosecution, and attempts to make that clear to me were really not necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Number 11 we understood was a newspaper report with reference to General Marshall's report.
DR.LATERNSER: When that objection was brought up I immediately pointed out that the same document to which I was going to refer had already been submitted during the proceedings against General Jodl. That is the Marshall report. Therefore, I withdraw this document of mine.
THE PRESIDENT: You are withdrawing it? I see.
DR.LATERNSER: Yes, as the document has already been submitted. I merely wanted to include it in my book for the sake of having it complete. Then I would just like to remark, Mr. President, that attempts on the part of the Prosecution to make this clear to me are not necessary, because I usually understand that kind of argument fairly easily. Document Number Mil-13 is also based on USA-778 as far as the circle of indicted persons is concerned. This list, also compiled by General Winter, is meant to complete the picture proving the correct attitude on the part of the generals toward the Commissar Order. As that list-based on the list submitted by the Prosecution- and the affidavit attached to it give the exact sources, the document can readily be checked as to its worth. The objections on the part of the Prosecution may detract from its value as evidence, but the documentary character of the document cannot be destroyed; therefore, this list, too, should be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Hasn't Document Number 13, that is to say .the subject of the attitude of the generals to the Commissar Order, already been dealt with before the Commission?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Mr. President, but examination of witnesses and submission of affidavits cannot give the same picture as the one I am attempting to give by means of this document. This document contains the names of the generals who belonged to that so-called group; in a special column I have marked whether the order was received and in another column whether the order was carried out, and these facts which General Winter mentions here are explained by him in his affidavit which is attached to the list itself. He goes on to quote the sources from which he had gained his knowledge, so that I can examine the sources and so the evidential value.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, you have called a certain number of witnesses before the Commission, have you not?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes. I had eight witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I suppose all of them, or almost all of them dealt with this subject. You put in a certain number of affidavits and those affidavits have dealt with this subject, have they not?
DR. LATERNSER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: How many affidavits have you put in before the Commission?
DR. LATERNSER: I cannot, Mr. President, give you the exact number at the moment. Affidavits have been submitted by me on only two matters.
MR. DODD: There were 72 of them, Mr. President. He put in 72 of those affidavits. Am; PRESIDENT: Well, isn't this really an attempt to extend and make more exhaustive the proof which you are submitting?
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, this Commissar Order no doubt is a criminal order, and I was merely trying to show clearly to the Tribunal by means of this list how, well the high generals had conducted themselves on the point; I had summarized the outcome of that part of the evidence in this list. General Winter has compiled the list, so the Tribunal can decide whether this list is valuable or not. I am merely trying to say that the objections raised by the Prosecution can affect the evidential value of this document but not the document itself. I ask that it be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: But if you put in 72 or 82 affidavits before the Commission, why shouldn't you put in this document before the Commission?
DR.LATERNSER: Well, but here we are not concerned with affidavits. Up to now only affidavits have been submitted whereas here in Document Number Mil-13, the most important thing is the list, and the affidavits which are attached are merely an appendix to that list. They are intended to give an explanation of the list. The main feature of this document, therefore, is the list and not just the explanatory affidavit, so that it would not have been admissible before the Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Laternser, but it doesn't make it inadmissible before the Commission that it is an affidavit exhibiting a list. It could have been put in before the Commission, and if it had been put in before the Commission it would have been brought to our notice as is, of course, everything that goes before the Commission. Also, it is pointed out to me of all these documents, they could all have been put in before the Commission.
DR. LATERNSER: No, Mr. President, that point of view cannot be right. Up to now we could merely submit affidavits to the Commission and not documents. The documents were to be included in the document books, and that is what we are discussing today. This Mil-13 is a document, that is, the list, whereas the affidavit is purely of secondary character. It is merely meant to give an explanation. I ask that a decision be made.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we hear what you say and we will consider the matter.