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 immediately 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
Indictment 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.
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 as 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. 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._]
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Thursday, 15 November 1945
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 that 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. 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._]
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that there are some counsel for the
defendants present here today, who were not here yesterday and who may
not understand the use of these earphones and dials. Therefore, I
explain to them that Number 1 on the dial will enable them to hear the
evidence in the language in which it is given, Number 2 will be in
English, Number 3 in Russian, Number 4 in French, and Number 5 in
German.
I will now read the judgment of the Tribunal in the matter of the
application of counsel for Gustav Krupp von Bohlen for postponement of
the proceedings against the defendant.
Counsel for Gustav Krupp von Bohlen has applied to the Tribunal for
postponement of the proceedings against this defendant on the ground
that his physical and mental condition are such that he is incapable of
understanding the proceedings against him and of presenting any defense
that he may have.
On November 5 the Tribunal appointed a medical commission composed of
the following physicians:
R. E. Tunbridge, Brigadier, O.B.E., M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.P., Consulting
Physician, British Army of the Rhine.
René Piedelièvre, M.D., Professor on the Faculty of Medicine of Paris;
Expert for the Tribunal.
Nicholas Kurshakov, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Medical Institute of
Moscow; Chief Internist, Commissariat of Public Health, Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics.
Eugene Sepp, M.D., Emeritus Professor of Neurology, Medical Institute of
Moscow; Member, Academy of Medical Science, Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics.
Eugene Krasnushkin, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry, Medical Institute of
Moscow.
Bertram Schaffner, Major, Medical Corps, Neuropsychiatrist, Army of the
United States.
The commission has reported to the Tribunal that it is unanimously of
the opinion that Gustav Krupp von Bohlen suffers from senile softening
of the brain; that his mental condition is such that he is incapable of
understanding court procedure and of understanding or cooperating in
interrogations; that his physical state is such that he cannot be moved
without endangering his life; and that his condition is unlikely to
improve but rather will deteriorate further.
The Tribunal accepts the findings of the medical commission, to which
exception is taken neither by the Prosecution nor by the Defense.
Article 12 of the Charter authorizes the trial of a defendant _in
absentia_ if found by the Tribunal to be “necessary in the interests of
justice.” It is contended on behalf of the Chief Prosecutors that in the
interest of justice, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen should be tried _in
absentia_, despite his physical and mental condition.
It is the decision of the Tribunal that upon the facts presented the
interests of justice do not require that Gustav Krupp von Bohlen be
tried _in absentia._ The Charter of the Tribunal envisages a fair trial,
in which the Chief Prosecutors may present the evidence in support of an
indictment and the defendants may present such defense as they may
believe themselves to have. Where nature rather than flight or contumacy
has rendered such a trial impossible, it is not in accordance with
justice that the case should proceed in the absence of a defendant.
For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal orders that:
1. The application for postponement of the proceedings against Gustav
Krupp von Bohlen is granted.
2. The charges in the Indictment against Gustav Krupp von Bohlen shall
be retained upon the docket of the Tribunal for trial hereafter, if the
physical and mental condition of the defendant should permit.
Further questions raised by the Chief Prosecutors, including the
question of adding another name to the Indictment, will be considered
later.
The Tribunal will now hear the application on behalf of the Defendant
Streicher.
Will the Counsel state his name?
DR. HANS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Your Honors, as Counsel
for the Defendant Julius Streicher, I took the liberty some time ago of
requesting a postponement in the opening date of the Trial, because the
time at my disposal for making preparations appeared to me insufficient,
in view of the importance of the case.
This morning, however, the President of the Court outlined the course of
the proceedings of the Trial and his explanations have made it quite
clear that the Defense will have adequate time at its disposal to
continue preparations for the case of each client even after the opening
of the Trial. Any objections on my part are thereby removed, and
accordingly I withdraw my application as unsubstantiated.
Your Honors, may I use this opportunity to make a suggestion with regard
to the case of the Defendant Streicher.
In view of the exceptional nature of the case and of the difficulties
facing the Defense in handling it, may I suggest that the Tribunal
consider whether a psychiatric examination of the Defendant Streicher
would not be proper. Defense Counsel should have at his disposal all the
evidence on the nature, personality, and motives of the defendant which
appears necessary to enable him to form a clear picture of his client.
And this, of course, is also true of the Tribunal.
In my own interests I consider it essential that such an examination be
authorized by the Tribunal. I emphasize particularly that this is not a
formal motion: “It is not a motion but a proposal.” [_Note: These words
were spoken in English._] I deem it necessary as a precaution in my own
interests, since my client does not desire an examination of this sort,
and is of the opinion that he is mentally completely normal. I myself
cannot determine that; it must be decided by a psychiatrist.
I, therefore, ask the Tribunal to consider this proposal, and, if the
suggestion, under the circumstances, appears both requisite and
necessary, to choose and appoint a competent expert to conduct the
examination.
That is what I wished to say before the opening of the proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. It appears to the Tribunal that such
suggestions as you have now made, ought to be in the form of a formal
motion or application and that it ought to be in writing and that if, as
you say, the Defendant Streicher does not wish it or is unwilling that
such an examination should be made, then your application ought to state
in writing that the Defendant Streicher refuses to sign the application.
If you wish to make such a motion you are at liberty to make it, in
writing.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I be allowed to say briefly that it is
precisely because the defendant does object to my submitting such an
application that I feel obliged to make this request here publicly, and
inform the Tribunal that I am bound by my client’s attitude and
therefore not in a position to submit this suggestion in writing.
Without my client’s permission I cannot make this suggestion in writing,
and I am consequently forced to convey it to the Tribunal verbally,
since I myself consider it necessary as a precaution in my own interest.
THE PRESIDENT: But you understand from what I say to you, that if you
wish to make this suggestion, you must make the motion in writing and
you can, on that writing, state that the Defendant Streicher is not
prepared to sign the application.
DR. MARX: Thank you, Mr. President, for your statement; I shall not fail
to act, as you suggest.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Chief Prosecutors wish to make any statement?
COLONEL ROBERT G. STOREY (Executive Trial Counsel for the United
States): May it please the Court:
The position of Counsel for Defendant Streicher emphasizes a suggestion
made by the Prosecutors this morning, namely, that all motions and all
requests from Counsel be reduced to writing, prior to submission to the
Court and the suggestions, in writing, were filed with the General
Secretary since the meeting this morning.
While I am on my feet, if it may please the Court, may I make a brief
statement in connection with the efforts of the Prosecutors to furnish
to the Defense Counsel evidence and documents in which they may be
interested, if that meets with the approval of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COL. STOREY: With reference to Defendant Streicher’s second point in his
motion, namely, that the Prosecutors be required to furnish certain
documents, they are being furnished, and will be furnished in the
future.
Secondly, with reference to the film on concentration camps, which he
requests be shown to Defense Counsel in advance of the time of
presenting the film, this request will also be complied with by the
Prosecutors.
Also, for the information of the Defense Counsel, there has been
established in Room 54, in this Courthouse, what is known as the
Defendants’ Information Center, operated jointly by the four Chief
Prosecutors. In that room there has been deposited a list of documents
upon which the Prosecution relies. Secondly, if further documents are
relied upon by the prosecutors, lists will be furnished to Defense
Counsel before they are introduced into evidence or offered to the
Court, and also, they will have the opportunity to examine copies of
those documents in their own language.
May I also suggest that most Defense Counsel have availed themselves of
that privilege and those who had not, have been notified and they are
now, as of this date, all of them, making use of the facilities
provided, which include rooms for conferences, typewriters, when
necessary, and other assistance.
I want to make that statement for the information of the Defense
Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand the Soviet Chief Prosecutor wishes to
address the Tribunal.
COL. POKROVSKY: In connection with the evidence just submitted to the
Tribunal by Counsel representing the interests of Defendant Streicher, I
consider it my duty to inform the Tribunal that during the last
interrogation made by the Delegation of the Soviet Union, the Defendant
Streicher, about whom it is specifically said in the Indictment, Counts
One and Four, that he had incited to the persecution of the Jews, stated
that he had been speaking from a Zionist point of view.
This declaration or, more precisely, this testimony, immediately
produced certain doubts as to the mental stability of the defendant.
It is not the first time that persons, now standing their trial, have
attempted to delude us about their mental condition. I refer in
particular to the Defendant Hess. In the case of Hess the Tribunal, to
my knowledge already possesses. . . .
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. We are not hearing any application with
reference to Streicher’s sanity now, nor any application with reference
to Hess. We have simply informed Counsel for Streicher that if he wishes
to make an application in respect of his defendant’s sanity or mental
condition, he must make that application in writing. If he does make
such an application in writing you will have full opportunity of
opposing the application.
COL. POKROVSKY: What I have in mind is not to offer an opinion on the
deductions and the petition of the Defense, but to inform the Tribunal
of a fact which may cause much complication if we do not act on it
immediately. Seeing that the Tribunal has at its disposal a number of
competent medical personnel, it would appear to me most expedient that
the Tribunal should entrust these specialists with the examination of
the Defendant Streicher in order to establish definitely whether he is
or is not in full possession of his mental capacities.
If we do not do so now, the necessity may arise in the course of the
Trial and if the question of Streicher’s sanity arises after the
beginning of the Trial, then it may delay the proceedings and impede our
work. If the Tribunal deems my suggestion in order, we would, before the
Trial starts, have sufficient time to request from this commission of
specialists a statement on his mental condition.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. If I rightly understand what the Chief Soviet
Prosecutor says, it is this: That if any question of the sanity of the
Defendant Streicher arises it will be convenient that he should be
examined now at once whilst the medical officers of the Soviet Union are
in Nuremberg. If that is so, then if you think it is more convenient
that Streicher should be examined by doctors at the present moment on
account of the presence of the distinguished doctors from the Soviet
Union being in Nuremberg, you are at liberty to make a written motion to
that effect to the Tribunal at any time.
Do any of the other Chief Prosecutors wish to address the Tribunal?
(There was no response.)
Then the Tribunal will deal with the application of the Defendant
Streicher as follows:
His application for postponement, which is numbered 1 on his written
application, has been withdrawn. His other two applications, numbered 2
and 3, which are agreed to by the Chief Prosecutors, are granted.
The Tribunal will now adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 17 November 1945 at 1000 hours._]
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Saturday, 17 November 1945
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know whether the Chief
Prosecutors wish to make a statement with reference to the Defendant
Bormann.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom):
May it please the Tribunal, as the Tribunal are aware, the Defendant
Bormann was included in the Indictment, which was filed before the
Tribunal. There has been no change in the position with regard to the
Defendant Bormann; nor has any further information come to the notice of
the Chief Prosecutors. I think that the Tribunal are aware of the state
of our information when the Indictment was filed, but it might be as
well, if the Tribunal approves, if I explained what was the state of our
information at the time of the filing of the Indictment, which is also
the state of our information today.
There is evidence that Hitler and Bormann were together, with a number
of Nazi officials, in the Chancellery area in Berlin on 30 April 1945,
and were, at one stage on that day, together in Hitler’s underground air
raid shelter in the Chancellery gardens.
On 1 May Bormann and other Germans tried to break out of the Chancellery
area in a tank. They got as far as the river Spree and tried to cross a
bridge over it. A hand grenade was thrown into the tank by Russian
soldiers. Three members of the party who were with Bormann in this tank
have been interrogated. Two think that Bormann was killed, and the third
that he was wounded. The position is, therefore, that the Prosecution
cannot say that the matter is beyond probability that Bormann is dead.
There is still the clear possibility that he is alive.
In these circumstances I should submit that he comes within the exact
words of Article 12 of the Charter:
“The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings against a
person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of this Charter
in his absence, if he has not been found.”
In other words, it is not necessary to hold the man in these
circumstances. The Tribunal laid down in its Rules of Procedure in Rule
2 (b) the procedure applicable to this situation:
“Any individual Defendant not in custody shall be informed of
the Indictment against him and of his right to receive the
documents specified in sub-paragraph (a) above, by notice in
such form and manner as the Tribunal may prescribe.”
The Tribunal prescribed that notice to the Defendant Bormann should be
given in the following manner:
The notice should be read over the radio once a week for 4 weeks, the
first reading to be during the week of 22 October. It should also be
published in four separate issues of a newspaper circulated in the home
city of Martin Bormann.
The broadcast was given in the weeks after 22 October, as ordered, over
Radio Hamburg and Radio Langenberg, that is, Cologne. The Defendant
Bormann’s last place of residence was in Berlin. The notice was,
therefore, published in four Berlin papers: The _Tägliche Rundschau_,
the _Berliner Zeitung_, _Der Berliner_, and the _Allgemeine Zeitung_ for
the 4 weeks which the Tribunal had ordered.
In my respectful submission, the Charter and Rules of Procedure have
been complied with. The Tribunal, therefore, has the right to take
proceedings _in absentia_ under Article 12. It is, of course, a matter
for the Tribunal to decide whether it will exercise that right.
The Chief Prosecutors submit, however, that there is no change in the
position since they indicted Bormann and that, unless the Tribunal has
any different view, this is a proper case for trial _in absentia_.
I am authorized to make this statement not only on behalf of the British
Delegation, but on behalf of the United States and the French Republic.
I consulted my friend and colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, yesterday and he
had to take instructions on the matter, and I notice he is here today. I
haven’t had the opportunity of speaking to him this morning and no doubt
he will be able to tell the Tribunal any thing if he so desires.
I hope that that explains the basis of the matter to the Tribunal. If
there are any other facts, I should be only too happy to answer any
point.
THE PRESIDENT: It is suggested to me that you should file with the
General Secretary proof of the publication to which you have referred.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With proof of the publication! If it please My
Lord, that will be done.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Sir David. Then I will ask the Chief
Prosecutor for the Soviet Union if he wishes to address the Tribunal.
COL. POKROVSKY: I thank the Tribunal for their wish to hear the opinion
of the Soviet Delegation. I shall avail myself of the privilege granted
by the Tribunal to express the complete concurrence of the Soviet
Delegation, and to inform you of the attitude adopted by my colleagues
where Bormann is concerned. We consider that the Tribunal has every
justification, under Article 12 of the Charter, to accept in evidence
all the material relative to Bormann’s case and to start proceedings
against him in his absence.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn for a short time and hopes it
will be able to give its decision shortly.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has decided that in pursuance of Article 12
of the Charter, it will try the Defendant Bormann in his absence, and it
announces that Counsel will be appointed to defend the Defendant
Bormann.
The Tribunal will now adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 1500 hours._]
THE PRESIDENT: The motion to amend the indictment by adding the name of
Alfried Krupp has been considered by the Tribunal in all its aspects and
the application is rejected.
The Tribunal will now adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 20 November 1945 at 1000 hours._]
FIRST DAY
Tuesday, 20 November 1945
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: Before the defendants in this case are called upon to
make their pleas to the Indictment which has been lodged against them,
and in which they are charged with Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and
Crimes against Humanity, and with a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit
those crimes, it is the wish of the Tribunal that I should make a very
brief statement on behalf of the Tribunal.
This International Military Tribunal has been established pursuant to
the Agreement of London, dated the 8th of August 1945, and the Charter
of the Tribunal as annexed thereto, and the purpose for which the
Tribunal has been established is stated in Article 1 of the Charter to
be the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals
of the European Axis.
The Signatories to the Agreement and Charter are the Government of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government of
the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French
Republic, and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The Committee of the Chief Prosecutors, appointed by the four
Signatories, have settled the final designation of the war criminals to
be tried by the Tribunal, and have approved the Indictment on which the
present defendants stand charged here today.
On Thursday, the 18th of October 1945, in Berlin, the Indictment was
lodged with the Tribunal and a copy of that Indictment in the German
language has been furnished to each defendant, and has been in his
possession for more than 30 days.
All the defendants are represented by counsel. In almost all cases the
counsel appearing for the defendants have been chosen by the defendants
themselves, but in cases where counsel could not be obtained the
Tribunal has itself selected suitable counsel agreeable to the
defendant.
The Tribunal has heard with great satisfaction of the steps which have
been taken by the Chief Prosecutors to make available to defending
counsel the numerous documents upon which the Prosecution rely, with the
aim of giving to the defendants every possibility for a just defense.
The Trial which is now about to begin is unique in the history of the
jurisprudence of the world and it is of supreme importance to millions
of people all over the globe. For these reasons, there is laid upon
everybody who takes any part in this Trial a solemn responsibility to
discharge their duties without fear or favor, in accordance with the
sacred principles of law and justice.
The four Signatories having invoked the judicial process, it is the duty
of all concerned to see that the Trial in no way departs from those
principles and traditions which alone give justice its authority and the
place it ought to occupy in the affairs of all civilized states.
This Trial is a public Trial in the fullest sense of those words, and I
must, therefore, remind the public that the Tribunal will insist upon
the complete maintenance of order and decorum, and will take the
strictest measures to enforce it. It only remains for me to direct, in
accordance with the provisions of the Charter, that the Indictment shall
now be read.
MR. SIDNEY S. ALDERMAN (Associate Trial Counsel for the United States):
May it please the Tribunal:
I. The United States of America, the French Republic, the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics by the undersigned, Robert H. Jackson, François de Menthon,
Hartley Shawcross, and R. A. Rudenko, duly appointed to represent their
respective governments in the investigation of the charges against and
the prosecution of the major war criminals, pursuant to the Agreement of
London dated 8 August 1945, and the Charter of this Tribunal annexed
thereto, hereby accuse as guilty, in the respects hereinafter set forth,
of Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity, and of
a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit those Crimes, all as defined in
the Charter of the Tribunal, and accordingly name as defendants in this
cause and as indicted on the Counts hereinafter set out:
Hermann Wilhelm Göring, Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Robert Ley,
Wilhelm Keitel, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Alfred Rosenberg, Hans Frank,
Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Walter Funk, Hjalmar Schacht, Gustav
Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, Karl Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von
Schirach, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Martin Bormann, Franz von Papen,
Arthur Seyss-Inquart, Albert Speer, Constantin von Neurath and Hans
Fritzsche, individually and as members of any of the groups or
organizations next hereinafter named.
II. The following are named as groups or organizations (since dissolved)
which should be declared criminal by reason of their aims and the means
used for the accomplishment thereof, and in connection with the
conviction of such of the named defendants as were members thereof:
Die Reichsregierung (Reich Cabinet); das Korps der Politischen Leiter
der Nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Arbeiterpartei (Leadership Corps
of the Nazi Party); die Schutzstaffeln der Nationalsozialistischen
Arbeiterpartei (commonly known as the “SS”) and including the
Sicherheitsdienst (commonly known as the “SD”); die Geheime
Staatspolizei (Secret State Police, commonly known as the “Gestapo”);
die Sturmabteilungen der NSDAP (commonly known as the “SA”); and the
General Staff and the High Command of the German Armed Forces. The
identity and membership of the groups or organizations referred to in
the foregoing titles are hereinafter in Appendix B more particularly
defined.
COUNT ONE—THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY. Reference: the Charter,
Article 6, especially Article 6 (a).