Q Who was Moeckl?
A Moeckl was the successor of Burger as the administrative officer in Auscwitz.
Q When did he become administrative officer in Auschwitz?
A It must have been a few months previously.
Q Previous to what?
A Previous to the talk we held.
Q And when did you have these talks?
A With Moeckl I talked and he was my precise informant, at the end of 1942 or beginning of 1943.
Q What did he tell you in detail?
A He explained the gassings to me.
Q Was it your impression that he talked to you alone, or did he spread the stories?
A No, he didn't spread the stories, but I had particularly asked him to come and see me in my flat to have these things explained to me.
Q Was Moeckl determined to tell you these things, or do you know whether he was obliged to keep his mouth shut?
A He was under extremely strict obligation to observe secrecy and for that reason I couldn't talk with anybody else usually, because the subject was so risky.
Q Were you and Moeckl friends?
A No, we were not friends at all. Moeckl was formerly in charge of food enterprises, which is the reason why I know him. He was the co-manager of a former acquaintance of mine, Weissenbach, with Mattoni. On the basis of a business matter he, at my instigation, and my visit to Pohl, was dismissed as a manager and also as a member of the Board of Mattoni. He did not have a reason to be particularly nice to me. Nevertheless, Weissenbach sent Moeckl officially over to see me.
Q Now, how did you manage to get these things out of Moeckl -- was he a talkative man, or what was the position. Did you have a nice social evening... was he drunk?
A No, he was not drunk. I told Moeckl I would like to know what this is all about, and under the seal of secrecy he told me these things.
Q Was he quite sure you would not pass these things on?
A He must have assumed that, yes.
Q What did you do with that knowledge you obtained?
A I put them to the fullest use at once, as far as people were concerned, whom I regarded as reliable.
Q Witness, I would like to show you from my Document Book, Document Scheide, No. 40.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Dr. Hoffmann, just a minute. The witness explained to you how the gassing was done. I wish he would give us the information he gave you, how the method was employed to gas the inmates that he told you about.
WITNESS: This is what he told me. There were gas chambers. People were driven into them. Then the doors would be locked, the gas would be inserted - what type of gas it was I only learned here - and Moeckl made the false statement that the whole thing was cover in a minute and a half. I heard here that I took longer. And that then the inmates - the corpses of the dead - would be taken to the crematorium. This is what Moeckl told me.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Did he give you any estimation as to about how many he had known that were gassed?
A No, but he told me that on some days many hundreds had been gassed. To give a small example which I remember, he said all Gypsies had to be gassed. One day there was an order from Himmler that among the Gypsies there were some alleged to have racially valuable blood and the gassing should be discontinued.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Racially what? I didn't understand that.
WITNESS: Racially valuable blood. At that time there were in Auschwitz allegedly seventeen thousand Gypsies who at the time, with the help of special food rations were given additional food. I remember the figure, that these remaining seventeen thousand were given three thousand liters of milk every day. That is what I remember from that conversation.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Can you tell us for what purpose they gave them all this milk? For what purpose?
WITNESS: Yes. The purpose was to preserve those men who were declared racially valuable, and their health was no longer normal they should be brought back to normal health.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What is the date of this conversation?
WITNESS: I think it most have been at the beginning of 1943.
BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q Witness, how many people do you think were informed by you about these reports?
A By me directly about twenty-five, at least. That was roughly the circle of persons who frequented my house in Berlin and the circle of people I met with Passmann.
Q Do you think these people spread the stories, or were they afraid to talk about these things under the then conditions?
A The latter certainly applies. Everybody was afraid. But I would like to emphasize one point. Several people to whom I told these things said I was not normal.
There were a number of people who thought I was lying to them but as a matter of fact, naturally, my reports were completely authentic.
Q Witness, there is a document in my Document Book which is Scheide No. 40. It says: In 1942 or 1943, certainly at a time when Jews were evacuated from Berlin to the East, a man was denounced who had spread the rumor that Jews were to be gassed in the East, and killed. If that statement was incorrect the men should have been sentenced under paragraph one of the law, to prevent malicious attacks, of 20 December 1934. In my position in the Reich Ministry of Justice I was given a report about this case and the local prosecution intended to indict the man. I regarded the statement as an enormous lie. (He now means, of course, the gassing of the Jews, witness.) But all the same I asked the Gestapo whether any truth was in these statements, and any real occurrences at the back of it, which would have make the trial a doubtful enterprise because it was my experience that facts were found out in those investigations which give an important background to the trial and once could find out how such rumors came about. My query was answered in the negative by the secret state police office, which confirmed that this rumor had no basis in fact.
Do you think that is possible, witness?
A Yes, I think that is entirely possible. I am quite aware of the fact that throughout that period, to put it simply, I was skating on thin ice. Had I made one false step I would have had it.
Q Did any of the defendants in this dock tell you anything about these things?
A No, I did not talk to any of the defendants about these things.
Q Witness, I want to read you something from the IMT trial. It says there, when they talk about the political leaders and the sentence:
"On 9 October 1942 a confidential circular was addressed to all Gauleiters and Kreisleiters which was to talk of measures for the final solution of the Jewish question in Europe. Rumors concerning conditions applicable to the Jews in the East. In that circular it was stated that returning soldiers spread rumors concerning the conditions under which the Jews in the East were living, and that some Germans could, perhaps, not understand this fully. It was then explained how the official wording of these matters should be formulated."
The IMT then goes on to say that by that circular the secrecy in an untrue form was maintained. That you heard rumors, and others heard rumors, becomes clear from the facts and this document, but I would like to ask you... How much do you think were these rumors so substantiated that a larger circle of people would regard them as true, or was the position that one could only hear the truth from case to case?
A Dr. Hoffmann, I am unable to answer you that question. Reports which I could pass on to the very souls of other people were so frightful that at the first moment nobody would have believed me. And I don't believe that people would then, on the spur of the moment, spread these stories. You have to think these things over first. I don't believe that this grew into a rumor which would be passed on automatically. It was too unusual for that.
DR. HOFFMANN: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination by other counsel?
DR. HAENSEL: I have no questions to put to this witness, but I understand that Mr. Robbins wishes to ask a few questions. After his examination I want to say something. Perhaps a useful service would be served.
DR. GAWLIK (for the defendant Dr. Volk):
Q Witness, was Dr. Volk at any time employed by DEST?
A No, but I heard that only here. Dr. Volk was never working with DEST but within the scope of group firms III-A in connection with the trusteeship east for the administration of the enterprises. I made that mistake because I always used to describe anything connected with III-A as DEST.
I didn't know really what Dr. Volk was doing in detail before.
Q And that is the reason why you made that mistake in your affidavit, is it?
A Yes.
DR. GAWLIK: Thank you very much. No further questions.
MR. ROBBINS: I only have one or two questions. I think, witness, that some confusion was introduced in some recent questions about the seizure and confiscation. Do I understand your testimony to be that neither the WVHA, nor any of the industries affiliated with the WVHA that these agencies never used or operated property of any kind which had been seized? As distinguished from confiscated?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A Several properties had been confiscated and seized by other agencies of the Reich, they had hot been confiscated but had been purchased or acquired, otherwise. For instance, Gerstl in Prague, the furniture factory, for that purpose, the Petrug itself, a subsidiary company of the German Trusteeship Company AG decided on the purchase price, taking into consideration the value and the substantial capital, and then the price was then paid to the agency concerned, which then had the order to deal with that.
Q Witness, is it your testimony, though, that the WVHA, nor any of its affiliated industries, never used property which had been taken away from persons either Germans or non-Germans, and operated that property, and which property was not paid for? Is that your testimony?
A I can speak here only for the DWB. So far as I know, and there it never happened either, that all properties were bought, or they were administered under the trusteeship basis, or else they had been leased, but the taking away without compensation was not done.
Q And when you say they were taken over under a trusteeship, or under lease, they were confiscated, is that the word you used?
A Quite. Confiscated and now the administration of it was being supervised.
Q And by what agency were they confiscated?
A The block property, such as in the case of the Eastern Bricks Works, it was the most important confiscated property that were confiscated by the main trusteeship East, and an administrator was appointed, and his name was Poh, and Pohl appointed a sub-administrator, and his name was Dr. Bobermin, but those two had no influence on the ownership of the property.
Q You know it was taken over by some one else, but do you expect us to believe that the property which was taken over and operated by the OSTI was supposed to go back to the original owners; that a provision was made for these properties to be returned to the Polish owners? Is that what you want us to believe?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A No, I don't believe that at all, but the question is, who did the actual confiscating. I can not imagine that any agency of the WVHA carried out an actual confiscation.
Q I did not ask you that. I asked you, did the WVHA, or its industries, operate property, or use property which had been confiscated? Now can you answer my question?
A In the case of the OSTI, it is exactly true, it was confiscated property, and it was used and operated.
Q And do you know of any other such property which was seized, where the owner would not receive compensation, and would receive no protection?
A I only know of the case of the Apollinaris, but where the WVHA did not come into it at all, but the RSHA.
Q Well -
A May I just finish Mr. Robbins. When that became the connection, I thought something was foul here in the confiscation by the RSHA. The DWB became active, and attempted to have the confiscation rescinded, with the result that later on the Custodian for Enemy property could exercise control against the RSHA, but an actual seizure was not effected.
Q Witness, you know when you signed the sub-power of attorney for the Apollinaris, the Gestapo or the RSHA had made a confiscation, and not the Alien Property Custodian. You knew when that confiscation was carried out that the owners would not get the money, that they would have no protection; that they would have no recourse to law from the action of the Gestapo. You knew that the reason that the Gestapo had taken over the property was not because of any interest inimical to the Reich, but because this mineral water firm rather that Himmler wanted to take over as head of the Gestapo, and head of the SS, was the outcome of a fanatical idea of his, with which you are very familiar already, to make people drink mineral water instead of liquor and hard drinks. You knew all of that, didn't you?
A Mr. Robbins, that is entirely different to me, and I must say Court No. II, Case No. 4.that my answer would be as long as your question.
It is entirely different. If the Tribunal please, the Custodian for Alien Property really became interested and quite so Mockel knew the property had been confiscated, and, his intention was to acquire that enterprise. The RSHA investigated the question, and supplied the idea that large additional values, and currency embezzelments had occurred, which proved to that extent that the firm was not in a position to defend itself, thereupon, the firm was confiscated by the RSHA, but not seized, and, therefore, the blocking of the property, and the supervision of the property was no longer up to the Custodian for Alien Property but the RSHA. With that the RSHA wanted to appoint a new administrator to replace the old one, which was to be me. When I saw that an official auditor was already the administrator there, I could not possibly be moved to chase this man out of his position. Then the RSHA issued an order, after they had found out the confiscation had been done without a good reason, and the order said, "Please pretend as though no confiscation had occurred. In other words, everything must remain as it is." Thereupon, Dr. Volk managed that this confiscation was rescinded, with the result that before and afterwards the Custodian for Enemy Property exercised supervision, and no seizure was at all effected. Only one thing happened which was to lease the enterprise for the duration of the war, and in order to calculate the sum involved there, I was called in as the expert, and, as I felt I did not want to be the only one responsible here, I informed the Institute of Auditors, where I had been working before, because it was extremely difficult to find out the actual value of same when you work out a lease contract. Here we have a question of the overhaul of the enterprises, which is very difficult in Commercial Law.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: With all justice to Mr. Robbins, I would say that your answer was longer than his question.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q You don't know of any other property then, do you?
A No, I don't know of any other at the moment.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q You don't know of any other property that was used in any way by the WVHA Industries that was taken from people where no compensation was made?
A Without compensation I know nothing, no.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I should like to offer the Apollinaris documents in evidence. The Power of attorney dated 5 March 1941, I should like marked as Exhibit No. 580.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't have these, Mr. Robbins.
MR. ROBBINS: No, they have not been translated, your Honor. I will have them translated just as soon as possible.
THE INTERPRETER: There seems to be trouble on Channel No. 3, again.
MR. ROBBINS: I shall have marked all three documents as one exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, Mr. Robbins, channel No. 3 is involved again.
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, during this time may I hand to the Tribunal the letters that we referred to yesterday, which was signed by Dr. Hohberg, and were sent to the printing firm. I just want to make one remark about that letter, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Gentlemen, channel No. 3 is out of commission, and Mr. Robbins, it will take ten minutes to fix this, so we will recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for ten minutes.
(Recess.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. ROBBINS: I believe that Dr. Heim did not get any remarks before the recess.
DP. HEIM (For Defendant Hohberg): May it please the Tribunal, I move that the document now on the bench should not be discussed until the Prosecution have offered it as evidence or for identification. I also request that the Prosecution be asked to furnish us with copies of that document.
MR. ROBBINS: I was about to mark that document as Exhibit 581 for identification, and certainly copies will be furnished as soon as possible. I was just saying that I think this document, coupled with the statement of the defendant that he had signed in this manner on several occasions, has some evidentiary value. The Prosecution contends that this defendant was the top man in Amtsgruppe W and acted for Pohl. The fact that he signs "Chief of the WVHA by order, Hohberg," I think has some value to prove that. As far as I know, the contents of this particular letter are not important, but he defendant states that he signed in this manner on other occasions. Also he contends that he had no authority to issue orders or receive an order. The fact that he signs as "Chief of the WVHA by order, Hohberg," also bears on that condition, so for that reason I would like to offer the document for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: You think it may have some tendency to prove that he was deputy chief of Amtsgruppe W?
MR. ROBBINS: That he was the superior in Amtsgruppe W and acted on behalf of Pohl in Amtsgruppe W; that he was immediately under Pohl.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this letter purport to be signed on behalf of Staff W? The signature of which is only in German, of course, is "Der Chef VW". What is that?
MR. ROBBINS: That is the Verwaltungs und Wirtschafts Hauptamt, WVHA, the main office immediately preceding the WVHA.
THE PRESIDENT: I observe the date now. Well, the document will be marked for identification Exhibit 581, and when translations are avail Court No. II, Case No. 4.able, the Tribunal will entertain your offer to submit it in evidence.
That is, you understand, Dr. Heim, this document is not admitted in evidence at this time.
MR. ROBBINS: I would like to ask the defendant one question.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, did you ever sign any of the letters which you did sign in this manner without knowledge or permission of Pohl?
A Mr. Robbins, that is a question which is general and does not refer only to this document which you have just submitted, and I ventured to say yesterday that in this case we had to have a priority certificate, if you like.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, the question was very simple. Just answer the question, please.
A I don't think so. Possibly yes, in similar cases, but I can't recall any such case, but after all you have all the letters and it must show there surely. You should be able to find something there.
MR. ROBBINS: I should like to state for the record, I think probably I should offer further proof for this fact, that the Prosecution is not in possession of all of the files of Amtsgruppe W as some of the defense counsel seem to think.
THE WITNESS: But at least a few boxes full.
THE INTERPRETER: He said, Mr. Robbins, "At least a few boxes full."
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
DR. HEIM (Counsel for Defendant Hohberg): May it please the Tribunal, I would like to state here and now that Defense Counsel are perfectly aware of the fact that the Prosecution have twelve boxes of evidence concerned with Office Group W. We have made our statements not on an assumption, but we base ours on fact.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, you, on cross-examination, were asked about a document which is now on the bench. I believe it has been given Exhibit number 581. Mr. Robbins spoke about the document without giving you a chance to say something about it. I have a few questions about it.
Can you recall from the knowledge you obtained of the documents yesterday what important matter this matter is concerned with?
THE PRESIDENT: He told us that yesterday. It is a priority for some paper--some printing. That is all.
Q Before you signed that letter, did you go and see Pohl and ask him for permission to sign that letter?
A I signed it in a hurry because it was too ridiculous to go and see Pohl about a matter of this sort. This was a small prank which I did behind Pohl's back. I was not justified in doing so.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer should have been No.
Q When you signed that letter, did you regard yourself as Pohl's deputy?
A No, I did not regard myself as Pohl's deputy.
Q The Prosecution have talked just now about confiscation or seizure of properties. I believe that when that interrogation took place, matters were not cleared up. Can you tell us who carried out the confiscating and seizure of enterprises already existing?
A May I ask what area you are talking about?
Q In the Eastern territories occupied by the Germans?
A Reich laws regulated these matters. When, therefore, Globocnik founded or took over enterprises, either he carried out the confiscation and seizure or somebody else before him, perhaps. I don't know. And thus the property became Reich property. Within the scope of OSTI that Court No. II, Case No. 4.Reich property was given a status under commercial law, and it had to be Reich property for that reason.
OSTI changed only the legal aspect, therefore.
Q Who was it who carried out the seizure and confiscation of additional enterprises?
A To continue with my example of OSTI, if OSTI opened additional enterprises, it had to get the machines and other things they needed and buy them quite normally. If it took over machines from Warsaw from empty factories they had to buy it as well. Whether it was done and to what extent it was done, I don't know because it all happened after my time as an auditor. But no conclusions must be drawn from the fact, please, that I, without my knowledge, was called into those two conferences by Pohl. And this fact must not be interpreted as having a share in the plan. Nothing had to be planned there because the whole thing was an order by Himmler.
Q One more question on that point. Was the confiscation of the Appollinaris property carried out by the RSHA on the basis of Reich laws which were in accordance with the Geneva Convention?
A From the formal point of view, yes; but the reason was so vile that the confiscation had to be rescinded later on. The DWB was at the back of that; particularly Dr. Volk was the one who achieved it later on.
Q Three brief questions. To whom did you address yourself in order to rescind the election done by Pohl without your knowledge when you were to become a member of the board of directors of the Eastern German Building Material Company?
A Not Pohl, as Mr. Robbins seemed to assume yesterday. I sent a registered letter immediately to the Eastern German Building Material Works, and I informed Pohl on a suitable occasion. I still remember that he was not in the slightest impressed because he couldn't even remember it in detail.
Q Did you obtain permission to receive a lower fee as an auditor by the Institute of Auditors because, compared to the normal auditor's Court No. II, Cape No. 4.fee, it was lower?
AAs an auditor I must contact the Institute of Auditors in any case. If I deviate from the fee prescribed by law, this must be done; which I explained to them about the special condition, and I was given full approval. I negotiated at that time with Dr. Becker, who was the first manager.
Q A final question. Is it usual in Germany to call this speculation? Namely, the free purchase of shares and the sale of those shares eight or eleven months later?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, I suggested yesterday that he is not charged with improper speculation in the indictment, and it is unnecessary to elaborate, to talk any further, about that.
DR. HEIM: If the Tribunal does not regard this speculation as incriminating, I need not put any further questions.
BY DP. GAWLIK (Counsel for Defendant Dr. Volk):
Q I have a few questions which arose through the re-cross examination particularly caused by wrong translation. I wish to clear up a point.
Witness, were the enterprises of the Eastern German Building Works confiscated or seized, or were they, as it is called in English, confiscated?
A No, they were put under somebody's administration. I compared that yesterday with Law 52 of the Control Council, which is exactly the same thing. A custodian is appointed and no actual change in the ownership is affected.
Q Who ordered those measures to be taken, that it should be put under somebody's administration?
A You mean for the Eastern Brick Works?
Q Yes, the brick works of the Eastern Building Material Works.
A Dr. Bobermin should know more about this. As far as I know, it started from the Four Years' Plan, and within the scope of the Four Years' Plan it was the manager of the trusteeship agency East. He was the Custodian-General for the Eastern Brick Works, and he appointed Pohl Court No. II, Case No. 4.as the special custodian.
The sub-custodian under Pohl was Dr. Bobermin. "The property status had not changed at all.
Q Will you please tell the Tribunal what the Four Years' Plan agency was? Was that an agency which belonged to the WVHA, or what?
A The Four Years' Plan department was in the nature of a Reich Ministry. It was a Reich department which had nothing to do with any special organizations.
Q Who was in charge of that agency?
A Reich Marshal Goering.
Q Thank you very much; I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: No further questions by Defense counsel?
This witness may be removed from the stand.
(Witness excused)
DR. HAENSEL: Carl Haensel for Georg Loerner-
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Dr. Haensel, before you go on to matters of more importance--the witness Hohberg who was just on the stand, near the end of his testimony, in answer to a question, made the following answer: "I was skating on thin ice, and if I had made one false move I would have had it."
Now you, being a man of letters, we thought it best to inform you, and for your edification to tell you, that the expression "I would have had it" is not considered to be the best of English--but is a most comprehensive G.I. expression.
DR. HAENSEL: Following these kind words from the Tribunal, I now wish to start on the same level. We, in Germany, have a dramatist, who comes nowhere near Shakespeare, but who might have become a sort of Shakespeare, had he found a broader stage, such as the Elizabethan Era. This was Christoph Friedrich Bragge, and Bragge wrote a play which is called, "Joke, Irony and Deeper Meaning", which in German means, "Scherz, Ironie, und Tiefere Bedeutung". It seems to me that this thought is extremely good, because it does not contain any contrasts in itself. A joke and irony are not opposed to keeper meaning, but joke and irony are being interpreted there. A joke and irony exist only and are important only if and when they have a deeper meaning. Therefore, every joke should have a core for the joke which can be conveyed more quickly than, perhaps, a long-winded speech. My colleague Heim is only too aware of this.
Yesterday, I spoke about the secret document books. I must point out here that in the German language the word, "Heim", has a slight connection with the word, "Geheim", which is "secret." For instance, my colleague Heim's office might be called a "secret office", and that is how I described these books, as secret document books, but not only facetiously, but with a deeper meaning. That deeper meaning colleague Heim has now seen, and he refused to answer it, but, as this matter is of practical importance to us all. I must just briefly refer to the secret Heim documents.
The rule applies that a document which you offer here must be shown to the other side, that is to say defense counsel must show it to the Prosecution, and vice versa, twenty-four hours ahead of time. The document books by colleague Heim were submitted in the normal way to the Secretary-General, but, when here in court paragraphs were read from these document books, defense counsel had not yet received their copies. Therefore, the situation arose where, although the English translation was in the hands of the Tribunal and the Prosecution had their copy, they were aware of the contents, but we were not. That would not be too tragic normally if defense counsel were a united group, but, if these document books contain things which concern the other defendants and even incriminate them - I need only recall the question of knowledge and a few other things which we heard through Dr. Seidl about the document books - it is an extreme hardship and an impossible situation, if the other defense counsel do not know what the document books say which are being given exhibit numbers.
And it is possible that the documents contain other things as well, which are regarded here as submitted already, but are not known to the defense.
To talk more about the term, "secret" does not mean " unknown". "Secret" means something which one man knows and the other man does not know. That is what secret means. We have the situation that we didn't know things and still don't know them, which were known to all the other members of this trial.
This does not concern all documents, but quite a few of them, and that is what I attempted to oppose and I would therefore be grateful, in order to give the matter a concrete form, if we should be allowed, after we have now revealed the secrets of the document books, to comment on the contents of these documents. If this can be expressed, we would be in the embarrassing dilemma that we cannot comment on documents already submitted, although we are now compelled to, but we would be prevented from putting further questions to Dr. Hohberg, because he is no longer on the witness stand.
I have only expressed the subjective effects as to what happened to the document books, not a subjective accusation, and I do not wish to say that this has been caused by a deliberate interfering with fate, "corriger la fortune." This is what I feel and I hope that the Tribunal will give us a chance to come back to these documents, if and when they are important to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, have you received a German copy of the socalled secret document book?
DR. HAENSEL: No, we have not received any at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you like one?
DR. HAENSEL: I would be delighted.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sure Dr. Heim will respond and see that you get one. Am I right, Dr. Heim?
Yes, he has it all ready for you. Then, if you find anything in it, about which you wish to ask Hohberg, he can be recalled to the witness stand. I hope this doesn't happen, but I won't prevent it, if it becomes necessary.
DR. HAENSEL: Thank you. That is entirely satisfactory.
May I use this opportunity to make a motion about the question which has been referred to the Tribunal sitting on banks, the question of conspiracy in war crimes, and crimes against humanity. I need not repeat the reasons which I gave before. I merely would like to speak briefly about what perhaps is a perfectly natural question namely, why these problems at this moment were discussed at all.
The Chief of Counsel has said, apart from his arguments, and I quote, "And finally, these attacks against conspiracy which I made, did not occur to any of the defense counsel before the IMT. This idea was never expressed on behalf of any of the defendants, and, therefore, no discussion or deliberation was taking place while the IMT was sitting." I wanted to use this opportunity in order to protect my colleagues a little. These ideas were not deliberated in the old days and it is one of the strange experiences common during a trial of that sort and the trials which we are having here in Nurnberg that things must mature, that is to say, it is very strange to see how a trial develops in a completely different manner from the way it sets out. The prosecution or anybody else can't foresee these things. The trials have laws of their own, and I believe that the Nurnberg trials are the most grandiose and, in my opinion, consequential event in the history of law, because they concentrate so intensely on problems for a long time, within the same circle of people consisting of extremely clever men who did not have that idea until Nurnberg was born.
Therefore, if a problem a appears as simple as the egg of Columbus it is still difficult to handle until you put it on its top.
I shall, therefore, venture to make my application which follows up the decisions made by the Tribunal before. May I read this first and I shall comment on it later.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, you are about to read the ruling of Tribunal 4?
DR. HAENSEL: I intend to.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us start again. The interpreter wasn't at the phone.
DR. HAENSEL: I am giving you latest resolution which I hope is known to the Tribunal. I do not wish to say that I am making up my mind that this is the way that the Tribunal should formulate this.
THE PRESIDENT: As one scholar to another, I would prefer to formulate it in our own language.
DR. HAENSEL: I will read from that:
"Neither the Charter of the International M.T. nor Control Council No. 10 has defined conspiracy to commit a War Crime or crime against humanity as a separate substantive crime. Therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try any defendant upon a charge of conspiracy considered as a separate substantive offense.
Insofar Count I of the Indictment charges the commission of the alleged crime of conspiracy as a separate substantive offense distinct from any war crime or crime against humanity as defined in Ar. 2, Paragraph 1 b and c of Control Council Law No. 10 the Tribunal will disregard the charge."
By that I only mean the conspiracy as such and the finding of the fact and the question of the so-called participation acts.