As I understand that, it is that if they weren't lynched under the first scheme, by the crowd, then they were to be kept from prisoners of war, where they would, of course, be subject to the protecting powers' intervention. And if the suspicion was confirmed, they would he handed over to the SD to be killed. law. Paragraph 3 says:
"At a cpmferemce with Colonel von Brauchitsch, representing the C-in-C, Air Force, on the 6th of June, it was settled that the following actions were to be regarded as terror actions justifying lynch law:
"Low-level attacks with aircraft armament on the civilian population, single persons as well as crowds.
"Shooting our own men in the air who had bailed out.
"Attacks with aircraft armament on passenger trains in the public service "Attacks with aircraft armament on military hospitals, hospitals, and hospital trains, which are clearly marked with the Red Cross."
suggested, a case where there was the bombing of a city. curious comment from the Defendant Keitel: "Remarks by the Chief of OKW on the agenda dated 6 June 1944." The number thereon is that of the document at which the Tribunal has just been looking. "Most secret; Staff Offices only."
"If one allows the people to carry out lynch law, it is difficult to enforce rules.
"Minister Director Berndt got out and shot the enemy aviator on the road I am against legal procedure. It doesn't work out."
Then the remarks of the Defendant Jodl appear:
"This conference is insufficient. The following points must be decided quite definitely in conjunction with the Foreign Offices:
"1. What do we consider as murder?
"Is RR in agreement with point 3b?
"2. How should the procedure be carried out?
"a. By the people?
"By the authorities?
"3. How can we guarantee that the procedure be not also carried out against other enemy aviators?
"4. Should some legal procedure be arranged or not?
Signed Jodl" and the Foreign Office, were fully in on these breaches of the laws and usages of war, and indeed the clarity with which the Foreign Office perceives that there were broaches of laws and usages of war, is furthered by the next document which is 728-PS, which I now put in as GB-152. That is a document from the Foreign Office, approved of by the Defendant Ribbentrop and transmitted by one of his officials called Ritter; and the fact that it is approved by this defendant is specifically stated in the next document 740-PS, which I put in as GB-153. I don't think this document has been read before, and, therefore, again I would like to read just one or two passages in it. It begins:
"In spite of the obvious objections, founded on international law and foreign politics, the Foreign Office is basically in agreement with the proposed measures.
"In the examination of the individual cases, a distinction must be made between the cases of lynching and the cases of special treatment by the Security Service, SD.
"1. In the cases of lynching, the precise establishment of the circumstances deserving punishment, according to points 1-4 of the communication of 15 June, is not very essential. First, the German authorities are not directly responsible, since death had occurred, before a German official became concerned with the case.
Furthermore, the accompanying circumstances Will be such, that it will not be difficult to depict the case in an appropriate manner upon publication. Hence, in cases of lynching, it will be of primary importance correctly to handle the individual case upon publication.
"2. The suggested procedure for special treatment by the S.D. (Security Service) including subsequent publication, would be tenable only if GERMANY, on this occasion simultaneously would openly repudiate the commitment of International Law, presently in force, and still recognized by Germany. When an enemy aviator is seized by the Army or by the Police, and is delivered to the Air Forces (P.W.) Reception Camp Oberursel, he has received, by this very fact, the legal status of a prisoner of war.
"The Prisoner of War Treaty of 27 July 1929 establishes definite rules on the prosecution and sentencing of the Prisoner of war, and the execution of the death penalty, as for example in Article 66: Death sentences may be carried out only three months after the protective power has been notified of the sentence; in Article 63: a prisoner of war will be tried only by the same courts and under the same procedure as members of the German Armed Forces. These rules are so specific, that it would be futile to try to cover up any violation of them by clever wording of the publication of an individual incident. On the other hand the Foreign Office cannot recommend on this occasion a formal repudiation of the Prisoner of War Treaty.
"An emergency solution would be to prevent suspected fliers from ever attaining a legal Prisoner of War status, that is, that immediately upon seizure they be told that they are not considered Prisoners of War but criminals, that they would not be turned over to the agencies having jurisdiction over Prisoners of War; hence not go to a Prisoner of Way Camp; but that they would be delivered to the authorities in charge of the prosecution of criminal acts and that they would be tried in a summary proceeding. If the evidence at the trial should reveal that the special procedure is not applicable to a particular case, the fliers concerned may subsequently be given the status of Prisoner of War by transfer to the Air Forces (P.W.) Reception Camp Oberursel.
"Naturally, not even this expedient will prevent the possibility that Germany will be accused of the violation of existing treaties and maybe not even the adoption of reprisals upon German prisoners of war. At any rate this solution would enable us clearly to define our attitude, thus relieving us of the necessity of openly having to renounce the present agreements or of the need of having to use excuses, which no one would believe, upon the publication of each individual case."
I don't want to take this in detail, but I ask the Tribunal to lock at the first sentence of Section 3:
"It follows from the above, that the main weight of the action will have to be placed on lynchings. Should the campaign be carried out to such an extent that the purpose, to wit: 'the deterrence of enemy aviators' is actually achieved, which goal is favored by the Foreign Office, then the strafing attacks by enemy fliers upon the civilian populations must be stressed in a completely different propagandist manner than heretofore."
I don't think I need trouble the Tribunal, but that shows quite clearly the defendant's point of view. If the Tribunal would look at the next document, it is stated at the beginning of the second paragraph:
"Ambassador Ritter has advised us by telephone on 29 June that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has approved this draft." is in my suggestion a completely cold-blooded and deliberate adoption of a procedure evading international law. With regard to Poland, again I won't go into details, but I remind the Tribunal of the evidence of the witness Lahousen, which appears in the transcript, pages 618 and 619 on the 30th of November of last year, and on pages 713 to 716, when he was cross-examined on the 1st of December.
Secondly, Bohemia and Moravia: on the 16th of March 1939, there was promulgated the decree of the Fuehrer and Reichschancellor, signed by Ribbentrop, concerning the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
That is already in as Exhibit GB-8, Document TC-51. The effect of that was to place the Reich protector in a remarkable position of supremacy under the Fuehrer. The only part which I would like the Tribunal to have in mind is Article 5 and sub-article 2:"It shall be the duty of the Reich protector as representative of the Fuehrer and Reichschancellor-
THE PRESIDENT: From which document are you reading?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FIFE: Article 5 (2).
THE PRESIDENT: Which document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was reading actually from the file brief. It is Document 51, GB-8, page 2 at the bottom of the page. It begins:
"The Reich protector, as representative of the leader and chancellor of the Reich, and as commissioner of the Reich government, is charged with the duty of seeing to the observance of the political principles laid down by the leader and chancellor of the Reich.
"3. The members of the government of the protectorate shall be confirmed by the Reich protector. The confirmation may be withdrawn.
"4. The Reich protector is entitled to inform himself of all measures taken by the government of the protectorate and to give advice. He can object to measures caluclated to harm the Reich, and, in case of danger, issue ordinances required for the common interest.
Then the promulgation of laws, etc., and the execution of administrative illegal jusgments shall be annulled if the Reich protector enters an objection. Moravia, and their various deputies, were appointed, and then there were committed the various crimes, which will be detailed by my Soviet colleague. a decree of the Fuehrer was signed by Ribbentrop concerning the exercise of governmental authority in the Netherlands; and that, which is Document 639, which I put in as GB-154, Section 1 says:
"The occupied Netherlands territories shall be administered by the "Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Netherlands Territories'....the Reich Commissioner is guardian of the interests of the Reich and vested with supreme civil authority.
"Dr. Arthur Seyss-Inquart is hereby appointed Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Netherlands Territories."
On the basis of this decree, the Reich Commissioner (Seyss-Inquart)--
the Defendant Seyss-Inquart -- promulgated such orders as that of the 4th of July, 1940, dealing with the confiscation of property of those who had, or might have furthered activities hostile to the German Reich, and tentative arrangements were made for the resettlement of the Dutch population. This will be dealt with fully by my French colleague. order of the defendant Seyss-Inquart, which is GB-155, the document being 2921-PS. I don't intend to read it. I have summarized the effect of it and it will be dealt with more fully by my French colleagues. Bohemia and the Netherlands, the charge against this defendant is laying the basis and procuring the governmental structure under which the war crimes and crimes against humanity were directed. discussion on the question of the Dutch population, which is contained in Document 1520-PS. Again I have explained it generally and I don't want to occupy time by reading it in full now.
Finally, I come to the persecution of the Jews. In December, 1938, the Defendant Ribbentrop, in a conversation with M. Bonnet, who was then Foreign Minister of France, expressed his opinion of the Jews. That was reported by the United States Ambassador, Mr. Kennedy, to the State Department. The report of Mr. Kennedy is Document L-205, which I now put in as Exhibit GB-157. If I might read to the Tribunal the second paragraph which concerns this point:
"During the day we had a telephone call from Berenger's office in Paris. We were told that the matter of refugees had been raised by Bonnet in his conversation with von Ribbentrop. The result was very bad. Ribbentrop, when pressed, had said to Bonnet that the Jews in Germany without exception were pickpockets, murderers and thieves. The property they possessed had been acquired illegally. The German Government had therefore decided to assimilate them with the criminal elements of the population. The property which they had acquired illegally would be taken from them.
They would be forced to live in districts frequented by the criminal classes.
They would be under police observation like other criminals. They would be forced to report to the police as other criminals were obliged to do. The German Government could not help it if some of these criminals escaped to other countries which seemed so anxious to have them. It was not, however, willing for them to take the property which had resulted from their illegal operations with them.
There was in fact nothing that it could or would do."
That succinct statement of this defendant's views on Jews is elaborated in a long document which he had sent out by the Foreign Office, which is numbered 3358-PS, which I put in as Exhibit 158. I don't want to read the whole of that document because it is excessively dreary. It is also an excessively clear indication of the defendant's views on the treatment of Jews; but if the Tribunal would look at, first of all, page 3, it is headed, "The Jewish Question As A Factor In German Foreign Policy" in the year 1938".
After the four divisions the document goes on to says:
"It is certainly no coincidence that the fateful year 1938 has brought nearer the solution of the Jewish question simultaneously with the realization of the 'idea of Greater Germany', since the Jewish policy was both, the basis and consequence of the events of the year 1938."
That is alborated. If the Tribunal will turn over to page 4 at the beginning of the second paragraph, you will see the first sentence:
"The final goal of German-Jewish policy is the emigration of all Jews living in Reich territory. pages. If the Tribunal would turn to the foot of page 7, it goes on to say:
"These examples from reports from authorities abroad can, if desired, be amplified. They confirm the correctness of the expectation, that criticism of the measures for excluding Jews from German lebensraum, which were misunderstood in many countries for lack of evidence, would only be temporary and would swing in the other direction the moment the population saw with its own eyes and thus learned, what the Jewish danger was to them. The poorer and therefore the more burdensome the immigrant Jew to the country absorbing him, the stronger this country will react and the more desirable is this effect in the interest of German propaganda. The object of this German action is to be the future international solution of the Jewish question, dictated not by false compassion for the 'United Religious Jewish minority' but by the full consciousness of all peoples of the danger which it represents to the racial composition of the nations.
defendant's ministry, widely circulated to all senior Reich authorities and to numerous people before the war on the 25th of January, 1939, just after the statement to M. Bonnet, Apparently the anti-Semitism of the defendant went from - I was going to say from strength to strength, at any rate from exaggeration to exaggeration, because in June, 1944 the Defendant Rosenberg made arrangements for an international anti-Jewish Congress to be held in Krakow on the 11th of July, 1944. The honorary members were to be von Ribbentrop, Himmler, Goebbels, and Frank - I think the Defendant Frank. The Foreign Office was to take over the mission of inviting prominent foreigners from Italy, France, Hungary, Holland, Arabia, Iraq, Norway etc, in order to give an international aspect to the Congress However, the military events of June, 1944 prompted Hitler to call off the Congress which had lost its significance by virtue of the allied landing in Normandy.
That is contained in Document 1752-PS, GB-159. At the foot of page 1, the Tribunal will see the following had been entered as honorary members - Reich Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. So that there is no doubt that this defendant was behind the program against the Jews, which resulted in the placing of them in concentration camps with anyone else opposed to the Nazi way of life, and it is submitted that he must have, as a minister in special touch with the head of the government, known what was going on in the country and in the camps. One who preached this doctrine, and was in a position of authority, cannot, I submit, to anyone who has had any material experience, suggest that he was ignorant of how the policy was carried out. evidence which I have recapitulated to the Tribunal, the three allegations are proved.
With regard to the second, Hitler's own words were:
"In the historic year of 1938 the Foreign Minister, von Ribbentrop, was of great help to me, in view of his accurate and audacious judgment and the exceptionally clever treatment of all problems of foreign policy."
with the other Nazi conspirators. He advised them and made available to them in his foreign embassies and legations abroad, information which was required and at times participated, as I had shown, in the planning of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Appendix A of the indictment are completely proved against this defendant, I only wonder if the Tribunal will allow me to add one fact on behalf of the British delegation. In the preparation of these briefs we have received great assistance from certain of our American colleagues, and I should like to thank once, but nonetheless heartily, on behalf of all of us, Dr. Kempner's staff: Captain John W. Auchincloss, Lieutenants Richard Heller and Frederick Felton, Captain J. Robert Claggett and Captain Norman Stoll, and Mr. Karl Lachmann for the great help they have been to us.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for ten minutes.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, I have to make a motion.
THE PRESIDENTS: On behalf of whom is your motion?
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl, defense Counsel for the defendant Prank. Frank. The Charter of the Tribunal contains, in Paragraph 4, regulations for the procedure, and in Paragraph 16 it has been ruled that the rights of the defendants shall be protected in such manner. The defense must have oil particulars of the facts of the Prosecution which can be had. A copy of the Prosecutions facts, with all documents pertaining to it, must be submitted to the defendant, in the language which is known to him, at a certain time before the proceedings start. the Prosecution. This is a copy which was read at the first day. This is if I may say so, a general indictment. All actions are listed which, according to the opinion of the signatories of the London Conference, are looked at as crimes against peace--crimes of war. The Indictment does not contain in particular the criminal actions of each defendant. I am now thinking about positive actions, or concrete actions, or missions.
This morning I received a document. It has the title "The defendant Hans Frank, for Crimes against the Peace, or Crimes against Humanity"-in other words, in German the personal responsibilities of the defendant Frank for crimes against the peace and criminal actions or war and crimes against humanity. This document is without any table of contents. It is thirty pages long, typewritten pages. In addition to this document, or Indictment, as I like to call it, another document book has been given to me, which book contains documents concerning Frank, The first document, as well as the second document, are not in German but in English, This first document is, in reality, what I would call the indictment against Frank, because here in this document, which is thirty pages long, for the first time the individual activities of Frank are listed which are looked upon as criminal actions. At least, one ought to say that this document is an essential part of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Interrupting you, the Tribunal has already expressed its desire that a motion such as this should be made in writing. The Tribunal considers that a motion of the sort which you are making made orally is a waste of the Tribunal's time. It therefore desires you to put your motion in writing. It will then be considered.
DR. SEIDL: May I say something to this, your Honor? I regretted myself that I must make this motion at this point, but I was not able to make this motion in writing beforehand because I only received this document two and a half hours ago. My motion is confined to asking the Prosecution that these two documents be given to the defendant Frank in the German, language.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal hasn't got the documents to which you are referring, but it is quite impossible for us to understand the motion you are making unless you make it in writing and attach the documents or in some other way describe or explain to us what the documents are. We haven't got the documents that you are referring to.
DR. SEIDL: I will, then, make my motion in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, can you explain to me what counsel who just spoke is complaining about?
MR. ROBERTS: I gather he was complaining that the trial brief and the document took which had been served on his client, Frank, were in English and not in German.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is dealing with the case against Franks
MR. ROBERTS: It is being dealt with by the United States.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps I had better ask Colonel Storey, then,
COLONEL STOREY: If the Tribunal please, I think what counsel is referring to is the practice we have made of delivering in advance a copy of the document book and a copy of the trial brief. In this particular instance I happen to know that what counsel refers to is the trial address, which he intends to read over the microphone, and as a courtesy to counsel they have been delivered in advance of the presentation, just like the
THE PRESIDENT: The documents which will be presented against the defendant Frank will be all translated?
COLONEL STOREY: I am sure they are, yes, sir. I don't know about if your Honor please.
We handed that to him in advance -- what the THE PRESIDENT:
Colonel Storey, I thought the Tribunal ordered, after consulting the prosecutors as to the feasibility of the scheme, that sufficient translators should be supplied to the defendant's counsel so that such documents, if in the English language, as trial briefs might be translated to defendant's counsel.
You will remember it was suggested that at least four translators, I think, should be supplied to the defendant's counsel.
COLONEL STOREY: If the Tribunal will recall, I think this is what finally was decided: that document books and briefs could be submitted in English and the photostatic copies submitted to defendant's counsel, and that if they wanted additional copies of the German, then they so request them and they would be furnished. I think that is what the final order was.
THE PRESIDENT: There was, at any rate, a suggestion that translators should be ordered to translate such documents as trial briefs.
COLONEL STOREY: That is correct, yes, sir, and whenever counsel wanted more copies they would request them and they would be available for them. The translator's translation of the photostats would be available if they requested them.
Were there anyother questions, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: To you mean that translators have not been supplied to defendant's counsel?
COL. STOREY: If your Honor pleases, as I understand, the defendants' information center is now under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and my information is -- I would like to check it -- that when they want extra copies all they have to do is ask for them and they may obtain them, and sufficient translators are available to provide the extra copies if they want them. That ismy information. I haven't checked it in the last few days, but sufficient copies in English are furnished for all counsel, and these briefs and document books are furnished to them in advance. In this case I am told that the document book and the briefs were furnished.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Ribbentrop, Funk and von Schirach): the time of the Tribunal for such discussions.
We, of the defense counsel would rather avoid these issues ourselves. But the question which has been touched upon by my colleague is really very disagreeable to us and makes our work very difficult for us. regulations are ruled upon and the practice is entirely different.
THE PRESIDENT: You are going too fast.
DR. SAUTER: -- all documents being in English. Now, at night in prison we are supposed to talk with our defendants. This is made much more difficult now. We will have to talk about documents which are all in English and at great length and this is practically impossible, We receive these documents, of course, always in English before the trial, and it is completely impossible, even if we could speak English very well, to prepare ourselves adequately. I do not know whether the Indictments, as we have them for each defendant, are the same.
THE PRESIDENT: Nearly every document which has been referred to in this branch of the case, which has been presented by Mr. Albrecht and by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, are documents which have been referred to previously in the trial and which must have been before the defense counsel for many days, for weeks, and therefore, there can be no lack of familiarity with those documents. The number of documents which have been referred to which are fresh documents, are very few indeed and the passages in them, which are now being put in evidence, are all read over the microphone and therefore are heard by defense counsel in German and can be studied by German counsel tomorrow morning in the transcript of the shorthand notes. I do not see, therefore, what hardship is being imposed upon German counsel by the method which is being adopted.
for the defendants, have been giving them their trial briefs in English beforehand. But there is no strict obligation to do that and in so far as the actual evidence is concerned, all of which is contained in documents, as I have already pointed out to you, the vast majority of those documents have already been put in many days ago and have been in the hands of German counsel ever since, in the German language and also the documents which are now put in.
DR. SAUTER: No, this is not true, your Honor. Mr. President, thatis not true, This is the complaint which we, of the defense counsel, have been talking about amongst ourselves. We have always repeated that we do not receive German documents. You may be assured, Mr. President, if that were so, as you seem to be of the opinion, none of us would approach the microphone. We would all be very grateful but it really is not so.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, surely when you have a reference to a German document that German document is available to you in the Information Center. And as these documents have been put in evidence, some of them as long ago as the 20th of November or shortly thereafter, surely there must have been adequate time for defense counsel to study them.
DR. SAUTER: Well, for instance this morning I received a volume on Funk. I have no idea when Funk's turn will be up; it might be tomorrow. It is completely impossible for me to study this volume of English documents when I come to the prison at night to study it. It is physically impossible for me to do this and I would be able to work through it if it were in German. But it is impossible for me to do this at night, at 9 o'clock or half past nine, at such a time to start working on such a volume. It is absolutely impossible for us.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, Dr. Sauter, it is not as though you have to cross-examine witnesses immediately after the evidence is given. The documents are put in and it is not necessary for you then to get up and argue upon the interpretation of those documents. You will have, I regret to say, a considerable time before you will have to get up and call your own evidence and ultimately to argue upon the documents, which are now being put in.
Therefore, it is not a question of hours, it is a question of days and weeks before you will have to deal with these documents, which are now being put in. And I really do not see that there is any hardship upon defendant's counsel in the system which is being adopted. Prosecution, is that every document which is put in evidence and every part of the document which is put in evidence, has got to be reviewed in open Court, in order that it should be translated ever the earphones and then shall get into the shorthand notes. next morning but are only available some days afterwards. But it is ultimately available in German. And therefore, every defendant's counsel must have a complete copy of the shorthand notes, at any rate up to the recess and that contains all the evidence that has been given against the defendants and it contain it in German.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, that which is most dear to us is what we have already asked for many weeks ago; that the document or at least that part of the document read, would be given to us in German translation. It is very difficult for us, even if we have the text in English, to work on the documents during the time they are at our disposal. It is impossible for any of us to do this. That is the reason we regret that our wish to get the documents in German is not being taken into consideration. we are very sorry that we do have to keep insisting
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, I am most anxious and the other members be afforded to the defendants and their counsel.
But, as I have pointed in.
By the time that you have to get up and argue upon the documents
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, sir.
DR. BABEL: (Counsel for the SS): I have repeatedly asked to receive copies of everything that will be presented in English.
Today, after the day or the day after; that it is at our disposal to be read at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not dealing with the SA or the organizations at the present time.
If you have any motion to make, you will kindly make it
DR. BABEL: Mr. President, will you permit me one more remark? The
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean the transcript?
DR. BABEL: The German transcript from the 18th and 19th of December 1945, I have received today.
You see, it is not a fact that we receive the transcript the day after or only a few days after the meeting.
I only
THE PRESIDENT: We will inquire into that.
One moment. Will the last counsel who was speaking stand up?
(DR. BABEL arose)
THE PRESIDENT: I am told that is a special case; that the reason for to be recopied.
I understand that the delay ordinarily isn't anything like
DR. BABLE: But I hardly believe that this postponement, this delay, is also concerned with the translation of the Document Book.
But even if good time.
This is, apparently, not the case.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you will kindly make your complaint in writing and give the particulars of it.
Do you understand that?
DR. BABLE: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. GEOFFREY ROBERTS, K.C.: May it please the Tribunal:
The story with regard to Keitel and Jodl runs on parallel lines. For the years in question they marched down the same road together.
Most of the THE PRESIDENT: