THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Thoma?
DR. THOMA: I am most concerned with the accusation that I didn't obey the instructions issued by the Tribunal. During discussions regarding which documents were admissible, I had explained in detail just which philosophical books I was going to quote from and why I wanted to quote those passages. It has been stated during the case for the Prosecution that Rosenberg had invented his philosophy, invented it for the purpose of preparing an aggressive war and for the committing of war crimes. I have considered it my duty to prove that this so-called national antipathy-
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tellthe Tribunal where the Prosecution states that he invented his philosophy, whether in the indictment or in the presentation?
DR. THOMA: Yes, I can prove it. It appears in Churchill's speech, that Rosenberg's philosophy had been used for that.
THE PRESIDENT: You say it appears in Churchill's speech?
DR. THOM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What have we got to do with that? I asked you whether the Prosecution alleged it in the indictment or alleged it in the course of the presentation of the Prosecution, and you answer me that Mr. Churchill-
DR. THOM: That is the evidence here, that he repeatedly stated -
(A short pause).
I didn't say Churchill. I said Mr. Justice Jackson. In his presentation he said things which in their sense meant about the same thing. Consequently I felt that it was my duty to present thatphilosophy which had been in existence before Rosenberg and raised similar arguments, which is the philosophy of the entire world.
Regarding the presentation of the document book, here is what happened: The translator's department asked me, because they had a little free time just then, to submit my document book as soon as possible, in fact before it was handed to the Tribunal, and so it is a fact that the translation department received it before the Tribunal.
But the Tribunal in its resolution of the 8th of March, 1946, had granted me permission that I could use quotations from these philosophical works, only that anti-semitic works of Elbogen were not granted.
Consequently I immediately informed the Tribunal that documents were contained in my book which had not been granted by the Tribunal.
that the quotation which Mr. Justice Jackson has just quoted originates from a French scientist, Mr. Labouche passages which were to be translated, and the quotation which Mr. Justice Jackson has quoted was not marked in red and was not meant to be included in the document book. This is a regrettable error. clue, that the expression is, "Rosenberg has developed the philosophical technique of the conspiracy and has thus created an educational system for an aggressive war." That is the expression in Mr. Justice Jackson's presentation, and it was for that reason that I wanted to point out that this philosophical problem is an important one and is necessary for my case. I do not think, therefore, that I could be accused of not obeying any ruling of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Thomas, were these document sent to the press room or were they sent to the translation department?
DR. THOMAS: In my opinion, they were sent to the translation department, since this department had told me that they were having a little free time and this would be a great onslaught on material and they would like to translate it then.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson stated apparently that they had been sent to the press room and were being disseminated to the public in that way, but on the outside of each document book there is this notice: That they are not to be publicized until they are presented before the Tribunal in open court and then only that portion actually submitted as evidence. Therefore, any documents which are sent to the translation room are not disseminated, or ought not to be disseminated to the press and ought not to be publicized until they are presented before this Tribunal. have arisen principally from the fact that you submitted your documents to the translation department before they had been submitted to the Tribunal, and therefore some of them got translated which were subsequently denied by the Tribunal.
Is that right?
DR. THOMAS: No, My Lord, that is not right. To start with, this was an internal process and a request Prom the translating authority. I had given them the document book because they asked me to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not say who had asked whom. I said that the translation department got the documents for translation -- they received them before they were submitted to the Tribunal, and, in consequence, they translated certain documents which were subsequently denied by the Tribunal.
DR. THOMAS: Of course, the only rejected works were the three antiSemitic works. That those documents reached the press is something that I did not know. I was only trying to alleviate the position of the translating department, and I have subsequently informed the General Secretary that I submitted the document book and have pointed out the facts to him. and I want to point out again that I was always of the opinion that this was altogether an internal process and that such documents could roach the press I did not know. So far, all I knew was that quotations that were not read in Court were not allowed to roach the press, and, of course, I have adhered to that rule, and nothing of that type has been stated in Court and could not have reached the press.
THE PRESIDENT: As you no doubt know, the first granting of documents when they are applied for is expressly provisional, and afterwards you have to submit your documents in open Court, as Dr. Horn did, and then the Tribunal rules upon their admissinility, and this other rule was introduced for the purpose of preventing undue translation. It was decided then that after the Tribunal had given its provisional ruling as to what was provisionally relevant, that you should then submit the passages you wanted to quote to the Prosecution to give them an opportunity to object, so that the translation department should not be unduly burdened. That, as you have explained and as Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe has said, was not carried out in your case, partly, possibly, because as you say the translation division was prepared to undertake certain work. Therefore, documents were submitted to them which the Tribunal subsequently ruled to be inadmissible.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May I make a correction which seems to lead to misunderstanding? I did not mean to say that Counsel had sent the documents to the press in the sense of a newspaper press. They were sent to the press, the printing press. They were, of course, printed. The 206 copies we were ordered to print contained the usual release notice that they were not to be released until used. They have not reached the press, and I did not mean to say that they had been sent to the newspaper press, they were sent to our printing press.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Dix?
DR. DIX: (Counsel for defendant Schacht): Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal: Before a resolution is made on the strength of the discussion which we have just heard, may I make just a few remarks, not referring to the case of Rosenberg but to the defense in general?
Very serious accusations against the Defense have been raised. The expression was used that the Prosecution was not the press agent of the Defense and the accusation was raised that the Defense were trying to make propaganda, and then these accusations reached their peak in the most serious one of all, the most serious that one could possibly make in such a trial as this; namely, that there is supposed to be contempt of Court on behalf of all the Defense Counsel. one can raise; namely, that we have an absolutely clear conscience in this respect. Anyone who has listened to the debate of the last 30 minutes must have recognized that those differences of opinion which have occurred here and on the basis of which the Tribunal will have to announce a decision, are in turn once more due to misunderstandings which have occurred within this courtroom.
Mr. Justice Jackson has kindly stated that he was not talking about the newspaper press when he waid press but the printing press, and my colleague, Dr. Thoma, has stated that the only reason why these documents reached the translation department was that the translating department,very industriously and reasonable from their point of view, had said, "We do not have very much work at the moment.
Please let us have it, and we can start to translate it." that both parties, the Prosecution and the Defense, are working with the best wish and loyalty, and that any thought that we should deliberately disregard an order from the Tribunal never exists. Errors and mistakes can always happen. things were sent to the press before they were actually the subject of the proceedings here in Court. That was something that at the beginning of the trial happened quite frequently. I do not want to quote examples since the Tribunal knows them.
It is quite certain that it wasn't the defense who originated it; I don't know who, but not the defense. Far be it from me to reproach anybody. Things like that do happen, and such an instrument as this trial must have a running-in period. person, who quite definitely stated that only such matters should reach the press as were introduced into the record here in the public sessions; and it was after that that the Tribunal passed its ruling. Previously it had been different. as human error. For instance, it was impossible for me to get the Charter at the beginning of the trial, but eventually it was kindly placed at my disposal. started, then there must be errors and mistakes. with documents in the best practical manner. In other words, first of all, I talked to the prosecution -- and that was when we only had the German text -- regarding which passages the prosecution was proposing to object to. We realised the language difficulties, and we realised the problem regarding the different languages of the other signatories. However, even that could be overcome, as has transpired in my conversations with Sir David, since we managed to find an interpreter and the whole thing appeared an extremely useful and practical system. secondly, we were saving the Tribunal from having to make unnecessary decisions, and it was working beautifully. I want to claim for the defense -and I am sure that Sir David will not contradict me -- that by means of our official talks we were, in fact, the leading party and we cooperated to the best of our ability. is in a very difficult position. I think every one of you will grant that human ability is practically not enough to produce the necessary political tact which is necessary for the defense during this trial, without making some small mistake or other.
At any rate, I for myself do not claim that I am absolutely sure of myself in this respect and won't become the perpetrator of a small error in one case or another. I am finding myself in a very difficult situation, difficult so far as the world is concerned, difficult so far as the Tribunal is concerned, and difficult so far as the German public is concerned.
May I urge Mr. Justice Jackson to appreciate our difficult task and not to raise accusations and emphasize things upon his part which, unfortunately, have been raised by the German press frequently. We can't always react to every unjustified article which appears in the press, and we can't always approach the Tribunal saying "please help us." The Tribunal has more important tasks than to continuously protect the defense. propaganda was being made here or that anti-Semitic propaganda was being made here, about that I think I can say with a clear conscience that none of the defense counsel, no matter what his own philosophy or what his political views -- none of the defense counsel has ever dreamt of trying to use this court room to make propaganda for the dead world of the Third Reich. That would not only be wrong, it would be worse than a wrong; I would say that it would be an incredible stupidity to do a thing like that. defend ourselves, and because we don't want to trouble the Tribunal on every accusation, I am asking Mr. Justice Jackson to somewhat clear the atmosphere and to state to us that these serious accusations -- contempt of court, anti-Semitic propaganda, or National Socialist propaganda, and so on and so forth -- that they weren't really meant to be raised seriously. with the prosecution so far, should continue; and I must openly confess that I am remembering that cooperation gratefully, that I am gratefully remembering the extremely good service and the comradeship which I have found on the part of these gentlemen, and I am anxious that this should be retained and that there should not be a state of belligerency.
Where would it lead us to, since we are all pursuing the same aims? my request -- that is, that he, Mr. Justice Jackson, make some statement so that this awkward matter, which is probably not only depressing upon the defense but the whole court room, should be clarified somehow. listen to me for so long, but I believed that the matter was sufficiently significant and I wished to aim at a further clear and perfect cooperation between the prosecution and the defense.
DR. THOMA: Gentlemen of the Tribunal. May I just very briefly, for factual rectification, be permitted a few words for one moment? Rosenberg is being held solely responsible for the mistaken ideology. It says in the American indictment, or case for the prosecution, at page 2254, that Rosenberg has reorganized the German educational system and has exposed the German people to the will of the conspirators so as to psychologically prepare the German nation for a war of aggression. accusation raised by Mr. Justice Jackson personally, and I must state something which I would not normally have said in this court room, namely, that I have told Rosenberg repeatedly, "Mr. Rosenberg, I cannot defend your antiSemitism; that you have to do yourself." For that reason I have limited my documents considerably, but I have considered it my duty to place at Rosenberg's disposal every means necessary for him to defend himself on this point. passage which has been quoted by Mr. Justice Jackson was not marked in red in the document book, and has been included in error.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I certainly don't want to be unfair to our adversaries, I know they have a very difficult job. However, I hope the Tribunal has before it -- and I shall withdraw all characterizations and let what I have to say stand on the facts-- the order of the 8th of March, 1946, paragraph 3 thereof.
I call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that that reads:
"The following documents are denied as irrelevant. Rosenberg" -and then follows a list of documents -- "Kunstmark; History of the Jews in Germany; History of the Jewish People." Those are the only three that I shall take time to call to your attention.
Two days after that order Rosenberg's counsel filed with this Tribunal, on the 10th of March, 1946, a rather lengthy memorandum in which he renewed his request for quotations from the books listed. as irrelevant. order of 8 April 1946, to print. They are a little difficult to read. The first is a quotation from the History of the Jewish people, one of the prohibited books. The next is a quotation from Kunstmark, another of the prohibited documents. And the third is from the History of the Jews in Germany, the third of the books that I have mentioned. hurried examination of them indicates that they are very largely, if not entirely, quotations from the prohibited documents.
I will make no characterization of it; I simply rest on those facts.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, doesn't the whole point turn upon the date at which those documents were submitted to the Translation Department? Because what Dr. Thoma says is that in consequence of the Translation Department being ready to accept documents, he handed them in before they were actually denied by the Tribunal. And if that is so, it would be obvious, would it not -
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: My Lord, I didn't get when he said. That is, I did not understand that they were handed in before the 8th of March, 1946. But in any event, even if they were translated, the order to us to print is dated the 8th of April , 1946, and was delivered with then on the 8th of April.
Now certainly there was time after the denial to have stopped our spending this amount of money and effort printing things that had been prohibited, and which were prohibited twice.
I won't characterize it; the facts speak for themselves.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, can you help us about the dates at all? Can you help us as to this? Mr. Justice Jackson has stated that after these three documents had been refused in the first instance, you then renewed your request for them on the 10th of March, 1946, and that on the 23rd of March, 1946, they were finally denied.
Well now, when did you send the documents to the translation room?
DR. THOMA: The documents, I remember, went into the Translating Department before March 8. There had been a session regarding admissibility of documents, and it was around about that time, and before a decision had been made, that I had been contacted by a representative of the Translating Department, who asked about the document book, since they had heard that it had been completed. to use this philosophy. I gathered the impression that the Tribunal would not want to use these documents; consequently, I submitted a written application to the Tribunal so that these documents would be granted me. When, subsequently, I was informed that anti-Semitic books would not be permitted me -- which I think occurred a few days later than the date of that order of the Tribunal -- then I did, of course, pass on the information saying, "I draw your attention to the fact that these books were not granted me."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, quite naturally, you aren't able to give us the exact dates at this moment, but we will look into this matter fully,
DR. THOMA: May I just please repeat that I myself have pointed out that quotations were contained in the book which had been refused? And please, may I ask you to draw the conclusion from that, that I was not trying to do anything which was not permissible?
THE PRESIDENT: I think, if the document had been denied, the proper course would have been to withdraw the documents or to communicate with the Tranlation Division notifying them that they should be withdrawn.
would be for the Tribunal to consider Mr. Justice Jackson's suggestion. That is, in order to relieve the prosecution of the task of deciding upon or objecting to the documents which are to be submitted to the translation rooms, that matter should be considered by someone deputed by the Tribunal as a master.
The Tribunal thinks that Mr. Justice Jackson, or the Prosecutor's Committee, should apply in writing to strike out all the irrelevant documents which they complain of in the document book on behalf of the defendant Rosenberg, which has been submitted. which they have established with the consent of the prosecuting counsel. in saying that the Court Contact Committee of the prosecutors did apply to the Tribunal on the 29th of March, 1946 -- and I have the document before me -- requesting the Tribunal to vary the ruling which they had made, namely, Ruling 297, made on the 8th of March, 1946.
DR. THOMA: My Lord, may I say that subsequently I visited the officer and told him that the documents must be taken out, that they must not stay in. However, it transpired that hundreds of copies had already been bound and prepared or processed, and it was said, "Well, after all, they aren't going to be quoted, so they might as well stay in, since they aren't going to be quoted." I expressly made the request to have them taken out of the document book.
Of course, I didn't mean that the Tribunal were asking the Prosecution to apply in writing to strike out documents which have already been rejected.
Those documents, of course, will go out without any application; but if and insofar as there are other documents contained in the Rosenberg document book to which the Prosecution object, then they might conveniently apply, although, of course, that matter will have to be discussed in open court. provided to be provisional, and the application for the final admissibility of the documents has to be made in open court. The Tribunal will have a report made to it by the General Secretary as to these dates and these matters. And now the Tribunal will adjourn for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal have come to the conclusion that it will gave time if the Defendants are called first as the first witness in the case of each Defendant; and, therefore, in the future the Defendant must be called first unless there are some exceptional reasons, in which case Defendant's Counsel may apply to the Tribunal and the Tribunal will consider those reasons for calling the Defendant in some position later than first witness.
Yes, Dr. Dix. BY DR. DIX: had asked my questions too soon after you have completed your answers and that you were answering too soon after I have completed the question. I was told the interpreters couldn't follow and the stenographers couldn't either. I shall adopt a procedure by which I shall introduce a pause between question and answer, and I am asking you to do the same. I am sure that the Tribunal won't give it the interpretation that you are not sure of your answers. various offers to resign which Schacht had presented to Hitler, and you had talked regarding several arguments referred to a peace which Schacht had raised during the war and delivered through you to Hitler or wanted to have them submitted to Hitler. We had last spoken about such a memorandum of the summer of 1941, and I had the feeling that the Tribunal had objections based on procedure, because I had quoted the contents of the documents Which I have no longer in my hands and which were contained in the famous strong box which has been confiscated on Schacht's farm by the Rod Army and which the Russian delegation had not yet succeeded in finding.
I had the impression that the Tribunal had objections because I was putting the contents of the document to the witness and having him confirm it to me. Although very pretty passages are contained therein, I am perfectly willing to break off here and to put the questions to Schacht if the Tribunal would prefer that.
May I have the Tribunal's decision on that question, in which case I would cease to discuss the memorandum any further.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal had no objection to your asking this witness about it, but they thought you ought not to put a leading question and that you ought to ask the witness if he remembered the document and wha t were the contents of the document -- not to put to him that it was such and such in the document or some other passage in the document, but just to ask him what were the contents of the document.
DR. DIX: The dividing line between leading questions and putting the content of a document to the witness--a document which is not recollected exactly by the witness--is rather fluent. Therefore, I would prefer to have the further content of the document confirmed by Schacht, which would get us over these difficulties. I shall therefore leave that point and come to another sphere.
Q (continued) Witness, you quite correctly stated yesterday in answer to a question within the framework of the defense complex of Funk, through my colleague Dr. Sauter, how in 1939 it was the practice that Hitler would simply decree that the Reichsbank Would have to give such and such a credit. I want to avoid a mistaken impression, and I want the original position of the Reichsbank clarified for this Tribunal. original independence. This was a decree in which Hitler had ordered that he would decide upon credits which the Reichsbank would have to give, and this decree of Hitler's became effective through a law of June 1939 and had the powers of a law.
position of the Reichsbank, and therefore I am asking you how was the situation before January, 1939, that is, during Schacht's being in office. Was it possible at that time for Hitler to decree that such and such credits were to be given, or was the Reichsbank still independent and could it refuse such credits or give notice about them?
recollect to such an extent that I can give you a complete answer and make a constructive statement just when and how they were altered. I can confirm one thing, however, that is, that during the period when Schacht was president of the Reichsbank, he, with reference to these credits, must have made certain difficulties for the Fuehrer. During these discussions between the Fuehrer and Schacht, I was not present but I know from statements made by the Fuehrer that regarding those credits, he, the Fuehrer, met considerable difficulties originating from Schacht. They were inhibitions on Schacht's part which in fact brought about Schacht's resignation from his position as president of the Reichsbank. On the other hand, I know that the moment that Funk became president of the Reichsbank, these difficulties ceased to exist. These were obviously removed under the laws referring to them. They had been removed also by the order which the Fuehrer had given in that connection, because when Funk became the president of the Reichsbank, these grants and credits were merely handled in such a way as I had described it yesterday. Yesterday, when I described the technical procedure, which was in the main handled in that manner, that such demands for credits for the Reichsbank were submitted to the Fuehrer and were merely a question of a signature for him, they were a matter which passed through my hands.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think he is able to answer your question, really. I don't think he is able to answer the question which youput to him, which was as to the position before 1939, so I think you must rely upon the decrees and documents.
DR. DIX: I shall clarify it right away. BY DR. DIX: the books. Can't you recollect that the Reichsbank had previously been independent?
A Yes, yes; I recollect that but I also recollect that certain legal alterations were made but I can't remember just when, and without seeing the books and laws, I can't tell you exactly what was the content of these new laws; in other words, just what the limitation was put upon figures, and all I do know is that the position of the president of the Reichsbank had later on been reduced considerably in comparison due to the orders given by the Fuehrer.
Q Yes, I see that is enough. Now, as to the same category. It isn't difficult, not anyway for a German who has lived here all that time, but particularly for a foreigner, to understand the power instrument, the power machine of the Third Reich. I think that after the statements that you had made yesterday in answer to the questions which my colleague Sauter put to you didn't produce every statement you could make. You could probably say something more of it, if I didn't know what you knew; if I were an outsider, then your statements yesterday would give me the impression: "Well, the way it was, was that the Minister of the Interior couldn't give orders to the police and the Minister of Economy didn't direct economy independently; all ministers in the Reich were without proper authority and couldn't give instruction to the commissioners for the occupied territories."
MR. DODD: If your Honors please, I respectfully suggest that Dr. Dix is really testifying here. I think perhaps he could put his questions more simply and we can get along faster and get the answer better.
DR. DIX: Yes, I can certainly put my questions more precisely but I can't *---*t it unless I first of all ascertain by a statement what has not yet been *---*id up to now, so that I can't really put a briefer question? since the *---*ibunal probably wouldn't understand it, which is what I am trying to avoid I can assure Mr. Dodd, I shall not ask anything uncertain and I shall *---* precise question indeed, and I will do it right now.
*---*DR. DIX: *---*uld like to ask you if all these ministers were so hindered and so *---*ered in their authority. What were and who were themen and the *---*orities who could interfere and who could direct these spheres of *---*sdiction and who were exercising the power? That is my question. And may I mention that as far as Frank is concerned, you have already mentioned of course Himmler's interference, but we must go into that question more deeply so that the Tribunal can see clearly what we are talking about.
because there were a number of institutions which the Fuehrer had created as a counterplay against other ministers and probably deliberately firstly; and secondly, it was due to superior authority, departments, which was to achieve a certain amount of unity in certain spheres which should be the only ones to have power. In the last category, I want to quote the most typical example, which is of course the Four Year Plan. In this connection, the Fuehrer desired a unified command which was not to depend on the wishes of individual ministers and consequently, he created the Four Year Plan. In other sectors, in somewhere or other, the minister was supplied, with, shall we say, a counterpart; for instance, the Minister for Labor had the appointment of the Commissar Dr. Ley put against him, who deprived him of certain jurisdiction.
workers was concerned. In the economic sphere there was the Minister of her Production.
In the Ministry of Interior or the actual authority was
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal thinks that once the general with by individual ministers.
That explains the general system and when it come; to the individual defendants they can explain how it applied to
DR. DIX: Ishall certainly take that into consideration and therefore lost certain spheres of jurisdiction.
We are also concerned with the fact
THE WITNESS: The Reichsleiter Bormann was the successor to Reichsmini BY DR. DIX:represented the wishes and concepts of the Party.
By being appointed to the position of Secretory to the Fuehrer and by a decision stating that in the sphere of the state a considerable number of things would have to go through Bormann's hands, it was thus achieved that he was included to a considerable degree into the machinery of the state, something which I had to experience personally a great deal since I, who had originally at least had an opportunity to talk to the Fuehrer alone, could no longer achieve that and could only got to the Fuehrer through Bormann.
Since most of my reports were given in Bormann's presence everything that could previously be dispatched to other departments had now, even matters of state, to go through the Secretary of the Fuehrer, that is to say Bormann.
Q This meant, of course, Bormann's influence in various spheres and on reports.
A Yes, he had that influence. All those matters from various departments which did not reach the Fuehrer directly through me and which called for his immediate decision now had to be made in writing and had to go through Bormann. I would then receive a message from Bormann saying this or that is the Fuehrer's decision. In other words, the possibility of a personal report which would enable me to talk on behalf of the minister for whom I was reporting ceased. After all, they were not natters which concerned me directly; they were complaints or protests or differences of opinion which I could no longer take to the Fuehrer personally. the Gauleiters too, who also reigned or governed? Chancellory, that was the proscribed channel. Since G auleiters, as a rule, however, were simultaneously in one person town governors or supreme presidents, these positions were, of course, somewhat mixed up and a number of matters instead of going through the prescribed channels went through the minister concerned and through me, coming directly from the Gauleiter and going directly to the Reichsleiter Bormann. There are, in fact, cases where this channel had been chosen deliberatly.