THE PRESIDENT: Personally, I prefer to understand the argument when I hear it.
DR. BABEL: May I continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
DR. BABEL: I repeat, a technical unit, the Technische Nothilfe; the Freiwillige and Pflicht Feuerwehr, which is the fire fighting units, police and gendarmerie, the air warden police, security and auxiliary service, and the Stadt and Landwacht. institutions; the hospital of the police, the police officers' school, the technical police school, the police sports and riding schools, police and gendarmerie schools, the fire fighting schools, the automobile and traffic schools, air warden teaching staff, laboratory and teaching institutions. the troop police units, comprised about 570,000 men. If we follow the Prosecution, then all these groups mentioned, institutions and organizations belong to the SS.
Eleventh: All the units of the Security Police which did not belong to the Gestapo and the SD and which, as such, were indicted; that is, officers and employees of the criminal police.
Twelfth: The Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle.
Thirteen: The offices of the Reichskommissariat for the Strengthening of Germanism.
Fourteen: National Political Schools.
Fifteen: Lehensborn, E. V.
Sixteen: The SS Female Helpers. the administration and jurisdiction of the SS. the SS under the indictment against the SS are several millions; that the final verdict will also affect the members of their families indirectly so that further millions will be affected personally, morally and economically. Since, besides the SS, the large organizations of the SA and the Leadership Corps are under indictment, a verdict against these organizations would mean a discrimination against a considerable part of the German nation.
According to Law No. 10 of the Control Council, every member may be, merely for being a member of an organization which has been considered criminal, punished with all punishments, including death. That Law No. 10 answers the question which has been put to discussion as to which objections could be made in this collective procedure and which objections could be made later in the individual. This has been decided by the mentioned law -- that the objections of defendants, for instance, who had no knowledge of the criminal nature of the organization could not be accepted. It is, therefore, necessary that the extent of the procedure in this trial should be stretched as far as possible. clusions which the Prosecution is drawing now, retroactively, to counteract these conclusions. The Tribunal has already, on the occasion of the submission of material against individual defendants, ruled to accept evidence if there is only the slightest possibility of its relevancy. Considering the importance of the decision of this Court for millions of people affected and their families, the admission of evidence to the furthest extent in order to facilitate a just verdict, in order to clarify the facts and in order to state to what extent members of the SS were connected with any criminal acts according to Article 6 of the Charter, that would be absolutely necessary. of the actions which the Prosecution has mentioned, that the members knew about these things, it would be necessary to admit matters of proof in a large number concerning the question if and to what extent the members of theSS knew about its actions, and these facts will prove that the members of the SS, as well as the majority of the German people, did not know anything about these facts because they were kept highly secret. of proof would mean that the Court would come to a decision on many questions already now without the presentation of evidence by the Defense.
The law has not defined the fact of criminal organizations. That can not be helped by the fact that proof will only be admitted from one side, for thereby the trial would exclude a large amount of counterproof.
the procedure should take into consideration all elements which had to do with the decision of the question whether the SS is a criminal organization. be conducted expeditiously, expedition would not be possible. Therefore, I move that the procedure against the SS and the SD be separated from the trial against the individual defendants. As far as I know, that has not been decided yet. I repeat this motion, and it is this: that the accusation against the organizations of the SS and the SD, for which I have been selected as counsel--and probably the other organizations under indictment--within this trial is not possible for factual and legal reasons.
First, from the legal point of view, I only say the following: given. On this I want to say that a few days age I saw in a newspaper article that the objection of incompetence has already been made on 20 November 1945 and has been rejected by the Court. I asked for a copy of the transcript of this date and also for the following days, and I have not received it as of this date. Therefore, I could neither check on the motion nor the reasons given, nor the decision of the Tribunal.
B. A penal procedure against an organization is not admissible, especially against an organization which has been dissolved.
C. To select a defendant's counsel for an organisation which does not exist is not admissible and not possible. Second, I am forced to make more detailed statements in order to give reasons for my motion. Tribunal requested my nomination as the defendant's counsel for the Leadership Corps. I declared my agreement in writing. of the organizations of the SS and SD. On the 21st of November 1945 I was told again that I was selected as defense counsel for the SS and SD, and that I would receive the written declaration to that effect soon. On the 23rd of November 1945 I received that letter. It was written on the 22nd in the English language, and a few days later I received, as requested, a German translation. This is the text of the letter and the translation which I have received:
"According to the decision of the International Military Tribunal, you are hereby requested in the case against Goering and accomplices to take the defense of the members of the SS, including the Sicherheits Dienst, known as SD. Motions filed with the General Secretary are to be made according to the decree of the International Military Tribunal." members of the SS and from relatives to the General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal. When I asked about my position and the position of these people who had made these motions, I was told that these applications were to be presented to the Tribunal in an adequate form. during which a number of questions and suggestions about the duties and privileges of the members of the organizations were made, and also about the defense counsel who had been provided for them. have examined applications by members of the SS and SD. At that time about twenty-five applications which I received daily, upon request, I had to return on the evening of the same day, and then I couldn't receive any more, although I asked several times each day to get them. I was told every time that the Tribunal needs them and that they had not been returned.
When I received that folder again on the 11th of December 1945 there were many more applications in there. the Tribunal decided that a member of the organizations in the Indictment who had made application to be heard concerning the criminal character of the organization was not to be considered as a defendant but was to have only the individual status of a witness, although he has the right to present evidence; furthermore, that defense counsel who are defending one of the groups of organizations may, for this group or organization, exercise the rights which, according to the Charter, are reserved for the defense of individual defendants. also counsel for the organizations were present, the Tribunal issued the decree of 17 December 1945, of which I received a German translation only a few days later. In this decree the Court ruled that the respective defense counsel, that is, of the organizations, should only represent the groups and organizations and not individual applicants. From this day on only the extent of my duties was definitely limited and defined.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you hear what I say? The Tribunal would like to know what your application now is. The object of this session is to have an argument from counsel for the prosecution and counsel for the defense in order that the legal questions with reference to these organizations should be clear, and what your personal experience during November and December of 1945 has to do with it the Tribunal is unable to see.
DR. BABEL: Mr. President, before I started the reading of this motion I pointed out that already on the 15th of January I made a motion to separate the procedure against the organizations, and there was no decision made until now. I have tried to repeat the reasons for this motion which I then made. If the Court does not think it necessary, I do not have to do it.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see any relevance in what you have been reading to us now either to the question of whether there should be a separate trial or to any other questions with reference to the criminal organizations.
DR. BABEL: Mr. President, under the circumstances I will omit the further statement, which is known to the Court by my written application, and. I will come to the end of what I still want to say as such.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Babel, the Court will, of course, consider the suggestion which has been made, I think, by other counsel for the organization as will as the suggestion which I understand you are now making, that it is necessary to have a separate trial. The Court will consider that. But what you have been saying to us does not appear to me to have any relevance to that.
DR. BASEL: Mr. President, with my former motion I wanted only to point out the difficulties I had, since I was all alone and had no assistance-difficulties I had until I was at all in a position to dedicate myself to my real task; and also for that reason at that time, in my opinion, my motion for separating the trial was well founded.
What I said then I repeat now, at least most of it. What I have read so far and what I still have written in my motion would have more meaning to it, but I will not read it now, since the question of the separation of the procedures has already been brought up by other defense counsel. Therefore, I can also express my agreement with the motions my colleagues have made. 1946 I made a motion to be relieved of the defense of the SD. I think I will have to point out I have two points to this, because I am not speaking of the SA today, because I have still been waiting for a decision on that motion. After I receive a transcript of the 18th of February I will be able to say acme more about the question of the membership of individuals in the SS as to limitations in time, and, as far as the organization is concerned, the question of voluntary membership and other reasons, and the jurisdiction of the SS Corps. not possible for me until today to make detailed statements about all these questions. I also want to say that the suggestions which have been made by the Prosecution and several of the defense counsel do not seem acceptabl to me, because they mean a definite limitation of the defense, and that does not seem to be possible.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
1 *ar-A-JH-1
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has decided to alter the order of procedure and they will therefore not sit in open session tomorrow but sit in closed session tomorrow, Saturday, and sit on Monday in order to hear the applications for witnesses and documents by the next four defendants in open session; and also, if necessary, on Monday to hear the other next defendants in order, their applications for witnesses and documents. is there not?
DR. LATERNSER (counsel for General Staff and OKW): The main subject of the discussion that has taken place today and yesterday, on the wishes of the Court, is the question as to what is relevant evidence in the case against the accused organizations. As a preliminary question to that, particularly the concept of the criminal organization must be clarified. hold down defense arguments -- that should be reserved for the later conclusive briefs -- rather the subject of discussion is limited for the defense to the above-mentioned question of the relevance of evidence, and also to certain basic questions which must be touched upon for any valuation of the relevance of evidence in this case. Kubuschok spoke first as defense counsel for the Reich Government. In his address he treated the general question associated with the decision of the Court on the 15th of December 1945. In order to avoid unnecessary repetition I should like in my statement to state my attitude, and like to refer in every respect to my colleague Kubuschok. I associate that with my request that the Tribunal directed particular attention to the content of the address delivered yesterday by Dr. Kubuschok.
To the question of the definition of the concept "criminal organization", I should like to make a few short remarks and additions.
It is obviously a well-considered provision in the Charter that the Tribunal can declare the indicted organizations all criminal: that in other words, it is not obliged to do so but can exercise its free and obligatory discretion. organizations are criminal would lead to impossible, untenable, and unjust conclusions or consequences, then the rejection of the prosecution's application would be simply a matter of course. legal difficulties a declaration that the organizations are criminal would accomplish for the members of those organizations, and that also the vast majority of the innocent members would be affected by that decision. So far as these consequences concern the members, it can not be asserted vigorously enough that all the members of the organization will be affected immediately by a declaration that the organizations are criminal. Insofar as the verdict of the Court is concerned it would be irrefutably established that they are accused of a crime, namely a crime of having belonged to an organization that has been declared criminal; That this membership is a crime is to be seen in all clarity in Articles X and XI of the Charter. In Article X it is stated that the authorized courts of the individual occupation zones have the right to put on trial all members of organizations that have been declared criminal. It is further specified that in this trial the criminal character of the organization can no longer be disputed. if, in other words, the members can be accused because of membership in the organization, and if every indictment before a court can, of course, have only a crime as its object, then it is already established that membership in the organization is a crime. Furthermore, in Article XI of the Charter membership in an organization declared criminal is specifically named as a crime. That is to be seen in the words of the Article itself, which reads:
"Because of another crime than the membership in a criminal group or organization."
20th of December 1945, membership in an organization declared criminal is specifically called a crime. From this it can be seen that the declaration of the criminal character of the organization by the Tribunal will have the immediate effect, immediate consequences, for all members that they through their membership in the organization have committed a crime. That must necessarily lead to untenable consequences. in the subsequent trials in the individual military courts. If the mere membership in the organization is defined as a crime, they can object when they are accused only that they were not members of the organization. trials object that they became members through coercion or through deception, the admissibility of this objection seems to be highly questionable. or economic disadvantage could not serve as ground for such a coercion. What coercion then could be considered a valid excuse? According to German law only physical coercion could come into consideration here, and that only for the period of the thing. Here too the fear of personal or economic disadvantage could be no exoneration for the persons remaining in the organization. Thus a member of an organization declared criminal has in his subsequent trial only the possibility of presenting certain grounds of exoneration which might influence the extent of his punishment. The question is now whether according to the principles of justice these necessary consequences are tolerable. So far as it is a question of innocent members, this question can be answered only with a decided negation.
innocent members of the organization probably can not be found at all because it is simply not comprehensible to a healthy human understanding that anyone would have entered the indicated organization without having known from the very beginning or at least from soon after the beginning what goals and methods the organizations were pursuing. This point of view might appear comprehensible to the observer regarding it in retrospect, after the crimes of which the organizations are accused have been assembled and exposed. That the attitude at that time of the members regarding the goals and tasks was or could have been entirely different can be doubted by anyone. If we accepted Justice Jackson's interpretation of this, then the provision of Article IX of the Charter, providing for the participation of the members of the organizations in their criminal character, would have no meaning. direction, and it would further be unnecessary to dismiss the criminal charact As the Tribunal has itself suggested, if we should accept Justice Jackson's statement that according to healthy, human understanding all the members took part in the crimes recognizing them as such, then the provisions regarding the common conspiracy and common plan would suffice altogether as to declare all of these members on those grounds alone without exception guilty. Then the structure of the declaration of criminality and the formulation or the structu of its consequences would in no way be necessary that the declaration of the criminality of the organization is not necessary but could be assentuous, could be seen from the following consideration. of the organization, and which would have precipitated a whole flock of trials which could not be dealt with in a generation. What will be done then is to seek out and find only those who are really guilty, and against them trials will be undertaken. For that reason it is not in any way requisite to create such a great circle of members through the declaration of criminality and from it to accuse the guilty. This selection then may take place without the creation of this circle. But in an organization of many members there were obviously a number of innocent members is a fact that can not be disputed.
Not only the Charter contains this thought, but also the prosecution has taken it into consideration in that it wishes to exempt from any organization the category with less power; and to do so is the obvious conviction that they had nothing to do with the crime, otherwise they would have been members or partici pants in the criminal conspiracy. Besides this category, however, a number of other members come into question here of whom one can not speak of as guilty in the legal sense of the term; especially those people who did not concern themselves at all with the aims of the organization. All of these people would not only be dishonored by a declaration of criminality of the organization but sinply because of their membership would be punishable if they were indicted or called to trial. That they should be threatened or destroyed simply because they belonged to the organization and should be hurt in their economic life or defamed because of this declaration of criminality I shall mention only in passing. But again it must be asked whether all these consequences, according to the principle of all penal systems, according to which the innocent are to be punished, and according to the principle of material justic* whether the Tribunal could accept the responsibility for such a judgment. That must be denied all the more forcibly when if the verdict of the Court affects the members in such a way that they receive no legal hearing. drawn from the vast majority of the members for technical reasons. From that the unique situation arises that the Tribunal would pass verdict on all those members without knowing whether or not numerous innocent people would thereby be affected. promulgated is nothing new, but can be found in the penal codes of all other states and particularly in the penal code of Germany, then this attitude can not at all be accepted. The German, laws and legal precedents that we cited ar of an entirely different character from the structure of the Charter. Germany like almost all other states, knows of no such thing as punishment of organizations, but simply exclusively of the punishment of individual persons. No German judgment was ever passed through which an organization as such was was punished or was declared criminal.
It is altogether possible, to be sure, that in the trials against members of criminal organizations the criminal character of the organization was stated as such in the reasons given for the judgment, but this statement had the effect upon the punished members and not toward others who were neither accused nor condemned. precisely corroborate the attitude taken by the defense, because they threatened exclusively the participation in an illegal union with penalty but not the union itself.
Also, in those that were cited by the French there was a question whether only participation and membership in the organizations in question or whether those organizations having punishable purposes and means could be punished. A possibility of declaring the organization itself criminal is not to be found in those laws cither. The French Prosecutor cited, first of all, Articles 265 and 266 of the Code Penale. The first provision forbids the construction of organizations with punishable purposes. Second, only the participants of such an organization were punishable. Also, the French law on the fighting units and civil organizations of the 10th of January 1936, have forced these punishments only for the participants. The same is true of the other cited law of the 28th, 1944, which only provides for individual responsibility. None of the above-mentioned laws allow the punishment of organizations. defense. If, exceptionally, in England and in America organizations as such can be punished, then that can only be done because of certain groups of criminals and always in such a way that either the dissolution of the organization or fines are ordered. Naturally, it is also in this trial the presupposition of the Prosecution and of the judgment that the organization as such is represented in front of the Court and can defend itself. However, in the previously mentioned procedure, the organizations as such are brought in front of the Court, although they and their organism do not exist any longer. It has never been the case in any country that organizations are declared to be guilty or criminal and that, on the basis of this declaration of the Court, all members of the organizations can be accused and punished because of their membership. It is this which is completely new and unique in contrast to previous law in any land of the world. such a law for their own population. It is thereby proved that the declaration of criminality that the Prosecution demands would automatically lead to the above listed syllogism and entirely untenable consequences. Then it can be seen that the application of the Prosecution must be rejected in the name of justice. Thereby, also, the Charter that in no way obliges the Court to make such a statement, would not be offended; an injustice would then be avoided, that could only damage the integrity of the decision of the Tribunal in present and future times.
the above mentioned reason, principally must reject the declaration that an organization is criminal or, secondly, in the other case, the concept of the criminal organizations must be so understood that the innocent members are protected from the serious consequences. colleague Kubuschok. Accordingly, also, the themes of evidence such as he presented yesterday must also be allowed if they are not irrelevant for the reason that for legal reasons the application of the Prosecution shall not be granted. For the group that I represent of the General Staff of the OKW, the demand is necessary that following all proof, themes should be permitted; (1) In the case of the group called here "The General Staff of the OKW", neither is there any such group nor is there any such organization. I shall justify that statement as follows:
(a) Justice Jackson is of the opinion that a "group" is a larger concept than the concept "organization". That doesnot have to be defined but can simply be understood by common sense. To this must be added those who occupied the highest and the higher command posts. There were the higher officers of the military hierarchy as they are in every army in the world. Any recognizable relationship between the members of this group did not exist. These relationships cannot be assumed through the official contact they had with each other, nor than the actually existing chain of command. indictment has been admitted completely arbitrary, only on the basis of the fact that those people in the period of eight years occupied official positions, there is no union that could justify the assumption that this was a unified group. But it is absolutely essential to the concept of the group, that, along with the purely official connection, there should be also a unifying element.
(b) Besides the Chiefs of the General Staff, the army, and the air force, none of the individual people in the group belonged to the General Staff.
The General Staff of the Army and the Air Force--the Navy had no General Staff--were subordinate to the Chief of the General Staff, consisted of the General Staff officers who acted, as assistants to the higher military leaders.
Consequently, the indictment has given to this imaginary group a false and misleading designation or name.
Second theme: I here apply arguments delivered by Kubuschok to the theme of the General Staff and the OKW. The occupants of the offices in the group are not as voluntary members of the group nor did they remain in the group voluntarily. The admissibility of this theme of evidence is necessary for the following reasons:
(a) Justice Jackson stated yesterday that the entrance or the membership to a group must be voluntary. This present condition does not apply to the group which I represent. The indicted higher military leaders for the greatest part had precedence in the Kaiser's Army. All had served long before 1933 in the Reichswehr of the Weimar Republic. They did not join any group but were officers of the Wehrmacht and achieved a position that they were not at liberty to choose, only on the grounds of their military achievement. They were not at liberty, without offending against the rules of military obedience, to withdraw from these positions that they occupied. related in the summing up of the arguments to the arguments and accusation against the group of the General Staff and the OKW* These points could be brought about in this way: from the contents of which conclusions could be drawn regarding the typical attitude of a certain number of those involved. interrogated about the themes of relevant evidence that has here been discussed and do so before the Tribunal. admitted, as far as it is necessary. to the complete extent, as Justice Jackson, during the case of the Prosecution suggested, on the 14th of December 1945, that for today a binding decision regarding the relevancy cannot yet be reached. Whether this evidence is necessary at all and whether and to what extent they are relevant depends on the following:
(1) Whether the Court would on the basis of the point of view brought up by the defense reject the application that these organizations be declared criminal; and (2), as in the other cases, the concept of the criminal groups and organizations is determined.
These two points cannot at present be definitely be decided. Since there is still a great deal to be said about the significance and, in part, completely new problems as well as over the impressive and deeply sought out exposition of Justice Jackson, one of my colleagues is now busy working all these problems and questions into a conclusive document which will be ready in two or three weeks, I ask that I and my colleague be allowed to take a definite position at that time. One last point: The Court would have to decide about the treatment of the last word for the organization.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would be glad to hear you in reply.
JUSTICE JACKSON: I think there is not much that I care to say in reply, but there are one or two points which I would like to cover. It has been suggested that there be a separation of the trial of the issues of the organizations from the trial now pending. I think that is impossible under the Charter. I think the trial must proceed as a unit. Of course, it is possible to take up at separate times different parts of the trial, but the jurisdiction conferred by Article 9 for the trial of organizations is limited. It is at the trial of any individual member, of any group, etc., that this decision must be reached and it must be in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted. So I think that any separation in anything more than a mere separate days or separate weeks of our time is impossible. by several of the representatives of the organizations that there would be some great injustice in dishonoring the members of these organizations or branding the members of these organizations with the declaration of criminality. I should have thought that if they were not already dishonored by the evidence that has been produced here, dishonor would be difficult to achieve by mere words of the declaration.
It isn't we who are dishonoring the members of these organizations. It is the evidence in this case originating largely with these defendants that may well bring dishonor to the members of these organizations. But the very purpose of this organizational investigation is to determine that part of German society which did actively participate in the promulgation of these offenses and that those elements may be condemned and, of course, if it carries some discredit with it, I think we must say that the discredit was not originated by any of our countries; the dishonor originated mainly in this dock together with those whom the fortunes of war have removed from cur reach. at least, we do not agree as to what should be meant by treating these organizations as generally voluntary. The test which has been advanced by the counsel for the organizations would, it seems to me, completely nullify any practicable procedure. Now, let us contrast the Wehrmacht and the SS to get at which I mean regarding an organization as generally voluntary. The Wehrmacht was generally a conscript organization, but it may have had a good, many volunteers in it. I do not think we would, be justified because there were volunteers in calling the Wehrmacht a voluntaryorganization. The SS, on the other hand, was generally a voluntary organization but it did have some conscripts, and I do not think it would be any more just to carry the SS into the class of conscript organizations because of a few members than it would to classify the Wehrmacht as voluntary because of a few members. In other words, in neither case would we be justified in allowing what we might say the "tail to wag the dog". It is a question of the general character of the overall organization that decides what these organizations are. was not intended to apply to any groups, sections, or individuals who were conscripts, that is one thing. I have no quarrel with that. From the very beginning I have insisted that, of course, we were not trying to reach conscripts. But, if you sit here week after week determining who is a conscript and just where, that principle leads, that I think would be quite apart from which we ought to do here.
Now, a great deal of argument is addressed to the fact that proof is lacking or that there should be stronger proof; that these organizations' real criminality was known to the members, and the inference seems to be that we must prove that every member, or, at least, that we cannot hold members who did not knew this criminal program on the part of these organizations.
I think this gets into a question, perhaps, of the sufficienc of proof rather than one of principle, but it seems to me again that we have the common sense division. If some one organized a literary society for the study of German literature and accumulated some funds and had a home, a house, and some of the defendants became its officers and secretly diverted its funds to criminal purposes, while all the time to the public it was presenting only the appearance of being a literary society, it might very well be that a member should not be held unless we proved actual knowledge. Or, if a labor union, ostensibly, for the purpose of improving the welfare for its members, has its funds or properties or the prestige of its name diverted by these who happened to gain control of it to criminal purposes, then you have a situation where the members might not be chargable with knowledge. But when I speak of knowledge sufficient to charge members as I did, I do not mean the state of mind of each individual member. That woul* be an absurd test in any court of law. In the first place, it is never a satisfactory thing to explore a state of mind of an individual and, in the second place, it is impossible to explore the state of mind of an alien individual. So we might as well drop this thing from consideration, if that were to be the test.
But let us look at this program overall. How did these few men who were the heads of the Nazi regime kill five million Jews, as they boast they did?
Now, they didn't do it with their hands, and it took disciplined, organized, systematic, human manpower to do it. That manpower wasn't casually assembled. It was organized, directed and used.
Now, how can the killing of five million Jews in Europe be a secret? Weren't the concentration camps known in every one of our countries? Wasn't it a byword in every land in the world -- the German concentration camps -and yet we have to hear that the German people themselves had no knowledge about it. cally and in every other way, and yet we are told this was a secret in Germany. The name of the Gestapo was known throughout the world, and there isn't a man among counsel who wouldn't have turned white if in the night at his door someone rapped and said he was representing the Gestapo. The name of that organization was known--unless we are to assume that it was singularly secret in Germany but known to the rest of the world. know who joined these organizations. There was no declared and ostensible purpose of the SA, the SS, and several of those organizations, except to carry into effect the Nazi program. They would make themselves masters of the streets.
The story is all in the evidence, and I won't go on to repeat it. The program was an open, notorious program, and these were the strong-arm organizations. So it seems to me that we get down to the situation where, as Chief Justice Taft once said to the Supreme Court of the united States on a somewhat similar question: "We as judges are not obliged to close our eyes to things that all other men can see." And this was notorious and open. to listen to the arguments made here again and again that there is some plan here to punish with death penalties or extremely severe penalties people who innocently got caught in this web of organization. If there were the slightest purpose to go through Germany with death we wouldn't have bothered to set up this Tribunal and stand here openly before the world with our evi-dence.