have the ground and the opportunity of speaking on the general position", then I don't see how the Tribunal could exclude it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): The matter is very practical because we have to advise counsel for the defendants what material they can introduce, and do that very soon.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Now let me ask you a few other questions. criminal organization as of January 30, 1933, when, if I remember correctly, there were only three members of the Nazi Party who were in the Cabinet: Goering, Hitler, and Frick. Do you think that if three out of a very much larger number, some twenty odd, could be said to be part of a criminal organization, that that makes the entire Cabinet criminal?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, on the facts. It must be remembered that Hitler had refused to take office as Vice Chancellor during the months before that, before the date that you put to me. He had refused on the ground that as Vice Chancellor he would not be in a position to carry out his Party program. On that basis the defendant von Papen and Hitler negotiated, and Hitler came into power on the 30th of January. Cabinet knew that they were forming part of a cabinet in which Hitler was going to work out his program, as has been declared on so many occasions. That is the first point. Papen did join in introducing the Nazi conspirators into the Government with that knowledge and with the purpose of letting them have their way in Germany.
The same must go,--it hasn't been investigated to the same extent, because they are not defendants, but the industrialists and the Party were acting with them in the Reich Cabinet. They must be taken to have known, just as Gustav Krupp knew and supported, just as Kurt von Schroeder knew and supported the aims of the Nazis whom they introduced and cooperated with in the government. the defendant Goering, Frick, and Dr. Goebbels, whom I think became Propaganda Minister either at the same time or very shortly afterwards--show that these people, they have shown it by their acts, were not persons to take second place.
They introduced at once the Fuehrerprinzip into operation in the States, and those otherpeople in the Cabinet at that time accepted the Fuehrerprinzip and united in placing Hitler and the Defendant Goering, and the other conspirators, in the position of power and authority which enabled them to carry out their monstrous crimes that are charged against them. became Plenipotentiary for War Economy and began the preparation for the economic side of the creation of Germany's war potential. deliberately -- and the same applies to the defendant von Nourath. It is the whole case of the prosecution, as to the case against von Neurath, that he sold his respectability and reputation to the Nazis in order to help them buy with that reputation and respectability, a position of power in Germany, with the conservative circles in Germany, and with the diplomatic circles in Europe with whom he came in touch. at that time was so totally effected with the criminality which we suggest in this case.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): In relation to the political leaders, let me ask you this, Sir David. of political leaders of lower grades to show that as a group they were informed of plans to wage aggressive war or to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity? In other words, I take it there is some obligation to show that information. Does that rest simply on the fact that these crimes were being perpetrated, or is there any evidence of that information?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is evidence, and if I might just indicate the kind of evidence there is -- On the first stage of the acquisition of totalitarian control in Germany, which is the first stage in the conspiracy, apart from the Party program there are the extracts from the Hoheitstraeger Magazine; you remember, Hoheitstraeger is all the political leaders.
On the anti-semitic part of that, there are documents, which are United States Exhibit 240, and United States Exhibit 332, which are shown in the transcript at pages 1622 and 1649.
On the question of war crimes against allied airmen, you will remember that a document was circulated to Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, with instructions that Ortsgruppenleiter were to be informed verbally with regard to the lynching of allied airmen. That document is PS-057, shown in the transcript at page 1627. And that the hint was taken by at least one Gauleiter is shown by Document L-154, United States Exhibit 325, at page 1628. orally to Gauleiters, that the police are not to interfere in the clashes between Germans and aviators.
That is R.-110, United States Exhibit 333, shown at pace 1624. There is a speech by Goebbels inciting the people to murder allied airmen, which is shown at page 1625. Similarly, with regard to foreign labor, there is a telegram from Rosenberg to Gauleiters asking them not to interfere with the confiscation of certain companies and banks.
There is Jodl's lecture to Reichsleiters and Gauleiters at a later stage. There is an undated letter from Bormann to all Reichsleiters and Gauleiters, informing them that the OKW had instructed guards to enforce obedience of prisoners of war refusing to obey orders, if necessary with weapons.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Sir David, if I may interrupt you for a moment. I was familiar with the evidence with respect to the Gauleiters and Reichsleiters. My question, you will remember, was addressed to the lower levels, the Blockleiters.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I think one can summarize it that even as far as lower levels are concerned you have the four points: You have Mein Kampf, the Party program, Der Hoheitstraeger, and the fact that conferences were constantly held throughout the organization. of allied airmen, and I think I mentioned the letter from Bormann to the Reichsleiters, Gauleiters, and Kreisleiters about assisting in increasing the output of prisoners of war. Also, there is an instruction from Bormann down to Kreisleiter, about the burial of Russian prisoners of war. There is a decree for insuring the output of foreign workers that goes down towards Gruppenleiter.
All these matters are in evidence, and we submit that there is particul* evidence on practically every point. And on the general point, as I said, you have these publications, coupled with the evidence that conferences were held, apart from the general Fuehrerprinzip which would, and did, make the Zellenleiter and the Blockleiter the final weapon for securing that the people acted in accordance with the leader's wishes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Let me ask you just two questions, and th I will finish with regard to the SA.
Would you say that a member of the SA who had joined, let us say, in 1921, and resigned the next year was guilty of conspiring to wage aggressive war and was guilty of war crimes?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, in this sense. If I may recall, I answered a question that you were good enough to put to me a day or two ago as to when the conspiracy started. A man who took an active and voluntary part as a member of the SA in 1921, certainly, in supporting the Nazi Party, was supporting the published program of the Party whichhad the aims which you have just put to me. getting rid of the dicta of Versailles, the Anschluss, getting the Germans back to the Reich, which, of course, is only a polite way of saying destroying Austria and Czechoslovakia. to you the other day, that it was an essential tenet of the Nazi Party that they should disregard the life and safety of any other people who stood in the way of the securing of their ambitions. A person who deliberately joins an organization with that aim, and with that aim getting more and more clearly related to practical problems as week succeeded week, was taking part in a first essential step of involving mankind in the miseries that we have seen; because it is that tenet, applied to every facet of human life and human suffering, which has caused the crimes which this Tribunal is investigating.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Well, I can see how you might say that with respect to conspiracy in war crimes, but I want to be perfectly clear also that you say, on the substantive crime of committing war crimes, that a man joining the SA in 1921 and leaving in 1922 would have committed those war crimes in the beginning of 1939.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you put to me the substantive war crime, I respectfully remind you that under Article 6 the last words are: "Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any person in the execution of such a plan."
them responsible for the crimes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): Now only one other question.
What do you contend was the function of the SA after the Roehm purge?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: The function was still to support all Nazi manifestations in the life of Germany. You remember that Dr. Loeffler was careful to accept, very frankly and fairly, the 10th of November, 1938. And I gave another example of how they were informed in the Government General We have also given examples which I think you will find in my appendix of the participation--a limited participation but still a participation--in the war crimes and crimes against humanity. were three million people who had come into the organization, which had providwd the force to bring the Nazis into power; and it had the forceful size of bringing the Nazis into power in those days. They were then joined by two and a half million people, which brought their numbers up, at that time, very high. They wont down again later on, but they were high in 1939, and they provided a great immoral force behind the Nazi Party.
They provided strong support, and were ready on all occasions; whenever a demonstration had to be staged, the SA were there to give their support. They were an essential instrument for maintaining the Nazi control over the German Reich.
THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle): I take it, then, that the function, in your opinion, did not change in substance after the purge? Would you say that?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The aim didn't change. It didn't need to do half as much, because, of course, by the end of 1933 all the other political parties were broken. Part of the SA's original task, as I think Dr. Loeffler put it, had been to safeguard the defendant Goering when he was making a speech -- I should have put it that it was to prevent the other people having a free run when they made speeches -- and dealing with the clashes between the various groups. That was unnecessary, because all political opposition had been destroyed. Therefore they became rather -- I forget the exact term, but sort of cheer-leaders or a collection of people who would always be ready to give vociferous support. with regulated cheers. It became more supporting, rather than dealing with opposition, but essentially the aim was the same, to keep the grip.
THE PRESIDENT: It is now nearly quarter past five. Do you think that this discussion can be closed this evening before six o'clock?
DR. DIX (Counsel for defendant Schacht): Mr. President, I believe that in five minutes I can be through with my question.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Do any of the other prosecutors wish to add anything?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I would like to make a few short remarks, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think you will be, General Rudenko?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I think about ten minutes; no more.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the French prosecutor wish to add anything?
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: I have nothing to add.
THE PRESIDENT:ADr. Dix, what I really want to know is whether there is any prospect of our finishing this discussion tonight.
General Rudenko wishes to speak for about ten minutes, and if the defendants' counsel -of course, you will understand that a discussion of this sort, an argument of this sort, can't go on forever; and in the ordinary course one hears counsel on one side and counsel on the other side, and then a reply; one does not go on after that. Do you know how many of the defendants' counsel want to speak?
DR. DIX: Mr. President, I know that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the best thing would be if we were to adjourn now and to sit in open session tomorrow, and then we shall probably be able to conclude this argument in about an hour. Do you agree with that, General Rudenko?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I agree.
THE PRESIDENT: Do defendant's counsel think we shall be able to conclude it in about an hour tomorrow morning.
(Several counsel nod affirmatively)
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; we will adjourn until ten o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 2 March 1946 at 1000 hours) Official transcript of the International
GENERAL RUDENKO (Counsel for the USSR): May it please your Honors: please allow me to make a few supplementary remarks concerning the criminal organizations, a problem with which the Tribunal has occupied itself during the past day. of this problem. state that the criminality of the organizations would automatically entail the bringing to trial, and, all the more, the condemnation of all the members of these organizations. On the contrary, the Charter contains a definite indication of a contrary character. trial, that the. national courts have the right, but are not Obliged, to bring to trial members of the organizations which are considered criminal. Consequently, the question of the problem of the trial and of the punishment of different members, single members, of criminal organizations depends exclusively on the national courts. Charter of the Tribunal is limited only in one regard: the national courts cannot deny the criminal character of the organization when this criminal character has been admitted by the Tribunal. There are no further limitation on the legal sovereignty of the contracting parties. of the criminality of an organization would not automatically entail the mass condemnation of all the members of this organization. That is simply fantastic. And I would like to add that this remark is based, not on a legal foundation, but on something quite different.
A legal problem is also based on a misunderstanding. One of the Counsel for the Defense, Dr. Servatius, was speaking of the legislative authority of the Tribunal.
The authority of the International Military Tribunal, organized by four states to defend the interests of all freedom-loving peoples, is enormous, but this Tribunal, as a legal organism, does not possess any legislative authority and cannot possess this legislative authority. Tribunal is only utilizing the right which has been entrusted to it by the Charter -- to solve independently the question of the criminality of the organizations. acquires the importance of a law, but that is the quality of every verdict. of the Charter regarding the criminal organizations are legal innovations. In a certain sense this is true. The innovation consists, first of all, in the fact of the creation of this International Military Tribunal. Another innovation is the Charter and all its articles. But if the Defense Counsel considers it possible to deplore this fact, I would think that it would be quite opportune to remind them of the causes of these legal innovations. their associates are unprecedented in the history of mankind. These crimes provoked the necessity to discover new legal measures, in order to defend the world liberty and the lives of peoples against future crimes. Moreover, the powers which created the Tribunal, and all peace-loving peoples, remain true to the ideals of law and of the principles of justice. Therefore, the responsibility for participation in criminal organizations will only be established when personal guilt has been established. National courts will decide the concrete problems of individual responsibility problem. It was stated here that several organizations of the SS did not follow criminal objectives. It is difficult to find neutral organizations in this mechanism. Thus, the Defense Counsel for the SS, Dr. Babel, mentioned scientific dog trainers created by the SS. One must consider that this was an organization with public utility. It appears that the scientific dog trainers taught the dogs to attack people and to tear to pieces the victims.
Do you think we can siolate these dog trainers? soap out of human fat. Maybe we should also isolate these soap producers.
Two practical proposals were made by the Defense Counsel: to isolate the case of the criminal organizations and to seek evidence in the various camps. However, practically, these proposals will create insoluble difficulties for the Tribunal. entrusts the Tribunal with the task of solving the problem of the criminal organizations, together with the problem of the participation of the individual members of these organizations. Therefore, an appeal to the Tribunal to isolate the case of the criminal organizations would be an infraction of the articles of the Charter. of the criminal organizations, together with the case of the individual members of these organizations. It shows that the presence in the dock of one members of this organization suffices to bring to trial this organization. As we know, all the organizations which the Prosecution proposes to call criminal are represented in the dock. There is evidence in this case which amply suffices in order to admit the criminal character of these organizations. Therefore, the calling of special witnesses, capable of giving evidence on these organizations, can be only a supplementary source of evidence.
I am drawing these matters to a close, your Honors, and I cannot forget the further argument of the Defense. It was stated here that, as a result of the admission of the criminality of these organizations, millions of German members of these organizations would be brought to trial. Together with my colleagues of the Prosecution, I am not of this opinion, but I would like to add another point. hypothetical millions to create confusion at this time. However, before the representatives of the peoples who suffered from the struggle against Hitlerite aggression appear other millions, all those millions of innocent victims who were slaughtered in Treblinka, Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald, Maidanek, and at Kiev. It is our duty to spare no effort in order to crush the criminal system which was directed by the fascist organizations against mankind. we are not blinded by a desire of vengeance, and we have no intention of causing repression to fall on all the German people. However, justice will not allow us to turn away from our di rect task, in order to prevent a recurrence of fresh crimes. a rapid and just verdict.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): General Rudenko, may I ask you a few questions? General Rudenko, you remember that? Mr. Justice Jackson suggested certain tests that we should use before we found an organization criminal, whether the tasks and the purposes of the organization were open and notorious, in order to show that the members knew what they were doing. find, I presume, on that test, that its actions were open and Now, if a member of that organization found to be criminal were then tried by one of the national courts, I suppose under that finding he would not have any right to show that he did not know about it, because we would have found that the knowledge was so open and notorious that he must have known, so he could not raise as a defense that he had no knowledge of the criminal acts, could he?
GENERAL RUDENKO: That is quite right. Considering the cases of individual members of organizations, the national courts would base themselves on this test. It is evident that it is not excluded that, for instance, in an organization of the SA whichhad knowledge of the criminal objects there were perhaps single members of the organization who were cheated and who, for this obvious reason, had no knowledge of the criminal designs of this organization. That is why the national courts must consider the cases of these individual members of the organizations.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): But that would not be any defense to him, would it? He could, not say he had no knowledge, because we would have already found that the knowledge was so open and notorious that he must have known.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I consider that if the national courts take up the case of a member of an organization who would allege that he had no knowledge, the national court must consider these arguments of the defendant.
THE TRIBUNAL ( Mr. Biddle): How could they consider that if we make a rule that the activities of the organization are so notorious that he must have known? How can he then say he didn't know?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I consider, and I thus interpret the Charter, that the judgment of the Tribunal should decide the case of the criminal character of the organizations, but the question of individual responsibility and guilt of every member of this organization is a decision for which only the national courts are competent, and it is therefore difficult to foresee all the individual possibilities and eventual cases which could arise in the members of the organizations. in 1922. That is an individual case. I do not know how many similar cases would arise, but it is difficult to say now the reasons for his entering that organization or the reason for his resignation, and that is why only national courts can solve these problems.
MR. BIDDLE: Can you say now what defenses he would have before the national court except the defense that he was never a member?
Does he have any other defenses so far as we knew? Does Law No. 10 permit him any other defenses?
GENERAL RUDENKO: It would be rather difficult for me to say now what defensive arguments there might be, but I believe that certainly there will be, for instance, the argument of coercion, which is a sufficient argument to acquit a member of the organization.
MR. BIDDLE: May I ask you two more questions. be merely supplementary. That expression is not known to cur law, and I would be very interested in your telling us what you meant by supplementary evidence. I do not knew what the term means.
GENERAL RUDENKO: It may be an error of translation. Speaking of the further investigation of the criminal character of the organizations, I said that this case should be considered together with the *ase of every single member of this organization, and in this case, together with the case of the defendants in the dock. But I consider that the evidence which has been stated here is already sufficient evidence of the criminality of this organization. If the Court considers that this evidence is not adequate, then it can demand further evidence, and that is why there can be supplementary sources of evidence, especially on the case of the criminality of these organizations or the non-criminality of these organizations.
MR. BIDDLE: One other question on the SA, which I asked Sir David yesterday. or, to put it a little differently, what criminal act do you believe the SA was engaged in?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I consider that after the Roehm incident, the SA committed the same criminal acts as the other organizations of the Party. In confirmation of this, I would like to refer to the fact of the seizure of the Sudeten District. As we know, the SA played a very active part in this seizure. As to all subsequent events in Germany as regards the Jews or other territories of the occupied countries, Czechoslovakia and ether countries, the SA participated in the commission of these crimes.
MR. BIDDLE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecutor for the French Republic wish to say anything?
PROSECUTOR FOR THE FRENCH REPUBLIS: No.
DR. DIX (Counsel for the defendant Schacht): I have, as counsel for the defendant Schacht, an indirect interest in the question of discrimination against the group Reichsregierung, because Schacht was a member of the Reichsregierung. I want to point out, however, at the beginning, that I will not speak in detail, neither with legal remarks nor factual remarks. I shall do that during my last presentation. Tribunal, is the clarification and intensification of these answers which Justice Jackson and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe gave yesterday to your questions, Mr. Biddle. have no right to ask any questions of the members of the Prosecution, formally speaking. I can only ask the Tribunal to supplement the questions which were put yesterday bythe Tribunal. I believe, however, that this formalistic objection has no practical meaning, because I am convinced that Sir David, who can check the seriousness of my request, will be prepared, disregarding the theoretical question if he has to do so, to supplement the answers to the questions put by Mr. Biddle. Reichsregierung, that is to say the Reichscabinet, as it was on the 30th of January 1933, in consideration of the relatively small number of National Socialists which at that time were a part of it, also criminal, and also whether he is of the opinion that this hypothetically criminal character at that time was discernable to other people.
Sir David answered this question by Mr. Biddle with "Yes" and pointed out first, the contents of the Party program, and second, the fact that already at that time the Fuehrer Principle was incorporated in the program. in this direction. Does Sir David really want to say that the Fuehrer Principle as such, that is to say viewed in abstraction, was not only to be rejected politically or for other reasons, but also to be considered criminal and therefore to be rejected?
I want to make it understood that I am speaking about the abstract principle, without considering any factual developments in the course of time. is the question of whether one could consider the Reichsregierung as criminal already at that time, and whether this was discernable.
Sir David -- not immediately after the first question of Mr. Biddle, but later on in answering questions -- supplemented his answer and substantiated it in that he said that the aims expressed in the Party program, of eliminating the Treaty of Versailles, and the declaration of desire of the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria, were the criminal points in the program. program, that is to say the Treaty of Versailles and the Anschluss of Austria -- and I will except the Fuehrer Principle here -- were the only points of the Party program which caused him to consider that program as such as criminal, or to consider as criminal a government which know that program. Secondly, I would like to ask whether indeed he is of the opinion that a government which tried peacefully to bring about a revision or relinquishing of a treaty which was considered harmful to the nation, could be considered criminal if it desired to do this in peaceful ways, with peaceful means. the broad democratic principle of the right for self government of the people, and with regard to the actual movement in Austria itself -- and I may remind him of the plebiscite of 1938 where one con there was practically a 100 per cent majority of the Austrian population in favor of the Anschluss -- he would consider the aim and. purpose to reach this end in a peaceful way a criminal point in a party program.
Here I should like to say, in order not to be misunderstood -- I and everything which actually happened and anything which might not have happened in the sense of the Party program, to which I cannot say anything, should not be considered, but the Party program as such.
That, of course, was the sense of the answer when he said yesterday the Party program basis was of a criminal character. ment it would be correct, together with the question for which I would like Sir David to give me an answer or Mr. Justice Jackson, who is not here today, together with that it would be right probably to wait until Sir David has decided -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Dr. Dix, the Tribunal will of course consider anything that you have said insofar as it refers to matters of principle, but they don't think that this is the proper time for counsel for the Defense to pose questions to counsel for the Prosecution. The matter has already been fully dealt with, and the Tribunal don't propose to ask any further questions of the Prosecution unless the Prosecution wish to say anything in answer to what you have to say.
DR DIX: Your Lordship, that was what I took the liberty to say in the beginning, that it would be the free will and the free decision of the Prosecution whether it desired the Tribunal to admit any answers to the questions which I put. That I would leave to you, gentlemen. understand each other. It is always important not to be misunderstood. wish to ask Sir David -- that Mr. Justice Jackson, as far as he was concerned, mentioned that he did not consider the Party program as such as criminal. As I have said, this is what I remember. I have not taken any notes on that, because I did not take any particular notice of it at that time. I thought that was understood, and I may be mistaken. But if my memory is correct, I should like to ask Sir David to speak about this question also, whether there exists another attitude on the side of the Prosecution on this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal asked the Prosecution to present their arguments in principle on the question of these organizations, and they wished also to hear counsel for the organizations in order that these matters should be cleared up, with a view to any possible evidence which might have to be given.
They have heard counsel for all four Prosecutors. They have asked them questions which they thought it was right to ask them in order to clear up any points. They haveheard counsel for all the organizations, and they have heard counsel for the Prosecution in reply. They do not propose to ask any further questions of the Prosecution at this stage. Of course counsel for the Prosecution and counsel for the Defense will be fully heard at a later stage.
DR. DIX: I have come to the end of my statement. I leave it to the Court and Sir David whether they want to answer these questions, now.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Frank): Mr. President, I would like to make a short statement concerning the question of which of the organizations on the Indictment the Defendant Frank was a member. Is this possible at this moment?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal does not think this is an appropriate time for any of the counsel for individual defendants to go into matters Connected with the charges against the organizations. They will, of course, be heard in the course of their own defense, but this is not the appropriate time. This is only a preliminary discussion for the purpose of clarifying the issues which relate to the organizations.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, sir, but I should like at this time only to clarify a mistake which apparently has occurred day before yesterday. Day before yesterday I protested against the statement that the Defendant Frank was a member of the SS. I am afraid that has been translated wrongly, has been mistranslated.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, won't it appear in the short hand notes? You haven't seen the shorthand notes yet?
DR. SEIDL: I have not seen the transcript yet, but I believe that by error it was mistranslated. The Defendant Frank has never denied that he was SA Obergruppenfuehrer. What I would like to point out is only that, as said in the Indictment, he was SS General, that that was not true.
Also, that the statement in Annex B about the criminal element is not correct because it is said there that he had been SS General. I would like to point out and underline thatthe Defendant Frank has never denied that he was SA Obergruppenfuehrer.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, but you will have an opportunity to develop the whole case of Frank ten your turn comes.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, sir, but the question is this: Whether he has to prove whether the Defendant Frank was a member of the SS or whether he was not. So long as the Prosecution does not present any definite proof of the membership of the Defendant Frank in the SS, so long do I have to object to this statement. I do not believe that it is the job of the Defense to prove that the Defendant Frank was not a member of the SS. I am convinced that, on the other hand, this is one of the jobs of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; I have heard what you said.
DR. SERVATIUS: Dr. Servatius, for the Leadership Corps -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal is prepared to hear counsel for the organizations very shortly in the rebuttal, but only very shortly. Otherwise we may go on interminably.
DR. SERVATIUS: I would like to present a brief and only for about five minutes, I would like to state something about the proof, matters of proof. First, I should like to ask two questions concerning the limitation of the number of people. I would be grateful if the Prosecution could make a statement whether the separation of certain parts of the organization is a final one or whether the other aspects are reserved, such as it has been declared originally about the political leadership, the Leadership Corps. Concerning the limiting of the number of persons, I do not wish to make any further motion as far as that limitation has already been affected. I should be glad however, concerning the female membership, if a decision could be taken, and that now national officers, or the female experts who were employed in the offices could not be, in my opinion, could not be included in the staff. At any rate, they do not belong to the Leadership Corps, the political Leadership Corps, although they worked with the staffs. These women themselves are of the opinion I am of the opinion, and also the offices of the camps are of this opinion -and there has not been a single application for a legal hearing made by any of these women. a matter of principle, were kept away from politics, and, therefore, they can hardly be charged with the crimes mentioned in Article 6 or brought in any connection with them.
Now, I would like to speak about two points concerning evidence. As every profession creates tools, so the jurists create definitions to solve their tasks. These definitions are not created for themselves but, for instance, the definition of a criminal organization should serve to bring guilty ones to trial who would otherwise possibly escape of this responsibility. In establishing the Charter the procedure was this, that one has developed the structure of the state in order to reach the individual organs. In order to be able to seize these organs, one has written altogether under the definition of conspiracy. In this way, a relatively small circle could be included, since, through agreement these members have to be connected with each other in the definition of conspiracy. In order to increase this purpose in the way of juridical technique, the criminal group or organization has been created or named.