if it is to be understandable to the Tribunal and to serve the purpose of finding the truth, is without doubt in many cases in need of the explanation of the Defense Counsel. The possibility of an amplification or explanation would disappear if we are not able to present that material to the Tribunal verbally. anybody here, my colleagues have by no means any intention of quoting the entire contents of the document book.
As far as I understand it, they have in most cases merely intended only to present excerpts which they are going to designate and about the relevancy of which one can talk afterwards. That emphasis which is to put on those relevant parts of the doument would not be possible, either, if the Tribunal would permit the application of Mr. Justice Jackson go through. Likewise, as I said before, it would not be possible -- in connection with documents read by the Prosecution -- to have those parts of documents which have not been read but which are mitigating for the Defendant accused. that the Defense Counsel have an opportunity to refer to these parts of documents during their presentation, then I am of the opinion that I agree with the Judges that the presentation should if possible include a coherent and clear summary of the total substance of the trial. If we must rely during our presentation on parts of documents and can quote them once more, to which we attach importance as evidence, but which we wish to mention during our case only summarily, then the danger arises that the completeness and coherence of our case is to infringed. And the further danger arises that the saving of time which Mr. Justice Jackson wishes to achieve through his application, is once more lost; because the final statements which we have to make will be correspondingly longer, which they need not be if their purpose and their task is to be fulfilled by having a strict summarization of the total substance. of opinion as to the importance of an individual document might arise, which would mean a considerable disturbance and delay in the proceedings, whereas if one can submit the document in its important parts here, together with an explaining part, one would have an immediate opportunity to state just why one considers the presentation of that document as relevant so that the Tribunal would have an opportunity to make an early decision about the relevancy of that document. Justice Jackson's application can be deceiving. I summarize: of fairness and justice. The Defense would have to, as I ascertained without doubt in conversation during the interval, consider it a very severe and unbearable limitation of the Defense, if they are deprived of the possibility contrary to the practice exercised by the Prosecution, of presenting in their turn, the relevant and important parts of the documentary evidence to the Tribunal verbally, together with an explanation.
agreement between Prosecution and Defense that now the Defense, too, should have the same possibilities and facilities which the Prosecution-- and this is not meant to be a criticism but merely a statement of fact--has had to a considerable and sometimes cumulative degree for themselves. me with this request--that the application of Mr. Justice Jackson be refused.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You began your address by saying that you would not refer to the Charter. On what Article of the Charter do you rely for your argument that all documents which are presented must now be read?
DR. DIX: I said that I would not refer to the detailed parts of the Charter while giving the reasons for my application. I have based my application merely on the heading of Article 4, where it says "Rules for a Just Trial", and I have explained and need not repeat that I would consider that the consequences of Mr. Justice Jackson's application would not lead to a just trial, but I knew that I would probably have my attention drawn to certain details of the Charter which, directly or indirectly, being given a certain legal meaning, could be used as reasons for my application, but I have consciously and deliberately refrained from doing so, since those rules in detail are not sufficiently strong. the other considerations are such as I have presented to the Tribunal. I think perhaps here we must have a misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: But you will not have omitted to notice that Article 24 deals expressly with the course of the trial. Do you rely upon any part of Article 24?
DR. DIX: No, no, I have deliberately not referred to any part of Article 24, since that Article gives considerable powers to the Tribunal regarding the general ruling on proceedings which, so far as the question with which we are concerned now, do not apply. This is merely a question of fairness, and, if I may add, it is a question of the principal basis of a verbal trial and an oral trial, and we have a public session, an oral trial.
It is here in existence. I am not sure whether--I do not think it is meant to be public in the Charter, but it exists and since it is in existence, we must adhere to the basic principles. Thus, in my opinion, the defendant must have the right to quote in public what is in his favor after the prosecution has once more, before the world and public, stated just what is against the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to ask you another question. Are you suggesting that the Defense should be able to quote, to read documents, more than once?
DR. DIX: I am not suggesting that at all. As far as I am concerned, my documents will only be read in part; certainly not twice. I have merely said that the Prosecution have done so had have read it twice, possibly even three times, it has just been told me, but it is not my task to criticise that attitude of the Prosecution but merely to state the fact.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would like to put a further question to Dr. Dix before they hear you, and also-
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would like to make a simple statement of fact.
THE PRESIDENT: Please do.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Which I think will clarify this situation some in justice to the United States of America.
As to the fairness, I call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that we have printed, mimeographed, 250 copies of Dr. Stahmer's entire document book, and it is in the press room waiting for delivery to the press when it is received by this Tribunal, so that we have done everything that we could-everything that we did for ourselves--to make public his documents. Court ruled out, even, rather than to have controversy. Charter, to spread propaganda. A large part of this is stuff that is twenty years old and is in every good library and will not be used by the newspapers. It constitutes a waste of our money. We have tried to do it in order to make this trial completely fair to these people, and now that I have discovered that we are printing documents that the Court has already ruled out, I must say that I shall stop it. I think we have been imposed upon, and this document book will show it.
There is document after document that the Tribunal has already ruled irrelevant, and we have gone to the expense of printing them in order to be more than fair.
DR. DIX: May I answer to that very briefly? As far as the point of view of propaganda is concerned, I regret that my suggestion has not been followed, according to which the public and the world would only hear what has been considered and recognized as relevant by the Tribunal and is presented by us. If the contents of the document book would produce certain propaganda effects, which is entirely against our intentions, then it is merely due to the fact that the contents of the document book did not go through normal and legal channels when they were brought to the knowledge of the press; in other words, from the open sessions of this trial, but that the document book of the Defense, without our knowledge, was placed at the disposal of the press, which probably led to things being communicated to the press and the public which, in the opinion of the Tribunal, may be irrelevant. I am not saying that they are; I am merely talking in the abstract, but if you want to avoid just that; namely, what Justice Jackson wishes to avoid, namely that political propaganda is made by means of this trial, then you must follow my suggestion, and I want only that presented and brought to the knowledge of the world which has been considered relevant by the Tribunal and admitted for the presentation here.
earphones, but if Justice Jackson meant that we are desiring a propaganda effect here, then that is certainly not the case. If he said, furthermore, that the point of fairness was observed and that the Prosecution had done everything to inform the public and the world by placing at the disposal all the documents, then I have no criticism to offer in that respect. Far be it from me to call that unfair, but here we are facing a tribunal and a proceeding, a proper trial. We are not making press propaganda. The presss must have knowledge of what reports come from this Tribunal and from this Courtroom, and the Defense is only grateful if they have the support of the Tribunal in that desire of theirs to have a properly regulated proceeding.
But this is not the crucial point. I have not accused anybody of being unfair. I have merely emphasized that it is in the interest of fairness that the Defense can do the same things which have continually and repeatedly been done by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Dix, will you tell me this: what suggestion you have for shortening the trial? You must recollect in the criticism that you have been making of the Prosecution's case with reference to their documents, that their case has been based almost entirely upon documents. They have called -- I do not know how many witnesses, but very few witnesses You and the other defendants' Counsel are proposing to call a very great number of witnesses, and what I would ask you is. How do you propose that the trial should be shortened so that it may not last until the end of July or August?
DR. DIX: If I make a suggestion, then I can only do so for myself and my case, my own defense. May I suggest to your Lordship that, first of all, we examine the documentary evidence, and I would ask you to realize that none of the Defense Counsel intends to read their entire document book here before the Tribunal. At any rate, the majority certainly do not.
Those of them I have talked to propose only to use excerpts, and in the choice of those and in the discussion of their relevancy of presentation, a measure could be applied which would, of course, take into consideration the importance but also consider the question of time. I do not think that the presentation of the documents will take that long. My colleague, Dr. Stahmer, has told me, for instance, that although he has an enormous defense case to present, he is of the opinion that he will probably complete his case in less than two hours. I am not a prophet, but I think that the Tribunal is regarding this as more dangerous than it is.
Please give us a trial. We are all anxious not to delay the proceedings. I am sure you can understand that, and we are only too willing to be taught a lesson. If the Court will say that "We do not consider that important," then we shall learn and we shall make advances. without it and to accept our assurances that we shall assist in shortening the trial, but, please, may we have permission first to present what we consider relevant and important? If it should be discovered that we occupy too much time -- and I do not think we will, as I said before -- then we could also discuss that matter again. After all, the Tribunal is at liberty to make decisions, but at this present moment may I ask you not to do anything drastic, since I think that the Tribunal, on the strength of the experience with the documentary evidence of the Prosecution, is overestimating the presentation of our documentary material. Far be it from me to criticise. I know that the Prosecution has mostly relied on documents, and naturally that did take a lot of time.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Dix. The Tribunal would like to hear-Of course, they cannot hear all the defendants' counsel on this matter, but they would like to hear one other representative Counsel.
DR. KUBUSCHOK( Counsel for defendant von Papen): May I have permission to draw the attention of the Tribunal some time back to the legal consideration The Tribunal quite rightly raised the question that, in accordance with the Charter regarding the evidence, the difficulty arises that express rules are not contained in the Charter.
Regarding the proceedings, we have in session -- which according to the ruling on all criminal proceedings can be nothing other than oral hearing and a verbal discussion. What is lacking is a sub-paragraph 24 which concerns itself with the collection of documentary evidence, but may I draw your attention to sub-paragraph (e), where rebuttal evidence for the witness is discussed, rebuttal evidence which is not only based upon witnesses but also the production of documents.
It states expressly there that evidence will be collected. At any rate, if you use the German translation and German usage of language, it would not be permissible if this evidence were not produced during sessions but if the treatment of that evidence, on the strength of considerable written material, were to be transferred to the separate room of the Judges. of several Judges, the impression which is to be conveyed to the Tribunal must be immediate. That can only be achieved if, during oral and verbal sessions, the material is presented and discussed. experiences have been gathered during this trial. I am sure that everyone who has presented a document must be very grateful fo the President of the Tribunal when he eliminated certain parts or extended certain parts, interfering during the trial and, thus, by conducting the trial in this manner, assisted the Defense Counsel or the Prosecution and indicated to them what the opinion of the Tribunal was; in other words, what was important, and we are sure that the same guidance of the Tribunal would have a favorable effect for the further proceedings. Paragraph 21, which deals with a special ruling on those facts which are general knowledge and do not require discussion. That special ruling in Paragraph 21 underlines the difference between those things which are in need of discussion and which can be discussed. Everything that can be discussed and should be discussed must in one way or another be taken before the Tribunal so that the Tribunal has the possibility to intervene and make explanatory and guiding remarks.
That is the legal side.
Apart from that, I think that I seem to have understood Mr. Justice Jackson's suggestions differently. I think later on his application was somewhat enlarged. I think what he was suggesting was that we, the Defense Counsel, should impose certain limits upon ourselves and that we should not indiscriminately present the documents we have chosen but that we should confine ourselves to take out just those parts which were worth mentioning at the present stage of the trial. Defense Counsel. Nothing is more killing for the Defense Counsel and the Prosecution than an unlimited departure into irrelevant facts.
During a firm guidance of a trial, every May I just say to what my colleague, Dr. Dix, just said, that
THE PRESIDENT: I said on behalf of the Tribunal that we wished
DR. SEIDL (Counself for defendant Frank): I wanted to add some
THE PRESIDENT: It may be possible that everyone of the twenty
DR. SEIDL: I do not know, but I do not think so.
THE PRESIDENT: I said two Counsel, and I meant two Counsel.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would like to
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think nothing. I thought I was saving time.
I began to doubt it.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, I think the Tribunal would like to know exactly how far your suggestion went.
Were you really making anything more than this:
That the defendants' Counsel should to read any document in their document book at this stage?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I thought their document book should be reading.
I would not be particular about if they have passages been excluded.
It would seem to me that they should go in so they to strike or raise it now if they desire.
As far as the United States is concerned, we have no objection to any of it.
I think some of it THE PRESIDENT:
Would you, on behalf of the Chief Prosecutors, Dr. Dix made that we should see how far the defendants' Counsel were further ruling in order to accelerate the trial?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am quite willing to experiment, but I Honor called Dr. Stahmer's attention at the opening of his case.
I
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is very likely that documents have got into Dr. Stahmer's book by mistake, owing to the fact that he, and I have already drawn attention to it.
There is, I think, in Dr. Stahmer's book--I am not quite sure--a speech of Mr. Paul Boncourt sort of documents to which you are referring, no doubt.
And I have 22nd Mar - M - 10 - O'B - 3
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am quite ready--and I am sure my
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
You must quite understand, Dr. Stahmer, that I am not making Dr. Dix's suggestion will be adopted or not, because the Tribunal will
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I just add a personal explanation?
The inclusion of the documents which had been burned down in my Book of documents is due to the following facts:
The decision, and that is the explantion.
I was under considerable
THE PRESIDENT: I thought it was probably that, Dr. Stahmer.
The Tribunal will adjourn now until 2:30.
(A recess was taken until 1430 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: In considering the matters which have been raised this morning, the Tribunal has had in mind the necessity for a fair trail and at the same time far an expeditious trial, and the Tribunal has decided that for the present it will proceed under rules heretofore announced; that is to say: without being read but in introducing them, counsel may summarize them or otherwise call their relevance to the attention of the Court and may read such brief passages as are strictly relevant and are deemed important. that may be offered to it and in this connection, I would refer to the rule which the Tribunal made on the 8th of March 1946, which reads as follows:
"To avoid unnecessary translations, Defense Counsel shall indicate to the prosecution the exact passages in all documents which they propose to use in order that the prosecution may have an opportunity to object to irrelevant passages. In the event of disagreement between the prosecution and the defense as to the relevancy of any particular passage, the Tribunal will decide what passages are sufficiently relevant to be translated. Only the cited passages need be translated, unless the prosecution require translation of the entire document." first of the defendants and who has proclaimed himself to be responsible as the second leader of Nazi Germany, to give his evidence without any interruption whatever and he has covered the whole history of the Nazi regime from its inception to the defeat of Germany. over the same ground in their evidence except insofar as is necessary for their own defense.
as competent evidence, extracts from books or articles expressing the opinions of particular authors on matters of ethics, history, or particular events.
Now, as to tomorrow's business, the Tribunal will sit in open session for the purpose of hearing applications for witnesses and documents, supplementary applications; and after sitting in that open session, the Tribunal will adjourn into a closed session.
Now, Dr. Stahmer.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to refer us to a book which is numbered Number 1?
DR. STAHMER: I cannot hear you sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to refer us to book Number 1? Which is your book? Or are you referring us to your trial brief?
DR. STAHMER: I shall refer to the Trial Brief, Page 5. As far as I am informed, translations will be numbered the same way as the original German text. Page 5, figure 2. Since this book is translated into three other languages, and the document book, as I am informed, is also translated, I can probably refer to them and then only present what I consider important. Tribunal to the fact that Germany had recounced the Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain, and that this was a justified action. Since the reinforcement had taken place, Germany could proceed to rearm and reintroduce general conscription. by Hitler, after he had previously unsuccessfully offered its Army to the powers concerned, from that fact alone the conclusion therefore cannot be drawn that at that time the intention existed to prepare Germany for an aggressive war or plan such a war. In this connection I draw your attention to the fact that in foreign countries too, after 1936, rearmament had taken place to a considerable degree, and so as to prove this fact I have referred to speeches and essays which originated from Churchill's book "Step by Step". The quotations have been mentioned by me . . . . . . I am referring to the following quotations. On page 5 of this book . . . . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, you must offer these things in evidence as a matter of formality.
DR.STAHMER: Yes, of course. I have the book here with me. I shall offe it right away and the individual quotations which I included in the document book are here. It is document book 2, page 44 -- that's the first quotation I am referring to. Volume 2, page 44.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to number your exhibit in some way? You will call this . . . . . .
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You have numbered it 40 I see, is that right?
DR. STAHMER: Yes. The numbers of this book are . . . . . . They begin right through . . . . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but whatever number you propose to use you must say what the number is when you offer it in evidence so that it will go into the transcript.
DR. STAHMER: Very good, Mr. President. Yes.
"On 18 June the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was signed, which released Germany from the Versailles Naval restrictions. That meant in effect condonation of the breach of military clauses."
On page 35:
"The Air Force is in the process of being almost trebled. This is a colossal expansion which is making the most prodigious demands on our production potentialities. But quite apart from these immediate needs there is the far greater task of so organizing England's home industries that they will be ready to direct the whole of their enormous and elastic capacity into the channels of war production as soon as a serious necessity for that should arise." where is says:
"But it is no longer thus. England has begun to rearm on a large scale. Her wealth and her credit, the solidarity of her organization, her vast resources and connections, all contribute to this revival. The British fleet is still by far the mightiest in Europe. Enormous yearly expenditure on it is under consideration for the future."
Furthermore, evidence is to be provided that particularly Defendant Goering, beginning with the seizure of power, and at various times, consistently emphasized the serious wish to main-t tain peace and to avoid a war.
He has, in fact, repeatedly clearly stated that the measures taken by Germany were not to serve the purposes of aggression. by the defendant Goering, and to begin with I quote from a speech on the 4th of December 1934, which he made at the Krupp works in Essen, and which is contained in the book "Hermann Goering's Speeches and Essays", pages 174 to 176, and is contained in document Book no,1,page18.
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): I don't think the shorthand writer has yet heard what the exhibit number is.
DR.STAHMER: I beg your pardon. It is Exhibit No. 6 .
THE PRESIDENT: That is the 4th of December 1944?
DR.STAHMER: Yes, December 1934.
THE PRESIDENT: It is 1944.
DR.STAHMER: No, '34. That must be a misprint.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.
DR.STAHMER: 1934.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
DR.STAHMER: I quote -- and it is the last sentence of the first paragraph:
"Today we want to secure this peace, and we want the world to understand that, time and time again, only a Germany with honor guarantees world peace. Only a free German nation will keep this peace and will know how to preserve this peace.
"Therefore, we demand for us the same rights as possessed by the others.
And on the following page, I quote the last paragraph:
"We do not want any war, but we want our honor. We do not discuss this honor with anybody in this world, that is a fact, for it is the foundation for the reconstruction of the entire nation.
Only he who has a sharp sword at his side has rest and peace".
Sir Nevill Henderson emphasizes in his book "Failure of a Mission", at various passages, Goering's love of peace. Quotations are ascertained in Document Book No1, page 63, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 23. I am quoting from page 70 of the book. This is Henderson:
"I was inclined to believe in the sincerity of his personal Goering's personal desire for peace and for a good relationship with England."
On page 83 of the book, it says:
"I should like to give expression here to my belief that the Fieldmarshal, had it been up to him, would not have gambled at the price of war, as Hitler in 1039. As will be mentioned later, he stood decidedly on the side of peace in December 1938." is the following sentence which I quote:
" I saw the Polish Ambassador on August 31.1939 and gave him an objective, moderate report of my conference with Ribbentrop. I mentioned the cession of Danzig and the plebescite in the Corridor as the two main points of the German proposals, observed that on the whole, so far as I could see, they were not too unreasonable, and suggested to him to advise his government immediately to propose a meeting between Lipski and Goering."
quote from the last paragraph:
"Nevertheless, Goering seemed pleased when he returned from the telephone call, and informed us that the latter was on the way to a visit to Ribbentrop, and he was still hoping, apparently, that the war could be avoided, provided that contact could be established." international meeting of war veterans in Berlin, made the following speech, which is contained in the book, "Hermann Goering, the Man and his Works", on page 263, and which is contained in Document Book 2, page 42, which is Exhibit No. 39, and from which I quote the following sentences:
"There are no better defenders of peace than the old war veterans. I am convinced that they, above all ethers, have a right to ask for peace and to shape it. I recognize that those men who, weapon in hand, have gone through four hard years of the hell of the World War, have the primary right to shape the life of the nations, and I know that the war veterans more than anybody else will take care the preserve the blessings of peace for their peoples."
I skip two sentences and then quote:
"But we know that it is a terrible thing, this final argument among nations. It is my fervent and heartfelt wish that this Congress may be able to contribute toward finding the basis for a true peace with honor and equality of rights for all sides. You, my comrades, will have to smooth the way for it " to the questions of the defense. I now read the following passages from this questionnaire, and I offer the original as Exhibit No. 22. It is contained in Document Book No. 1, page 59.