The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-19/tgmwc-19-183.01


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-19/tgmwc-19-183.01
Last-Modified: 2000/10/12

                                                  [Page 179]

HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-THIRD DAY

MONDAY, 22nd JULY, 1946

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that the British
prosecution will answer on behalf of all the Prosecutors
with reference to the translation of the documents for the
organization of the SS and the Political Leaders; so shall
we deal with those first?

MR. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I am myself dealing with the
documents for the Political Leaders, and my friend, Mr.
Elwyn Jones, is dealing with those for the SS.

Perhaps it would be convenient for the Tribunal to take the
documents for the Political Leaders first.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I have spoken to Dr. Servatius,
who represents the Political Leadership Corps, and we have
agreed on the documents which he should submit in his final
book. I have had lists printed, which show the documents
which we have agreed.

Originally he has submitted six document books, with a total
of over 250 documents, some of considerable length. We have
agreed from those that a total of ninety-odd documents
should be included in the final book, and of those ninety we
have only the passages, certain passages in them, to be
translated. I have a copy of the document books which have
been marked, the passages on which we agree, and the
remainder, of course, would be excluded.

THE PRESIDENT: What length will the document book be? Can
you tell at all?

MR. GRIFFITH-JONES: Only that there will be about 100
exhibits, but they will be quite short, the majority of
them. The longest, I think, is of two pages, and the
remaining documents are just short extracts, perhaps a
paragraph or two paragraphs.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. GRIFFITH-JONES: Perhaps I might say this: Dr. Servatius
had included in these books a number of affidavits which we
have excluded, because we understood the Tribunal desired
affidavits to be heard before the Commissioners. He had also
included a number of quotations from Mein Kampf. These, if
the Tribunal agree, we have excluded, because we thought
that the Tribunal had their own copy of Mein Kampf and it
would save work in the translating and printing departments.

For the remainder, much of the matter that was suggested was
cumulative, and Dr. Servatius, I think, quite agrees that
what we have put down now in Column A will meet his purpose.

There are, I understand, talking to him just before the
Tribunal sat this morning, there are certain amendments to
this list which he desires to make. He desires to include in
Column A Documents 50, 68, 69, and 162, which at the moment
are excluded.

                                                  [Page 180]

My Lord, perhaps it would be convenient if Dr. Servatius and
myself discussed the matter further, and perhaps you would
entrust us to come to some arrangement about the inclusion
or exclusion of those documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.

MR. GRIFFITH-JONES: I do not know whether Dr. Servatius
wishes to say anything.

DR. SERVATIUS (counsel for Political Leadership Corps): Mr.
President, I agree with this arrangement, and these minor
questions which still require clearing up I will settle with
the Prosecutor. The books will probably then be reduced to
two.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Elwyn Jones?

MR. ELWYN JONES: If your Lordship pleases, with regard to
the SS documents, Dr. Pelckmann and the representatives of
the prosecution have reached an agreement as to ninety-nine
of the documents. It has been agreed that twenty-two should
be excluded, and, with regard to the others, some are to be
included in toto and of some only extracts are to be
included.

As to Documents 31 and 32, Dr. Pelckmann indicated that he
was reconsidering his application with regard to these two
documents, and it may, therefore, be possible that he will
have some observations to make to the Tribunal with regard
to them.

With regard to six of the documents, however, the
prosecution and the defence have not been able to reach an
agreement. Dr. Pelckmann insists that those documents are
necessary for his case, and it might, therefore, be
convenient for me to indicate to the Tribunal the
prosecution's objections with regard to those six documents.

The first is Document 69, which is an extract from a speech
made before the first meeting of the Reichstag, after the
Nazi seizure of power, by the Social Democrat leader Wels.
This extract states that Wels's party favoured the plea for
national equality and denied Germany's war guilt. I submit,
on behalf of the prosecution, that that extract is wholly
cumulative. There is an abundance of evidence of that kind
before the Tribunal already. It is in any event, I submit,
not relevant to the SS case.

THE PRESIDENT: Germany's war guilt, at what time?

MR. ELWYN JONES: With regard to the war before the last one.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. ELWYN JONES: I finally suggest that if that document is
admitted by the Tribunal, it would then be proper in the
interests of historical truth for the extract to include the
severe criticism of the Nazi Party made by Herr Wels.

The next document is Document 85, which is an extract from
the Volkischer Beobachter, giving a quotation from William
Randolph Hearst's alleged statement to the defendant
Rosenberg on 3rd September, 1934, to the effect that when
that distinguished gentleman was in Germany three years ago
there was the greatest disorder there; today, 3rd September,
1934, under Hitler's leadership, Germany is a country of
order.

The Tribunal will remember that this date was about nine
weeks after what even Himmler has described as the appalling
murders of 30th June, 1934.

I respectfully submit that that extract is, again,
cumulative, irrelevant and, finally, is of no probative
value whatsoever.

The next document is Document 86, which is an extract from
the Volkischer Beobachter, purporting to be an American
athlete's impression of a journey through Europe in 1934. He
states that he is satisfied with what he saw in

                                                  [Page 181]

Germany. Again, I submit that that is cumulative, irrelevant
to the SS case, and of no probative value.

The next document which is in dispute is Document 96, which
is an extract from a book by an author alleged to be an
American, which was, significantly, published in Germany in
1935. It is a long extract dealing with concentration camps.
It describes a visit by the author to Oranienburg
concentration camp, in which he refers to the modern
sanitary installations there; bedrooms which are apparently
as good as those of the American Army; and the prisoners
apparently eating exactly the same dinners as the camp
commandants and the SS guards. The author says that they had
three rich meals every day, naturally without luxury, and he
goes on in that vein. I do submit that that extract is of no
probative value whatsoever.

There are, finally, two further documents, Nos. 101 and 102.

Document 101 is an extract from an American magazine
purporting to describe the result of certain experiments
carried out by American scientists with a vaccine said to be
immunising.

Document 102 is an extract from a book, An American Doctor's
Odyssey, referring to further experiments with agents said
to be immunising and to experiments in connection with
beriberi.

The prosecution does not, of course, in any way admit the
truth of the facts set out in these extracts, but I submit
that even if they were true they have only a "to quoque"
relevancy and, I submit, should not be included in the
documents for the SS organization.

Apart from those documents, the defending counsel and the
prosecution have reached an agreement and there is no more
to say, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to hear Dr.
Pelckmann.

DR. PELCKMANN (counsel for the SS): Mr. President, I have to
deal with various documents which have just been objected to
by the prosecution. First of all, I refer to Documents 31
and 32.

Documents 31 and 32 have to do with the question whether the
SA and the SS demanded that students should enter the SA and
the SS. This is a question which above all also affects the
SA. The SA have not yet completed their collection of
documents, I think these documents are going to be submitted
by the SA, and I shall therefore put them aside for the
moment.

Up for debate are the remaining six documents. Let us first
come to Document 69.

I should like to say something in principle with reference
to the documents.

The documents do not, by any means, deal with the question
as to whether what they contain is or was objectively true.
They are merely submitted in order to point out how the
readers assumed that true facts were being represented, and
these facts were decisive for the formation of an opinion by
the German people, as well of course by the members of the
SS who are part of the German nation, just as they were for
the formation of an opinion by a Party member or a non-Party
member.

They are documents dealing with the attitude adopted abroad
or in our country. I believe that matters may have to be
looked at from a different point of view in this connection
than in the case of the individual defendants. The attitude
adopted abroad cannot be relevant for the individual
defendants, for the prosecution asserts that for the
majority of the defendants it would appear to be evident
that it was just the principal defendants who deceived
foreign countries. With reference to the masses of the
population, however - and that affects the SS members also -
what had been thought and done abroad must be decisive in
the forming of an opinion as to whether the Nazi regime had
been criminal or not. That is a general point of view which
I think applies to all these documents.

                                                  [Page 182]

The first, Document 69, is a speech, as the Prosecutor has
said, by the Social Democrat Member of Parliament Wels. It
is merely to show that this Social Democrat deputy, even
after the seizure of power by Hitler, agreed with Hitler
that the Treaty of Versailles must be fought against. By
that I do not wish to say anything about the justification
or non-justification of the Treaty of Versailles. I am
merely trying to show what the masses of the people were
thinking and what the followers of Hitler, who had only just
come into power, were thinking, when even a Social Democrat
agreed with the Party programme on that point.

For that reason I consider this document as relevant, and
particularly, for the SS, because they, just as much as all
the other Germans, saw in it the means of forming their own
opinion.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that the document says that the
Treaty of Versailles should be fought against by war, or
should be attempted to be changed by negotiations?

DR. PELCKMANN: No, it does not by any means mean that the
Versailles Treaty should be fought against by war.

Now, as to Documents 85 and 86.

Hearst, the American publisher of world-wide reputation, who
as far as I know had considerable influence at that time in
America, says, as the prosecution correctly points out, in
September, 1934 - a few months after the bloody events of
30th June, 1934 - that he had been in Germany three years
before and had found the greatest chaos, and that today,
under Hitler's leadership, Germany was a land of perfect
order.

I think I had better emphasize once more that I am not
referring to the objective facts; I am stating what was said
about conditions in Germany by someone from abroad - who in
my opinion was of importance in the publishing field - what
was spread abroad and what was brought to the notice of the
German people by means of the considerable National
Socialist propaganda machine, so that the German people, and
with them also the bulk of the members of the SS, could not
believe anything else than this published statement, and saw
in it a confirmation of their then real conviction that here
something was actually being done for order and thereby also
for world peace.

The second statement in Document 86 is on somewhat similar
lines. It is a report of 27th September headed, "America is
participating in the Olympic Games." The man in charge of
American athletics had gone into the question very carefully
as to whether the American nation ought to participate in
the Olympic Games, and he then made a report in America in
which he made statements about his experiences in various
parts of Germany. He expressed himself very satisfied and
very much in favour of American participation in the Olympic
Games.

The result was, as expected, that the committee decided that
America would participate in the games. This again
constitutes a corroboration, a consolidation and
strengthening of German public opinion, and also of the
opinion of the bulk of the SS, that in certain respects
foreign countries were adopting an absolutely positive
attitude towards the new Germany. It should not be forgotten
that the different years, the different dates of entry are
most important. When the fundamental questions affecting the
Indictment against the organizations were discussed before
the Tribunal, from 28th February to 2nd March, it was also
pointed out that the time at which membership of an
organization was acquired must very likely be regarded as a
deciding factor. One must take into account in this
connection that, when after 1933 the membership of the SS
grew considerably, it was surely decisive for the individual
contemplating membership to know that, especially in those
years following the rise to power, foreign countries too
were giving some evidence - I can only give examples - of
their approval. I regret, Mr. President, that I have to
dwell on this rather longer than was perhaps

                                                  [Page 183]

expected, but it is necessary because the fundamentals of
the defence, at least the defence of the organizations, have
not yet been discussed before the Tribunal.

Then we come to Document 96. Here again it is a voice from
abroad - an American journalist: Of course, I am not in a
position to investigate what standing this journalist had.
But again, the objective importance is that it is the voice
of an American journalist whose comments were published in
Germany by a well-known German publisher in a book which had
a tremendous sale. This American journalist describes, only
on the pages which I am quoting, among other things,
conditions in Germany and conditions in the concentration
camps.

To summarize them, they are described as not unfavourable,
and I am of the opinion that again this, in 1935, was of
importance to the question -

THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell the Tribunal the name of the
journalist?

DR. PELCKMANN: Yes; his name is "Doug" Brinkley, for Douglas
Brinkley - D-O-U-G-L-A-S B-R-I-N-K-L-E-Y.

THE PRESIDENT: Would you spell it again?

DR. PELCKMANN: Douglas - D-O-U-G-L-A-S; Brinkley - B-R-I-N-K-
L-E-Y. I had already said that I know little of this man's
journalistic standing, but one must remember that after all
this was published in Germany; and the average German cannot
know whether there is a well-known or little-known American
journalist of this name.

At any rate, he speaks in detail about conditions in
concentration camps, and about the knowledge of the Germans
in general and also of the SS, in particular. This statement
is relevant, because during future hearings before the
commissions, I shall show, and have shown that the knowledge
of these conditions in concentration camps was confined to
the very small circle of those who were employed in them.

Finally, Documents 101 and 102. Here we are concerned with
the question of the medical experiments on living human
beings. First of all, I should like to say that I do not by
any means hold the view that experiments undertaken in
concentration camps conform with the principles of humanity.
Without detailed evidence, I am not capable of passing
judgement on this point; but I know from scientific
publications of recent date that the question of whether
experiments which might cause death should be carried out on
living men to save the lives of tens or hundreds of
thousands of human beings, is, at least, contested in
scientific circles, and, as I have shown by means of these
documents, this has certainly been affirmed by well-known
foreign, American and British scientists.

In this connection, I am assuming that internees in
concentration camps, as I have been trying to prove before
the Commission, volunteered for such experiments. But I must
point out that evidence that such experiments were carried
out abroad on people who did not volunteer is supplied, in
my opinion, by the wording of this statement. Document 101 -

T H E PRESIDENT; Would you mind pausing there? I thought you
said that they had volunteered for it.


Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.