The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/nca/nca-01/nca-01-04-motions

Archive/File: imt/nca/nca-01/nca-01-04-motions
Last-Modified: 1996/06/06

Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression ("Red Series")
                                                    [Page 83]
                         Chapter IV
Although 24 individuals were named as defendants in the
Indictment signed in Berlin on 6th October 1945, only 22
remained as defendants when the trial commenced on 20
November. The number had been reduced by the suicide of
Robert Ley and by the Tribunal's severance of
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach from the proceedings. Of
the 22 surviving defendants only 20 appeared in the
prisoners' dock at the opening of court. Martin Bormann, in
the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, was presumed
to be alive and at large. Ernst Kaltenbrunner had been
hospitalized by a cranial hemorrhage, and as a consequence
was unable to be present at the trial save for one period of
a few days. Defense counsel for two of the twenty men in the
prisoners' dock, Hess and Streicher, sought to have the
proceedings against their clients dismissed on the grounds
of their mental incapacity to stand trial. Expert medical
examiners concluded that both defendants were fit to defend
themselves, and the proceedings against
them were resumed. One of them, Hess, who had claimed to be
a victim of amnesia, created something of a sensation by
confessing in open court that he had only been pretending to
suffer from amnesia and that his memory was actually in good

Fuller explanatory notes concerning the positions taken by
the prosecution and the defense and the actions of the
Tribunal in the cases of each of these six defendants,
together with significant papers bearing on these matters,
are printed hereinafter

                        1. ROBERT LEY
Pending the opening of the trial on 20th November 1945 the
defendants were held in the prison at the Palace of Justice
in Nurnberg, under the custody of the United States Army. In
the evening of October 25 the guard on watch before the cell
of Robert Ley noticed that the prisoner had maintained the
same position for some time without moving. The guard
entered the cell to find that although the prison officials
had taken every known precaution, Ley had succeeded in
committing suicide. Ley had ripped the hemmed edge from a
towel, twisted it, soaked it in
water, and fashioned it into a crude noose which he fastened
to an-overhead toilet flush pipe. He had then stuffed his
mouth with rags, apparently torn from his own underwear.
When he seated himself, strangulation was produced, and
Robert Ley had succeeded in ac-

                                                   [Page 84]
complishing his exit from the court of judgment, and from
the world of living men. A farewell message written by Ley,
together with other statements made by him during
imprisonment, may be found at the end of the last volume
(Statements XI XIII ).

           2. GUSTAV KRUPP von BOHLEN und HALBACH
The name of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach stood
thirteenth on the list of twenty-four defendants accused in
the Indictment signed in Berlin on 6th October 1945. On 4
November counsel for Krupp filed a motion requesting that
the Tribunal defer proceedings against the defendant until
his health permitted him to stand trial, and that he should
not be tried in his absence. The Tribunal on 5 November
appointed a medical commission consisting of representatives
of the Soviet Union, France, Great Britain, and the United
States, to examine Krupp and determine whether he was fit to
stand trial. On 12 November the Chief of Counsel for the
United States filed an answer opposing the motion of defense
counsel and proposing that Gustav Krupp should not be
dismissed from the proceedings unless Alfried Krupp, the son
and sole owner of the Krupp Works, were substituted as a
defendant. On 14 November, before the opening of the trial
itself, the Tribunal heard oral argument by the prosecution
and defense, in which substantially the same views were
presented as had been previously expressed in the written

The Tribunal on 15 November announced its ruling postponing
the proceedings against Gustav Krupp, but retaining the
Indictment charges against him on the docket for later trial
if his physical and mental condition should permit. The
ruling stated that the question of adding another name to
the Indictment would be considered later. Thereupon, on 16
November, the American Chief of Counsel filed a memorandum
with the Tribunal stating as a matter of record that the
United States was not committed to participate in any
subsequent four-power trial. On the same day the Soviet and
French Chief Prosecutors joined the United States Chief of
Counsel in a motion formally designating Alfried Krupp a
defendant. On the following day the Tribunal announced its
ruling rejecting the motion to add the name of Alfried Krupp
as a defendant.

The significant papers pertaining to these questions are set
forth below.

                                                   [Page 85]
                     BOHLEN UND HALBACH

Nurnberg, 4 November 1945


To: The International Military Tribunal Nurnberg.

As defending counsel to the accused Dr. Gustav Krupp von
Bohlen und Halbach I beg to state that the proceedings
against the accused be deferred until he is again fit for

At any rate I request that the accused be not tried in his

By Article 12 of the Statute of the International Military
Tribunal this court has the right to try an accused in his
absence if he cannot be found, or if the court-deem this
necessary for other reasons in the interest of justice.

The 75 year old accused Krupp von Bohlen has for a long time
been incapable of trial or examination owing to his severe
physical and mental infirmities. He is not in a position to
be in contact with the outside world nor to make or receive
statements. The indictment was served on him on 19th October
1945 by a representative of the International Military
Tribunal by placing the document on his bed. The accused had
no knowledge of this event. Consequently he is not aware of
the existence of an indictment. Naturally therefore he is
not capable of communicating either with his defense counsel
nor with other persons on the subject of his defense.

To prove the above, 2 medical certificates are enclosed viz.
that of the court medical expert Doctor Karl Gersdorf of
Werfen Salzburg of 9th September 1945 and that of the
Professor Doctor Otto Gerke of Bedgnstein of 13th September.

Latterly Herr Krupp von Bohlen has been examined several
times by American military doctors. As far as it is possible
I should like to request for another complete medical
examination. If the accused is unable to appear before the
court, then according to article 12 of the statute he could
only be tried if the court deemed it necessary in the
interests of justice.

Whatever may be understood by the phrase "in the interests
of Justice" it would hardly be objective justice to try a
defendant accused of such serious crimes, if he were not
informed of the
                                                   [Page 86]
contents of the accusations or if he were not given the
chance to conduct his own defense or instruct a defense
counsel. Particularly is he in no condition to comprehend
the following rights of an accused set out in the statute:

1. By article 16 Section (a) of the statute a copy of the
indictment in a language which he understands will be served
on the accused at a suitably appointed time. In the first
place this concerns the statement which the accused has to
render on inquiry as to whether he admits his
guilt or not, a statement which is of particular importance
for the course of the trial and for the decision of the
tribunal. This is all the more important as this statement
regarding guilt or innocence can only be made exclusively by
the accused himself according to his own judgment and after
examining his conscience. So far as the procedure is
admissible at all, the defense counsel could not at the
request of the court express himself on the question of
guilt as such a declaration presupposes the possibility of
communication and understanding with the accused.

Also the defendant could not exercise the right to the last
word to which he is entitled according to Article 24 Section f.

The legislators who set up these guarantees for the defense,
cannot wish to deny them undeservedly to an accused who
cannot make use of them owing to illness. If by Article 12
of the statute the trial of an absent defendant is allowed
then this exception to the rule can only be
applied to a defendant who is unwilling to appear though
able to do so. As is the case with the criminal procedure
rules of nearly all countries, it is on this principle that
the rules and regulations concerning the trial of absent
defendants are based.

                                           [signed] Klefisch


To the International Military Tribunal:

The United States respectfully opposes the application on
behalf of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach that his trial
be "deferred until he is again fit for trial."

If the Tribunal should grant this application, the practical
effect would be to quash all proceedings, for all time,
against Krupp von Bohlen.

It appears that Krupp should not be arrested and brought to
the court room for trial. But the plea is that the Tribunal

                                                   [Page 87]

excuse him from being tried in absentia. This form of trial
admittedly is authorized by Article 12 of the Charter of the
Tribunal. Of course, trial in absentia in the circumstances
of the case is an unsatisfactory proceeding either for
prosecution or for defense. But the request that Krupp von
Bohlen be neither brought to court nor tried in his absence
is based on the contention that "the interest of justice"
requires that he be thus excused from any form of trial.
Public interests, which transcend all private
considerations, require that Krupp von Bohlen shall not be
dismissed unless some other representative of the Krupp
armament and munitions interests be substituted. These
public interests are as follows:

Four generations of the Krupp family have owned and operated
the great armament and munitions plants which have been the
chief source of Germany's war supplies. For over 130 years
this family has been the focus, the symbol, and the
beneficiary of the most sinister forces
engaged in menacing the peace of Europe. During the period
between the two World Wars the management of these
enterprises was chiefly in defendant Krupp von Bohlen. It
was at all times, however, a Krupp family enterprise. Krupp
von Bohlen was only a nominal owner himself; his wife,
Bertha Krupp, owned the bulk of the stock. About 1937 their
son, Alfried Krupp, became plant manager and was actively
associated in policy-making and executive management
thereafter. In 1940, Krupp von Bohlen, getting on in years,
became Chairman of the Board of the
concerns, thus making way for Alfried, who became President.
In 1943, Alfried became sole owner of the Krupp enterprises
by agreement between the family and the Nazi government, for
the purpose of perpetuating this business in Krupp family
control. It is evident that the future menace of this
concern lies in continuance of the tradition under Alfried,
now reported to be an internee of the British Army of the

To drop Krupp von Bohlen from this case without substitution
of Alfried, drops from the case the entire Krupp family, and
defeats any effective judgment against the German armament
makers. Whether this would be "in the interests of justice"
will appear from the following recital of only the most
significant items of evidence now in possession of the
United States as to the activities of Krupp von Bohlen, in
which his son Alfried at all times aided, as did other
associates in the vast armament enterprises, all plotting to
bring about the second World War, and to aid in its ruthless
and illegal conduct.

After the first World War, the Krupp family and their asso-

                                                   [Page 88]
ciates failed to comply with Germany's disarmament
agreements, but ali secretly and knowingly conspired to
evade them.

In the 1 March 1940 issue of the Krupp Magazine, the
defendant Krupp stated:

     "I wanted and had to maintain Krupp in spite of all
     opposition, as an armament plant for the later future,
     even if in camouflaged form. I could only speak in the
     smallest, most intimate circles, about the real reasons
     which made me undertake the changeover of the plants
     for certain lines of production. *** Even the Allied
     snoop commissioners
     were duped. * * * After the accession to power of Adolf
     Hitler, I had the satisfaction of reporting to the
     Fuehrer that Krupp stood ready, after a short warming-
     up period, to begin rearmament of the German people
     without any gaps of experience ***"

Krupp von Bohlen (and Alfried Krupp as well) lent his name,
prestige, and financial support to bring the Nazi Party,
with an avowed program of renewing the war, into power over
the German State. On 25th April 1931 von Bohlen acted as
chairman of the Association of German Industry to bring it
into line with Nazi policies. On 30th May 1933 he wrote to
Schacht that "it is proposed to initiate a collection in the
most far-reaching circles of German industry, including
agriculture and the banking world, which is to be put at the
disposal of the Fuehrer of the NSDAP in the name of 'The
Hitler Fund' *** I have accepted the chairmanship of the
management council." Krupp contributed from the treasury of
the main Krupp company 4,738,446 Marks to the Nazi Party
fund. In June, 1935 he contributed 100,000 Marks to the Nazi
Party out of his personal account.

The Nazi Party did not succeed in obtaining control of
Germany until it obtained support of the industrial
interests, largely through the influence of Krupp. Alfried
first became a Nazi Party member and later von Bohlen did
also. The Krupp influence was powerful in promoting the
Nazi plan to incite aggressive warfare in Europe.

Krupp von Bohlen strongly advocated and supported Germany's
withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and from the
League of Nations. He personally made repeated public
speeches approving and inciting Hitler's program of
aggression; on 6th April 1938 and 7th April 1938 two
speeches approved annexation of Austria; on 13th October
1938 he publicly approved Nazi occupation of the
Sudetenland; on 4th September 1939 he approved the invasion
of Poland; on 6th May 1941 he spoke commemorating the
success of

                                                   [Page 89]
Nazi arms in the West. Alfried Krupp also made speeches to
the same general effect. The Krupps were thus one of the
most persistent and influential forces that made this war.

The Krupps also were the chief factor in getting ready for
the war. In January, 1944 in a speech at the University of
Berlin, van Bohlen boasted, "Through years of secret work,
scientific and basic groundwork was laid in order to be
ready again to work in the German Armed Forces
at the appointed hour without loss of time or experience."
In 1937, before Germany went to war, the Krupps booked
orders to equip satellite governments on approval of the
German High Command. Krupp contributed 20,000 Marks to the
defendant Rosenberg for the purpose of spreading Nazi
propaganda abroad. In a memorandum of 12th October 1939, a
Krupp official wrote offering to mail propaganda pamphlets
abroad at Krupp expense.

Once the war was on, Krupps, both von Bohlen and Alfried
being directly responsible therefor, led German industry in
violating treaties and International Law by employing
enslaved laborers, impressed and imported from nearly every
country occupied by Germany, and by compelling prisoners of
war to make arms and munitions for use against their own
countries. There is ample evidence that in Krupp's custody
and service they were underfed and overworked, misused and
inhumanly treated. Captured records show that in September,
1944, Krupp concerns were working 64,990 foreign workers and
18,902 prisoners of war.

Moreover, the Krupp companies profited greatly from
destroying the peace of the world through support of the
Nazi program. The rearmament of Germany gave Krupp huge
orders and corresponding profits. Before this Nazi menace to
the peace began, the Krupps were operating at a substantial
loss. But the net profits after taxes, gifts and reserves
steadily rose with rise of Nazi rearmament, being as

For year ending Sept. 30 1935      57,216,392     Marks
For year ending Sept. 30 1938      97,071,632     Marks
For year ending Sept. 30 1941     111,555,216     Marks

The book value of the Krupp concerns mounted from 75,962,000
Marks on 1st October 1933 to 237,316,093 Marks on 1st October 1943.
Even this included many going concerns in occupied countries
carried at a book value of only 1 Mark each. These figures
are subject to the adjustments and controversies usual with
financial statements of each vast enterprise but
approximately reflect the facts about property and operations.

                                                   [Page 90]
The services of Alfried Krupp and of von Bohlen and their
family to the war aims of the Nazi Party were so outstanding
that the Krupp enterprises were made a special exception to
the policy of nationalization of industries. Hitler said
that he would be "prepared to arrange for any possible
safeguarding for the continued existence of the works as a
family enterprise; it would be simplest to issue 'lex Krupp'
to start with." After short negotiations, this was done. A
decree of 12 November 1943 preserves the Krupp works as a
family enterprise in Alfried Krupp's control and recites
that it is done in recognition of the fact that "for 132
years the firm of Fried. Krupp, as a family enterprise has
achieved outstanding and unique merits for the armed
strength of the German people."

It has at all times been the position of the United State
that the great industrialists of Germany were guilty of the
crimes charged in this Indictment quite as much as its
politicians, diplomats, and soldiers. Its Chief of Counsel
on 7th June 1945, in a report to President Truman, released
by him and with his approval, stated that the accusations of
crimes include individuals in authority in the financial,
industrial, and economic life of Germany, as well as others.

Pursuant thereto, the United States, with approval of the
Secretary of State, proposed to indict Alfried Krupp, son of
Krupp von Bohlen, and President and owner of the Krupp
concern. The Prosecutors representing the Soviet Union, the
French Republic, and the United Kingdom unanimously opposed 
inclusion of Alfried Krupp. This is not said in criticism of 
them or their judgment. The necessity of limiting the number of 
defendants was considered by representatives of the other three 
nations to preclude the addition of Alfried Krupp. Learning the 
serious condition of Krupp von Bohlen, immediately upon service of the
Indictment, the United States again called a meeting of
Prosecutors and proposed an amendment to include Alfried
Krupp. Again the proposal of the United States was defeated
by a vote of three-to-one. If now the Tribunal shall
exercise its discretion to excuse from trial the one
indicted member of the Krupp family, one of the chief
purposes of the United States will be defeated, and it is
submitted that such a result is not "in the interests of justice."

The United States respectfully submits that no greater
disservice to the future peace of the world could be done
than to excuse the entire Krupp family and the armament
enterprise from this trial in which aggressive war-making is
sought to be condemned. The "interests of justice" cannot be
determined without taking into account justice to the men of
four generations-whose lives have been taken or menaced by
Krupp munitions and Krupp arma-

                                                   [Page 91]
ment, and those of the future who can feel no safety if such
persons as this escape all condemnation in proceedings such
as this.

While of course the United States can not, without the
concure of one other power, indict a new defendant, it can
under the Charter alone oppose this Motion. The United
States respectfully urges that if the favor now sought by
Krupp von Bohlen is to be granted, it be upon the condition
that Alfried Krupp be substituted or added as a defendant so
that there may be a representative of the Krupp interests
before the Tribunal.

It may be suggested that bringing in a new defendant would
result in delay. Admitting, however, that a delay which
cannot exceed a few days may be occasioned, it is
respectfully suggested that the precise day that this trial
will start is a less important consideration than whether it
is to fail of one of its principal purposes. The American
Prosecution Staff has been by long odds the longest and
farthest away from home in this endeavor. On personal, as
well as public interest considerations, it deplores delay.
But we think the future, as well as the contemporary world,
cannot fail to be shocked if, in a trial in which it is
sought to condemn aggressive war-making, the Krupp
industrial empire is completely saved from condemnation.

The complete trial brief of the United States on Krupp von
Bohlen, with copies of the documents on which his
culpability is asserted, will be made available to the
Tribunal if it is desired as evidence concerning him and
Alfried Krupp and the Krupp concerns.

Respectfully submitted:

[signed] Robert H. Jackson
12 November 1945    ROBERT H. JACKSON
Chief of Counsel for the United States of America.



Council for Gustav Krupp von Bohlen has applied to the
Tribunal for postponement of the proceedings against this
defendant on the ground that his physical and mental
condition are such that he is incapable of understanding the
proceedings against him and of presenting any defence
that he may have.

On November 5, the Tribunal appointed a medical commission
composed of the following physicians: R. E. Tunbridge,
Brigadier, O.B.E., M.D., M.Sc., F.R.C.P., Consulting
Physician, Brit-

                                                   [Page 92]

ish Army of the Rhine; Rene Piedelievre, M.D., Professor a
la Faculte de Medicine de Paris; Expert pres les Tribuneaux;
Nicolas Kurshakov, M.D., Professor of Medicine, Medical
Institute of Moscow; Chief Internist, Commissariat of Public
Health, USSR; Eugene Sepp, M.D., Emeritus Professor of
Neurology, Medical Institute of Moscow; Member, Academy of
Sciences, USSR; Eugene Krasnushkin, M.D.; Professor of
Psychiatry, Medical Institute of Moscow; Bertram Schaffner,
Major, Medical Corps, Neuropsychiatrist, Army of the United

The Commission has reported to the Tribunal that it is
unanimously of the opinion that Krupp von Bohlen suffers
from senile softening of the brain; that his mental
condition is such that he is incapable of understanding
court procedure and of understanding or cooperating in
interrogations; that his physical state is such that he
cannot be moved without endangering his life; and that his
condition is unlikely to improve but rather will deteriorate

The Tribunal accepts the findings of the medical commission
to which exception is taken neither by the Prosecution nor
by the Defense.

Article 12 of the Charter authorizes the trial of a
defendant in absentia if found by the Tribunal to be
"necessary in the interests of justice". It is contended on
behalf of the Chief Prosecutors that in the interests of
justice Krupp von Bohlen should be tried in absentia,
despite his physical and mental condition.

It is the decision of the Tribunal that upon the facts
presented the interests of justice do not require that Krupp
von Bohlen be tried in absentia. The Charter of the Tribunal
envisages a fair trial in which the Chief Prosecutors may
present the evidence in support of an indictment and the
defendants may present such defence as they may believe
themselves to have. Where nature rather than flight or
contumacy has rendered such a trial impossible, it is not in
accordance with justice that the case should proceed in the
absence of a defendant.

For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal Orders that:

1. The application for postponement of the proceeding
against Gustav Krupp von Bohlen is granted.

2. The charges in the indictment against Gustav Krupp von
Bohlen shall be retained upon the docket of the Tribunal for
trial hereafter, if the physical and mental condition of the
Defendant should permanent.

Further questions raised by the Chief Prosecutors, including
the question of adding another name to the Indictment, will
be considered later.

                                                   [Page 93]

The United States, by its Chief of Counsel, respectfully

The order of the Tribunal, that "The charges in the
indictment against Gustav Krupp von Bohlen shall be retained
upon the docket of the Tribunal for trial hereafter, if the
physical and mental condition of the Defendant should
permit," requires the United States to make clear its
attitude toward subsequent trials, which may have been
misapprehended by the Tribunal, in order that no inference
be drawn from its silence.

The United States never has committed itself to participate
in any Four Power trial except the one now pending. The
purpose of accusing organizations and groups as criminal was
to reach, through subsequent and more expeditious trials
before Military Government or military courts, a large
number of persons. According to estimates of the United
States Army, a finding that the organizations presently
accused are criminal organizations would result in the trial
of approximately 130,000 persons now held in the custody of
the United States Army; and I am uninformed as to those held by others. 
It has been the great purpose of the United States from the beginning to
bring into this one trial all that is necessary by way of
defendants and evidence to reach the large number of persons
responsible for the crimes charged without going over the
entire evidence again. We, therefore, desire that it be a
matter of record that the United States has not been, and is
not by this order, committed to participate in any
subsequent Four Power trial. It reserves freedom to
determine that question after the capacity to handle one
trial under difficult conditions has been tested.

Respectfully submitted:
[signed] Robert H. Jackson
Chief of Counsel for the United States.
16 November 1945

                    KRUPP AS A DEFENDANT


Upon the Indictment, the motion of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen
und Halbach and the answers thereto and all proceedings had

                                                   [Page 94]
thereunder, the Committee of Prosecutors created under the
Charter hereby designates Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und
Halbach as a defendant and respectfully moves that the
Indictment be amended by adding the name of Alfried Krupp
von Bohlen und Halbach as a defendant, and by the addition
of appropriate allegations in reference to him in the
Appendix A thereof. It also moves that the time of Alfried
Krupp be shortened from thirty days to December  2, 1945.
For this purpose, the Committee of Prosecutors adopts and
ratifies the Answer filed on behalf of the United States on
November 12, 1945 in response to the Gustav Krupp von Bohlen
und Halbach
motion, and the motion made by Robert H. Jackson in open
Court on behalf of the United States of America, The Soviet
Union, and the Provisional Government of France. This motion
is authorized by a resolution adopted at a meeting of the
Committee of Prosecutors held on
November 16, 1945.

[signed] Pokrovsky
For the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
[signed] Francois de Menthon
For the Provisional Government of France
[signed] Robert H. Jackson
For the United States of America.
16 November 1945

                       AS A DEFENDANT

        Sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 11/17/1945,
                    In session 1500 hours

THE PRESIDENT: The motion to amend the indictment by adding
the name of Alfried Krupp has been considered by the
Tribunal in all its aspects and the application is rejected.

The Tribunal will now adjourn.

(Whereupon at 1505 the Tribunal adjourned.)

                      3. MARTIN BORMANN

As the day of the trial approached, Martin Bormann, although
named as a defendant in the Indictment, had not yet been
apprehended despite the efforts of numerous special
investigators. On 17 November 1945 the Tribunal requested
the views of the prosecution on the question of trial in
absentia. Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, Deputy Chief Prosecutor of
Great Britain, reviewed the in-

                                                   [Page 95]
formation available and, on behalf of the United States and
France as well as Great Britain, stated that: "The
prosecution cannot say that the matter is beyond a
probability that Bormann is dead. There is still the clear
possibility that he is alive." Notice had been publicly
given, in the manner prescribed by the Tribunal, that
Bormann had been named a defendant, and it was therefore
suggested that the case fell within Article 12 of the
Charter authorizing trial In absentia. The Soviet
representative expressed concurrence; whereupon Lord Justice
Lawrence, presiding, orally announced the Tribunal's ruling,
on the same date:

     "The Tribunal has decided that, in pursuance of Article
     12 of the Charter, it will try the Defendant Bormann in
     his absence, and it announces that counsel for the
     Defendant Bormann will be appointed to defend him."
Thereafter, the counsel named to defend Bormann moved for
postponement of the proceedings against the defendant. The
tribunal announced on 22 November through Lord Justice
Lawrence, presiding, that:

     "*** in view of the fact that the provisions of the
     Charter and the Tribunal's rule of procedure have been
     strictly carried out in the notices which have been
     given, and the fact that counsel for Bormann will have
     ample time before they are called upon to present
     defense on his behalf, the motion is denied."

                   4. ERNST KALTENBRUNNER

On 18 November 1945, two days before the opening of the trial,
Kaltenbrunner suffered a spontaneous subarachanoid
hemorrhage and was taken to the hospital for treatment. He
remained there until 6 December, when he was returned to the
jail. He attended the 10 December session of the
Tribunal an was in court for several days thereafter, but
his condition deteriorated so that it was necessary to
return him to the hospital for further treatment. Medical
opinion expects at this writing (23 January), that he will
be required to remain under hospital care for a considerable

On 2 January Kaltenbrunner's counsel, Dr. Kauffmann,
requested the Tribunal to postpone the case against his
client because of his illness. The Tribunal ruled (1) that
the prosecution should proceed with any evidence which it
proposed to direct against the criminality of organizations
with which Kaltenbrunner was connected, (2) that any
prosecution evidence directed against Kaltenbrunner as an
individual should be withheld until

                                                   [Page 96]
the prosecution reached that part of its case in which it
had planned to trace the responsibility of individual
defendants, and (3) that Kaltenbrunner's case should
properly be left until the end of this section of the
evidence. If at that time the defendant should be still
unable to be present in court, the Tribunal ruled that "the
evidence will have to be given in his absence."

A closed session followed at which the Tribunal heard both
the prosecution and defense counsel, as a result of which
the Tribunal modified its ruling. Since the prosecution's evidence 
was so inextricably mingled that it was impossible to divide it
between that which bore against Kaltenbrunner as an
individual and that which bore against the organizations
which he headed, the Tribunal ruled that it would hear the
prosecution's evidence in its entirety. Counsel for
Kaltenbrunner, however, was given the privilege of cross-
examining at a later date any witnesses which the
prosecution might call against Kaltenbrunner. The Tribunal
pointed out that defense counsel would also, of course, have
an opportunity to deal with any documentary evidence against
Kaltenbrunner when the time came for the presentation of the
defense case.

                     5. JULIUS STREICHER

Counsel for Streicher orally requested the Tribunal, on 15
November 1945, to appoint a commission to make a psychiatric
examination of the defendant. This was requested for the
Defense Counsel's "own protection", although the defendant
thought himself normal and did not
wish an examination. The Tribunal directed the Defense
Counsel to make his motion in writing. The Soviet prosecutor
suggested to the Tribunal the desirability of having such an
examination, if it were necessary at all, while medical
experts from the Soviet Union remained in Nurnberg.
Subsequently a panel of three medical experts examined
Streicher and reported that he was fit to stand trial. The
Tribunal thereupon ruled, Lord Justice Lawrence making the
announcement orally in court on 22 November, that
     " *** the Tribunal wishes me to announce the decision
     on the application made on behalf of the Defendant
     Julius Streicher by his counsel that his condition
     should be examined. It has been examined by three
     medical experts on behalf of the Tribunal and their
     report has been submitted to and considered by the
     Tribunal; and it is as follows:
     " '1. The Defendant Julius Streicher is sane.
                                                   [Page 97]
     " '2. The Defendant Julius Streicher is fit to appear
     before the Tribunal, and to present his defense.
     " '3. It being the unanimous conclusion of the
     examiners that Julius Streicher is sane, he is for that
     reason capable of understanding the.nature and policy
     of his acts during the period of time covered by the
     "The Tribunal accepts the report of the medical experts
     and the trial against Julius Streicher will, therefore,
                       6. RUDOLF HESS

Through his pre-trial confinement in the Nurnberg prison,
Hess had consistently maintained that he was suffering from
amnesia and therefore could not remember facts concerning
his previous activities. In order to determine Hess' mental
state the Tribunal appointed a commission of psychiatric
experts from the United States, Great Britain, Russia, and
France, to examine the defendant and furnish a report. After
receiving the medical report the Tribunal directed that oral
argument by the prosecution and defense counsel should be
heard on 30 November 1945 concerning the issues raised by
the medical report. Prior to the oral argument, both the
prosecution and defense filed written motions which outlined
substantially the positions later taken in court.

At the conclusion of the oral arguments, the Tribunal called
upon Hess for a statement. Hess thereupon announced that he
had simulated loss of memory for tactical reasons and that
his memory was "again in order." On the following day the
Tribunal ruled that Hess was capable of
standing trial and that his case would proceed.

The papers pertaining to these matters are set out below.

                       MEDICAL REPORTS

1. Counsel for the defendant Hess has made application to
the Tribunal to appoint an expert designated by the medical
faculty of the University of Zurich or of Lausanne to
examine the defendant Hess with reference to his mental
competence and capacity to stand trial. This
application is denied.

2. The Tribunal has designated a commission composed of the
following members:

Eugene Krasnuchkin, M.D., Professor Psychiatry, Medical
Institute of Moscow, assisted by

                                                   [Page 98]
Eugene Sepp,M.D., Professor Neurology, Medical Institute of
Moscow; Member, Academy of Medical Sciences, USSR; and,
Nicolas Kuraskov, M.D., Professor of Medicine Medical
Institute of Moscow, Chief Internist, Commissariat of Public
Health, USSR.
Lord Moran, M.D., F.R.C.P. President of the Royal College of
Physicians, assisted by
Dr. T. Reece, M.D., F.R.C.P. Chief Consultant Psychiatrist
to the War Office, and
Dr. George Ruddock, M.D., F.R.C.P. Director of Neurology to
the London Hospital and Chief Consultant Neurologist to the
War Office
Dr. Nolan D. C. Lewis, assisted by
Dr. D. Ewen Cameron and
Col. Paul Schroeder, M.D.
Professor Jean Delay.

The Tribunal has requested the commission to 'examine the
defendant Hess and furnish a report on the mental state of
the defendant' with particular reference to the question
whether he is able to take is part in the trial,
specifically: (1) Is the defendant able to plead to the
'indictment? (2) Is the defendant sane or not, and on this
last issue the Tribunal wishes to be advised whether the
defendant is of sufficient intellect to comprehend the
course of the proceedings of the trial so as to make a roper
defense, to challenge a witness to whom he might wish to
object and to understand the details of the evidence.

3. The examiners have presented their reports to the
Tribunal in the form which commend itself to them. It is
directed that copies of the reports be furnished to each of
the Chief Prosecutors and to defense counsel. The Tribunal
will hear argument by the Prosecution and by defense counsel
on the issues presented by the reports on Friday, November
30 at 4 P. M.


                                  [signed] Geoffrey Lawrence
                                           Geoffrey Lawrence

Dated Nurnberg, Germany this 24th day of November, 1945
Copies of four (4) Medical Reports attached

(1) British Medical Report

REPORT on Rudolf Hess, telephoned from London.

"The undersigned, having seen and examined Rudolf Hess, have
come to the following conclusion:

                                                   [Page 99]
1. There are no relevant physical abnormalities.

2. His mental state is of a mixed type. He is an unstable
man, and what is technically called a psychopathic
personality. The evidence of his illness in the past four
years, as presented by one of us who has had him under his
care in England, indicates that he has had a delusion of
poisoning, and other similar paranoid ideas.

Partly as a reaction to the failure of his mission, these
abnormalities got worse, and led to suicidal attempts.

In addition, he has a marked hysterical tendency, which has
led to the development of various symptoms, notably a loss
of memory, which lasted from November 1943 to June 1944, and
which resisted all efforts at treatment. A second loss
memory began in February 1945 and lasted till the present.
This amnesic symptom will eventually clear, when
circumstances change.

3. At the.moment he is not insane in the strict sense. His
loss of memory will not entirely interfere with his
comprehension of the proceedings, but it will interfere with
his ability to make his defense, and to understand details
of the past, which arise in evidence.

4. We recommend that further evidence should be obtained by
narco-analysis and that if the Court decides to proceed with
the Trial, the question should afterwards be reviewed on
psychiatric grounds."

Dated 19th November 1945

                                              [signed] Moran
                                           J. Rees, MD, FRCP
                                              George Riddoch

        (2) Joint American and French Medical Report
                                            20 November 1945

MEMORANDUM TO: Brigadier General Wm. L. Mitchell, General
Secretary for the International Military Tribunal.

In response to request of the Tribunal that the defendant
Rudolf Hess be examined, the undersigned psychiatrists
examined Rudolf Hess on November 15th  and November 19th,
1945, in his cell in the Military Prison in Nurnberg.

The following examinations were made: physical, neurological
and psychological.

In addition, documents were studied bearing information
concerning his personal development and career. Reports
concerning the period of his stay in England were
scrutinized. The results of all psychological, special
psychometric examinations and observations carried out by
the prison psychiatrist and his staff
                                                  [Page 100]
were studied. Information was also derived from the official
interrogation of the defendant on November 14th and November
16th, 1945.

(1) We find, as a result of our examinations and
investigations, that Rudolf Hess is suffering from hysteria
characterized in part by loss of memory. The nature of this
loss of memory is such that it will not interfere with his
comprehension of the proceedings, but it will interfere with
his response to questions relating to his past and will
interfere with his undertaking his defense.

In addition there is a conscious exaggeration of his loss of
memory and a tendency to exploit it to protect himself
against examination.

(2) We consider that the existing hysterical behavior which
the defendant reveals was initiated as a defense against the
circumstances in which he found himself while in England;
that it has now become in part habitual and that it will
continue as long as he remains under the threat of imminent
punishment, even though it may interfere with his
undertaking a more normal form of defense.

(3) It is the unanimous conclusion of the undersigned that
Rudolf Hess is not insane at the present time in the strict
sense of the word.

(s) D. Ewen Cameron
Professor of Psychiatry, McGill University
(s) Paul L. Schroeder
A US Neuropsychiatric Consultant
(s) Jean Delay
Professor of Psychiatry at the Faculty of Medicine in Paris
(s) Nolan D. C. Lewis
Professor Psychiatry, Columbia University
                  (3) Soviet Medical Report


In pursuance of the assignment by the Tribunal, we, the
medical experts of the Soviet Delegation, together with the
physicians of the English Delegation and in the presence of
one representative of the American Medical Delegation, have
examined Rudolf Hess and made a report on our examination of
Mr. Hess together

                                                  [Page 101]

with our conclusions and interpretation of the behavior of
Mr. Hess.

The statement of the general conclusions has been signed
only by the physicians of the Soviet Delegation and by
Professor Delay, the medical expert of the French

Appendix: 1 Conclusions and 2 the Report on the examination
of Mr. Hess.

(signed) Professor Krasnushkin,
Doctor of Medicine
(signed) Professor Sepp,
Honorary Scientist, Regular Member of the Academy of
(signed) Professor Kushakov,
Doctor of Medicine, Chief Therapeutist of the Commissariat
of Health of the USSR

November 17, 1945

                       (a) Conclusions

After observation and an examination of Rudolf Hess the
undersigned have reached the following conclusions:

1. No essential physical deviations from normality were

2. His mental conditions are of a mixed type. He is an
unstable person, which in technical terms is called a
psychopathic personality. The data concerning his illness
during the period of the last four years submitted by one of
us who had him under observation in England, show that he
had a delusion of being poisoned and other similar paranoic

Partly as a reaction to the failure of his mission there,
the abnormal manifestations increased and led to attempts at

In addition to the above mentioned he has noticeable
hysterical tendencies which caused a development of various
symptoms, primarily, of amnesia that lasted from November
1943 to June of 1944 and resisted all attempts to be cured.

The amnesia symptom may disappear with changing

The second period of amnesia started in February of 1945 and
has lasted up through the present.

3. At present he is not insane in the strict sense of the
word. His amnesia does not prevent him completely from
understanding what is going on around him but it will
interfere with his ability to conduct his defense and to
understand details of the past which would appear as factual

4. To clarify the situation we recommend that a narco-

                                                  [Page 102]

be performed on him and, if the Court decides to submit him
to trial, the problem should be subsequently reexamined
again from a psychiatric point of view.

The conclusion reached on November 14 by the physicians of
the British Delegation, Lord Moran, Dr. T. Rees and Dr. G.
Riddoch, and the physicians of the Soviet Delegation,
Professors Krasnushkin, Sepp, and Kurshakov, was also
arrived at on November 15 by the representative of
the French Delegation, Professor Jean Delay.

After an examination of Mr. Hess which took place on
November 15, 1945, the undersigned Professors and experts of
the Soviet Delegation, Krasnushkin, Sepp and Kurshakov, and
Professor Jean Delay, the expert from the French Delegation,
have agreed on the following statement:

Mr. Hess categorically refused to be submitted to narco-
analysis and resisted all other procedures intended to
effect a cure of his amnesia, and stated that he would agree
to undergo treatment only after the trial. The behavior of
Mr. Hess makes it impossible to apply the
methods suggested in Paragraph 4 of the report of November
14 and to follow the suggestion of that Paragraph in present

(signed) Professor Krasnushkin,
Doctor of Medicine
(signed) Professor Sepp,
Honorary Scientist, Regular Member of the Academy of
(signed) Professor Kurshakov,
Doctor of Medicine, Chief Theraputist of the Commissariat of
Health of the USSR
(signed) Professor Jean Delay
of the School of Medicine in Paris

          (b) Record of Examination of Rudolf Hess

According to the information obtained on Nov. 16, 1945,
during the interrogation of Rosenberg who had seen Hess
immediately before the latter's flight to England, Hess gave
no evidence of any abnormality either in appearance or
conversation. He was, as usual, quiet and composed. Nor was
it apparent that he might have-been nervous. Prior to this,
he was a calm person, habitually suffering pains in the
region of the stomach.

As can be judged on the basis of the report of the English
psychiatrist, Doctor Rees, who had Hess under observation
from the first days of his flight to England, Hess, after
the airplane

                                                  [Page 103]

crash, disclosed no evidence of a brain injury, but, upon
arrest and incarceration, he began to give expression to
ideas of persecution. He feared that he would be poisoned,
or killed and his death represented as a suicide, and that
all this would be done by the English under the hypnotic
influence of the Jews. Furthermore, these delusions of
persecution were maintained up to the news of the
catastrophe suffered by the German Army at Stalingrad when
the manifestations were replaced by amnesia. According to
Doctor Rees, the delusions of persecution and the amnesia
were observed not to take place simultaneously. Furthermore,
there were two attempts at suicide. A knife wound, inflicted
during the second attempt, in the skin near the heart gave
evidence of a clearly hysterico-demonstrative character.
After this there was again observed a change from amnesia to
delusions of persecution, and during this period he wrote
that he was simulating his amnesia, and, finally, again
entered into a state of amnesia which has been prolonged up
to the present.

According to the examination of Rudolf Hess on Nov. 14,
1945, the following was disclosed.

Hess complains of frequent cramping pains in the region of
the stomach which appear independent of the taking of food,
and headaches in the frontal lobes during mental strain,
and, finally, of loss of memory.

In general his condition is marked by a pallor of the skin
and a noticeable reduction in food intake.

Regarding the internal organs of Hess, the pulse is 92, and
a shakening of the heart tone is noticeable. There has been
no change in the condition of the other internal organs.

Concerning the neurological aspect, there are no symptoms of
organic impairment of the nervous system.

Psychologically, Hess is in a state of clear consciousness;
knows that he is in prison at Nurnberg under indictment as a
war criminal; has read, and, according to his own words, is
acquainted with the charges against him. He answers
questions rapidly and to the point. His speech is coherent,
his thoughts formed with precision and correctness and they
are accompanied by sufficient emotionally expressive
movements. Also, there is no kind of evidence of paralogism;
It should also be noted here, that the present psychological
examination, which was conducted by Lieut. Gilbert, M.D.,
bears out the testimony that the intelligence of Hess is
normal and in some instances above the average. His
movements are natural and not forced.

He has expressed no delirious fancies nor does he give any
delirious explanation for the painful sensation in his
stomach or

                                                  [Page 104]
the loss of memory, as was previously attested to by Doctor
Rees, namely, when Hess ascribed them to poisoning. At the
present time, to the question about the reason for his
painful sensations and the loss of memory, Hess answers that
this is for the doctors to know. According to his own
assertions, he can remember almost nothing of his former
life. The gaps in Hess' memory are ascertained only on the
basis of the subjective changing of his testimony about his
inability to remember this or that person or event given at
different times. What he knows at the present time is, in
his own words, what he allegedly learned only recently from
the information of those around him and the films which have
been shown him.

On Nov. 14 Hess refused the injection of narcotics which
were offered for the purpose of making an analysis of his
psychological condition. On Nov. 15, in answer to Prof.
Delay's offer, he definitely and firmly refused narcosis and
explained to him that, in general, he would take
all measures to cure his amnesia only upon completion of the

All that has been exposed above, we are convinced, permits,
of the interpretation that the deviation from the norm in
the behavior of Hess takes the following forms:

I. In the psychological personality of Hess there are no
changes typical of the progressive schizophrenic disease,
and therefore the delusions, from which he suffered
periodically while in England, cannot be considered as
manifestations of a schizophrenic paranoia, and must be
recognized as the expression of a psychogenic paranoic
reaction, that is, the psychologically comprehensible
reaction of an unstable (psychologically) personality to the
situation (the failure of his mission, arrest and
incarceration). Such an interpretation of the delirious
statements of Hess in England is bespoken by their
disappearance, appearance and repeated disappearance
depending on external circumstances which affected the
mental state of Hess.

II. The loss of memory of Hess is not the result of some
kind of mental disease but represents hysterical amnesia,
the basis of which is a subconscious inclination toward self-
defense as well as a deliberate and conscious tendency
toward it. Such behavior often terminates when the
hysterical person is faced with an unavoidable necessity of
conducting himself correctly. Therefore, the amnesia of Hess
may end upon his being brought to trial.

III. Rudolf Hess, prior to his flight to England, did not
suffer from any kind of insanity, nor is he now suffering
from it. At the present time he exhibits hysterical behavior
with signs of a

                                                  [Page 105]
conscious-intentional (simulated character, which does not
exonerate him from his responsibility under the indictment.

(signed) Professor Krasnushkin.
Doctor of Medicine
(signed) Professor Sepp,
Honorary Scientist, Regular Member of the Academy of
(signed) Professor Kurshakov,
Doctor of Medicine, Chief Theraputist of the Commissariat of
Health of the USSR

17 November 1945

Attorney-at-law von Rohrscheidt
Defense Counsel for Rudolf Hess

Nurnberg, 29 November 1946

To the General Secretary of the International Military

Reference: Rudolf Hess -- Session of 30 November 1945.

I. Reply to the request of the Tribunal of 28 November 1945.

II. Preparatory statement for the trial.

I, as Counsel for the Defendant Hess, answer the request of
the Tribunal of 28 November 1946 as follows:

1. No formal objection is being raised by Defense against
presentation and use of the expert opinions obtained by the

2. The Defense does not think the defendant Hess to be
"verhandlungsfaehig" (in a state of health to be tried)

3. Material objections are being raised by the Defense,
inasmuch as the expert opinion denies the competence of the
defendant as a consequence of a mental disorder.

For the proceedings, I, as Counsel for the Defendant Hess,
wish to make the following statement
1. I move:
a. That a decision be made to adjourn the proceedings
against the defendant temporarily.

b. That in case incapacity to be tried is asserted,
proceedings in absentia against the defendant should not be
carried on.

c. That in case my motion ad a is rejected, a super expert
opinion be obtained from additional eminent psychiatrists.
                                                  [Page 106]
2. I argue these motions as follows:

ad 1-a: The adjournment of the proceedings is necessary
because of the unfitness of the defendant to follow them.

In this respect the (medical) opinions state unanimously
upon the questions asked by the Tribunal, that "the ability
of the Defendant Hess is impaired to the extent that he
cannot defend himself, nor oppose a witness, nor understand
the details of evidence." Even if the amnesia does not keep
him from understanding what happens about him or to
understand the course of the trial, this amnesia
nevertheless has a disturbing effect on his defense.

The impairment of the defendant in his defense, through his
amnesia, recognized by all opinions as a mental defect, has
to be acknowledged as such, in view of the statements in the
opinions of the Soviet, English and American Delegations of
14 November 1945, which designate the
mental condition as one of a mixed kind, but more as one of
a sort of mental abnormality. This will not make a pertinent
defense possible for him (Hess).

In this respect, it does not have to be considered that the
defendant is not mentally ill "in the literal meaning of the
word" and that he can follow the proceedings. The question
whether the defendant is at present incapable, as a result
of the diminution of his "mental powers," to understand all
occurrences and to defend himself properly, has nothing to
do with his mental derangement when committing the crime.

In the opinion of counsel, the defendant is in no case in a
position to make himself understood or to understand
argument, because he is impaired in his mental clarity
through the loss of his memory and because he has completely
lost the knowledge of previous events and of people of
former acquaintance.

Since the expert establishment of his mental disorder which
impairs the defendant in the full execution of his defense,
makes proceedings against him inadmissible, the statement of
the defendant that he thinks himself capable of being tried
has no significance.

According to expert opinion, the impairment of the defendant
cannot be removed within a measurable space of time. It is
not sure whether treatment through Narco-Analysis, as
proposed by the medical experts, will have the desired
result. The defendant has refused to submit to
this treatment only because he thinks of himself as capable
of being tried and consequently not in need of such
treatment. Furthermore, because he is opposed to any
forcible influence upon the body, and finally, he is afraid
of physical disturbances which would prevent him from

                                                  [Page 107]
in the trial if such method of treatment is used at this
time. The proceedings would have to be dropped in case of an
illness of long duration which excludes his fitness to be

ad l-b: According to Article 12 of the Statutes, the
Tribunal has the right to proceed against a defendant in
absentia if he, the defendant, cannot be located or if the
Tribunal thinks it necessary, for other reasons, in the
interests of justice. If the Tribunal, on the basis of
convincing expert opinions, establishes that the defendant
is not in a position to put up a pertinent defense and
consequently decides not to proceed against him, proceedings
in absentia, according to Article 12, could then only e
carried on if this is in the interest of justice. It would
not be compatible with objective justice, in case that
actual proof of this fact is available, if the defendant is
impeded by an impairment based upon health reasons, in
personally standing up for his rights and in being present
at the trial.

In proceedings which accuse the defendant of such serious
crimes and possibly carry the death penalty, it would not be
compatible with objective justice if he were personally
denied the opportunity to look after his rights as stated in
Article 16 of the Statutes. These rights provide for his
self-defense. The possibility to "personally present
evidence for one's defense and to cross-examine each witness
of the prosecution" is of such importance that any exclusion
of such rights
has to be considered an injustice toward the defendant.
Proceedings in absentia can, under no circumstances, be
accepted as a "fair trial."

The same is true for the exclusion of the defendant from the
rights which are granted him during the proceedings
according to Article 24.

If the defendant is impaired in his ability to defend
himself for the reasons of the expert opinions, and to the
extent explained therein, then he is just as little in a
position to give his Counsel the
necessary information and to enable him to take care of the
defense in his absence.

Since the Statutes establish the rights for the defense in
this precise manner, it does not seem fair to withhold these
from a defendant in a case when he is prevented from
personally taking care of his defense during the
proceedings. The rules in Article 12, regarding the
proceedings against an absent defendant, have to be
considered as an exception which should only be used against
a defendant who tries to dodge in spite of his being in a
position to be tried. The Defendant Hess has always been
prepared to be tried in order to avoid proceedings in
absentia, which he considers an injustice of the highest

                                                  [Page 108]
ad 1-c: In case the Court should not agree with the
explanations and should not consider the statements of the
expert opinion in the sense of the defense, and therefore
come to a denial of the Application ad a, it seems necessary
to obtain the super opinion because the opinions testify to
the fact that the defendant is a psychopathic personality
who suffers from hallucinations and still today shows, in
the loss of memory, clear signs of a serious hysteria. If
the Tribunal does not
consider these sentiments alone as sufficient for the
establishment of incapability to be tried, a more intensive
examination would have to follow which would not be confined
to an examination of only one or two hours on several days,
but require a clinical observation.

The opinions, themselves, provide for another examination of
the mental condition of the defendant, which seems to prove
that the experts possibly have a "disturbance of the mental
capacity" in mind if the condition of the defendant lasts
and the Tribunal, against expectations, declares the
defendant unfit to be tried and therewith incompetent under
all circumstances.

                                    /Signed/ von Rohrscheidt
                              Translator: Dr. H. v. V. Veith


The undersigned representatives of their respective nations
answer the request of the Tribunal of 28 November, 1945
respectfully as follows:

1. We do not challenge or question the report of the

2. It is our position that the defendant Rudolf Hess is fit
to stand trial.

3. Observations may be filed by any of the undersigned based
on their respective relationships to the subject matter.

[signed] R. RUDENKO
For the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
[signed] C. DUBOST
For the Provisional Government of France
For the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
For the United States of America

                                                  [Page 109]
      (1) Answer by the United States Chief of Counsel


The United States respectfully files the following
observations on the application of RUDOLF HESS:

Hess' condition was known to the undersigned representative
of the United States immediately after his delivery to the
Nurnberg prison and was the subject of a report by Major
Douglas McG. Kelley of the Medical Corps of the United
States Army, which report is attached hereto.

The report of Major Kelley and his recommendation for
treatment were submitted to me and on 10/20/1945, I advised
that "any treatment of this case involving the use of drugs
which might cause injury to the subject is disapproved."
This was not because I disapproved of the treatment. I
approve of the treatment and would insist on its being
employed if the victim were a member of my own family. But I
was of the opinion that the private administration of any
kind of drug to Hess would be dangerous because if he should
thereafter die, even of natural causes, it would become the
subject of public controversy. This completely agreed with
the opinion of the Security Officer, Colonel B. C. Andrus,
whose report is attached.

In view of the statements contained in the medical report of
the Commission and in view of the facts which I have
recited, the United States must regard Hess as a victim, at
most, of a voluntary amnesia and presenting no case for
excuse from trial.

Respectfully submitted
[signed] Robert H. Jackson
Chief of Counsel for the United States.

                      APO 403, US ARMY
                                             16 October 1945
SUBJECT: Psychiatric Status of Internee.
TO: Commanding Officer, Internal Security Detachment.

1. Internee Rudolf HESS has been carefully studied since his
admission to Nurnberg Prison.

2. On entry HESS manifested a spotty amnesia. The British

                                                 [[Page 110]
accompanying him stated that from 4 October 43 to 4 February
45 HESS presented symptoms of total amnesia. From 4 February
45 to 12 July 45 he recovered, and is said to have made a
statement that his previous amnesia was simulated. On 12
July 45 he again developed amnesia which has lasted to the
present. Also while in England HESS claimed he was being poisoned
and sealed up numerous samples of food, chocolate, medicine,
etc. as "evidence" to be analyzed prior to his trials. Such
behavior could be either simulated or a true paranoid

3. Present examination reveals a normal mental status with
the exception of the amnesia. Attitude and general behavior
are normal, mood and affect, while slightly depressed, are
intact and normal. Sensorium is intact and insight is good.
Content reveals vague paranoid trends, but there is no
evidence of any actual psychosis. His reactions to his
suspicions are not fixed and delusioned trends are
distinctly spotty and disconnected. His reactions are those
of an individual who has given up a simulated behavior
pattern rather than those of the psychotic. Oddly enough his
memory for this phase of behavior is excellent.

4. Special examinations with Rorschach cards indicate some
neurotic patterns. They point to a highly schizoid
personality with hysterical and obsessive components. Such
findings are confirmed in the patient's present reactions.
He complains bitterly of "stomach cramps" which are
obviously neurotic manifestations. He is over-dramatic in
his actions presenting typical hysterical gestures,
complaints and symptoms. His amnesia is at present limited
to personal events concerning his history after joining the
party. The amnesia however shifts in a highly suspicious
fashion. Such amnesias may be hysterical in nature but in
such cases do not change in depth from day to day and facts
recently learned are not lost as with Hess.

5. In HESS' case there is also the factor of his long
amnesia in England. It is quite possible that he has
suggested an amnesia to himself for so long that he
partially believes in it. In a person of
hysterical make-up such auto suggestion could readily
produce an amnesic state. Also the "gain" or protection
found in amnesia, fancied or real, would be a bar to its
easy clearance. Finally a large conscious element may well
be present.

6. In this case I believe all those factors are present.
Treatment will have to be formulated along lines attacking
the suggestive factors and overcoming conscious restraints.
Hypnosis would be a value but probably chemical hypnosis
will be required. Such narco-hypnosis and analysis require
the use of intravenous drugs of the barbitol series, either
sodium amytol or sodium pentothal.

                                                  [Page 111]
Such treatment is in general innocuous if proper precautions
are taken. It must be borne in mind, however, that
occasional accidents happen in any intravenous technique.
With the drugs mentioned above rare fatalities have been
reported although in more than 1000 such cases
personally treated, I have never seen one.

7. Essentially the present situation is as follows:

a. Internee HESS is sane and responsible.

b. Internee HESS is a profound neurotic of the hysterical

c. His amnesia is of mixed etuology, stemming from auto
suggestions and conscious malingering in a hysterical personality.

d. Treatment will be required if it is felt desirable to
remove this amnesia.

e. Such treatment, though it cannot eliminate the conscious
element is of great value in estimating its importance. With
such techniques accurate estimates of malingering can be
made. If this a true amnesia, total recovery can be

f. Such treatment is essentially harmless except in
extremely rare instances. In ordinary practice the value of
the treatment far outweighs any of its hazards.

8. Clarification as to the desired degree of treatment in
this case is requested.

Major, MC

                           1st Ind
17 October 1945

TO: Mr. Justice Jackson's Office US Chief of Counsel
APO 403, US Army
(Attention: Colonel Gill)
HESS believes or has pretended that the British attempted to
poison him. Treatment with drugs might call forth the same
suspicion or allegation against us by him. Undue alarm might
be injurious to the patient.

/s/ B. C. Andrus
/t/ B. C. ANDRUS
Colonel Cav

                                                  [Page 112]
                           2nd Ind


TO: Headquarters, Internal Security Detachment. Office US
Chief of Counsel

Any treatment of this case involving the use of drugs which
might cause injury to the subject is disapproved.

Colonel, CMP

                    CONCERNING HIS MEMORY

                                            30 November 1945
                                           Afternoon Session

Mr. President: At the beginning of this afternoon's
proceedings, I handed my defense counsel a note stating that
I am of the opinion that these proceedings could be
shortened if I could speak briefly. What I have to say is as
follows: In order to prevent any possibility of my being
declared incapable of pleading although I am willing to take
part in the rest of the proceedings with the rest of them, I
would like to make the following declaration to the Tribunal
although I originally intended not to make this declaration
until a later time. My memory is again in order. The reason
why I simulated loss of memory was tactical. In fact, it is
only that my power for concentration is slightly reduced but
in conflict to that my capacity to follow the trial, my
capacity to defend myself, to put questions to witnesses or
even to answer question in these, my capacities are not
influenced. I emphasize the fact that I bear full
responsibility for everything that I have done, signed or
have signed as co-signatory. My fundamental attitude that
the Tribunal is not legally competent, is not affected by
the statement I have just made. Hitherto, in my
conversations with my official defense counsel, I have
maintained my loss of memory. He was, therefore, acting in
good faith when he asserted I had lost my memory."

                  E. RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL

The ruling of the International Military Tribunal was
announced orally by Lord Justice Lawrence, presiding, on 1
December 1945:

                                                  [Page 113]
"The Tribunal has given careful consideration to the motion
of Counsel for the Defendant Hess, and it has had the
advantage of hearing full argument upon it both from the
Defense and from the Prosecution. The Tribunal ha also
considered the very full medical reports, which have been
made on the condition of the Defendant Hess, and has come to
the conclusion that no grounds whatever exist for a further
examination to be ordered.

"After hearing the statement of the Defendant Hess in court
yesterday; and in view of all the evidence, the TribunaL is
of the opinion that the Defendant Hess is capable of
standing his trial at the present time, and the motion of
Counsel for the Defense is, therefore, denied,
and the trial will proceed."

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.