Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-01/tgmwc-01-04.01 Last-Modified: 1999/08/28 [Page 117] FOURTH DAY FRIDAY, 23RD NOVEMBER, 1945 DR. OTTO NELTE (Counsel for the defendant Keitel): Mr. President, you advised the defence in yesterday's session that they should at once, at this stage of the trial, raise objections if they believe they have any against the documentary evidence introduced by the Prosecution. The Chief Prosecutor introduced in Court yesterday a graphic presentation concerning the Reich Ministries and other bureaux and offices at the highest level of the German government. My client is of the opinion that this presentation is erroneous in the following respects which concern his own person: (1) A Reich Defence Council has never existed. The Reich Defence Law, which foresaw a Reich Defence Council in the event of war, has never been published; a session of a Reich Defence Council has never taken place. For this reason, the defendant Keitel was never a member of a Reich Defence Council. (2) The Secret Cabinet Council which was to be created in accordance with the law of 4th February, 1938, never came into existence. It was never constituted; it never held a session. (3) The defendant Keitel never was Reich Minister. Like the commanders in chief of the Army and the Navy, he merely had the rank of a Reich Minister. Consequently, he never was a Minister without portfolio either. He did not participate in any advisory Cabinet session. I should like to ask the Court for its opinion as to whether these objections may be made the object of an examination at this stage of the trial or whether they are to be reserved for a later stage? THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rules that the documents are admissible, but the defendants can prove at a later stage any matters, which are relevant to the documents. It is not necessary for the defendants to make objections at this stage. At a later stage they can prove any matters which are relevant to the weight of the documents. DR. RUDOLF DIX (defence Counsel): May I ask the Tribunal a question: We have now been able to see, in part, the briefs and documents which were introduced in Court yesterday. In that connection we have established that these documents comprise some with which the representative of the prosecution did not acquaint the Court either in their entire contents or as regards their nature. My question now is: Shall the contents, the entire contents of all the documents which were presented to Court form part of the basis for the Court's decision, even in cases where the prosecutor who presented the documents did not refer to their contents? In other words, must we consider all of the documents presented in Court - including those the contents of which were not verbally referred to - as a basis for the judgement and, consequently, should they be examined with a view to determining whether the defendants wish to raise any objections? In conclusion, I ask the Tribunal whether we are to understand that the entire contents of all the documents which were introduced in Court yesterday, or which still may be introduced at a future date, will form the basis for formulation of the judgement, even in cases concerning documents which the prosecutor has not presented verbatim, whose contents he has not given and to which he has not referred otherwise ? THE PRFSIDENT Every document, when it is put in, becomes part of the record [Page 118] and is in evidence before the Tribunal, but it is open to the defendants to criticise and comment upon any part of the document when their case is presented. DR. DIX: Thank you. The question is clarified herewith. THE PRESIDENT: There are three announcements which I have to make on behalf of the Tribunal; and the first is this: That we propose that the Tribunal shall not sit on Saturday morning in this week, in order that defendants' counsel may have more time for the consideration of the documents and arguments, which have been made up to that time. That is the first matter. The second matter is that the Tribunal desires that all motions and applications shall, so far as practicable, be made in writing, both by the prosecution and by the defence. There are occasions, of course, such as this morning when motions and applications for the purpose of explanation, are more conveniently made orally, but as far as practicable, it is the desire of the Tribunal that they shall be made in writing, both by the prosecution and by the defence. The other matter is an observation, which the Tribunal desires me to make to the prosecution, and to suggest to them that it would be more convenient to the Tribunal and possibly also to the defence that their briefs and volumes of documents should be presented to the Tribunal before counsel-speaking begins that branch of the case, so that the brief and volume of documents should be before the Tribunal while counsel is addressing the Tribunal upon that branch of the case; and also that it would be convenient to the Tribunal - if it is convenient to counsel for the prosecution-that he should give a short explanation - not a prolonged explanation - of the documents which he is presenting to the Court, drawing their attention to any passages in the documents to which be particularly wishes to draw attention. I will now call upon the Chief Prosecutor for the United States to continue his address. COLONEL STOREY: May it please the Tribunal: Yesterday afternoon it appeared that there was some question about the identification of documents formally offered in evidence yesterday. Therefore, with the Tribunal's permission I should like to offer them by number, formally, so that the Clerk can get them on his record and they may be identified, with your Honour's permission. The United States - and may I say, Sir, that we offer each one of these exhibits in evidence - requests that they be received and filed as evidence for the United States of America, with the understanding that defence counsel may later interpose objections. If that is agreeable, Sir, the first is exhibit U.S.A. 1, the affidavit of Major William H. Coogan, concerning the capture, processing and authentication of documents, together with Robert C. Storey's accompanying statement: Exhibit USA 2 being document 2903-PS, being the Nazi Party Chart, together with authentication certificates. Exhibit USA 3, being document 2905-PS, the Nazi State Chart, together with authenticating certificates; Exhibit USA 4, document 2836-PS, the original statement of defendant Goering as to positions held; Exhibit USA 5, document 2829-PS, the same, concerning defendant Ribbentrop; Exhibit USA 6, document 2851-PS, being the same with reference to defendant Rosenberg; Exhibit USA 7, being document 2979-PS, the same concerning defendant Frank; Exhibit USA 8, being document 2978-PS, the same relating to defendant Frick; Exhibit USA 9, being document 2975-PS, regarding defendant Streicher Exhibit USA 10, being document 2977-PS, relating to defendant Funk Exhibit USA 11, being document 3021-PS, relating to defendant Schacht; [Page 119] Exhibit USA 12, being document 2887-PS, relating to defendant Donitz; Exhibit USA 13, being document 2688-PS, relating to defendant Raeder; Exhibit USA 14-- THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Storey, might not the numbering of those documents be done by the General Secretary? COLONEL STOREY: Yes, Sir, that is correct. That is agreeable with us, Sir, but the General Secretary raised the question that it was not in the record. We have the complete tabulation describing each document by number, and if it is agreeable to your Honour I will offer the description of this page, correctly describing, by exhibit number, each one that was offered in evidence yesterday. THE PRESIDENT: We will authorise the General Secretary to accept the documents so numbered. COLONEL STOREY: Thank you, Sir. The tabulation referred to is set forth in the following words and figures: USA 1 Major Coogan's affidavit with Col. Storey's statement. USA 2 (2903-PS) Nazi Party Chart and authenticating papers. USA 3 (2905-PS) Nazi State Chart and authenticating papers. USA 4 (2695-PS) Original statement of Goering's positions. USA 5 (2829-PS) Original statement of Ribbentrop's positions. USA 6 (2851-PS) Original statement of Rosenberg's positions. USA 7 (2979-PS) Original statement of Frank's positions. USA 8 (2978-PS) Original statement of Frick's positions. USA 9 (2975-PS) Original statement of Streicher's positions. USA 10 (2977-PS) Original statement of Funk's positions. USA 11 (3021-PS) Original statement of Schacht's positions. USA 12 (2887-PS) Original statement of Donitz' positions. USA 13 (2888-PS) Original statement of Raeder's positions. USA 14 (2973-PS) Original statement of von Schirach's positions. USA 15 (2974-PS) Original statement of Sauckel's positions. USA 16 (2865-PS) Original statement of Jodl's positions. USA 17 (2910-PS) statement of Seyss-Inquart's positions. USA 18 (2980-PS) Original statement of Speer's positions. USA 19 (2972-PS) Original statement of von Neurath's positions. USA 20 (2976-PS) Original statement of Fritzsche's positions. DOCUMENT BOOKS USA A Common Objectives, Methods, and Doctrines of Conspiracy. USA B The Acquiring of Totalitarian Control over Germany; Political First Steps; Control Acquired. USA C Consolidation of Control (Utilisation and Moulding of Political Machinery. USA F Purge of Political Opponents; Terrorisation. USA G Destruction of Trade Unions and Acquisition of Control over Productive Labour Capacity in Germany. USA H Suppression of the Christian Churches in Germany. USA I Adoption and Publication of the Programme for Persecution of the Jews. May it please the Tribunal, Mr. Justice Jackson called my attention while we were offering all of these exhibits on behalf of the United States; naturally they are for the benefit of and on behalf of all the other nations who are co- operating in this case. THE PRESIDENT: That is understood. MAJOR WALLIS: May it please the Court, when we adjourned yesterday afternoon, I was in the process of developing the various means by which these conspirators acquired a totalitarian control of Germany. I wish to continue on that subject this morning, and I will first discuss the reshaping of education and the training [Page 120] of youth; and in accordance with your Honour's suggestion, I offer the document book, United States Exhibit D, and would call to the Court's attention that this book contains translations of the documents which we rely upon with respect to this portion of the case. These documents consist of German writings, German speeches of the defendants, and other Nazi leaders, and are matters that we suggest are clearly within the purview of judicial notice of the Court. In the brief which is offered for the assistance of the Court in connection with this subject, the exact portions of the documents which are desired to be brought to the attention of the Tribunal are set forth either by quotation from the documents, or by reference to the specific page number of the documents. Meanwhile, during this entire pre-war period, the nation was being psychologically prepared for war. One of the most important steps was the re-shaping of the educational system so as to educate the German youth to be amenable to their will. Hitler publicly announced this purpose in November, 1933, and I am quoting from document 2455-PS, when he said: "When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side, and you will not get me on your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to me already. A people lives forever. What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camps. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.'" He further said in May, 1937, and I refer to document 2454- PS: "This new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its education and its own upbringing." The first steps taken in making the German schools the tools of the Nazi education system were two decrees in May 1934, whereby the Reich Ministry of Education was established and the control of education by local authorities was replaced by the absolute authority of the Reich in all educational matters. These decrees are set out in documents 2078-PS, 2088-PS, 2992-PS. Thereafter, the curricula and organisation of the German schools and universities were modified by a series of decrees in order to make these schools effective instruments for the teaching of Nazi doctrines. The Civil Service Law of 1933, which was presented in evidence yesterday, made it possible for the Nazi conspirators to re-examine thoroughly all German teachers and to remove all "harmful and unworthy elements", harmful and unworthy in the Nazi opinion. Many teachers and professors, mostly of them Jews, were dismissed and were replaced with State-spirited teachers. All teachers were required to belong to the National Socialist Teachers' League, which Organisation was charged with the training of all teachers in the theories and doctrines of the N.S.D.A.P. This is set forth in document 2452-PS. The Fuehrerprinzip was introduced into the schools and universities. I refer to document 2393-PS. In addition, the Nazi conspirators supplemented the school system by training the youth through the "Hitler Jugend." The law of the Hitler Jugend, which is set forth in document 1392-PS, states: "The German youth, besides being reared within the family and school, shall be educated physically, intellectually and morally in the spirit of National Socialism to serve the people and community through the Hitler Youth." In 1925 the Hitler Youth was officially recognised by the Nazi Party and became a junior branch of the S.A. In 1931 the defendant Schirach was appointed Reich Youth Leader of the N.S.D.A.P. with the rank of S.A. Gruppenfuehrer. I refer to document 1458-PS. In June, 1933, the defendant Schirach was appointed Youth Leader of the German Reich. I refer to the same document, 1458-PS. In that same month, on orders of the defendant Schirach, the Nazi conspirators destroyed or took over all other youth organisations. This was accomplished by force in the first instance. The defendant Schirach, by decree [Page 121] dated 22nd June, 1933, dissolved the Reich Committee of the German Youth Associations and took over their property. I refer to document 2229-PS. By similar decrees, all of which are set forth in the document book, all the youth organisations of Germany were destroyed. Then the Nazi conspirators made membership in the Hitler Jugend compulsory. I refer to document 1392-PS. The Hitler Jugend from its inception had been a formation of the Nazi Party. By virtue of the 1036 Youth-Law, making membership compulsory, it became an agency of the Reich Government while still retaining its position as a formation of the Nazi Party. This is set forth in document 1392-PS. By 1940 membership in the Hitler Jugend was over 7,000,000. I refer you to document 2435-PS. Through the Hitler Jugend the Nazi conspirators imbued the youth with Nazi ideology. The master race doctrine and anti-Semitism, including physical attack on the Jews, were systematically taught in the training programme. I refer you to document 2436-PS. The Hitler Jugend indoctrinated the youth with the idea that war is a noble activity. I refer to document 1458-PS. One of the most important functions of the Hitler Jugend was to prepare the youth for membership in the Party and its formations. The Hitler Jugend was the agency used for extensive pre- military and military training of youth. I refer to document 1850-PS. In addition to general military training, special training was given in special formations. These included flying units, naval units, motorised units, signal units, etc. The full details, with the accompanying documents of the methods used by the Nazi conspirators in re-shaping the educational system and supplementing it with the Hitler Jugend so as to educate the German youth to be amenable to the Nazi will, and prepare youth for war, are set forth in the document book which has been offered, and in the accompanying briefs. Now I would like to direct your attention to the weapon of propaganda that was used during this period, and for this purpose I offer exhibit USA E with the accompanying brief. This document book and the briefs which accompany it. THE PRESIDENT: Have any copies of these documents been provided for the defence counsel? COLONEL STOREY: I understand they have been sent to the Defendants' Information Centre. I may say, Sir, that by to- morrow we will have then in advance for everybody, including the Court and the defence counsel. THE PRESIDENT: Very well. MAJOR WALLIS: This document book and the accompanying brief entitled "Propaganda Censorship and Supervision of Cultural Activities."
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor