The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)
Nuremberg, war crimes, crimes against humanity

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
20th June to 1st July 1946

One Hundred and Sixtieth Day: Friday, 21st June, 1946
(Part 7 of 12)

[Page 70]

That is what it asks for, and that is what it wants; and I ask you to give it to us in writing now, or, alternatively, each one of you to state how long you anticipate you will take in your speech.

DR. NELTE: I think that I may speak on behalf of my colleagues and say that we shall submit our estimates to the Tribunal in writing.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal feels that it would like to have the apportionment now. It gave notice before, yesterday I think it was, that it was desirous to hear defendants' counsel upon the question of the apportionment this afternoon at 2 o'clock, and the Tribunal, therefore, would like to have that apportionment now.

DR. NELTE: In that case, I can only ask that the Tribunal hear each individual counsel, since naturally I cannot state from memory what each estimate was.

THE PRESIDENT: You could have had it written down, but if you have not got it written down, no doubt you cannot remember. But perhaps you had better give us what you would take.

DR. NELTE: I estimated seven hours. My colleague Horn, for Ribbentrop, just tells me he requires six hours.

THE PRESIDENT: We will take each counsel in turn, if you please.

Yes, Dr. Stahmer?

DR. STAHMER: Seven hours.


DR. HORN: May I, on behalf of Dr. Siemers and Dr. Kranzbuehler, ask to allot each of them eight hours?

DR. SAUTER: For the case of Funk, six hours, and for the case of von Schirach, six hours.

DR. SERVATIUS: For Sauckel, five hours.

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.

I cannot write as quickly as all this. Who was it that Dr. Horn wished to represent? Siemers and who else? And how many hours was it?

DR. HORN: Dr. Siemers and Dr. Kranzbuehler, eight hours each.

DR. SERVATIUS: For Sauckel, five hours.

DR. KAUFFMANN: For Kaltenbrunner, approximately four to five hours.

DR. MARX: For Streicher, four hours.

[Page 71]

DR. SEIDL: For Hess and Frank, eleven hours together.

DR. PANNENBECKER: For Frick, five hours. I remember from the list that Dr. Bergold wants three hours for Bormann. Dr. Bergold is not present, but I remember that the list said three hours.

DR. DIX: For Schacht, five hours.

DR. EXNER: For Jodl, five hours.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: For Papen, approximately five hours.

DR. STEINBAUER: For Dr. Seyss-Inquart, five hours.

DR. FLAECHSNER: For Speer, four hours.

DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN (counsel for von Neurath): For myself, Mr. President, eight hours. For Professor Jahrreiss, who, before the final pleas, will deal with a technical subject, four hours.

THE PRESIDENT: What will Professor Jahrreiss speak about?

DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: About a subject approved by the Tribunal, namely the general question of International Law.

DR. SEIDL: The defence counsel for the defendant Rosenberg said that he would require eight hours.

DR. FRITZ (counsel for Fritzsche): Mr. President, I would ask the Tribunal to take into consideration that the case of Fritzsche has not yet been presented and that therefore I cannot give exact information; but I estimate approximately four hours.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal would like to know first of all whether counsel proposes to write down and then read their speeches. Can you hear what I am saying?

DR. NELTE: Yes. As far as I have been informed, all defence counsel will write down their speeches before delivery. Whether they will actually read every word of the text, or whether they will read parts of it and submit other parts, is not yet certain.

THE PRESIDENT: Have they considered whether they will submit them for translation, because, as the Tribunal has already pointed out, it would be much more convenient for the members of the Tribunal who do not read German to have a translation before them. It would not only greatly assist the Tribunal, but the defendants themselves if they do that.

DR. NELTE: This question has not yet been settled. We discussed it, but have so far not come to a final conclusion. We think that the short time now available may perhaps make it impossible to translate the manuscripts into all four languages.

THE PRESIDENT: The defendants' counsel, of course, understand that the speeches, if they are submitted for translation, will not be communicated to anybody until they are actually made. So they will not be given beforehand either to the Tribunal or the prosecution or anything of that sort, so that the speeches will remain entirely private until they are made. And the second thing is that, of course, the delivery of a great number of the speeches of counsel will be delayed by the counsel who precede them and, therefore, there will be very considerable time during either the 14 days or some longer period, if such a longer period is given, which will enable the speeches to be translated, and defence counsel will appreciate that if their speeches are written down they can tell exactly how long they will take to deliver, or almost exactly. And there is one other thing I want to bring to their attention.

There are 20 or 21 defendants, and naturally, there are a variety of subjects which are common to them all, and there ought to be, therefore, an opportunity, so it appears to the Tribunal, for counsel to divide up the subjects to some extent

[Page 72]

between them and not each one to deal with subjects which have been dealt with already, any more than they ought to have been dealt with in evidence over and over again, and I do not know whether counsel for defence have fully considered that in making this estimate of the time they laid before us.

Anyway, the Tribunal hopes that they will address their minds to these three matters: first of all, as to whether they can submit their speeches for translation in order to help the Tribunal; secondly, whether they will be able, when they have got their speeches written down, to assess the time accurately; and thirdly, whether they cannot apportion the subjects to some extent among themselves so that we shall not have to listen to the same subjects over and over again.

I do not know whether the prosecution would wish to say anything. The Tribunal has said, I think, in the order which we made with reference to this question of limitation of time, that they anticipated that the prosecution would take only three days. Perhaps it would be convenient to hear from the prosecution whether that is an accurate estimate.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord, the prosecution do not ask for any more than the three days. It might conceivably be a little less, but we do not ask for any more than the three days.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should like, your Honour, to call your attention to this. I hope it is not expected that we will mimeograph, and run off on our mimeograph machines, 20 days of speeches or anything of that sort. We simply cannot be put under that kind of a burden. A citizen of the United States is expected to argue his case in the highest court of the land in one hour, and counsel's own clients here have openly scoffed at the amount of time that has been asked.

This is not a sensible amount of time to give to these cases, and I must protest against being expected to mimeograph 20 days of speeches. It really is not possible.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know whether the prosecution intend to let them have copies of their speeches at the time that they are delivered.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: As far as the closing speech of the Attorney General is concerned, we certainly did expect and do hope to give the Tribunal copies of the speech.

THE PRESIDENT: And translations?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, that will be done. My Lord, with reference to this, it was Dr. Nelte who said that it would take a long time to translate. I know, as far as translating into English is concerned, we had the problem of several days of speeches the other day, and that was done by our own translators in one day. So I hope that perhaps Dr. Nelte has been a little pessimistic about that side of the problem.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.

Now, the Tribunal will go on with the cross-examination.

ALBERT SPEER - Continued.


MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think perhaps, your Honour, the photographs in evidence are a little unintelligible if the record of the description of them is not given. I shall read it briefly. It is a description of torture cabinets which were used in the foreign workers' camp in the grounds of No. 4 Armour Shop, and of those of the dirty neglected Russian camp. I quote:

"Photograph 'A' shows an iron cupboard which was specially manufactured by the firm of Krupp to torture Russian civilian workers to an extent that cannot possibly be described by words. Men and women were often locked into a compartment of the cupboard, in which hardly any man could stand up

[Page 73]

for long periods. The measurements of this compartment are, height 1.52 metres, breadth and depth 40 to 50 centimetres each. Frequently even two people were kicked and pressed into one compartment. The Russian - "
I will not read the rest of that.
"Photograph 'B' shows the same cupboard as it looks when it is locked.

Photograph 'C' shows the cupboard open.

In photograph 'D' we see the camp that was selected by the Krupp Directorate to serve as living-quarters for the Russian civilian workers. The individual rooms were 2 to 21 metres wide, 5 metres long, and 2 metres high. In each room up to 16 persons were accommodated in double-tier beds."

I think that covers it.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, one moment. I think you ought to read the last three lines of the second paragraph, beginning, "At the top of the cupboard."

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Oh, yes, I am sorry.

"At the top of the cupboard, there are a few sieve-like air holes through which cold water was poured on the unfortunate victims during the ice-cold winter."
THE PRESIDENT: I think you should read the last three lines of the penultimate paragraph in view of what the defendant said about the evidence.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "We are enclosing two letters which Camp Commandant Lowenkamp had smuggled out of prison in order to induce the undersigned Hoffer to give evidence favourable to him."
And perhaps I should read the last:
"The undersigned, Dahn," - one of the signers - "personally saw how three Russian civilian workers were locked into the cupboard, two in one compartment, after they had first been beaten on New Year's night, 1945. Two of the Russians had to stay the whole of New Year's night locked into the cupboard, and cold water was poured on them as well."
I may say to the Tribunal that we have upwards of a hundred different statements and depositions relating to the investigation of this camp. I am not suggesting offering them, because I think they would be cumulative, and I shall be satisfied with one more, Document 313-D, which will become Exhibit USA 901, which is a statement by a doctor.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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.