Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-17/tgmwc-17-160.07
Last-Modified: 2000/07/05

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, there are some
photographs which have been put before us. Are they
identified and do they form part of an exhibit?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: They form part of the exhibit which I
am now offering.

THE PRESIDENT: I see.

                                                   [Page 66]

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But the witness desires to comment on
the last document, and I will listen to that before we go
ahead.

BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON:
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.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter?

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.

CROSS-EXAMINATION - Resumed.

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.

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