Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-11/tgmwc-11-103.02
Last-Modified: 2000/01/07

DR. THOMA: I am very much disconcerted by the accusation
that I haven't followed the rulings of the Tribunal. During
discussions regarding which documents were admissible, I
explained in detail just which philosophical works I wanted
to quote from and why. It has been stated during the case
for the prosecution that Rosenberg invented his philosophy
for the purpose of aggressive war and for the committing of
war crimes. I considered it my duty to prove that this so-
called national ...

THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell the Tribunal where the
prosecution states that he invented his philosophy, whether
in the Indictment or in the presentation?

DR. THOMA: I can prove it. It appears in the Churchill
speech, and also in the speech by Justice Jackson there are
similar expressions that Rosenberg's philosophy had led to
that.

                                                  [Page 144]

THE PRESIDENT: You say it appears in Churchill's speech?

DR. THOMA: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: What have we got to do with that? I asked you
whether the prosecution alleged it in the Indictment or
alleged it in the course of the presentation of the
prosecution, and you answer me that Mr. Churchill ...

DR. THOMA: No, it is not Churchill, but rather Mr. Justice
Jackson. In his presentation he said things, the sense of
which was about the same. Consequently I felt that it was my
duty to present to the Tribunal that philosophy which,
before Rosenberg, raised similar arguments and which is
indeed the philosophy of the entire world.

Regarding the presentation of the document book, the
following happened: The translating department asked me to
submit my document book without delay, as they had time at
the moment to deal with it before it was handed to the
Tribunal. So the translating department actually received
this document earlier than the Tribunal. But the Tribunal in
its ruling of 8th March, 1946, had expressly given me
permission to use quotations from these philosophical works;
it refused me only the anti-Semitic works of Goldstein,
Elbogen, and Heman-Harling. Consequently I informed the
Tribunal immediately that documents were contained in my
document book which had not been granted me by the Tribunal.

And now, your Honours, something of decisive importance: I
have just ascertained that the quotation which Mr. Justice
Jackson has just read comes from a French research scholar,
M. Larouche.

Secondly, I have marked with red pencil those passages in my
document book which were to be translated. The passage
quoted by Mr. Justice Jackson was not marked in red and was
not meant to be included in the document book. This is a
regrettable error.

Thirdly, I should like to refer to the fact - my attention
has just been called to this - that the passage reads word
for word: "Rosenberg developed the philosophical technique
of the conspiracy and thus created an educational system for
an aggressive war." [NB. This passage epitomises view
expressed by Mr. Walter W. Brudno (not Mr. Justice Robert H.
Jackson) in his presentation of the case against Alfred
Rosenberg: vide Part 4, p. 118.] That was the expression of
Mr. Justice Jackson's presentation. I therefore felt
justified in pointing out that this entire philosophy was
already in the air and was a philosophical necessity which
had to make its appearance. I therefore believe that I have
cleared myself of the accusation of not having obeyed the
ruling of the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Thoma, were these documents sent to
the press-room or were they sent to the translating
department?

DR. THOMA: In my opinion, they were sent to the translating
department, since this department had told me that they had
time at the moment but expected a lot of work soon. I had my
document ready and I gave it to the translating department.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson stated apparently that
they had been sent to the press-room and were being
disseminated to the public in that way, but on the outside
of each document book there is this notice: That they are
not to be publicised until they are presented before the
Tribunal in open court and then only that portion actually
submitted as evidence. Therefore, any documents which are
sent to the translating room are not disseminated, or ought
not to be disseminated to the Press and ought not to be
publicised until they are presented before this Tribunal.

There seems to be a number of misunderstandings about this
which seems to have arisen principally from the fact that
you submitted your documents to the translating department
before they had been submitted to the Tribunal, and
therefore some of them got translated which were
subsequently denied by the Tribunal. Is that right?

DR. THOMA: No, your Honours, that is not right. This
happened rather, first

                                                  [Page 145]

of all, in the various offices of the translating
department. I gave the translating department this document
book because they asked me to do so, and then ...

THE PRESIDENT: I did not say who had asked whom. I said that
the translating department got the documents for translation
- they received them before they were submitted to the
Tribunal, and, in consequence, they translated certain
documents which were subsequently denied by the Tribunal.

DR. THOMA: The only rejected works were, as is known, the
three anti-Semitic works. That these documents reached the
Press I naturally did not know. I was merely trying to
relieve the work of the translating department. I
subsequently informed the General Secretary that I had
submitted the document book and I referred him to it. The
quotations from my philosophical works, however, were
granted to me later. I want to point out again that I was
always of the opinion that this was an entirely internal
matter and that these documents could by no means reach the
Press. I was not informed about that. I am very well aware
that quotations not read in court are not supposed to reach
the Press. I have adhered to that rule, that nothing should
reach the Press which has not been stated in court.

THE PRESIDENT: As you no doubt know, the first granting of
documents when they are applied for is expressly
provisional, and afterwards you have to submit your
documents in open court, as Dr. Horn did, and then the
Tribunal rules upon their admissibility; and this other rule
was introduced for the purpose of preventing undue
translation. It was decided then that after the Tribunal had
given its provisional ruling as to what was provisionally
relevant, you should then submit the passages you wanted to
quote to the prosecution counsel to give them an opportunity
to object, so that the translating department should not be
unduly burdened. That, as you have explained and as Sir
David Maxwell Fyfe has said, was not carried out in your
case, partly, possibly, because as you say the translating
division was prepared to undertake certain work. Therefore,
documents were submitted to it which the Tribunal
subsequently ruled to be inadmissible.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May I correct something which has led
to misunderstanding? I did not mean to say that counsel had
sent the documents to the Press in the sense of a newspaper
Press. They were sent to the press, the printing press. They
were, of course, printed. The 260 copies we were ordered to
print contained the usual release notice that they were not
to be released until used. They have not reached the Press,
and I did not mean to say that they had been sent to the
newspaper Press, they were sent to our printing press.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Dix?

DR. DIX (counsel for defendant Schacht): Your Honours,
before a ruling is made as to the matter under discussion, I
should like to make just a few remarks, not referring to the
case of Rosenberg but to the defence in general. Very
serious accusations against the entire defence have been
made. The expression was used that the prosecution was not
the Press agent of the defence. The accusation was raised
that the defence was trying to make propaganda, and then
these accusations reached their peak in the most serious
charge which one can possibly make in reference to a
participant in a trial, that of contempt of court.

In the name of all defence counsel I refute these heavy
accusations with the best and strongest argument possible,
that of an absolutely clean and pure conscience in this
respect. Anyone who has listened to the debate of the last
30 minutes must have recognised that the differences of
opinion, which have cropped up here and on which the
Tribunal will now have to announce a decision, are in turn
due again to misunderstandings which have occurred in this
court-room.

Mr. Justice Jackson has generously made it clear that he was
not talking about the newspaper Press, when he said "press,"
but about the printing press. My colleague Dr. Thoma has
stated that the only reason why these documents went to the
translating department was the fact that the translating
department, very understandably and reasonably from its
point of view, had said, "We do not have

                                                  [Page 146]


very much work at the moment. Please let us have it, and we
can start to translate it." I believe that we could avoid
all these difficulties if we mutually agree that both
parties, the prosecution and the defence, are working with
the best will and much loyalty' and that the thought of
deliberately disregarding the rulings of the Tribunal does
not exist. Errors and mistakes can always happen. May I just
remind you that this leakage of news to the Press - that
some announcements were released to the Press before they
were actually the subject of proceedings here in court, that
that was something that happened quite frequently at the
beginning of the trial. I do not want to mention examples
since the Tribunal knows that it wasn't the defence - I
don't know who it was, at any rate it was not the defence.
But I make no charges. Things like that do happen, and such
an apparatus as this trial must have a running-in period.
Bad intentions did not exist at that time either. But I
remind you that it was we, the defence - I was the spokesman
- who quite definitely supported the ruling that only such
matters should reach the Press as had been introduced into
the record here in the public sessions, and that it was
after that that the Tribunal passed its ruling. Previously
it had been different.

I never considered that an insult, but rather merely the God-
given dependence of human beings. For instance, it was
impossible for me to get the Charter, the basis of our trial
at the beginning of the trial, but eventually it was
graciously placed at my disposal by the Press.

Thus whenever so complicated an apparatus is set in motion,
there are naturally many errors and mistakes. But we have
now already begun with Sir David to deal with questions of
documents in the most practical manner possible. As long as
we had only the German text, we conferred with the
prosecution in order to find out what passages the
prosecution believed they could object to. There were
technical difficulties, linguistic difficulties, as long as
we had only the German text and the prosecutors only spoke
other languages. I spoke to the prosecution, and we realised
the problem confronting the prosecutors. But that too one
could solve with a good will; when necessary we used an
interpreter. Thus it was an excellent and a practical
system, first, for saving the translating department
unnecessary work and secondly, for saving the Tribunal
unnecessary decisions. And it was working beautifully. I
want to claim for the defence - and I am sure that Sir David
will not contradict me - that this was really our idea as
well, that we co-operated in coming to an unofficial
agreement beforehand by conferring with the prosecution.

The defence in this trial is in a very difficult position. I
think every one of you will admit that human ability and an
almost excessive degree of political tact is required in
order to defend in this trial without ever making some small
mistake. At any rate, 1, for myself, do not claim that I am
absolutely sure of myself in this respect or that I won't
perhaps commit some small faux pas. We find ourselves in a
very difficult situation, difficult as far as the world is
concerned, difficult as far as the Tribunal is concerned,
and difficult as far as the German public is concerned.

May I urge Mr. Justice Jackson to appreciate our difficult
task and not to raise such accusations as those which,
unfortunately, we often have to read in the German Press. We
can't always, when we are attacked in newspaper articles in
which unjust accusations are raised against us, run to the
Tribunal and say, "Please help us." The Tribunal has more
important tasks than that of continuously protecting the
defence.

However, as to the particular accusation that National
Socialist propaganda is being made here or that anti-Semitic
propaganda is being made here, about that I think I can say
with a clear conscience that none of the defence counsel, no
matter what his own philosophy or what his political views
in the past may have been, has ever dreamt of trying to use
this court-room to make ideological propaganda for the dead
- I emphasise the word '"dead" - world of the Third Reich.

                                                  [Page 147]

That would not only be wrong, it would be worse than wrong;
I might say, using Talleyrand's words, that it would be an
unbearable stupidity to do a thing like that.

But, just because we are being attacked and because we
cannot defend ourselves, and because we can't decently ask
the Tribunal to protect us against every accusation, I am
asking Mr. Justice Jackson to clear the atmosphere somewhat
and to state to us that these serious accusations - contempt
of court, anti-Semitic propaganda, or National Socialist
propaganda, and so forth - weren't really meant to be raised
seriously.

I think that the comradely co-operation which has existed
between us and the prosecution so far, should continue; and
I must openly confess that I look back to this co-operation
with gratitude and wholeheartedly acknowledge the help and
comradeship which these gentlemen have shown me.

Where would it lead us, if we were to oppose each other here
like fighting cocks? We are all pursuing the same aim.

Not only do I ask him to do this, but knowing him as I do, I
know that, even without my request, he will make a statement
in order to clear the atmosphere in regard to this
accusation, which is extremely painful, not only for the
defence; but also for the entire Court.

May I thank you, your Honours, for being good enough to
listen to me for so long; but I believe that the matter was
sufficiently significant to call for further co-operation,
without friction and in the interest of the cause, between
the prosecution and the defence.

DR. THOMA: Your Honours, I ask to be permitted a few words
in order to make a factual correction.

I should like to quote exactly in which passage it becomes
apparent that Rosenberg is being held solely responsible for
the mistaken ideology. It says in the presentation of the
case for the American prosecution, on Page 2254 of the
German transcript that Rosenberg reorganised the German
educational system in order to expose the German people to
the will of the conspirators and to prepare the German
nation psychologically for a war of aggression. That is a
quotation which is here at my disposal.

Secondly - one word more - I am forced to reply in person to
the accusation raised by Mr. Justice Jackson. I must state
something which I should normally not have said in this
court-room, namely, that I have told Herr Rosenberg
repeatedly, "Herr Rosenberg, I cannot defend your anti-
Semitism; that you have to do yourself." For that reason I
have limited my documents considerably, but have considered
it my duty to place at Rosenberg's disposal every means
necessary for him to defend himself on this point.

I should like to draw your attention once more to the fact
that this passage which has been quoted by Mr. Justice
Jackson was not marked in red in the document book and has
been included by error.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I certainly don't want to be unfair to
our adversaries; I know they have a very difficult job.
However, I hope the Tribunal has before it - and I shall
withdraw all characterisations and let what I have to say
stand on the facts - the order of 8th March, 1946, paragraph
3 thereof. I call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact
that that reads: "The following documents are denied as
irrelevant. - Rosenberg" - and then follows a list of
documents - "Kunstwart; History of the Jews in Germany;
History of the Jewish People." Those are the only three to
which I shall take time to call your attention.

Two days after that order Rosenberg's counsel filed with
this Tribunal, on 10th March, 1946, a rather lengthy
memorandum in which he renewed his request for quotations
from the books listed. On 23rd March, 1946, this Tribunal
again denied that request as irrelevant.

I will now hand to you the stencils which we were ordered,
by the order of 8th April, 1946, to print. They are a little
difficult to read. The first is a quotation from the
"History of the Jewish People," one of the prohibited books.
The next

                                                  [Page 148]

is a quotation from "Kunstwart," -another of the prohibited
documents. And the third is from the "History of the Jews in
Germany," the third of the books that I have mentioned.

We have not had time to examine all of these stencils, but a
hurried examination of them indicates that they are very
largely, if not entirely, quotations from the prohibited
documents. I will make no characterisation of it; I simply
rest on those facts.

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