Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-206.01
Last-Modified: 2000/12/04

                                                  [Page 255]

TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTH DAY

MONDAY, 19th AUGUST, 1946

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I would like to be heard very
briefly this morning on the application of Dr. Stahmer for
permission for the defendant Goering to take the stand. I
made no objections on Friday, but I feel that I should make
one so that the Tribunal will know what our attitude is.

I do not want it to be understood that I am in any conflict
with my distinguished colleague Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, but
I do wish to add a few comments on behalf of the United
States.

I would like to point out to the Tribunal that the reasons
given by Dr. Stahmer, as we understand them, are the
evidence or the testimony of the witness Sievers, and the
document which was offered during his examination, wherein
there is some indication that the defendant Goering had
authorized or ordered a Dr. Haagen to institute these
medical experiments.

It seems to me that the reasons which I called to the
Tribunal's attention at the time of the Funk application
apply here. Of course, I accept the ruling of the Tribunal
with respect to the Funk application with good grace. I do
not want to have it appear that I am raising objections
against a matter that has been ruled on.

THE PRESIDENT: Which application did you say?

MR. DODD: The Funk application. It seems to me that there is
a similarity in these matters, and particularly the Funk
experience now would seem to have some bearing on this
Goering application. It is my own judgement, which I
respectfully offer for the Court's consideration, that Funk
did not really add anything pro or contra to the proof in
this case by his reappearance on the stand. He, in fact,
only succeeded in taking up a little of the Tribunal's time.

Now I suggested at the time of the Funk application that he
had already, in fact, denied the whole of the Pohl
affidavit, and that he could not do much more than reaffirm
his denial on the witness stand, and that is, I respectfully
suggest, almost what happened.

I think the same will be true with respect to Goering and I
would like to call to the Tribunal's attention the fact
that, long before Goering took the witness stand, the
prosecution had offered its proof concerning these Luftwaffe
medical experiments, so that he knew about them; his counsel
knew about them, and if his counsel had cared to inquire
about them he could have done so on Goering's direct
examination, but he chose not to do so. He did not raise the
question at all. He passed it by and preferred, as was his
right, I assume, to rest the matter with Goering's witness
Milch, and we cross-examined, through Mr. Justice Jackson,
the witness Milch on that question.

If Goering wishes merely to deny that he had any knowledge
or participation in these Luftwaffe medical experiments, it
is a very simple matter and there is some precedent here for
it now in view of the Frank affidavit. I suggest he might
file a very brief affidavit that would be no more than a few
short sentences saying he did not have knowledge and that he
did not participate in these experiments. The Tribunal.
allowed Frank to do that. He went pretty far, if I may say
so with great respect. His affidavit took 20 minutes. I
certainly would not think it would be necessary for Goering
to take anywhere near that time. As an alternative,

                                                  [Page 256]

and I have not had time to talk with my French and Russian
colleagues, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe and I agree, and I think
they will too, that the records might show-that Goering
denies that he had knowledge of or participated in the
Luftwaffe experiments: That would be satisfactory to us. In
any event, what we would like to avoid is any kind of a
procession to the witness stand by these defendants, who
have all had a full hearing. This Tribunal has been so
patient that I think it is imposing on the Tribunal if they
take the stand for these purposes which can be accomplished
in a much more simple manner.

I must say to the Tribunal that I have very grave doubt as
to whether Goering really wants to take the stand for this
simple purpose. I think he wants to rail against judgement
here. I think I would be remiss in my duty if I did not so
advise the Tribunal this morning. Therefore, we object very
strongly, if I may say so with great respect, and ask that
either he submit his denial in the form of an affidavit or
that the stipulation in the form we suggested be accepted by
the Tribunal, and in any event that he and any other
defendant who filed a similar application be refused at this
stage of these proceedings the opportunity to again get on
this stand and again take up time with matters that really
do not go to the heart of the proof. I would be the last man
here to try to cut out of this very important trial anything
that I thought was really vital or important. I would not
cast any shadow of unfairness or any suspicion of it upon
the splendid record which the Tribunal has displayed in
matters of fairness to these defendants. I do not believe
any prejudice will be evidenced if we ask Goering to fill
out a brief affidavit, or if we ask his counsel to agree to
our offer to stipulate. Thus we will save much of the
Tribunal's time and we will get on further with these
proceedings.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter. Dr.
Servatius, you were going through these various affidavits
with great care, as I said on Friday, were you not?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it not the case that all these affidavits
are summarised in the proceedings before the Commission and
we, therefore, have before us, in the evidence before the
Commission, a summary of or reference to each one of these
affidavits?

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, that is only partially true.
I, personally, was not able to attend all the sessions of
the Commission. I have not an exhaustive picture. The
affidavits which I wish to submit now I shall characterise
most briefly, in order to turn to these collective
affidavits which were not dealt with before the Commission.
There are but a few left.

THE PRESIDENT: Up to the present, I am only pointing this
out to you with reference to the past. You have drawn our
attention to a number of affidavits. I find in the record
before the Commission that nearly all of these affidavits
have been literally and expressly summarised by counsel on
behalf of the Corps of Political Leaders. The prosecution
has stated its position with reference to those affidavits.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President, a very brief compilation
was made, and it was submitted at the beginning of the
presentation of evidence. Perhaps I can briefly treat the
last ones and then pass on to the collective affidavits.

THE PRESIDENT: I hope you will be very short, then, and
confine yourself only to these affidavits which have not
been summarised before the Commission.

DR. SERVATIUS: I refer to Affidavits Nos. 47 and 48. Both of
them deal with the communal policy, and are of little
significance. I refer here to the contents.

                                                  [Page 257]

Then there is the affidavit of a Gau Economic Adviser. The
essential thing is his statement that, during his two years
of activity, he had but one opportunity to speak to the
Gauleiter personally.

Of particular significance is perhaps Affidavit No. 50, by
the Plenipotentiary for Racial Policy. It sets forth that he
had nothing whatever to do with the actual racial policy as
revealed to us here during these proceedings.

Then follows the NSV, the affidavit of a Gauamtsleiter who
points out the spatial separation of the various offices.

The last is an affidavit by a Gau department head for the
care of war victims, which sets forth the position of these
agencies.

Thus I am through with the individual affidavits. I should
like to submit a few more affidavits.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean you got as far as 64?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. SERVATIUS: No, Mr. President, that is a mistake; up to
and including No. 52. With No. 53 begin the collective
affidavits. Before I turn to those I should like to submit
four single affidavits first, which are occasioned by
subject matter which was mentioned rather late by the
prosecution. The first one is an affidavit by Gauleiter
Hoffmann. It deals with the euthanasia programme and what
his Gau knew and thought about it. This is Affidavit No. 65.
I submit this affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: Is this an affidavit which has not been
submitted to the Commission?

DR. SERVATIUS: It was not submitted to the Commission for at
that time the Commission had already concluded its hearings.

THE PRESIDENT: You cannot put in any new affidavits. The
Tribunal so rules.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, they were not dealt with in
the Commission and in no other way have they been a topic of
the proceedings, but they are answers to new matters brought
up by the prosecution; I must surely have the opportunity of
dealing with them. New documents were submitted in the
course of the examination of witnesses, and I have received
permission to deal with them. I ask permission to have these
four brief documents admitted for that purpose.

THE PRESIDENT: I suppose that is right if they are dealing
with new documents.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: There are only four affidavits. Is that it?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, only four.

The next one deals with Document EC-265, which was a
telegram from Ambassador Abetz dealing with the expatriation
of the German Jews in France. He explains this incident and
defines his attitude. I submit this affidavit.

Affidavit No. 67 deals with the document which has been
submitted as Exhibit USSR 143 concerning the Styrian Home
League (Heimatbund) and affirms that this was not a part of
a Party organization but a local association.

The last affidavit deals with Document EC-68. It is an
affidavit, also No. 68, and it deals with the confidential
letter of the Baden State Farm Association
(Landesbauernschaft) and also deals thoroughly with matters
which are known to the High Tribunal regarding the treatment
of the Polish workers.

In the next affidavit I turn to the collective affidavits
which are 38,000 in number. On a previous occasion I gave a
much greater number. I am afraid I was misled by the
description that was given to me, and the report which was
presented by

                                                  [Page 258]

Colonel Neave, in which he says that there are 155,000
affidavits, contains the same error. Out of 38,000
affidavits certain extracts were dealt with by experts such
as those relative to the Church question and the Jewish
question, and the statements were then summarised.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, now you are dealing with No. 53.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, on Page 3777 of the transcript
before the Commissioner that affidavit is fully set out, I
mean to say it is fully summarised.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I just wanted to give an
explanation so that a picture can be obtained as to how
these summaries were arrived at. However, if the Tribunal
does not consider it necessary for me to go into -

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Servatius, we have got an enormous
number of documents in this case and surely to have the same
thing done twice over at this stage is unnecessary.

Have you got Page 3777 before you?

DR. SERVATIUS: No, I have not.

THE PRESIDENT: As I understand it, 53 is a collective
summary and report on the affidavits which follow, is that
not so?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, in this transcript of the
evidence before the Commission it says that the result
consists of the group report by Karl Hederich and of the
following individual declarations, Jewish persecutions -
that is 54; treatment of foreign civilian labour and
prisoners of war - 55; dissolving trade unions - 56;
concentration camps by Richard Muller - 57; operational
staff Rosenberg by Richard Muller - 58, and so on right down
the list.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. Then that has been read. However, I
clearly did not receive this report. If it is contained
therein, then I do not need to submit it.

THE PRESIDENT: It is already set down before the
Commissioner and is in the transcript.

DR. SERVATIUS: The matter was discussed that certain of
these main affidavits were translated and were to be
submitted. That was the thing I wanted to do now, and I
wanted in each case to cite the contents of the individual
affidavits as they concern the various points. Now, the
first affidavit, 53, only states how the entire thing was
done. That was the guide to this inquiry, as I might say.
Then comes the next one which deals with the Jewish
question; that is Affidavit No. 54.

THE PRESIDENT: What I am pointing out to you is that what
you are saying is set down identically in this transcript.
What is the point of repeating it for another transcript?

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I do not know how far this
report went. I cannot hear.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it sets out the contents of 53, 54, 55,
56 and there is Muller 57.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, is it possible that I receive
a copy of this report and in case I find it necessary to
comment on it, that I be permitted to do so?

THE PRESIDENT: I am told you have got the German of this. It
is the transcript of what happened before the Commissioner,
and your representative, Dr. Link, is the man who was doing
it. It is on Page 3777.

DR . SERVATIUS: Because of the quantity of material I
overlooked the fact that this was already set down.
Therefore, I refer to it without dealing with the affidavits
one by one.

                                                  [Page 259]

As far as the Church question is concerned I should like to
refer particularly to one point. There are two theologians
who deal very extensively with all the internal
circumstances, which seem to me to be of great significance.

Mr. President, I have concluded my submission of documents.

With reference to the statements of the last session
concerning the number of active members, I had a statistical
report prepared yesterday. Perhaps I may submit this for the
benefit of the Tribunal - not as evidence - so that, on the
basis of the statistical Party Book, which is in the library
of the prosecution, it can be arrived at what is actually
included in the Indictment. I should like to submit this as
an aid to the Tribunal rather than as a piece of evidence,
if I may. It is only in the German language for the time
being.

THE PRESIDENT: Have the prosecution any objection to the
submission of this document?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, of course we have no idea
what is in the document at the moment. But, my Lord, I think
we shall make no objection to it.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you can look at it and we will have
it handed to us later.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, if I understood Dr.
Servatius correctly, it is on the numbers of those who are
to be included in the organizations. Colonel Griffith-Jones
has prepared an exact statement of those whom the
prosecution asks to be included and their numbers, which he
proposed to give to the Tribunal at the close of Dr.
Servatius's speech, which may remove some of the
difficulties which Dr. Servatius has in mind. But, my Lord,
I make no objection to the document going in to assist the
Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. SERVATIUS: I did not quite follow as to when I am to
receive these figures, after or before my final submission.
It is surely of importance to me to know that in advance.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you will receive the document to
which Sir David Maxwell Fyfe was referring before you make
your final submission because, after you have dealt with
your documents, the other representatives of the
organizations will have to deal with their documents and
their affidavits. We will have it during that time.

DR. SERVATIUS: May I submit this report?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I conclude my statement herewith, Mr.
President.

THE PRESIDENT: Now which of the organizations shall we take
next? I beg your pardon. Yes?

LT.-COLONEL GRIFFITH-JONES: I do not know whether it would
be convenient for the Tribunal if I submitted some
particulars of the figures which we were discussing the
other day.

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