Chapter M: CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: The matter which is before us today is to find (1)

out whether all of the documents which have been submitted are relevant, and that is why I asked that the Tribunal reject one of the documents as irrelevant. If it is understood, that this question may be brought up later when the document is produced then I see no objection to postponing my explanation. I wish to state concerning Document Number Göring-26 only that the quotation read by Dr. Stahmer is mutilated and I shall ask the Tribunal to hear this document read in full.

THE PRESIDENT: We would like to consider this matter, but before doing so we would like to know whether you have any objection to the suggestion that has been made. You understand what Mr. Justice Jackson’s suggestion is?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President, I understand. It touches upon a fundamental question of the defense, and I should like to discuss this question briefly with the other Defense Counsel. I should like to suggest that the Court take a short recess now so that there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter. I would then make my statement afterwards. I should like to point out now that at the time we were willing to forego the reading of the Indictment, and its being read was not due to our objections. The gentlemen probably were of the opinion that it had to be read as a matter of principle. I shall clarify the question and report immediately.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about the reading of the Indictment? Are you making a complaint because the Indictment had been read?

DR. STAHMER: No, no, no.

THE PRESIDENT; The matter stands upon a different footing. The Charter, which is the document which governs the actions of the Tribunal, provided that the Indictment must be read. It does not follow that what is now being suggested is not provided for in the Charter. The only reason why we ruled that every document which the Prosecution wished to rely upon be read in open court was because the Prosecution, at that time, had not found it possible to translate into four different languages every document which it wished to put in evidence and for the convenience and in fairness to the defendants and their counsel. We ordered, as you remember at an earlier stage, that every sentence in a document upon which the Prosecution relied and which we could consider as evidence should be read into the microphone so that it could come to you in German and would appear in the record, in the transcript. That principle no longer applies to the documents which are now put in because they have been translated into four different languages by the Prosecution’s Translation Division. Therefore, in the interest of time, which must be almost equally important to the Defense as well as to everyone else concerned, it seems to the Tribunal that the suggestion which Mr. Justice Jackson has made is a very sound one and you will, of course, be able to comment in any way you think right during the course of your final speeches upon the documents on which you rely, subject to any question of relevancy which may be of real importance. There may be certain documents which may be objected to by the Prosecution, but, as Mr. Justice Jackson said, he will not now raise any question of relevancy, and he is ready to have all these documents referred to in your document book considered by the Tribunal. Remember also, when we approved your documents, we expressly reserved any question of relevancy of particular passages in these documents which you might want to use.

Perhaps it will be appropriate for us to adjourn now and you can discuss the question with your colleagues.

[_A recess was taken._]

DR. DIX: Gentlemen of the Tribunal: I was, of course, not in a position to have a vote taken among my colleagues of the Defense on the proposal of Mr. Justice Jackson, for the reason alone that not all Defense Counsel are present here. But I have been able to convince myself that the majority of the Defense Counsel agree with the reasons for what I am going to say, and I have no doubt that all Defense Counsel support the application which I am about to make to the effect that the suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson should be rejected. But to be correct and loyal I feel obliged to emphasize that naturally every one of the gentlemen is entitled to present his point of view on this question for himself and within the scope of his own subject matter.

And now to the matter itself. The suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson, especially if it is followed in principle with regard to all the documents which are to be submitted by the Defense, would aim at the introduction of a tremendous volume of documents as subject matter in the Trial without their being made known by oral presentation in open session to the public and thus to the whole world, which is passionately and wholeheartedly interested in this Trial.

I abstain from quoting, with judicial dialectics, provisions, for instance from the Charter set up for this Trial, which could be used to conduct a polemic against Mr. Justice Jackson’s proposal. I will start with the principle about the unconditional and absolute importance of which there will certainly be no difference of opinion between the Tribunal and us or between the Prosecution and us: namely, the principle that this whole Trial must be subject to the absolute postulate of justice and fairness. These are exactly the motives which prompted the authors of the Charter to give Part IV of the Charter a very pronounced heading. It says: “Fair Trial for Defendants.”

But I cannot consider it just and I cannot consider it fair if the Prosecution had the right, for months, not only once but sometimes repeatedly and often, to bring their evidence to the knowledge of the public and of the world by reading it into the microphone; and in this regard it should be noted that when these documents were presented often only parts of documents were read which, in the opinion of the Prosecution, were incriminating to the defendants, while those parts were omitted which, in our opinion, were exonerating for the defendants. It must therefore be considered an injustice that a defendant should not also have the opportunity to bring to the knowledge of the world through his defense, those matters which, in his opinion and the opinion of his counsel, speak in his favor, when the Prosecution had previously had the right and the opportunity to apply that procedure to the incriminating documents.

May I draw attention to this fact—and I have pointed it out repeatedly—that certain incriminating points have not only been brought to the knowledge of the world public by reading the documentary evidence, but were repeated in the form of representation to the defendants when they were examined as witnesses, and thereby they have been drilled into the ears of the listening world again and again. I am asking you urgently and implore Your Honors in the interest of just proceedings, which I am sure are desired by you as well as by the authors of the Charter, to give the same opportunity to the defendants.

In support of his suggestion Mr. Justice Jackson has furthermore even emphasized formally the point of view that the Trial would be shortened. The Defense does in no way deny the necessity of limiting this Trial to the time necessary. But perhaps I may in this connection draw your attention to a statement made by the president of the court at the Belsen trial in reply to press criticism about the allegedly too lengthy duration of the trial; the gist of which was that no duration however long was to be regretted as long as it helped to reveal the truth in the end. I ask you to put this principle before the necessity of saving time in this Trial as well.

And finally, may I—without assuming authority to criticize the measures decided upon and carried out by the Prosecution in accordance with their duties—may I point out that the duration of the Trial thus far, should anyone consider it too long—I do not think it is too long—was at any rate not brought about by the Defense. I think I can say with a clear conscience that so far we have not done anything, said anything, or caused anything which could be used in justly reproaching us for delaying the Trial unnecessarily.

If, furthermore, as your Lordship has pointed out, the reason no longer exists which caused the Tribunal duly to order that those parts of documents which were to become the subject matter of the Trial should be presented orally, then I should like to point out that the vast majority of the documents which were produced at the time and accordingly also presented verbally in part were already at that time available in fourfold translation.

Furthermore, I should like to point out that this documentary evidence, if it is to be comprehensible to the Tribunal and if it is to serve the purpose of establishing the truth, without doubt in many cases calls for explanatory comments by the Defense Counsel. The possibility of such comment would be removed if we are instructed to submit these documents to the Tribunal _in toto_.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, without wanting to prejudice anybody, my colleagues have by no means any intention of quoting the entire contents of the document books. As far as I understand it, they have in most cases rather the intention of presenting excerpts which they are going to designate, and the relevancy of which may then be discussed if occasion arises. Even such selection of those parts of the documents which are considered to be really relevant would not be possible if the Tribunal followed Mr. Justice Jackson’s suggestion. Likewise, as I said before, it would not be possible to point out, in documents already read by the Prosecution, those parts which have not been read but which are exonerating for the defendant.

If it has been said—and your Lordship has pointed it out—that the Defense Counsel have an opportunity to quote these parts of the documents during their address, then I believe I agree with the Judges that the address should, if possible, be a coherent and terse summary, evaluating the entire substance of the Trial. If we are now instructed to refer to parts of documents during the address and quote explicitly once more those to which we attach importance as evidence, but which we would not mention at all or only incidentally or summarily in connection with a comprehensive evaluation, then the danger arises that the coherence or, let us say, the bold outline of our address would suffer by a recital of the subject matter in detail. And the further danger arises that the time which Mr. Justice Jackson wishes to save through his suggestion will be lost again because the final address will take so much longer, which need not be if it is strictly a summary, an over-all evaluation, in accordance with its purpose.

I consider it even possible that later on, if possibly in the confines of our address a difference of opinion as to the relevancy of an individual document might arise, there might be considerable delay and disturbance in the proceedings, whereas, if one can submit the document in its essential parts at this time, together with statements to explain and connect them, one would have an immediate opportunity to state just why one considers the part presented as relevant, so that the Tribunal would have an opportunity to make a decision as to relevancy now.

In my opinion there are many points which speak against Mr. Justice Jackson’s suggestion. I summarize: As far as I am concerned, the most important point of view is that of fairness and justice. The Defense Counsel, as I have ascertained beyond any doubt by conversations during the recess, must and would consider it a severe and intolerable limitation of the Defense, if, contrary to the procedure exercised so far by the Prosecution, it were deprived of the possibility of presenting, in its turn, at least the relevant parts of its own documentary evidence to the Tribunal verbally and with comments. I am of the opinion, that it is a simple postulate of fairness in the forensic engagement between Prosecution and Defense that now the Defense, too, should be given the same opportunity. And this is not meant to be criticism either but merely a statement of fact, of which the Prosecution have availed themselves to a considerable and sometimes cumulative extent.

May I request, therefore, and I think my request is supported by the entire Defense that the suggestion of Mr. Justice Jackson be rejected.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment. You began your address by saying that you would not refer to the Charter. On what Article of the Charter do you rely for your argument that all documents which are presented must now be read?

DR. DIX: I said that I would not refer to individual provisions of the Charter as a basis for my application. As a basis for my application I have merely mentioned the heading of Part IV of the Charter which says, “Fair Trial for Defendants,” and I have explained and need not repeat that I would not consider it a fair trial if Mr. Justice Jackson’s suggestion were followed. However, I have deliberately—although my attention was drawn to specific provisions of the Charter which, directly or indirectly, might be used as a legal construction to support my application—I have refrained deliberately from doing so, since these individual rules in my opinion are not convincing.

The principle of justice and fairness however is sufficiently strong in my opinion, and so are the other arguments of practicability and feasibility which I took the liberty to present to the Tribunal. I think there must be a misunderstanding.

THE PRESIDENT: But you will not have omitted to notice that Article 24 deals expressly with the course of the Trial. Do you rely upon any part of Article 24?

DR. DIX: No, no. I have deliberately not referred to any part of Article 24, since that article gives considerable powers of discretion to the Tribunal, regarding the general rules of procedure which, in my opinion, have nothing to do with the question under discussion at present. This is merely a question of justice and fairness, and, if I may add this, it is a fundamental rule of oral trial. We now have an oral trial, we now have a trial in open session. It is in existence here. I am not sure whether or not the open session is prescribed by the Charter, but it exists. Since it is in existence, we must proceed in accordance with these principles and therefore, in my opinion, the defendant has also the right to present to the public of the world what is in his favor after the Prosecution have presented to the public of the world what is not in his favor.

THE PRESIDENT: I want to ask you another question: Are you suggesting that the Defense should be able to quote, to read documents, more than once?

DR. DIX: I am not suggesting that in any way. As far as I am concerned, my documents of course will be read only in part and certainly not twice. I have merely said that the Prosecution have done so, that is, have read documents twice; sometimes even three times, I am told. But it is not my task to criticize that conduct of the Prosecution; that is the Prosecution’s business. I am not here to make criticism; that is up to the Tribunal and the Prosecution. I have merely stated the fact.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would like to put a further question to Dr. Dix before they hear you, and also . . .

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I would like to make a simple statement of fact . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Please do.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: . . . which I think will clarify this situation some in justice to the United States of America.

As to the fairness, I call the Tribunal’s attention to the fact that we have printed, mimeographed, 250 copies of Dr. Stahmer’s entire document book, and it is in the press room waiting for delivery to the press when it is received by this Tribunal, so that we have done everything that we could, everything that we did for ourselves, to make public his documents.

In the second place, we have gone so far as to print even things that the Court ruled out, rather than to have controversy with them.

In the third place, it is not the function of the Tribunal, under the Charter, to spread propaganda. A large part of this is stuff that is 20 years old and is in every good library and will not be used by newspapers and constitutes a waste of our money. We have tried to do everything in order to make this Trial completely fair to these people, and now that I have discovered that we are printing documents that the Court have already ruled out, I must say that I shall stop it. I think we have been imposed upon, and this document book will show it. There are documents after documents that the Tribunal have already ruled irrelevant, and we have gone to the expense of printing them in order to be more than fair.

DR. DIX: May I answer to that very briefly? As far as the point of view of propaganda is concerned, I regret that my suggestion has not been followed, according to which the public and the world would hear only those parts of our document books which have been recognized as relevant by the Tribunal, and then presented by us. If the contents of the document book do produce certain propaganda effects, which is unknown to me and which would be entirely against our intentions, then it is merely due to the fact that the contents of these document books have been submitted to the press not through legal and normal channels or let us say not by due procedure, that is, from the sessions’ records; instead these document books of the Defense were placed at the disposal of the press without our knowledge, and therefore also such things were communicated to the press and the world public which, in the opinion of the Tribunal, circumstances permitting, may be irrelevant or perhaps biased. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that they are; I am merely talking in the abstract. But if you want to avoid just what Mr. Justice Jackson wishes to avoid, namely, that political propaganda is made by means of this Trial, then you must follow my suggestion; I want only that to be presented and brought to the knowledge of the world which has here been considered relevant by the Tribunal and admitted for presentation.

Due to the excitement in Court it is very difficult to understand every word correctly through the earphones, but if Mr. Justice Jackson meant that we are trying to obtain a propaganda effect here, that is not the case. If he further mentions the point of fairness insofar as the Prosecution had done everything to inform the world public by placing at its disposal all the document books, then I have no criticism to offer in that respect. Far be it from me to call that unfair. But here we are in Court, having proper proceedings. We are not making press propaganda; rather the press is to gather information and report to the world about this Trial from this courtroom. The Defense are only grateful if their efforts to carry through proper proceedings with full information to the press are supported by the Tribunal.

But this is not the crucial point. I have not accused anybody of being unfair. I have merely emphasized that it is a requirement of fairness to let the Defense do the same things which have continually and repeatedly been done by the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Dix, will you tell me this: What suggestion do you have for shortening the Trial? You must recollect in the criticism that you have been making of the Prosecution’s case with reference to their documents, that their case has been based almost entirely upon documents. They have called—I do not know how many witnesses, but very few witnesses. You and the other defendants’ counsel are proposing to call a very great number of witnesses, and what I would ask you is: How do you propose that the Trial should be shortened so that it may not last until the end of July or August?

DR. DIX: If I make a suggestion, then I can of course do so only for myself and for the case I have to defend. May I suggest, Your Lordship, that we begin with producing the documentary evidence, and I would ask you to realize that, if I am not mistaken, none of the Defense Counsel intends to read his entire document book here before the Tribunal. Whomever I have asked, at any rate the majority, certainly did not intend to do that. Those with whom I have spoken want to quote excerpts only, and in the choice of these excerpts and in the discussion of whether their presentation would be relevant, a measure could be applied which would, of course, take into consideration the necessity of the matter as well as the question of time. I do not think that the presentation of the documents will take a very long time. My colleague, Dr. Stahmer, for instance, has told me that although he has an enormous and important case to defend, he believes that he will probably complete his case in about 2 hours or maybe in even less than 2 hours. I am not a prophet, but I think the Tribunal is considering the matter as more hazardous than it is in fact. Please give us a chance. You may certainly assume that all of us are anxious not to delay the proceedings. Also we are quite willing to take advice if the Court says, “We do not consider this or that important,” or, “This or that we consider already demonstrated,” or “We presume this or that,” _et cetera_. That way we will make fast progress. May I, therefore, suggest not to lay down now any obligatory abstract rule for the procedure to be followed but to go to work with us now in a practical manner and to accept our assurances that we want to assist in shortening the Trial and, to begin with, start from the standpoint that we may present what we consider relevant. If it should turn out that too much time is being taken up—which, as I have said, I do not believe—then we could still discuss that matter once more and after all, the Tribunal is at liberty to make its decisions. All I ask is that it not be done now because I am afraid that the Tribunal, on the strength of the experience with the documentary evidence of the Prosecution, is overestimating the time required for the presentation of our documentary evidence, in which connection I again repeat that this is neither reproach nor criticism. I know that the Prosecution have based their case mostly on documents, and therefore naturally had to take more time.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Dix. The Tribunal would like to hear—of course, they cannot hear all the defendants’ counsel on this matter, but they would like to hear one other representative of Counsel.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I draw the attention of the Tribunal back to the legal aspect of the matter?

The Tribunal quite rightly raised the question: What does the Charter say regarding evidence? The difficulty is caused by the fact that specific rules on this matter are not contained in the Charter. Regarding the procedure, we have Article 24. This Article 24 refers to the session—the session, which, according to the legal language used in all kinds of criminal procedure, can mean nothing but the oral hearing and the verbal debate. What is lacking in Article 24 is a paragraph which concerns specifically the taking of documentary evidence. But may I draw your attention to subparagraph (e). There the rebuttal of evidence given by witnesses is discussed, the rebuttal, which of course, is concerned not only with the presentation of witnesses but also with the submission of documents.

It is specifically provided there that the evidence should be taken. At any rate, based on the German text and German usage of language, it would not be permissible at all if this evidence taken in the presentation were not produced now during Court sessions but if that evidence, on the basis of the presented extensive written material, were dealt with in the separate rooms of the Judges.

It is a particularly important principle of a colleague-like Tribunal, of a Tribunal which consists of several Judges, that the impression which is to be conveyed to the Tribunal should be coherent and direct. That can be achieved only if the material is presented and discussed in oral proceedings.

May I ask you to consider also that we have already acquired some experience in that respect during this Trial. I am sure that everyone who has presented a document has been very grateful to the President of the Tribunal when he interfered during the quotation of the document by limiting here or extending there, and, by doing so, let the Prosecution or the Defense Counsel, who were quoting the document, know the opinion of the Tribunal as to what is relevant. Our experience has been that this guidance by the Tribunal had favorable results later on.

As for the legal aspect, may I draw your attention to Article 21, which contains a special provision, a special provision regarding those facts which are of common knowledge and do not require any discussion. This special provision of Article 21 clearly reveals the difference between these facts and those which may be and need to be discussed. Everything that may be and needs to be discussed must be presented in court in some way so that the Tribunal has the possibility to intervene here also and to make explanatory and guiding comments. That is what I have to say as to the legal aspect of the matter.

Apart from that, I believe that I understood Mr. Justice Jackson’s suggestion somewhat differently. First of all, I think Mr. Justice Jackson’s suggestion has been somewhat enlarged during the debate. I think his suggestion was that we, as Defense Counsel, should impose certain restrictions upon ourselves not to present the submitted documentary material indiscriminately, but to confine ourselves to choosing those parts which are really worth mentioning and which call for presentation at the present stage of the Trial.

To undergo such a restriction is certainly in line with the practical duty of the Defense Counsel. Nothing is more fatal to the Defense or the Prosecution than going into detail, that is, elaborating on irrelevant facts.

Particularly under firm and strict guidance of the procedure, every Defense Counsel will soon notice whether he is on the wrong track, whether he is presenting superfluous material and, by presenting superfluous material is achieving an effect which he in no case wishes to obtain.

I therefore believe that, as my colleague, Dr. Dix, just said, the self-control of the Defense Counsel and a well-concerned interest in his case and in his client will automatically impose on him the necessary limitation in his presentation.

[_Dr. Seidl approached the lectern._]

THE PRESIDENT: I said on behalf of the Tribunal that we wished to hear two counsel.

DR. SEIDL: I wanted to add only very briefly some remarks to what my two colleagues have already said—very briefly.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but then it may be possible that every one of the 20 or more counsel who are present wish to add something.

DR. SEIDL: I do not know, but I do not think so.

THE PRESIDENT: I said two counsel, and I meant two counsel.

DR. SEIDL: Very well.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, the Tribunal would like to know whether you have anything to add in reply to what has been said.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think nothing. I thought I was saving time. I begin to doubt it.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Justice Jackson, I think the Tribunal would like to know exactly how far your suggestion went. Were you really making any further suggestion than this: That the defendants’ counsel should not think it necessary to read every document in their document book in the course of the presentation of their defense, or were you intending to move the Tribunal to order that they should not be allowed to read any document in their document book at this stage?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I thought their document book should be directed to be filed as an exhibit at this stage of the case, without reading. I would not be particular about it if they have passages they think are of particular importance which they want to call to your attention, but this document book consists of speeches made 15 years ago and published in the press in every complete library in the country, largely, together with a good deal that has been excluded. It would seem to me that they should go in, so they are available to them, and that if there are matters in them which particular countries wish to object to, they might raise the question by motion to strike or raise it now if they desire. As far as the United States is concerned, we have no objection to any of it. I think some of it is highly objectionable on the ground of relevancy, but it would take longer to argue it and it goes to certain large questions of reprisals and things of that character that will have to be settled in larger ways than questions of admission of evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Would you, on behalf of the Chief Prosecutors, have any objection or think it inadvisable to adopt the suggestion which Dr. Dix made that we should see how far the defendants’ counsel were prepared to limit the amount of the documents which they read at this stage and see how long it takes and see whether it is necessary to make any further ruling in order to accelerate the Trial?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I am quite willing to experiment, but I do suggest that we are now handed a document book containing a number of documents that the Court has passed upon, and, as I recall, Your Honor called Dr. Stahmer’s attention to this at the opening of his case. I do not have so much faith, perhaps, as I ought to have.

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is very likely that documents have got into Dr. Stahmer’s book by mistake, owing to the fact that he, being for the first defendant, there were some difficulties in preparation for instance, and I have already drawn attention to it. I think there is in Dr. Stahmer’s book—I am not quite sure—a speech of Mr. Paul Boncour which has been expressly denied by the Tribunal, and those are the sort of documents to which you are referring, no doubt. And I had to draw attention also in the case of one other counsel, I think, or one other witness to a document being put to him which the Tribunal had expressly denied. But of course, that is very wrong that any document should be put into a document book which the Tribunal has expressly denied, but as I say, I think that is very likely due to some mistake.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am quite ready, and I am sure my colleagues are, to experiment with this and see how it goes.

It is—and I think I should say this for all of us—it is a difficult thing where we come from different systems and do not always understand what the other man is driving at; it is a difficult thing to reconcile these different procedures, and I am quite willing to be patient and forbearing about it and see how it works.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

You must quite understand, Dr. Stahmer, that I am not making any ruling on behalf of the Tribunal at this moment as to whether or not Dr. Dix’s suggestion will be adopted, because the Tribunal will proceed now to consider the matter, and then the ruling will be made.

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I make just a personal explanation? The inclusion in my document book of the documents which had been denied is due to the following facts: At the request of the Translation Division the document book had already been handed to that division before the Tribunal had made its negative decision, and that accounts for the inclusion. I was put under considerable pressure at the time to hand the book over so that it might be submitted to the Court in translated form. That is how it happened.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought it was probably that, Dr. Stahmer.

The Tribunal will adjourn now until 2:30.

[_The Tribunal recessed until 1430 hours._]

_Afternoon Session_

THE PRESIDENT: In considering the matters which have been raised this morning, the Tribunal has had in mind the necessity for a fair trial and at the same time for an expeditious trial, and the Tribunal has decided that for the present it will proceed under rules heretofore announced; that is to say:

First, documents translated into the four languages may be introduced without being read but in introducing them counsel may summarize them, or otherwise call their relevance to the attention of the Court, and may read such brief passages as are strictly relevant and are deemed important.

Second; when a document is offered, the Tribunal will hear any objections that may be offered to it and in this connection, I would refer to the rule which the Tribunal made on the 8th of March 1946, which reads as follows:

“To avoid unnecessary translations, Defense Counsel shall
indicate to the Prosecution the exact passages in all documents
which they propose to use in order that the Prosecution may have
an opportunity to object to irrelevant passages. In the event of
disagreement between the Prosecution and the Defense as to the
relevancy of any particular passage, the Tribunal will decide
what passages are sufficiently relevant to be translated. Only
the cited passages need to be translated, unless the Prosecution
requires the translation of the entire document.”

The Tribunal has allowed the Defendant Göring, who has given evidence first of the defendants and who has proclaimed himself to be responsible as the second leader of Nazi Germany, to give his evidence without any interruption whatever, and he has covered the whole history of the Nazi regime from its inception to the defeat of Germany.

The Tribunal does not propose to allow any of the other defendants to go over the same ground in their evidence except insofar as it is necessary for their own defense.

Defense Counsel are advised that the Tribunal will not ordinarily regard as competent evidence, extracts from books or articles expressing the opinions of particular authors on matters of ethics, history, or particular events.

Now, as to tomorrow’s business, the Tribunal will sit in open session for the purpose of hearing applications for witnesses and documents, supplementary applications; and after sitting in that open session, the Tribunal will adjourn into a closed session.

Now, Dr. Stahmer, are you going to refer us to book Number 1? Which is your book? Or are you referring us to your trial brief?

DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I shall refer to the trial brief, Page 5. As far as I am informed, the translations show the same numbers as the original German text: Page 5, Paragraph II. Since this book is translated into the three languages, and the document book, I am informed, is also translated, I can limit myself to referring to them briefly to present only what I consider essential.

At the beginning of my presentation from this book I pointed out that Germany had renounced the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pact, and that this renunciation as such was justified. After this renunciation had taken place, Germany could proceed to rearm and also to reintroduce general conscription.

Moreover, rearmament and the reintroduction of military conscription were ordered by Hitler only after he had previously and repeatedly submitted, without success, offers of disarmament to the powers concerned. Therefore the conclusion cannot be drawn from that fact alone that at that time the intention existed to prepare or to plan German wars of aggression. In this connection I draw your attention to the fact that also in foreign countries rearmament took place to a considerable degree from 1936 on, and as evidence for this fact I have submitted the speeches and essays which are contained in Churchill’s book _Step by Step_. The individual excerpts have been designated by me. I am referring to the following in particular. On Page 5 of this book it says . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, you must offer these things in evidence as a matter of formality.

DR. STAHMER: Yes, of course. I have the book here with me. I shall submit it immediately; I also have the individual excerpts here which are included in the document book. It is Document Book 2, Page 44, the first excerpt in Volume 2, Page 44.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to number your exhibit in some way?

DR. STAHMER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: You have numbered it 40 I see, is that right?

DR. STAHMER: Yes. That is the number in this book. I have numbered these books right through.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but whatever number you propose to use you must say what the number is when you offer it in evidence, so that it will go into the transcript.

DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President.

The quotation is from Document Book Number 2 and it is Number 40 on Page 9:

“On 18 June the Anglo-German Naval Treaty was signed, which
released Germany from the Versailles naval restrictions. That
meant in effect condonation of the breach of the military
clauses.”

On Page 35:

“The Air Force is in the process of being almost trebled. This
is a colossal expansion which is making the most prodigious
demands on our production potentialities. But quite apart from
these immediate needs, there is the far greater task of so
organizing England’s home industries that they will be ready to
direct the whole of their enormous and elastic capacity into the
channels of war production as soon as a serious necessity for
that should arise.”

From the article “In the Waters of the Mediterranean” dated 13 November 1936, I quote, on Page 86, where it says literally:

“But it is no longer thus. England has begun to rearm on a large
scale. Her wealth and her credit, the solidarity of her
organization, her vast resources and connections, all contribute
to this revival. The British fleet is still by far the mightiest
in Europe. Enormous yearly expenditure on it is under
consideration for the future.”

Furthermore, I wish to produce evidence of the fact that the Defendant Göring particularly, at various times, beginning after the seizure of power, consistently emphasized his serious desire to maintain peace and to avoid a war. He has also repeatedly stated clearly that the measures taken by Germany were not to serve purposes of aggression. As evidence of this I refer to several speeches made by the Defendant Göring, and to begin with I cite a speech of 4 December 1934, which he made at the Krupp works in Essen, and which is contained in the book _Hermann Göring’s Speeches and Compositions_, Pages 174 to 176, and is reprinted in Document Book Number 1, Page 18.

From this excerpt I wish to quote only the following:

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think the shorthand writer has yet heard what the exhibit number is.

DR. STAHMER: I beg your pardon. It is Exhibit Number 6. I quote—and it is the last sentence of the first paragraph:

“Today we want to secure this peace, and we want the world to
understand this always: That a respected Germany only is a
guarantor of world peace. Only a free German nation will keep
this peace and will know how to preserve this peace.

“Therefore we demand for ourselves the same rights as others
possess.”

And on the following page, I quote the last paragraph:

“We do not want war, but we want our honor. We will not discuss
this honor with anybody in the world; that remains, for it is
the foundation for the reconstruction of the entire nation. Only
he who has a sharp sword at his side is unmolested and has
peace.”

Sir Nevile Henderson emphasizes Göring’s love of peace in various passages of his book _Failure of a Mission_. The passages are quoted again in Document Book Number 1, Page 63, and I offer it as Document Number 23, Exhibit Number Göring-2. I quote from Page 78 of the book.

“I”—that is, Henderson—“was inclined to believe in the
sincerity of his”—that is, Göring’s—“personal desire for peace
and good relation with England.”

On Page 83 of the book, it says:

“I would like to express here my belief that the Field Marshal,
if it had depended on him, would not have gambled on war, as
Hitler did in 1939. As will be related in due course, he took a
decisive stand for peace in September 1938.”

On Page 273, which is the next page, there is the following sentence which I quote:

“I saw the Polish Ambassador at 2 a.m. on 31 August 1939, gave
him an objective, and studiously moderate account of my
conversation with Ribbentrop, mentioned the cession of Danzig
and the plebiscite in the Corridor as the two main points in the
German proposals, stated that so far as I could gather they were
not on the whole too unreasonable, and suggested to him that we
recommend to his Government that they should propose at once a
meeting between the Field Marshals Smigly-Rydz and Göring.”

On Page 276 of the book, you will find the following sentences which I quote from the last paragraph:

“Nevertheless, the Field Marshal seemed in earnest when after
having been called to the telephone, he returned to tell us that
M. Lipski was on his way to see Ribbentrop. He seemed relieved
and to hope that, provided contact could only be established,
war might, after all, be avoided.”

In February of 1937, the Defendant Göring, on the occasion of an international meeting of war veterans in Berlin, made the following speech, which is contained in the book _Hermann Göring, the Man and His Work_, on Page 265, and which is contained in Document Book 2, Page 42, which is Exhibit Number 39, and from which I quote the following sentences:

“There are no better defenders of peace than the old war
veterans. I am convinced that they, above all others, have a
right to ask for peace and to shape it. I recognize that those
men who, weapon in hand, went through 4 hard years of the hell
of the World War, have the primary right to shape the life of
the nations, and I know that the war veterans more than anybody
else will take care to preserve the blessings of peace for their
countries.”

I skip two sentences and then quote further:

“But we know that it is a terrible thing, this final contest
between nations. It is my fervent and heartfelt wish that this
Congress may contribute towards the basis for a true peace with
honor and equality of rights for all sides. You, my comrades,
will have to pave the way for that.”

The same desire is evident in the answers given by Lord Halifax to the questions put him. I now read the following passages from this interrogatory and I offer the original as Document Number Göring-22. It is contained in Document Book I, Page 59.

I think I can omit the first two questions. The third question is:

“Did Göring say to you during this discussion, ‘Every German
Government would consider the following matters as an integral
part of its policy: (a) The incorporation of Austria and the
Sudetenland into Germany; (b) The return of Danzig to Germany
with a reasonable solution of the Corridor question’?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question 4: Did you answer thereupon: ‘But, I hope without
war’?

“Answer: I said that His Majesty’s Government wanted all
questions affecting Germany and her neighbors settled by
peaceful methods. I did not otherwise discuss those questions.

“Question 5: Did Göring answer thereupon:

“‘That depends very much upon England. England would be able to
contribute much to the peaceful solution of this question.
Göring does not want war either for these reasons, but these
questions have to be settled under all circumstances.’

“Answer: Yes.”

The next questions concern the conversation with Dahlerus . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Does that purport to be a verbatim account of what the Defendant Göring said? Did he refer to himself in the third person, “Göring does not want a war,” meaning, “I do not want a war”?

DR. STAHMER: He did not want a war either. England would be able to contribute much to the peaceful solution of this question. He does not want war either for these reasons. He, that is, Göring does not want war either, but these questions have to be settled under all circumstances.

This is, of course, indirect speech. In direct speech it would be, “I, Göring, do not want war, but the questions have to be settled under all circumstances.”

The next questions refer to Dahlerus. Question 15, which is the question put to Halifax, is also of importance in my opinion:

“Did you have the impression that Göring’s endeavors to avoid
war were sincere?”

The answer of Halifax is:

“I have no doubt that Göring would have preferred to enforce the
German demands on Poland without war, if he could have.”

At the end of June or the beginning of July 1938, the Defendant Göring made a speech to the Gauleiter at Karinhall which was distinctly a speech for peace. I am referring to a statement from Dr. Uiberreither of 27 February 1946, the original of which is being presented as Document Number 38, Exhibit Number Göring-4, and is given in Document Book Number 2 on Page 37.

THE PRESIDENT: You are putting in these originals, are you?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, indeed.

In that statement from Dr. Uiberreither, dated 27 February 1946, at Page 38 in Document Book Number 2, Your Honor, it says:

“On 25 May 1938”—says Dr. Uiberreither—“that is, after the
plebiscite concerning the reunion of Austria with Germany, which
had taken place on 10 April 1938, I was appointed Gauleiter of
Gau Steiermark.

“A few weeks later—it may have been towards the end of June or
the beginning of July 1938—the former Field Marshal Hermann
Göring summoned all Gauleiter of the German Reich to Karinhall.

“He there delivered quite a long address to the Gauleiter,
describing the political situation as it was at the time, and
discussing in detail the purpose and significance of the Four
Year Plan.

“Field Marshal Göring first pointed out that other countries had
little understanding for the political developments in Germany,
and that consequently there existed the danger of Germany’s
being encircled. Directing German foreign policy was therefore a
difficult task. Consequently, we should endeavor to strengthen
Germany from the economic and military point of view, in order
to reduce the danger of Germany being attacked by a foreign
power. At the same time, this would result in Germany once more
exercising an increasingly important influence in European
politics after she had again become strong.

“After that, Field Marshal Göring discussed the Four Year Plan.
In this connection he remarked:

“By and large, Germany was cut off from the world’s sources of
raw materials and she therefore had to open up sources in her
own territory by dint of increased efficiency. This would be
done merely in order to make Germany independent of foreign
countries, and was not by any means to serve the purpose of
preparing for an aggressive war.

“He then stressed, with great emphasis, that Germany’s foreign
policy would have to be conducted in such a way that war should
not ensue under any circumstances. The present generation was
still feeling the effects of a lost World War; the outbreak of
another war would be a shock to the German people. Furthermore,
it was his opinion that a new war might assume great
proportions, and even the outcome of a war against France alone
would be questionable.

“In conclusion, he summarized his address by saying that we had
to do everything in our power to make the Four Year Plan a
success, and that all hardships caused thereby must be borne by
the people and were justified, because its success might prevent
war.

“I point out that I remember all the details of this speech so
accurately because this was the first time that I was informed
by a leading personality of these conditions which were so
important for Germany, and because, as a result, until the war
actually started, I did not believe that it would come to a
war.”

In the solution of the Austrian problem no aggressive action on the part of Germany is to be seen. It took place in response to the desires of the majority of the Austrian population for reunion with the Reich. The defendant’s view of this problem can be seen from the telephone conversation he had with the Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop on 13 March 1938. The record of this conversation has already been produced under Document Number 2949-PS, Exhibit Number USA-75. I shall quote from this conversation some passages which have not yet been read. The conversation is contained in Document Book Number 1, Pages 55-56. I am going to quote only the following passages:

“I want to say one thing: If it is said”—this is Göring
talking—“that we have used pressure on the Austrian people and
done outrage to their independence, it can be said that only one
thing was put under pressure, but not by us, and that was the
tiny little government. The Austrian people are free only now. I
would simply suggest to Halifax, or to a few really important
people whom he trusts, that he just send them over here so they
can look at the picture. They should travel through the country,
they can see everything.”

And a few sentences later:

“What state in the whole world is being harmed by our union? Are
we taking anything from any state?”

Then it goes on, I skip two sentences:

“All the people are German; all the people speak German. Thus
there is not a single other state involved.”

The Defendant Göring—I am referring to Page 11 of the book next to the last paragraph—did not only wish to maintain peace abroad; he also supported the preservation of peace at home. In this respect he declared in a speech he made on 9 April 1933 at the Berlin Sports Palace—it appears in the book _Hermann Göring’s Speeches and Compositions_, and is reproduced in Document Book Number 1, Page 35, and I am offering it as Document Number 13; I quote the first sentence:

“Oh the other hand, however, my compatriots, we ought also to be
generous. We do not wish to practice petty revenge. After all,
we are the victors. . . . Therefore, let us be generous, let us
realize that we also thought differently at one time.”

And then a little further down:

“. . . the stronger and freer we feel ourselves to be, the more
generously, the more freely are we able to disregard what
happened in the past and to extend our hand with complete
sincerity in reconciliation.”

I further quote from a speech of the defendant on 26 March 1938, Document Book Number 1, Page 37, likewise a quotation from _Hermann Göring’s Speeches and Compositions_, the exhibit number of which is 14. I quote only one sentence from it:

“. . . you were great in suffering and enduring; you were great
in standing firm; great in fighting. Now you must show that you
are also great in kindness, and especially so towards the many
who were misled.”

His attitude towards the Church the defendant has . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, can you not give the exhibit number?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, I think it was Number 13. I shall look again. It was Number 14.

His attitude towards the Church was expressed by the Defendant Göring in several speeches. In this respect, on 26 October 1935, he made the following statement. I am quoting from _Hermann Göring’s Speeches and Compositions_, Document Book 1, Page 39, Document Number 15, the following sentences:

“It rests with the Church alone whether it wishes to have peace.
We, the Movement, and in particular the Government and the
State, have never attacked the Church; we have assured
protection to the Church, and the Church knows that it enjoys
this protection also today to the fullest extent.