Part 14
i) The medical position is that as far as can be foreseen the said defendant will never again be fit for trial, and therefore if he is not tried in his absence, he will not be tried at all. ii) Although in an ordinary case it is undesirable that a defendant should be tried when he is unable to comprehend the charges made against him, or to give instruction for his defence, there are special considerations which apply to this case and make it essential for the Defendant Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach to be tried in his absence. iii) As this is a case of conspiracy, the British Prosecutor submits that all the evidence directly concerned with the actions and speeches of the said defendant and the operations of Fried. Krupp A.G. would be evidence against the remaining defendants, if the Prosecution establishes a _prima facie_ case: a) that the conspiracy existed; b) that the said defendant was a party to the conspiracy. Such _prima facie_ case is clearly indicated in the Indictment lodged with the Tribunal and the evidence against the present defendant set out in the American Answer to this Application. iv) If this submission of the British Chief Prosecutor is correct and this evidence can and will be given in Court, then it is at least arguable that it is preferable for the said defendant to be represented so that his lawyer can deal with such evidence to the best of his ability. v) It is a matter of common knowledge of which the Court may take cognisance that the business of Fried. Krupp A.G. is a vast organisation. There are, therefore, many sources within the Krupp firm from which the defending Advocate can obtain information which will enable him to deal with the allegations contained in the American Answer. If the Defendant Gustav Krupp is not retained in the list of defendants, there will be no advocate so well qualified to deal with those allegations on behalf of the other defendants, against whom they will still be preferred. vi) In the circumstances of this trial the kernel of the case for the prosecution is that a number of conspirators have agreed and worked together for the purpose of waging aggressive war and causing untold misery to the World. The public interest, that the defendant who is responsible for the preparation of armaments on the one hand, and the utilisation on arms production, of prisoners of war and forced labour, including detainees from Concentration Camps on the other, is one of “the interests of justice” within Article 12 of the Charter. vii) Finally, it is earnestly desired that the wishes of the Tribunal as publicly announced at Berlin on the 18th October that the trial should open on the appointed day, namely, 20th November be realised and carried into execution. The British Delegation is strongly opposed to any postponement.
/s/ HARTLEY SHAWCROSS British Chief Prosecutor
MEMORANDUM OF THE FRENCH PROSECUTION ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN
Nuremberg, 13 November 1945 MEMORANDUM
by the French Delegation concerning the matter of Krupp which was discussed at the meeting of 12 November 1945
France is formally opposed to dropping the firm of Krupp from the Trial since the other prosecutors do not contemplate the possibility of preparing at this time a second trial directed against the big German industrialists.
France objects therefore to a simple severance.
The remaining possibilities are either the trial of Krupp Sr. _in absentia_ or the substitution of Krupp Jr. in his father’s place and stead.
The trial of an old man who is about to die and who is not before the Court is difficult in itself.
France would prefer to substitute his son against whom there are serious charges.
For simple reasons of expediency, France requests that there be no delay in excess of the delay that will result in all probability from the motions of the Defense.
If the Tribunal denies these motions of the Defense, the Trial of Krupp Sr. should take place in his absence.
However, this is in our opinion the lesser of two evils.
/s/ DUBOST
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF THE FRENCH PROSECUTION
Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 ADDITIONAL MEMORANDUM
We consider the trial of KRUPP, the father, as impossible under the circumstances. The trial of an old, dying man, absent from the dock, cannot take place.
We wish that the son be prosecuted. There are serious charges against him.
We had requested, so far, that he be prosecuted without any delay arising in the Trial therefrom.
The reasons of opportunity which had induced us to adopt this attitude are no longer so imperative since the Soviet Delegation has concurred in Mr. Jackson’s thesis.
Consequently we no longer raise any objection and we concur ourselves in this thesis.
The Deputy-Delegate of The French Government in the Prosecution of The International Military Tribunal /s/ CH. DUBOST
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL GRANTING POSTPONEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants. ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the defendant, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen, for a postponement of the proceedings against him;
IT IS ORDERED that the application for postponement be, and the same hereby is, granted;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the charges in the indictment against Gustav Krupp von Bohlen shall be retained upon the docket of the Tribunal for trial hereafter, if the physical and mental condition of the defendant should permit.
BY THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
/s/ GEOFFREY LAWRENCE President.
Dated this 15th day of November, 1945. ATTEST: /s/ WILLIAM L. MITCHELL General Secretary.
SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES PROSECUTION
MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE UNITED STATES CHIEF OF COUNSEL TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
The United States, by its Chief of Counsel, respectfully shows:
The order of the Tribunal, that “The charges in the Indictment against Gustav Krupp von Bohlen shall be retained upon the docket of the Tribunal for trial hereafter, if the physical and mental condition of the defendant should permit,” requires the United States to make clear its attitude toward subsequent trials, which may have been misapprehended by the Tribunal, in order that no inference be drawn from its silence.
The United States never has committed itself to participate in any Four Power trial except the one now pending. The purpose of accusing organizations and groups as criminal was to reach, through subsequent and more expeditious trials before Military Government or military courts, a large number of persons. According to estimates of the United States Army, a finding that the organizations presently accused are criminal organizations would result in the trial of approximately 130,000 persons now held in the custody of the United States Army; and I am uninformed as to those held by others. It has been the great purpose of the United States from the beginning to bring into this one trial all that is necessary by way of defendants and evidence to reach the large number of persons responsible for the crimes charged without going over the entire evidence again. We, therefore, desire that it be a matter of record that the United States has not been, and is not by this order, committed to participate in any subsequent Four Power trial. It reserves freedom to determine that question after the capacity to handle one trial under difficult conditions has been tested.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON Chief of Counsel for the United States
Certified a true copy: /s/ R. L. MORGAN Major, GSC
MOTION OF THE COMMITTEE OF CHIEF PROSECUTORS TO AMEND THE INDICTMENT BY ADDING THE NAME OF ALFRIED KRUPP VON BOHLEN AS A DEFENDANT
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL:
Upon the Indictment and motion of Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, the answers thereto and all proceedings had therein, the Committee of Prosecutors created under the Charter hereby designates Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach as a defendant and respectfully moves that the Indictment be amended by adding the name of Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach as a defendant and by the addition of appropriate allegations in reference to him in the Appendix A thereof. It also moves that the time of Alfried Krupp be shortened from thirty days to 2 December 1945. For this purpose, the Committee of Prosecutors adopts and ratifies the Answer filed on behalf of the United States on 12 November 1945 in response to the Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach motion, and the motion made by Robert H. Jackson in open Court on behalf of the United States of America, the Soviet Union and the Provisional Government of France. This motion is authorized by a resolution adopted at a meeting of the Committee of Prosecutors held 16 November 1945.
/s/ POKROVSKY For the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics /s/ F. DE MENTHON For the Provisional Government of France /s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON For the United States of America
16 November 1945
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REJECTING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE INDICTMENT BY ADDING THE NAME OF ALFRIED KRUPP VON BOHLEN AS A DEFENDANT
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants. ORDER
ON CONSIDERATION of the motion to amend the indictment by adding the name of Alfried Krupp;
IT IS ORDERED that the motion be, and the same hereby is, rejected.
BY THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
/s/ GEOFFREY LAWRENCE President.
Dated this 17th day of November, 1945. ATTEST: /s/ WILLIAM L. MITCHELL General Secretary.
MEMORANDUM OF THE FRENCH PROSECUTION ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REJECTING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE INDICTMENT
Prosecution International Military Tribunal FRENCH DELEGATION Annex 13 The Delegate of the Provisional Government of the French Republic of the Prosecution to the International Military Tribunal to The Members of the International Military Tribunal Nuremberg, 20 November 1945
I have the honor to inform you that the decision rendered by you on 17 November at 1500 hours, to reject the motion signed the 16th by Mr. Justice JACKSON, Colonel POKROVSKY and M. de MENTHON cannot reject the declaration contained, according to which “The Committee of the Prosecutors created according to the Charter, designates Alfried KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH as a defendant” because this declaration has been made as the last resort, under Article 14 b of the Charter.
Accordingly, Alfried KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH is specifically designated as a major war criminal.
Consequently, I have the honor to inform you that the following declaration has been published by the Chief Prosecutors representing Great Britain and the Government of the French Republic:
“The Prosecutors representing the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics having agreed in the designation of Alfried KRUPP as a major war criminal under Article 14 b of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the French and British Delegations are now engaged in the examination of the cases of other leading German industrialists, as well as certain other major war criminals, with a view to their attachment with Alfried KRUPP, in an indictment to be presented at a subsequent trial.”
We will let you know of this new indictment as soon as it is established.
For the Delegate /s/ CHARLES DUBOST
to: 4-The Members of the I.M.T. 1-General Secretary of the I.M.T. 3-The Members of the Prosecution (for information) 2-Files
MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT STREICHER FOR POSTPONEMENT OF THE TRIAL AS TO HIM[16]
Schwaig, 5 November 1945
TO: The International Military Tribunal.
I
As defense counsel for the accused Julius Streicher I should like to request that it be considered whether the time of commencement of the Trial of the major war criminals fixed for 20 November could not be postponed to a later date. My reasons for this request are as follows:
It is not possible for me properly to prepare the defense of the accused Streicher by 20 November 1945, nor especially to work through all the relevant papers and documents which are in the possession of the Court nor to produce the evidence which the accused proposes to submit nor to discover or cause to be discovered the witnesses named by him. Therefore I propose a postponement of the commencement of the Trial for three or four weeks.
II
Furthermore I request that these documents, books, and other records in which reference is made by the Prosecution in support of the Indictment and which have been lodged with the Court, be put at my disposal for the purpose of inspection and thorough examination.
III
Lastly I take the liberty of suggesting that the films which have been taken of the atrocities in concentration camps and other criminal acts be shown to all the defense counsel of the persons accused as this seems necessary for the instruction of counsel for the defense.
/s/ Dr. MARX
[16] Part I of this motion was withdrawn by Dr. Marx, 15 November 1945, with permission of the Tribunal.
MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES PROSECUTION ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
The United States of America, acting through its Chief Prosecutor, opposes the Motion of Counsel for Defendant STREICHER for the following reasons:
(1)
Since Counsel accepted the assignment to represent said defendant on 27 October 1945, he has been provided with a list of documents relied upon by the Prosecutor, and has been permitted to examine the documents and decrees referred to in such list; that such documents and exhibits will remain available to said Counsel throughout the Trial in the Defendant’s Information Center in Room No. 54 of the Court House in Nuremberg where German-speaking custodians are available for assistance in expediting such examination.
(2)
Said defendant will have additional time to examine documentary evidence and further prepare his defense until the Prosecution presents its Case in Chief.
(3)
Defendant STREICHER is the only defendant who has requested postponement, and his application does not show any facts of hardship that would follow which would be limited to his particular defense. Further he does not show any specific injury to his defense if the Motion should be denied.
(4)
No objection is made to request in Section II of the Motion.
(5)
It is agreed that the film on Concentration Camps may be shown to Defense Counsel prior to the Trial.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Motion be overruled.
ROBERT H. JACKSON U. S. Chief of Counsel by /s/ ROBERT G. STOREY Asst. U. S. Chief of Counsel
14 November 1945
MEMORANDUM OF THE BRITISH PROSECUTION ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, and THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
— against —
HERMANN WILHELM GÖRING, et al.,
Defendants.
The Chief Prosecutor of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectfully opposes the application for an adjournment of Counsel for the Defendant STREICHER for the following reasons:
I.
1) Counsel for the Defendant Streicher accepted that position on 27 October 1945. 2) The Indictment against the said defendant and others was published on 18 October 1945 and served on the Defendant Streicher shortly thereafter. 3) The said Counsel has therefore had a considerable time to familiarise himself with the contents of the Indictment and especially these which, as appears in the part of the Appendix A, page 33 relating to the said defendant, are particularly relevant to him. In this connection the Chief Prosecutor respectfully refers to Page 5, Section IV(D)(3)(d) and page 26 Section X(A) and (B) of the Indictment. 4) This Chief Prosecutor further respectfully reminds the Court that the said Counsel has got a week from the filing of this answer until the commencement of the Trial, and in addition any time which may be occupied by the opening of the case and any matters preliminary to evidence being produced requiring cross-examination by Counsel for the Defendant Streicher. 5) If oral evidence is called relating to the part alleged to have been played by the said defendant and the said Counsel is not ready to cross-examine, he will be able to ask for a postponement of his cross-examination. 6) It is therefore respectfully submitted that this Application is premature, and that the time for applying for an adjournment to assist Counsel for the said defendant is when a difficulty actually arises at the Trial. 7) This Chief Prosecutor respectfully reminds the Tribunal of the words of General Nikitchenko, then its President, uttered at Berlin on 18 October 1945: “It must be understood that the Tribunal which is directed by the Charter to secure an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the charges will not permit any delay either in the preparation of the defense or of the Trial.”
II.
This Chief Prosecutor has no objection to the request made in Section II of the said application.
III.
This Chief Prosecutor has also no objection to the suggestion, contained in Section III thereof.
/s/ HARTLEY SHAWCROSS
14 November 1945
MOTION OF THE SOVIET PROSECUTION FOR A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
CHIEF PROSECUTOR OF THE U.S.S.R.
TO THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
As shown by the Indictment of the major war criminals, Julius Streicher is to be tried in common with the other major war criminals and also for acts committed by himself, including, in particular, the incitement of the persecution of the Jews set forth in Count One and Count Four of the Indictment.
Thus, Streicher must bear the personal responsibility in the first place, for deriding the Jews, for their being tortured and murdered as a direct result of his propaganda and of that of his followers.
Pursuant to this Indictment the interrogations of Streicher were carried on.
At the interrogation of 10 November 1945 by representatives of the Delegation of the Soviet Union, Streicher declared quite unexpectedly that he “had been holding the viewpoint of Zionism.”
If, in addition to this, we remember the motion of Streicher’s Defense Counsel at the session of the Military Tribunal of 15 November 1945 of the irresponsibility (psychical) of his client, it seems to me evident that there is every reason for appointing psychiatric experts.
This measure should not encounter any difficulties, as right at this moment there are in Nuremberg a sufficient number of highly qualified specialists, who have just solved a similar problem in connection with the Defendant Hess.
An immediate examination would give the Tribunal, before even the beginning of the session, exact information as to whether the Defendant Streicher is responsible or irresponsible. There is still amply sufficient time to do so.
To resort to experts when the Trial had already begun, would undoubtedly delay the normal procedure of the Tribunal.
Given consideration to the above, I request that the Defendant Streicher be submitted to a psychiatric examination before the beginning of the Trial.
/s/ POKROVSKY Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the U.S.S.R.
16 November 1945
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REGARDING A PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
17 November 1945
MEMORANDUM TO: DR. JEAN DELAY, Professor of Psychiatry at the Faculty of Medicine in Paris. PROFESSOR EUGENE KRASNUSHKIN, Professor of the Scientific Research Institute in Moscow. COLONEL PAUL L. SCHROEDER, U.S. Army.
The Tribunal desires that you examine the Defendant JULIUS STREICHER to determine:
1. Is he sane or insane? 2. Is he fit to appear before the Tribunal and present his defense? 3. If he is insane, was he for that reason incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his acts during the period of time covered by the Indictment?
FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL:
/s/ WILLIAM L. MITCHELL Brig. General, GSC General Secretary
REPORT OF EXAMINATION OF DEFENDANT STREICHER
18 November 1945
MEMORANDUM FOR: Brig. Gen. William L. Mitchell, General Secretary. FOR THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL.
In response to the Tribunal’s request that the Defendant Julius Streicher be examined, the undersigned psychiatrists did examine the Defendant Julius Streicher, on 17 November 1945. The following examinations were made: Physical, neurological and psychiatric examinations.