Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 01

Chapter VI: Part 6

Text size

Krupp von Bohlen strongly advocated and supported Germany’s withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference and from the League of Nations. He personally made repeated public speeches approving and inciting Hitler’s program of aggression: On 6 and 7 April 1938 two speeches approved annexation of Austria; on 13 October 1938 approving Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland; on 4 September 1939 approving the invasion of Poland; on 6 May 1941 commemorating success of Nazi arms in the West.

Alfried Krupp also made speeches to the same general effect. Krupps were thus one of the most persistent and influential forces that made this war.

Krupps also were the chief factor in getting ready for the war. In January 1944, in a speech at the University of Berlin, Von Bohlen boasted, “Through years of secret work, scientific and basic groundwork was laid in order to be ready again to work for the German Armed Forces at the appointed hour without loss of time or experience.” In 1937, before Germany went to war, Krupps booked orders to equip satellite governments on approval of the German High Command. Krupp contributed 20,000 marks to the Defendant Rosenberg for the purpose of spreading Nazi propaganda abroad. In a memorandum of 12 October 1939 a Krupp official wrote offering to mail propaganda pamphlets abroad at Krupp expense.

Once the war was on, Krupps, both Von Bohlen and Alfried being directly responsible therefor, led German industry in violating treaties and international law by employing enslaved laborers, impressed and imported from nearly every country occupied by Germany, and by compelling prisoners of war to make arms and munitions for use against their own countries. There is ample evidence that in Krupp’s custody and service they were underfed and overworked, misused, and inhumanly treated. Captured records show that in September 1944 Krupp concerns were working 54,990 foreign workers and 18,902 prisoners of war.

Moreover, the Krupp companies profited greatly from destroying the peace of the world through support of the Nazi program. The rearmament of Germany gave Krupp huge orders and corresponding profits. Before this Nazi menace to the peace began, the Krupps were operating at a substantial loss. But the net profits after taxes, gifts, and reserves steadily rose with rise of Nazi rearmament, being as follows:

For year ending 30 September 1935— 57,216,392 marks
For year ending 30 September 1938— 97,071,632 marks
For year ending 30 September 1941— 111,555,216 marks

The book value of the Krupp concerns mounted from 75,962,000 marks on 1 October 1933, to 237,316,093 marks on 1 October 1943. Even this included many going concerns in occupied countries at a book value of only 1 mark each. These figures are subject to the adjustments and controversies usual with financial statements of each vast enterprise but approximately reflect the facts about property and operations.

The services of Alfried Krupp and of Von Bohlen and their family to the war aims of the Nazi Party were so outstanding that the Krupp enterprises were made a special exception to the policy of nationalization of industries. Hitler said that he would be “prepared to arrange for any possible safeguarding for the continued existence of the works as a family enterprise; it would be simplest to issue ‘lex Krupp’ to start with”. After short negotiations, this was done. A decree of 12 November 1943 preserves the Krupp works as a family enterprise in Alfried Krupp’s control and recites that it is done in recognition of the fact that “for 132 years the firm of Fried. Krupp, as a family enterprise has achieved outstanding and unique merits for the armed strength of the German people.”

It has at all times been the position of the United States that the great industrialists of Germany were guilty of the crimes charged in this Indictment quite as much as its politicians, diplomats, and soldiers. Its chief of counsel, on 7 June 1945, in a report to President Truman, released by him and with his approval, stated that the accusations of crimes include individuals in authority in the financial, industrial, and economic life of Germany as well as others.

Pursuant thereto, the United States, with approval of the Secretary Of State, proposed to indict Alfried Krupp, son of Krupp von Bohlen, and president and owner of the Krupp concern. The Prosecutors representing the Soviet Union, the French Republic, and the United Kingdom unanimously opposed inclusion of Alfried Krupp. This is not said in criticism of them or their judgment. The necessity of limiting the number of defendants was considered by representatives of the other three nations to preclude the addition of Alfried Krupp. Immediately upon service of the Indictment, learning the serious condition of Krupp von Bohlen, the United States again called a meeting of Prosecutors and proposed an amendment to include Alfried Krupp. Again the proposal of the United States was defeated by a vote of 3 to 1. If now the Tribunal shall exercise its discretion to excuse from trial the one indicted member of the Krupp family, one of the chief purposes of the United States will be defeated and it is submitted that such a result is not “in the interests of justice.”

The United States respectfully submits that no greater disservice to the future peace of the world could be done than to excuse the entire Krupp family and the armament enterprise from this Trial in which aggressive war making is sought to be condemned. The “interests of justice” cannot be determined without taking into account justice to the men of four generations whose lives have been taken or menaced by Krupp munitions and Krupp armament, and those of the future who can feel no safety if such persons as this escape all condemnation in proceedings such as this.

While of course the United States cannot, without the concurrence of one other Power indict a new defendant, it can under the Charter alone oppose this motion. The United States respectfully urges that if the favor now sought by Krupp von Bohlen is to be granted, it be upon the condition that Alfried Krupp be substituted or added as a defendant so that there may be a representative of the Krupp interests before the Tribunal.

It may be suggested that bringing in a new defendant would result in delay. Admitting, however, that a delay which cannot exceed a few days may be occasioned, it is respectfully suggested that the precise day that this Trial will start is a less important consideration than whether it is to fail of one of its principal purposes. The American Prosecution staff has been by long odds the longest and farthest away from home in this endeavor. On personal as well as public interest consideration it deplores delay. But we think the future as well as the contemporary world cannot fail to be shocked if, in a trial in which it is sought to condemn aggressive war making, the Krupp industrial empire is completely saved from condemnation.

The complete trial brief of the United States on Krupp von Bohlen with copies of the documents on which his culpability is asserted will be made available to the Tribunal if it is desired as evidence concerning him and Alfried Krupp and the Krupp concerns.

Respectfully submitted:

/s/ ROBERT H. JACKSON
Chief of Counsel for the United States of
America

12 November 1945

MEMORANDUM OF THE BRITISH PROSECUTION
ON THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN

British War Crimes Executive (E.S.)
12 November 1945

To: The International Military Tribunal.

The British Chief Prosecutor has had the opportunity of considering the application of the Defending Counsel to the accused GUSTAV KRUPP VON BOHLEN UND HALBACH:

1) that the proceedings against this accused be deferred until he is
again fit for trial;
2) at any rate, that the accused be not tried in his absence.

The British Chief Prosecutor opposes this application for the following reasons:

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.

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.

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:

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.

In addition, the following documents were studied: All available interrogations, biographical data, inspection of examples of his written works, all psychological investigations and observations of the prison psychiatrist.

The following results of the examination and unanimous conclusions are submitted:

1) Defendant Julius Streicher is sane.
2) Defendant Julius Streicher is fit to appear before the Tribunal and
to present his defense.
3) It being the unanimous conclusion of the examiners that Julius
Streicher is sane, he is for that reason capable of understanding the
nature and quality of his acts during the period of time covered by
the Indictment.

/s/ DR. JEAN DELAY,
Professor of Psychiatry at the Faculty of
Medicine in Paris.

/s/ EUGENE KRASNUSHKIN,
Professor of the Scientific Research
Institute in Moscow.

/s/ COLONEL PAUL L. SCHROEDER, AUS,
Neuropsychiatric Consultant.

MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT HESS FOR
AN EXAMINATION BY A NEUTRAL EXPERT WITH
REFERENCE TO HIS MENTAL COMPETENCE AND
CAPACITY TO STAND TRIAL

TO: The General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal,
Nuremberg.

On behalf of the Defendant Hess I hereby make the following application in my capacity of counsel:

A. That a medical expert be asked by the Court to make a thorough examination of the Defendant Hess and to report in an exhaustive manner as to whether the said defendant is

a) mentally competent,

b) capable of being tried, and to summon the medical expert as a witness at the Trial.

The expert should be named to the Tribunal by the medical faculty of the University of Zürich or, if a competent expert should not be available there, by the medical faculty of Lausanne.

B. If the Court has already appointed an expert, that the expert applied for and appointed as in I A. be appointed and summoned to act together with the Court’s own expert at the examination, and to testify in Court.

C. In the event of the Court’s having already in the meantime ordered a report by a board of experts, that this panel be completed by the appointment, as well as the expert mentioned in I A., of another expert also to be named by the medical faculty of Zürich or Lausanne.

II
. . . .
_Reasons:_

Re I. The undersigned Counsel has grave doubts as to the mental responsibility and the fitness for Trial of the Defendant Hess owing to defendant’s behavior during his numerous talks with him, and owing to the numerous publications, past and present, in the German and foreign press about the “Hess Case”. The defendant is not in a position to give his Counsel any information whatsoever regarding the crimes imputed to him in the Indictment. The expression of his face is lifeless and his attitude towards his Counsel and in view of the impending Trial is the reverse of every natural reaction of any other defendant.

The defendant declares that he has completely lost his memory since a long period of time, the period of which he can no longer determine.

The official Party declaration issued by the German Propaganda Ministry of 12 May 1941 even mentions “a disease which had been increasing over a period of years” and of “signs of mental derangement”. English press reports also state that defendant’s conduct after his landing in Scotland showed an _absence_ of “mental clarity”.

Those facts are important for the allegation of Defendant’s irresponsibility as a result of morbid disorder of his mental capacity, and sufficient grounds for application numbered I.

Those facts at the same time justify the examination of defendant’s ability to plead. In the event of the Court’s having already, on its own authority, entrusted a panel of experts with the preparation of a report, it would be fair to the defendant to concede the addition of _several_ experts to be appointed by the Defense.

. . . .

/s/ VON ROHRSCHEIDT
Attorney

Nuremberg, 7 November 1945

ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REJECTING
THE MOTION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT HESS,
AND DESIGNATING A COMMISSION TO
EXAMINE DEFENDANT HESS WITH REFERENCE
TO HIS MENTAL COMPETENCE AND CAPACITY
TO STAND TRIAL

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

1. Counsel for the Defendant Hess has made application to the Tribunal to appoint an expert designated by the medical faculty of the University of Zürich or of Lausanne to examine the Defendant Hess with reference to his mental competence and capacity to stand trial. This application is denied.

2. The Tribunal has designated a commission composed of the following members:

Eugene Krasnushkin, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry,
Medical Institute of Moscow, assisted by
Eugene Sepp, M.D., Professor of Neurology,
Medical Institute of Moscow
Member, Academy of Medical Sciences, U.S.S.R., and
Nicolas Kurshakov, M.D., Professor of Medicine
Medical Institute of Moscow
Chief Internist, Commissariat of Public Health, U.S.S.R.
Lord Moran, M.D. F.R.C.P.
President of the Royal College of Physicians, assisted by
Dr. T. Rees, M.D. F.R.C.P.
Chief Consultant Psychiatrist to the War Office, and
Dr. George Riddoch, M.D. F.R.C.P.
Director of Neurology at the London Hospital and
Chief Consultant Neurologist to the War Office
Dr. Nolan D. C. Lewis, assisted by
Dr. D. Ewen Cameron and
Colonel Paul Schroeder, M.D.
Professor Jean Delay.

The Tribunal has requested the commission to examine the Defendant Hess and furnish a report on the mental state of the defendant with particular reference to the question whether he is able to take his part in the Trial, specifically:

1. Is the defendant able to plead to the Indictment?

2. Is the defendant sane or not, and on this last issue the Tribunal wishes to be advised whether the defendant is of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings of the Trial so as to make a proper defense, to challenge a witness to whom he might wish to object and to understand the details of the evidence.

3. The examiners have presented their reports to the Tribunal in the form which commends itself to them. It is directed that copies of the reports be furnished to each of the Chief Prosecutors and to Defense Counsel. The Tribunal will hear argument by the Prosecution and by Defense Counsel on the issues presented by the reports on Friday, 30 November at 4 P.M.

INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL
/s/ GEOFFREY LAWRENCE
President

Dated at Nuremberg, Germany, this 24th day of November 1945.

REPORT OF COMMISSION TO EXAMINE
DEFENDANT HESS[17]

To the International Military Tribunal:

In pursuance of the assignment by the Tribunal, we, the medical experts of the Soviet Delegation, together with the physicians of the English Delegation and in the presence of one representative of the American Medical Delegation, have examined Rudolf Hess and made a report on our examination of Mr. Hess together with our conclusions and interpretation of the behavior of Mr. Hess.

The statement of the general conclusions has been signed only by the physicians of the Soviet Delegation and by Professor Delay, the medical expert of the French Delegation.

Attachments: I. Conclusions, and
II. Report on the examination of Mr. Hess.

/s/ KRASNUSHKIN
Doctor of Medicine
/s/ E. SEPP
Honorary Scientist, Regular Member
of the Academy of Medicine
/s/ KURSHAKOV
Doctor of Medicine, Chief Therapeutist
of
the Commissariat of Health of the
U.S.S.R.

17 November 1945

-----

[17] On the basis of this report and in view of the oral statement by the defendant during the Proceedings of 30 November 1945, the Court ruled 1 December 1945 that “Defendant Hess is capable of standing his trial at the present time, and the motion of Counsel for the Defense (requesting postponement) is, therefore, denied, and the Trial will proceed.”

Attachment I. Conclusions

After observation and an examination of Rudolf Hess the undersigned have reached the following conclusions:

1. No essential physical deviations from normality were observed.

2. His mental conditions are of a mixed type. He is an unstable person, which in technical terms is called a psychopathic personality. The data concerning his illness during the period of the last four years submitted by one of us who had him under observation in England, show that he had a delusion of being poisoned and other similar paranoic notions.

Partly as a reaction to the failure of his mission there, the abnormal manifestations increased and led to attempts at suicide.

In addition to the above mentioned manifestations he has noticeable hysterical tendencies which caused a development of various symptoms, primarily, of amnesia that lasted from November 1943 to June of 1944 and resisted all attempts to be cured.

The amnesia symptom may disappear with changing circumstances.

The second period of amnesia started in February of 1945 and has lasted up through the present.

3. At present, he is not insane in the strict sense of the word. His amnesia does not prevent him completely from understanding what is going on around him but it will interfere with his ability to conduct his defense and to understand details of the past which would appear as factual data.

4. To clarify the situation we recommend that a narco-analysis be performed on him and, if the Court decides to submit him to trial, the problem should be subsequently re-examined from a psychiatric point of view.

The conclusion reached on November 14 by the physicians of the British Delegation, Lord Moran, Dr. T. Rees and Dr. G. Riddoch, and the physicians of the Soviet Delegation, Professors Krasnushkin, Sepp, and Kurshakov, was also arrived at on 15 November by the representative of the French Delegation, Professor Jean Delay.

After an examination of Mr. Hess which took place on 15 November 1945, the undersigned Professors and experts of the Soviet Delegation, Krasnushkin, Sepp and Kurshakov, and Professor Jean Delay, the expert from the French Delegation, have agreed on the following statement:

Mr. Hess categorically refused to be submitted to narco-analysis and resisted all other procedures intended to effect a cure of his amnesia, and stated that he would agree to undergo treatment only after the trial. The behavior of Mr. Hess makes it impossible to apply the methods suggested in Paragraph 4 of the report of 14 November and to follow the suggestion of that Paragraph in present form.

16 November 1945

Attachment II. Report

According to the information obtained on 16 November 1945, during the interrogation of Rosenberg who had seen Hess immediately before the latter’s flight to England, Hess gave no evidence of any abnormality either in appearance or conversation. He was, as usual, quiet and composed. Nor was it apparent that he might have been nervous. Prior to this, he was a calm person, habitually suffering pains in the region of the stomach.

As can be judged on the basis of the report of the English psychiatrist, Doctor Rees, who had Hess under observation from the first days of his flight to England, Hess, after the airplane crash, disclosed no evidence of a brain injury, but, upon arrest and incarceration, he began to give expression to ideas of persecution, he feared that he would be poisoned, or killed, and his death represented as a suicide, and that all this would be done by the English under the hypnotic influence of the Jews. Furthermore, these delusions of persecution were maintained up to the news of the catastrophe suffered by the German Army at Stalingrad when the manifestations were replaced by amnesia. According to Doctor Rees, the delusions of persecution and the amnesia were observed not to take place simultaneously. Furthermore, there were two attempts at suicide. A knife wound, inflicted during the second attempt, in the skin near the heart gave evidence of a clearly hysterico-demonstrative character. After this there was again observed a change from amnesia to delusions of persecution, and during this period he wrote that he was simulating his amnesia, and, finally, again entered into a state of amnesia which has been prolonged up to the present.

According to the examination of Rudolf Hess on 14 November 1945, the following was disclosed:

Hess complains of frequent cramping pains in the region of the stomach which appear independent of the taking of food, and headaches in the frontal lobes during mental strain, and, finally, of loss of memory.

In general his condition is marked by a pallor of the skin and a noticeable reduction in food intake.

Regarding the internal organs of Hess, the pulse is 92, and a weakening of the heart tone is noticeable. There has been no change in the condition of the other internal organs.

Concerning the neurological aspect, there are no symptoms of organic impairment of the nervous system.

Psychologically, Hess is in a state of clear consciousness; knows that he is in prison at Nuremberg under indictment as a war criminal; has read, and, according to his own words, is acquainted with the charges against him. He answers questions rapidly and to the point. His speech is coherent, his thoughts formed with precision and correctness and they are accompanied by sufficient emotionally expressive movements. Also, there is no kind of evidence of paralogism. It should also be noted here, that the present psychological examination, which was conducted by Lieutenant Gilbert, Ph. D., bears out the testimony that the intelligence of Hess is normal and in some instances above the average. His movements are natural and not forced.

He has expressed no delirious fancies nor does he give any delirious explanation for the painful sensation in his stomach or the loss of memory, as was previously attested to by Doctor Rees, namely, when Hess ascribed them to poisoning. At the present time, to the question about the reason for his painful sensations and the loss of memory, Hess answers that this is for the doctors to know. According to his own assertions, he can remember almost nothing of his former life. The gaps in Hess’ memory are ascertained only on the basis of the subjective changing of his testimony about his inability to remember this or that person or event given at different times. What he knows at the present time is, in his own words, what he allegedly learned only recently from the information of those around him and the films which have been shown him.

On 14 November Hess refused the injection of narcotics which were offered for the purpose of making an analysis of his psychological condition. On 15 November, in answer to Professor Delay’s offer, he definitely and firmly refused narcosis and explained to him that, in general, he would take all measures to cure his amnesia only upon completion of the Trial.

All that has been exposed above, we are convinced, permits of the interpretation that the deviation from the norm in the behavior of Hess takes the following forms:

1. In the psychological personality of Hess there are no changes typical of the progressive schizophrenic disease, and therefore the delusions, from which he suffered periodically while in England, cannot be considered as manifestations of a schizophrenic paranoia, and must be recognized as the expression of a psychogenic paranoia reaction, that is, the psychologically comprehensible reaction of an unstable (psychologically) personality to the situation (the failure of his mission, arrest, and incarceration). Such an interpretation of the delirious statements of Hess in England is bespoken by their disappearance, appearance, and repeated disappearance depending on external circumstances which affected the mental state of Hess.

2. The loss of memory by Hess is not the result of some kind of mental disease but represents hysterical amnesia, the basis of which is a subconscious inclination toward self-defense as well as a deliberate and conscious tendency toward it. Such behavior often terminates when the hysterical person is faced with an unavoidable necessity of conducting himself correctly. Therefore, the amnesia of Hess may end upon his being brought to Trial.

3. Rudolf Hess, prior to his flight to England, did not suffer from any kind of insanity, nor is he now suffering from it. At the present time he exhibits hysterical behavior with signs of a conscious-intentional (simulated) character, which does not exonerate him from his responsibility under the Indictment.

17 November 1945

To: The International Military Tribunal.

The undersigned, having seen and examined Rudolf Hess, have come to the following conclusions:

1. There are no relevant physical abnormalities.

2. His mental state is of a mixed type. He is an unstable man and what is technically called a psychopathic personality. The evidence of his illness in the past four years, as presented by one of us who has had him under his care in England, indicates that he has had delusions of poisoning and other similar paranoid ideas.

Partly as a reaction to the failure of his mission these abnormal ideas got worse and led to a suicidal attempt.

In addition, he has a marked hysterical tendency, as shown by various symptoms, notably a loss of memory which lasted from November 1943 to June 1944, and which resisted all efforts at treatment. A second loss of memory began in February 1945 and has lasted till the present. This amnesic symptom will eventually clear when circumstances change.

3. At the moment he is not insane in the strict sense. His loss of memory will not entirely interfere with his comprehension of the proceedings, but it will interfere with his ability to make his defense and to understand details of the past which arise in evidence.

4. We recommend that further evidence should be obtained by narco-analysis, and that if the Court decide to proceed with the Trial, the question should afterwards be reviewed on psychiatric grounds.

/s/ J. R. REES /s/ GEORGE RIDDOCH
M.D., F.R.C.P. M.D., F.R.C.P.
/s/ MORAN
M.D., F.R.C.P.

19 November 1945.

C
20 November 1945

MEMORANDUM TO: Brigadier General Wm. L. Mitchell,
General Secretary for the International
Military Tribunal.

In response to request of the Tribunal that the Defendant Rudolf Hess be examined, the undersigned psychiatrists examined Rudolf Hess on 15 and 19 November 1945 in his cell in the Military Prison in Nuremberg.

The following examinations were made: physical, neurological, and psychological.

In addition, documents were studied bearing information concerning his personal development and career. Reports concerning the period of his stay in England were scrutinized. The results of all psychological, special psychometric examinations, and observations carried out by the prison psychiatrist and his staff were studied. Information was also derived from the official interrogation of the defendant on 14 and 16 November 1945.

(1) We find, as a result of our examinations and investigations, that Rudolf Hess is suffering from hysteria characterized in part by loss of memory. The nature of this loss of memory is such that it will not interfere with his comprehension of the proceedings, but it will interfere with his response to questions relating to his past and will interfere with his undertaking his defense.

In addition there is a conscious exaggeration of his loss of memory and a tendency to exploit it to protect himself against examination.

(2) We consider that the existing hysterical behavior which the defendant reveals, was initiated as a defense against the circumstances in which he found himself, while in England; that it has now become in part habitual and that it will continue as long as he remains under the threat of imminent punishment, even though it may interfere with his undertaking a more normal form of defense.

(3) It is the unanimous conclusion of the undersigned that Rudolf Hess is not insane at the present time in the strict sense of the word.

/s/ DR. JEAN DELAY
Professor of Psychiatry at the Faculty
of Medicine in Paris

/s/ DR. NOLAN D. C. LEWIS
Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University

/s/ DR. D. EWEN CAMERON
Professor of Psychiatry, McGill University

/s/ COL. PAUL L. SCHROEDER
A.U.S. Neuropsychiatric Consultant

REPORT OF PRISON PSYCHOLOGIST ON
MENTAL COMPETENCE OF DEFENDANT HESS[18]

17 August 1946

SUBJECT : Competence of Defendant Rudolf Hess TO : General Secretary, International Military Tribunal.

1. In compliance with the Tribunal’s request, the following facts and studied opinions are submitted with respect to the competence of Rudolf Hess, based on my continual tests and observations from October 1945 to the present time, in the capacity of prison psychologist:

2. _Amnesia at beginning of trial._ There can be no doubt that Hess was in a state of virtually complete amnesia at the beginning of the trial. The opinions of the psychiatric commissions in this regard and with respect to his sanity have only been substantiated by prolonged subsequent observation.

3. _Recovery._ On the day of the special hearing in his case, 30 November 1945, Rudolf Hess did, in fact, recover his memory. The cause of his sudden recovery is an academic question, but the following event probably played a part: Just before the hearing I told Hess (as a challenge) that he might be considered incompetent at that time and excluded from the proceedings, but I would sometimes see him in his cell. Hess seemed startled and said he thought he was competent. Then he gave his declaration of malingering in court, apparently as a face-saving device. In later conversations he admitted to me that he had not been malingering, and that he knew he had lost his memory twice in England. During the months of December 1945, and January 1946, his memory was quite in order.

4. _Relapse._ At the end of January I began to notice the beginnings of memory failure. This increased progressively during February, until he returned to a state of virtually complete amnesia again about the beginning of March, and he has remained in that state ever since. (At the beginning of relapse, Hess expressed anxiety over it, saying that no one would believe him this time after he had said he had faked his amnesia the first time.) The amnesia is progressive, each day’s events being quickly forgotten. At present his memory span is about one-half day, and his apprehension span has dropped from 7 to 4 digits repeated correctly immediately after hearing.

5. _Competence and sanity._ I have read the application of Dr. Seidl both in German and in English, and wish to make the following comment:

_a._ Lay discussion of psychiatric concepts does not help throw any light on this case, because psychiatrists themselves are not in agreement on the definition of terms like “psychopathic constitution”, “hysterical reaction”, etc., and these terms have entirely different meanings in English and German usage.

_b._ The psychiatric commissions have agreed, and my further observations have confirmed, that Hess is _not_ insane (in the legal sense of being incapable of distinguishing right from wrong or realizing the consequences of his acts).

_c._ Hess did recover his memory for a sufficient period of time (2-3 months) to give his counsel ample cooperation in the preparation of his defense. If he failed to do so, it was the result of a negativistic personality peculiarity, which I have also observed, and not incompetence.

_d._ There has been no indication in his case history or present behavior that he was insane at the time of the activities for which he has been indicted. His behavior throughout the trial has also shown sufficient insight and reason to dispel any doubts about his sanity. (He may have gone through a psychotic episode in England, but that in no way destroys the validity of the previous two statements. He has exhibited signs of a “persecution complex” here too, but these have not been of psychotic proportions.)

_e._ In my opinion, another examination by a psychiatric commission at this time would not throw any further light on the case, because the clinical picture is the same and the conclusions would necessarily be the same as those of the original psychiatric commissions, to wit: Hess is not insane but suffering from hysterical amnesia. I have discussed this case with the present prison psychiatrist, Lt. Col. Dunn, who has recently examined Hess, and he is also of the opinion that Hess’s present mental state is apparently the same as that indicated in the original psychiatric reports, which he has read.

/s/ G. M. GILBERT, Ph.D.
Prison Psychologist

-----

[18] This report was referred to Counsel for Defendant Hess by order of the Tribunal, 20 August 1946, in reference to the motion of 2 August 1946 on behalf of the defendant. This motion, which reviewed at length the previous examinations and psychiatric history of Defendant Hess, was a request “to subject the Defendant Hess once more . . . to an examination by psychiatric experts with regard to his ability to stand trial and his soundness of mind.”

MOTION ADOPTED BY ALL DEFENSE COUNSEL[19]

19 November 1945

Previous Next

Comments

Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremburg, 14 November 1945-1 October 1946, Volume 01Chapter VI: Part 6

0%35 min left in chapter