I respectfully disagree with the contention of Professor Kraus that that is altered by the fact that we are here dealing with a conspiracy charge. Whether the charge is conspiracy or not, there are certain facts which are not in dispute. There are certain facts which will be, as is indicated by Dr. Stahmer’s memorandum, the subject of legal argument or discussion as to the true inference to be drawn from them; and the fact that a case is based on conspiracy does not alter the fact that certain matters are either going to be contradicted by evidence or left uncontradicted.
I, myself, have seen nothing to suggest that, for example, the re-establishment of military forces in Germany, the occupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss in Austria, the existence and circumstances of concentration camps, many of the actions of certain SS-divisions and bodies under Himmler, are going to be disputed at all, because the defendants’ counsel have had the opportunity of cross-examining witnesses on many of these matters, and there has been no challenge by cross-examination.
I do not question for the moment nor seek to deal with the decision of the Tribunal this morning, which, of course, I accept with the utmost loyalty, but I hope the Tribunal will not think it wrong for me to mention in explanation that the Prosecution were anxious for the Defense to eliminate the matters in issue and would have been prepared, so far as it lies with them, to agree to a certain time being given for that purpose. But yet, the defendants have said—and again I make no complaint—that they are not prepared to do it. Therefore, that reason for adjournment disappears.
I do not want the Tribunal to think that we are either unimaginative or unreasonable. We know, because we have seen the other side of the shield, that there are certain mechanical matters and matters of conclusion of preparation which have to be done before a case is put forward. We quite appreciate that the defenders of Göring, of Hess, and of Ribbentrop may require a day or two to put their tackle in order, but I want to make clear that that, in our view, is quite different from a 3 weeks’ adjournment.
I respectfully agree with every word that Professor Kraus has said about the maintenance of the dignity of the Trial, but it is not essential, in my respectful submission, for the maintenance of the dignity of the Trial that the Trial should take place in slow time. That would not only be wrong, but it would be directly contrary to the portion of the Charter to which General Nikitchenko referred at Berlin.
With regard to the witnesses, there are, as the Tribunal knows, certain difficult matters, in that, to begin with, the defendants asked for many witnesses who were very largely repetitive; and they have, as I judge the application, begun recently to get clear who are the essential witnesses, and the Tribunal will rule on that finally as it has indicated.
I only take one other example. Professor Kraus mentioned the question of certain documents for which Dr. Kranzbühler was asking, which were, as I understand it, U-boat diaries. I have arranged that Dr. Kranzbühler’s assistant will be enabled to go to London and examine these documents at his leisure in the Admiralty. That is on paper in our reply. I respectfully submit that that sort of attitude is the best and most helpful attitude for letting the Defense get what they wish.
Mr. President, I have nearly exhausted my time, and I only say this in conclusion: The Prosecution has had to collate and co-ordinate actions taking place over a long period, certainly 12 years, in some cases 20 years. We have collated and co-ordinated the evidence of these actions. We have presented a case which is grounded mainly on the written statements or written records of statements made by the defendants themselves. The task before the Defense is to give the explanation that what they say is the true color of words that have been proved—and not disputed—to have come out of their own mouths.
They have had the time which I have stated and which I shall not repeat, but that being the state of this case, it is the attitude of the Prosecution, with, as I say, every desire to help in any way that is possible in the actual work, whether it be mechanical or preparing documents or otherwise, that the defense cannot rightfully ask for further time for general reflection and consideration on a case which has that basis. We therefore respectfully but firmly object to any adjournment other than a matter of individual days, not more than a week, certainly—we should say less than that—for the purpose of completing preparations and putting mechanical tackle in order.
That, Mr. President, is the attitude of all my colleagues.