In the waning days of June, Dodd’s projections for the end of the defense and cross-examinations fluctuated wildly. “Today von Neurath finished his own direct examination the British finished their cross. The Russians will consume a few hours tomorrow (for no good reason except home consumption — they do it all the time and have very much delayed the trial).” [p. 332, 6/25/1946] The excitement of nearing the end enabled Dodd to get through unnecessary posturing before the court, only to have progress derailed yet again. Continue reading
By mid-June the list of defendants for which the United States was the lead prosecution was getting very short, “slowly but surely we move towards the end.” [p. 352, 6/14/1946] The defense case of Seyss-Inquart began on June 11th and Dodd led the cross examination of the defendant and four witnesses on the 14th. Feeling that “it went all right,” Dodd commented in his letter to Grace that “Sir Norman Birkett, the British alternate judge, stopped me in the corridor and was most complimentary about my cross-examinations. Anyway it made me feel good.” [p, 325, 6/14/1946] The back and forth between the prosecutor and defendant reveals some of the trial difficulties of both. The prosecution had to have access to the appropriate documentation, witnesses, testimony and information to piece together a timeline several years and multiple decisions and battles in the past. The defendant had the advantage of lack of memory, missing documentation but the disadvantage of others’ recollections and too much documentation of actions, orders and activities for comfort. Further demonstrating the style and persistence for which he was recognized, below is Dodd’s cross-examination on the morning of 12 June 1946: Continue reading
“Sometimes I get so discouraged I wonder if any of this is worthwhile. Was I a fool to take on this long and difficult task while we take on this long and difficult task while others remain at home and criticize us because we try to make the waging of war not worth the risk? Is the world so cynical, so deeply cynical as it sometimes seems to be? I must not let myself think so.” [p. 322, 6/9/1946]
In June 1946, The Ladies Home Journal (LHJ) published an article written by Walter Lippman, who had traveled to Nuremberg and met with members of the U.S. prosecution staff. “The meaning of Nuremberg” presented its readers with an articulate and studied description of what Justice Robert Jackson and Thomas J. Dodd were attempting to do on the world stage.
Alfred Jodl, Chief of the Operations Staff of the Armed Forces High Command, began his defense on June 3, 1946. Indicted on the charges of conspiracy to commit crimes against peace; planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression; war crimes and crimes against humanity, Jodl’s defense began with testimony outlining issues that distanced him from the inner circle of the Nazi Party.
[from transcript of testimony, 3 June 1946]
DR. EXNER: During the entire period of the war you were with Hitler and therefore you must really know him best. So I should like to ask you in detail about the personality of the Fuehrer, but the Court is not very fond of repetition. Therefore tell us quite briefly what particularly influenced you in Hitler’s behavior, what impressed you particularly? What were the things you disliked?
The defendant Sauckel took the stand on 28 May 1946 and reviewed for the Court his history with the party, administration responsibilities and interactions with Himmler, Hitler and others now being tried in regard to his responsibilities in Thuringia. Technical issues had to be addressed during Sauckel’s testimony at least once, highlighting some of the difficulties of language that the trial had presented since the beginning.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, I do not understand the German language, but it appears to me that if you would not make pauses between each word it would make your sentences shorter; and pause at the end of the sentence. It would be much more convenient for the interpreter. I do not know whether I am right in that. That is what it looks like. You are pausing between each word, and therefore it is difficult, I imagine, to get the sense of the sentence.
SAUCKEL: I beg your pardon, Your Lordship.
The defense of Baron von Schirach began on May 23, 1946. Baldur von Schirach was indicted on charges of Crimes against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity for his activities associated with the policies of the Nazi government, specifically with the Nazi Youth Movement (appointed head of the Hitler Youth in 1933) and his participation in the persecution of Jews and Christians as Governor of Vienna appointed 1940). Schirach was responsible for sending 65,000 Viennese Jews to German concentration camps. 
His defense before the Tribunal would highlight his “moderate” position due to his statements on the treatment of the eastern European peoples and criticism of the living conditions of Jews in the camps. However, his September 1942 speech clearly outlined his earlier opinion that their deportation was a “contribution to European culture.” Continue reading
By the middle of May, the Justices were presiding over the defense, cross-examinations and review of documents associated with the cases of Doenitz, Funk, Raeder and Schirach. Jackson was in London and Paris and Dodd was managing the now routine tasks of keeping the trial progressing. Intermittent violence surfaced more regularly, although Dodd does not explain the justifications that may have been circulating around the city as soldiers were killed by unknown assailants. Continue reading
Routine continued as the defense of Karl Doenitz began on May 8th and continued through the next day. Cross-examination was the responsibility of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe and began on May 10th, the 126th day of the Nuremberg Trial. Court recessed later in the afternoon, after which Dodd and others flew to Prague.
We had a fine trip down and arrived about five p.m. We went to the Ancron Hotel where I stayed last January. Yesterday morning we all breakfasted early and at nine thirty were taken Continue reading
“The Justice did a good job at examining Gisevius–as you no doubt saw in the press” Tom Dodd wrote to Grace in late April [p. 294, 4/28/1946, available on YouTube]. Recounting the details of his recent activities–closed sessions of the court, ongoing discussions about the length and effectiveness of cross-examinations and the lack of correspondence–Dodd reminded his wife that “we must be patient–I think it is worthwhile and link most worthwhile things we have to put up some sacrifices for it.” [p. 295, 4/28/1946] Continue reading
During his April 17th cross-examination of the “evasive laying rogue” Alfred Rosenberg, Thomas Dodd spent a considerable amount of time asking Rosenberg to confirm his involvement in policies, speeches and actions undertaken and enforced by the German government as administered and overseen by the Nazi leaders currently on trial.[p. 287, 4/17/1946] In his cross-examination, Dodd attempted to decisively illustrate clarify Rosenberg’s role as the “Nazi Party’s chief racial theorist” who “oversaw the construction of a human racial “ladder” that justified Hitler’s racial and ethnic policies” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg, accessed 4/26/2016]. Continue reading