UConn Library
Human Rights Archives
Two more days are gone. I cross-examined Alfred Rosenberg this morning and think I did an adequate job–everyone seemed highly pleased with it…I did it in about two hours and thereby set a new record here–and I trust a new pattern for the rest of the case…I tell you, Grace, if I had command of each defense case I could cut this trial in half. [p. 287, 4/17/1946]
On 11 April 11 1946, Defendant Kaltenbrunner took the stand at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?
ERNST KALTENBRUNNER (Defendant): Ernst Kaltenbrunner.
THE PRESIDENT: Repeat this oath after me: “I swear by God- the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing-so help me God.”
[The defendant repeated the oath In German.]
3 April 46
DR. NELTE (Counsel for the Defendant Keitel): …But you are not only a soldier, you are also an individual with a life of your own. When facts brought to your notice in your professional capacity seemed to reveal that a projected operation was unjust, did you not give it consideration?
KEITEL: I believe I can truthfully say that throughout the whole of my military career I was brought up, so to speak, in the old traditional concept that one never discussed this question. Naturally, one has one’s own opinion and a life of one’s own, but in the exercise of one’s professional functions as a soldier and an officer, one has given this life away, yielded it up. Therefore I could not say either at that time or later that I had misgivings about questions of a purely political discretion, for I took the stand that a soldier has a right to have confidence in his state leadership, and accordingly he is obliged to do his duty and to obey. [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-03-46.asp#keitel1, accessed 4/5/2016]
The final week in Nuremberg in March, 1946, belonged to the Foreign Minister of Nazi Germany (1938-1945), Joachim von Ribbentrop. On the 29th, von Ribbentrop continued with his defense, which Dodd thought “…woefully weak” [p. 273, 3/29/1946]. He objected to the delay of the defendant and the judge agreed as he redirected the lawyer back on track. Dodd’s statement clearly illustrates his ongoing frustration with the lack of progress of the trial. Continue reading
March 20th, 1946 marked a more than hectic day in the courtroom, as defendant Hermann Göring was excruciatingly difficult, even going so far as to correcting those who questioned him. The first to question Göring was Jackson, and Dodd reported his cross examination as,”…[It] continued all day with the Justice looking very good and Göring looking very poorly”[p. 267, 3/20/1946]. Justice Jackson along with the President asked Göring, “You have stated that on the Jewish question, some of the members of the government were more radical than you. Would you state who these were?” He replied, “Excuse me, I did not understand the question to mean who were more radical, but in what way they were more radical. If you ask who, then I would say that those were primarily Minister Goebbels and Himmler” [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-20-46.asp#Goering7, accessed 3/21/2016]. Continue reading
March 13
Another day — Göring day, if you please. He took the stand at 2:30 p.m. It came very suddenly. We had finished our cross-examination for the witness Kesselring just after the noon recess when Dr. Stammer, counsel for Göring, suddenly called him to the stand. There was a flurry in the courtroom. Press men rushed to get the word on the wires. People came into the courtroom in a hurry and in two minutes it was packed to the doorsGöring was very calm as he began his testimony. The defendants all leaned forward in the dock — the rascal — a real buccaneer. [p. 262, 3/13/1946]
In the discussion about the defense applications, Dodd decided it would be best for Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe to speak for the entire prosecution. The only minor setback was how Dodd viewed him as a lawyer, ” He also is a fence straddler and he seems terribly afraid of the Tribunal with the result that he never stands up for a viewpoint” [p. 250, 3/6/1946]. Dodd attributes this as possibly due to Sir David living under a monarchy and his obedience towards the crown. “I tell you we Americans do not half appreciate what we have. We are the free people of this world in heart, soul, mind, and body and we show it” [pg. 250, 3/6/1946]. Freedom and respect are not common aspects throughout life, and that was more than demonstrated throughout the Trials. Continue reading
The end of February and beginning of March ushered in the end of the prosecution portion of the Trials at Nuremberg. The Allied lawyers were wrapping up their presentations before the court and summing up the evidence in support of the indictments. Meetings continued to alternate with time in the courtroom for Tom Dodd and the others but the focus was beginning to shift from prosecution to defense. The overly long presentations of the prosecutors and grey weather fostered a feeling of depression and gloom–at least for Dodd. Continue reading
On the 64th day of the trial Raginsky gave his opening statement on the crimes against culture. After an entire day in the courtroom, Thomas Dodd hosted a dinner party. It was “a pleasant evening” despite his worry over news of his ill wife. He wrote,” When one is so far away and mail is so late in arriving it is easy to let the imagination run wild” [p. 242, 2/22/1946]. Its remarkable to ponder how one could stay and work for his country even when he knows he might be desperately needed at home. Continue reading
The week of February 14-20 marked the end of the second full month of the Trial and routine had settled in. The prosecution teams had all begun portions of their assignments and initial presentations had been completed. The Russians took the week to continue the presentations they had begun the week before. “The Russians continue to present their case. It sounds like the report on a Chinese flood…And ever so gory.” [p. 232, 2/14/1946] Dodd’s correspondence home reflected his mounting frustrations and difficulties with staff, prosecutors and the endless amount of work that kept him in the office when not in the courtroom. Continue reading