Chapter 3

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[16] Part I of this motion was withdrawn by Dr.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.

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: