Ninetieth Day, Monday, 25 March 1946,
Morning Session 1
Afternoon Session 34
Ninety-first Day, Tuesday, 26 March 1946,
Morning Session 75
Afternoon Session 90
Ninety-second Day, Wednesday, 27 March 1946,
Morning Session 119
Afternoon Session 156
Ninety-third Day, Thursday, 28 March 1946,
Morning Session 184
Afternoon Session 196
Ninety-fourth Day, Friday, 29 March 1946,
Morning Session 230
Afternoon Session 255
Ninety-fifth Day, Saturday, 30 March 1946,
Morning Session 279
Ninety-sixth Day, Monday, 1 April 1946,
Morning Session 311
Afternoon Session 346
Ninety-seventh Day, Tuesday, 2 April 1946,
Morning Session 395
Afternoon Session 433
Ninety-eighth Day, Wednesday, 3 April 1946,
Morning Session 466
Afternoon Session 480
Ninety-ninth Day, Thursday, 4 April 1946,
Morning Session 508
Afternoon Session 535
One Hundredth Day, Friday, 5 April 1946,
Morning Session 556
Afternoon Session 583
One Hundred and First Day, Saturday, 6 April 1946,
Morning Session 617
NINETIETH DAY
Monday, 25 March 1946
_Morning Session_
MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): May it please the Court: the
Defendants Streicher and Ribbentrop are absent from this session.
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): Dr. Seidl.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Hess): Mr. President, Your
Honors, on Friday last I stated that I would not read anything from the
first volume of the document book; that does not mean, however, that I
should not like to refer to one or another document in my final speech.
The question now arises whether, under these circumstances, documents to
which I may refer, but which I will not read now should be submitted as
evidence to the Court, or whether it is sufficient if these documents
are copied down in the book. I would be grateful if the Court would help
me regarding this question.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom):
My Lord, I have a suggestion to make: That the Tribunal take these
documents _de bene esse_ at the moment, and that when Dr. Seidl comes to
make his final speech, then any point as to admissibility can be
discussed. With regard to the third book, for example, that consists of
a number of opinions of various politicians and economists in various
countries. The Prosecution will, in due course, submit that these have
no evidential value and in fact relate to a matter too remote to be
relevant. But I should have thought the convenient course would have
been to discuss that when we find what ultimate use Dr. Seidl makes of
the documents, at the moment letting them go in, as I suggest, _de bene
esse_.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal think that you should offer the
documents in evidence now, and that they should be numbered
consecutively. Probably the best way would be with the letter “H” in
front of them—H Number 1 and so on—and that then, as Sir David says,
as they are being offered all together, objection, if necessary, can be
taken to them at a later stage—objection on the ground of admissibility
or relevance.
DR. SEIDL: Very well. I turn once more to Volume I of the document book.
The first document is a speech made by the Defendant Rudolf Hess on 8
July 1934. This document will bear the Number H-1, Page 23 of the
document book. The second document can be found on Page 27 of the
document book...
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Seidl. To what issue has this speech got
relevance?
DR. SEIDL: The speech of 8 July 1934?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, it is the one on Page 23. It is 8 July 1934.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President, this speech deals with the question of
war and peace. Since the Defendant Hess is accused of having
participated in the psychological preparation of aggressive war, and
thus also of being a participant in the conspiracy, it seems to me that
the attitude of the Defendant Hess toward the question of war is of
considerable importance as regards evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will allow you to read it.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I do not intend to read the speech now. I only
want to bring up the speech as an exhibit so as to be able to refer to
it in my final speech, if necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SEIDL: I shall read nothing at all from the first document book. I
shall only mention certain documents as exhibits.
I turn to Page 28 of the document book. This is another speech by the
Defendant Hess, delivered on 27 November 1934. The number of this
exhibit will be H-2.
THE PRESIDENT: The speech of 8 December 1934 begins on Page 27.
DR. SEIDL: Page 27, that is right. It was marked here incorrectly. As
the third exhibit I submit a speech—that is to say, an excerpt from a
speech—of 17 November 1935, Page 31 of the document book, Exhibit
Number H-3.
I turn to Page 32 of the document book, an excerpt from a speech of 11
October 1936, Exhibit Number H-4.
Then comes a speech of 14 March 1936, Page 33 of the document book,
Exhibit Number H-5.
The next exhibit is on Page 35 of the document book, a speech of 21
March 1936, Exhibit Number H-6.
Exhibit Number H-7 is a speech on Page 36 of the document book.
Exhibit Number H-8 is a speech of 6 June 1936, on Page 40 of the
document book.
Then, I turn to Page 43 of the document book, a speech at the
Reichsparteitag in Nuremberg 1936, Exhibit Number H-9.
There follow excerpts of a speech on Page 59 of the document book,
Exhibit Number H-10.
A speech of 14 May 1938 at Stockholm is found on Page 70 of the document
book, Exhibit Number H-11.
The next exhibit is on Page 78 of the document book, Exhibit Number
H-12.
So much for the first volume of the document book.
I pass on to the second volume, to the affidavit which I submitted last
Friday. It can be found on Page 164 of the document book. It is an
affidavit made by the former Secretary, Hildegard Fath, and it will bear
the Exhibit Number H-13.
The next exhibit is on Page 86 of the document book, Volume 2, a decree
of 3 June 1936, Exhibit Number H-14.
And now I come to the point where I shall read certain excerpts from the
minutes of the meeting between the Defendant Hess and Lord Simon, which
took place on 10 June 1941. These minutes begin on Page 93 of the
document book. The minutes will have the Exhibit Number H-15.
Your Honors, the Defendant Hess, on 10 May 1941, flew to England. Nobody
except his then adjutant, Hitsch, knew of this flight. The Führer
himself was informed about the flight and the intentions connected
therewith in a letter which was delivered to the Führer after Hess had
already landed in England. After his arrival in England Hess was
frequently questioned by officials of the Foreign Office, and, as
already mentioned, a meeting took place between him and Lord Simon on 10
June 1941. This meeting lasted two hours and a half. In the course of
this meeting the Defendant Hess told Lord Simon the reasons for his
extraordinary undertaking and he then submitted four proposals, or four
points, which he claimed would give the intentions of Adolf Hitler, and
which he considered to be the basis for an understanding and a
conclusion of peace.
For the conference Lord Simon assumed a pseudonym; in the minutes which
were given to the Defendant Hess shortly after the meeting, he is
referred to as Dr. Guthrie.
As far as I know, this measure was probably taken to prevent the
stenographers or the translators from knowing at once what it was all
about. In the minutes mention is also made of a Dr. Mackenzie, an
official of the Foreign Office, and of Mr. Kirkpatrick, who had
previously already spoken with the Defendant Hess.
After a few introductory remarks by Lord Simon, the Defendant Hess began
to explain the reasons which led him to take his singular step, and I
quote liberally from Page 93 of the document book, about the middle of
the page. I must add that in the minutes, the Defendant Hess is referred
to by the name “J.” The Defendant Hess, after the introductory remarks,
said the following...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, there seems to be a typographical error,
probably in the date. The date is given as the 9th of August. You said
the 10th of June, did you not?
DR. SEIDL: 10 June, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this a mistake at the top of Page 93—9. 8. 41?
DR. SEIDL: On the cover of the document there is the following remark:
“Minutes of the conversation which took place on 9 June 1941 somewhere
in England.” On the inside of the document, there is also the entry 9.
6. 41; so there must obviously be a typographical error here.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it must have been. They put “8” instead of “6.”
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SEIDL: “I know that probably nobody has correctly understood
my coming; but in view of the extraordinary step that I have
taken, that can by no means be expected. Therefore I would like
to begin by explaining how I came to do this.”