The German Armed Forces entered the war fully respecting the
international conventions.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is this part?
DR. STAHMER: Page 23, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Which volume?
DR. STAHMER: In the trial brief.
THE PRESIDENT: We seem to have only 22 pages in our trial brief. Are
there two volumes?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, I believe it is in the second trial brief. The
division was made to accelerate the translation. May I continue?
The German Wehrmacht entered the war fully respecting the international
conventions. No large-scale excesses by German soldiers were noted.
Individual offenses were severely punished. However, immediately after
the beginning of hostilities there appeared reports and descriptions of
atrocities committed against German soldiers. These reports were
carefully investigated. The result was recorded by the German Foreign
Office in _White Papers_, which were sent to Geneva. In this way the
_White Book_ came into being which deals with the crimes against the
laws of war and humanity committed by the Russian soldiers.
GEN. RUDENKO: Your Honors, Defense Counsel for Göring, Dr. Stahmer,
intends to submit to the Tribunal and to read into the record excerpts
from the so-called _White Book_ which was published by the Hitler
Government in 1941 in connection with some of the violations which
supposedly took place concerning German prisoners of war. I consider
that these excerpts cannot be submitted and read into the record here
because of the following reasons:
There can be put in evidence only facts which refer to this case; there
can be submitted to the Tribunal only documents which refer to the
crimes which were perpetrated by the German major war criminals.
The _White Book_ is a series of documents of invented data regarding
violations which were perpetrated not by the fascist Germans but by
other countries. Therefore the data contained in the _White Book_ cannot
serve as evidence in this case. This conclusion is all the more
justified in that the _White Book_ is a publication which served the
purpose of fascist propaganda, and which tried by inventions and forged
documents to justify or hide crimes which were perpetrated by the
fascists. Therefore I request the Tribunal to refuse the reading into
the record, or submitting to the Tribunal, excerpts from the so-called
_White Book_.
THE PRESIDENT: On what theory do you justify the presentation of this
evidence, Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: The question whether it is possible and permissible to
refer to these _White Papers_ during this Trial as a means of evidence,
has been discussed repeatedly. In particular it was the subject of
debate when we were concerned with the question of whether I should be
allowed to refer to this _White Book_ as evidence. So far as I know, it
has been admitted as evidence for the time being. It was already pointed
out, during the debate which arose in regard to this subject, that, as
far as evidence is concerned, it is relevant for the evaluation of the
motives.
At the time I already pointed out that the crimes committed against
German prisoners of war are of importance in order to understand the
measures taken on the part of Germany. One cannot evaluate the
underlying motives of the men who committed these offenses, or gave
orders to commit them, if one fails to consider the background against
which these deeds were enacted, or investigate the motives which caused
them to commit these acts. And because of the importance of the motive,
in order to know about the accusations raised by the Germans, it seems
to me that this reference to this document is absolutely necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we are here to try major war criminals; we are not
here to try any of the signatory powers. Therefore you must justify the
introduction of evidence against the signatory powers in some legal way.
DR. STAHMER: The presentation, if I may repeat, is made for the
following reasons:
The defendants here are accused that under their leadership crimes and
offenses against members of foreign armed forces were committed which
are not in accordance with the Geneva Convention. On our part we plead
that if harsh treatment and excesses occurred on the German side, they
were caused by the fact that similar violations occurred also on the
other side, and that consequently these offenses must be judged
differently and not be considered as grave as would be the case if the
opposite side had conducted itself correctly. Anyway, these facts are
relevant for the evaluation of the motive.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you attempting to justify the introduction of this
evidence on the ground of reprisals?
DR. STAHMER: Not only on the ground of reprisals, but from the point of
view of the motive for the deed.
THE PRESIDENT: You are asking us to admit a document, a German
governmental document. Now, under the Charter we are bound to admit
documents, governmental documents, and reports of the United Nations,
but it is nowhere said that we are bound to admit or are at liberty to
admit documents issued by the German Government. We cannot tell whether
those documents contained facts truly stated or not.
DR. STAHMER: We have here in the document books, court records of legal
inquiries. These must in my opinion have the same value as evidence as
official documents. They were records of court proceedings which are
quoted in the _White Book_.
GEN. RUDENKO: I should like, Your Honors, to point out only one thing
here. Defense Counsel Stahmer tries to submit these documents in order,
as he says, to present his reasons which would explain the crimes of the
Germans. I should like to state here that these documents, which have
already been submitted to the Prosecution, and which were mentioned
yesterday here during the cross-examination of the Defendant Göring,
show quite clearly that the document regarding the crimes was drafted
before the beginning of the war.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, what are the dates of these documents that
you are asking us to admit?
DR. STAHMER: I have the individual ones here. Meanwhile I am having the
records looked for.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I suggest, Your Honor, that I support fully the
objection made by General Rudenko. I had supposed that the one thing
counsel on both sides were agreed upon, when this matter was under
discussion before, was that no reprisals against prisoners of war are
tolerated. Even my learned adversary, Dr. Exner, agreed that that is the
law.
Secondly, certainly, we must know what crimes it is that are sought to
be excused. Are these the motives for what crimes? Counsel says they are
bare on their motives. Was it their motive in shooting American or
British fliers, that there were some violations on the part of the
Russians as they claim? The only way, it seems to me, that evidence of
this character is admissible would be to bring it under the doctrine of
reprisal very strictly by taking specific offenses and saying: “This
offense we admit, but we committed it in reprisal for certain other
specified offenses.”
I submit that general allegations of this character and relating to
prisoners of war are admittedly inadmissible and carry us far afield in
the trial of this case.
DR. STAHMER: May I point out one more fact: For instance, I have here a
telegram sent by the Foreign Office representative with the High Command
of the Army to the Foreign Office, dated 12 August 1941. In other words,
this is an official document, and until now the Prosecution has
submitted official documents in considerable numbers which have been
used as evidence against the defendants. If now an official document is
being produced here to exonerate the defendants, I think that this also
ought to be admitted and to the same extent, provided that this is
legally permissible. The formal side of the matter is that we have here
a telegram, as I said, from a representative of the Foreign Office with
the Army High Command, that is, from an official authority, addressed to
the Foreign Office, dated 12 August 1941. It says here, for instance:
“In the captured operational report Number 11, of the 13th of last
month, 10 o’clock, of the staff of the 26th Division, 1 kilometer west
of Slastjena in the forest north of Opuschka it says: ‘The enemy left
about 400 dead on the battlefield . . .’”
THE PRESIDENT: You must not read it, as we are discussing its
admissibility.
DR. STAHMER: I beg your pardon. I misunderstood you, Mr. President, you
asked me what document . . .
THE PRESIDENT: The date of the _White Book_.
DR. STAHMER: The date of the _White Book_, I see, we misunderstood each
other; it is Berlin, 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not a date, that is a year.
DR. STAHMER: It says, “Bolshevist Crimes against the Laws of War and
Humanity. Documents compiled by the Foreign Office, First Volume,
Berlin, 1941.” That is the name of the document; the date of its
publication is not apparent from the book itself. The individual
documents and preliminary proceedings are contained in this book,
followed by a number of records which have individual dates.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is nothing to show when that document was
communicated, either to the Soviet Government or when it was
communicated—if it was—to Geneva or to the Protecting Power.
DR. STAHMER: It was forwarded to Geneva. It was duly handed to the Red
Cross in Geneva.
THE PRESIDENT: When?
DR. STAHMER: In 1941. I had proposed to obtain these books from Geneva
and to bring in information from the Geneva Red Cross.
Mr. President, may I once more point out that it is an official document
published by the Foreign Office. It is a series of reports compiled in
an official publication.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not the real point that the Tribunal is
considering. The question is, how can you justify in a trial of the
major war criminals of Germany, evidence against Great Britain, or
against the United States of America or against the U.S.S.R. or against
France? If you are going to try the actions of all those four signatory
powers, apart from other considerations, there would be no end to the
Trial at all, and their conduct has no relevance to the guilt of the
major war criminals of Germany, unless it can be justified by reference
to the doctrine of reprisal, and this cannot be justified in that way.
And therefore the Tribunal considers the document is irrelevant.
DR. STAHMER: I now turn to the subject of aerial warfare, evidence on
Page 25 of my trial brief. Relevant to the question of guilt is the
question whether the German Air Force started to attack open cities only
after the British Air Force had carried out a great number of raids
against nonmilitary targets.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I object to this evidence. I was not
quite sure whether Dr. Stahmer had passed dealing with this evidence
with regard to the air war, or whether he was illustrating his argument.
I want to make it quite clear that I object to the first part of it as
being too remote, that is, the evidence about the various conferences
which took place with regard to the regulation of aerial warfare.
With regard to the second part of the evidence, I object to the
documents which purport to show that Great Britain attacked nonmilitary
targets. Where I have been able to check the allegations, I find there
is a complete dispute as to whether the targets were military or
nonmilitary targets, and therefore I cannot accept the German official
reports as being evidence of any purported value on their part, and I
respectfully submit that, unless the Tribunal had authority from the
Charter, it ought to take the same line.
I make these two additional points to the points raised by my learned
friends, General Rudenko and Mr. Justice Jackson, on the general
question. I do not want to take up more time with the argument by
developing that point. I will be pleased to help with any aspect of it.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me, Dr. Stahmer, that this matter stands upon
exactly the same footing as the matter upon which we have just ruled.
DR. STAHMER: That is right. I believe that from this book on aerial
warfare one document is of importance in my opinion, which is quoted on
Page 27. It is merely a statement by the French General Armengaud
concerning the fact that the German Air Force operated in Poland in
accordance with the laws of warfare and attacked military targets
exclusively. I believe there will be no objection to reading at least
this quotation. It is Page 27.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 27 of the trial brief?
DR. STAHMER: Page 27 of the trial brief. There I give a quotation from
General Armengaud, the French Air Attaché in Warsaw, of 14 September
1939.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: There it says: After the outbreak of war the German Air
Force under its Commander-in-Chief, Göring, did not, by order of Hitler,
attack any open cities in Poland; this was confirmed by Buttler, the
British Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on 6 September 1939, and by
the French Air Attaché in Warsaw on 14 September 1939 (Documents 41 and
46 of the _White Book_). The latter, General Armengaud, says literally:
“I must emphasize that the German Air Force acted according to
the laws of war; it attacked military targets only and, if
civilians were often killed or wounded this happened because
they were near the military targets. It is important that this
should be known in France and in England, so that no reprisals
will be taken where there is no cause for reprisals, and so that
total aerial warfare will not be let loose by us.”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, what is the origin of that?
DR. STAHMER: May I have a look? It is contained in the document
concerning the bombing war, Number 46, “Report of the French Air Attaché
in Warsaw, General Armengaud.” It is dated 14 September 1939, and then
comes the report from which I have already quoted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: I have submitted it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: And now I proceed to Page 30 of the trial brief. And in
Paragraph 10, I refer to the creation of the Secret State Police by the
Defendant Göring. A passage is quoted there from the book, _Hermann
Göring, the Man and His Work_, Document Book 2, Page 53 and 54. I submit
it as Document Number 44, and I quote from it the following passage:
“It can be seen from the big Stettin trial and also from others,
that Göring took ruthless measures against men who acted on
their own authority against his instructions.
“The Prime Minister looked into hundreds of individual cases in
connection with the supervision of political prisoners. He did
not wait until he was asked; the offer was made on his own
initiative.
“On the occasion of the Christmas amnesty of 1933, he ordered
the release of nearly 5,000 prisoners from the concentration
camps. ‘Even they must be given a chance.’ It would have been
only too understandable if those released had found doors and
gates closed to them whichever way they turned. That, however,
would not be in keeping with the spirit of this act of mercy.
Nobody was to consider himself shut out. Therefore, Göring in a
clearly worded decree ordered that no difficulties were to be
placed in the way of those released, by the authorities or by
the public. If this action were to have any point, every effort
must be made to take back these people, who had sinned against
the state, into the community again as full fellow Germans.”
And from the last paragraph, I read the second sentence:
“In September 1934 he ordered the release of an additional 2,000
prisoners in a second big amnesty.”
In this connection I beg to offer a telegram which I received a few days
ago, and I request that it be admitted as evidence. It is an unsolicited
telegram originating from a certain Hermann Winter, Berlin W 20,
Eisenach Street, 118. It has been included in the document book which I
submit. I believe it is the last document in my document book.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If we are to examine unsolicited correspondence or
telegrams, if it is to become evidence, I have a washbasket full of it
in my office that, if that kind of material could be used as evidence in
this case without any verification, I could bring here in rebuttal. It
does seem to me that we should know something more about this than that
just a wire has come in from some unknown person who may not even have
been the signer; maybe it is an assumed name. I think we are entitled to
a little better foundation than that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, have you any other basis?
DR. STAHMER: I have no other basis, and I beg to have your decision
whether this telegram is admissible as evidence.
THE PRESIDENT; Well, I do not think we could admit it simply as a
telegram which has been received by you from an unknown person.
DR. STAHMER: I request your decision. Is it being refused? I am coming
to the end, Page 34.
THE PRESIDENT: Of the trial brief?
DR. STAHMER: Page 34 of the trial brief, Figure 12. With respect to the
question of whether one could blame the defendants for having had
confidence in Hitler and following him, it is important to know
Churchill’s attitude, expressed in his book _Step by Step_, and I am
quoting two passages, Document Book Number 2, Page 46.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: This is in 1937, before the events with which we
have mainly been dealing here. I do not think it is very important. Mr.
Churchill’s speeches are well known, but I do think that we waste time
going into Mr. Churchill’s opinions back in 1937, before the event, when
he is doubtless in the same position as Dahlerus, the witness, with
reference to his knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes.
THE PRESIDENT: Inasmuch as we have already received this book and some
passages from it, you may state this.
DR. STAHMER: I may state it? Thank you. On Page 187, in an article,
“Friendship with Germany,” of 17 September 1937, is written:
“One can condemn Herr Hitler’s system and still marvel at its
patriotic achievement. Should our country be defeated, I could
only desire that we would find an equally indomitable champion
who would give us our courage again . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: I only said that you could read it because you had read
from this book of Mr. Churchill’s, but at the same time it seems to be
absolutely irrelevant.
DR. STAHMER: I did not—Oh, I see. May I refer to the quotation on Page
323 which is also a description of Hitler’s personality. I consider it
of importance especially because I attach considerable weight in
particular to Churchill’s judgment. It says: “Our leadership must at
least . . .”
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Stahmer, do you not think we have heard
sufficient about Hitler’s personality?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, but not from that source. If the Tribunal . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Presumably the Defendant Göring knows more about Hitler
than Mr. Churchill.
DR. STAHMER: If the Tribunal does not wish it to be read, then of
course, I will abide by that wish.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is cumulative.
DR. STAHMER: Well, in that case I have finished. I may still of course
keep in reserve the evidence which I have not been able to submit up to
now, about which I spoke this morning. I said this morning, I had a
certain amount of evidence which I have not been able to submit because
I have not received it yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Would this be a convenient time, if Your Honor
please, to make the record concerning the documents which I was to offer
formally for the record?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not quite follow? What documents are you referring
to?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The ones used in cross-examination . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: . . . which Your Honor spoke to me about.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I understand they have been handed to the Secretary
and they have been marked.
The affidavit to Halder is USA-779. It is offered.
Document Number 3700-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-780; Document Number
3775-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-781; Document Number 3787-PS is
offered as Exhibit USA-782; Document Number 2523-PS is offered as
Exhibit USA-783; Document Number 014-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-784;
Document Number 1193-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-785; Document Number
EC-317 is offered as Exhibit USA-786; Document Number 3786-PS is offered
as Exhibit USA-787; Document Number 638-PS is offered as Exhibit
USA-788; Document Number 1742-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-789.
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: Mr. President, Dr. Stahmer in his presentation
did not speak of Document Number Göring-26. It concerns a note from the
German Government to the French Government relating to the treatment of
German prisoners of war in France dated 30 May 1940. The reasons which
made us reject the _White Book_ from the discussion make it necessary to
reject this document too. I gather that Dr. Stahmer realized that and,
therefore, did not speak of it any more, but I would like him to be
assured that this document has been definitely rejected from the
discussion.
DR. STAHMER: I have not mentioned the document. I withdraw it.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Counsel for the Defendant Hess.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President and Your Honors: Before commencing the
submission of evidence I have to make the following remarks at the
request of the Defendant Hess:
The Defendant Hess contests the jurisdiction of the Tribunal where other
than war crimes proper are the subject of the Trial. However, he
specifically assumes full responsibility for all laws or decrees which
he has signed. Furthermore, he assumes responsibility for all orders and
directives which he issued in his capacity as Deputy of the Führer and
Minister of the Reich. For these reasons he does not desire to be
defended against any charges which refer to the internal affairs of
Germany as a sovereign state. That applies in particular to the
relations between Church and State, and similar questions. I shall,
therefore, submit evidence only with reference to questions in the
clarification of which other countries can have a justified interest.
This applies, for instance, to the tasks and activities of the foreign
organization of the NSDAP. Beyond that, evidence will be submitted to
the Tribunal only insofar as this is necessary to ascertain the
historical truth. This applies, among other things, to the motives which
caused Rudolf Hess to fly to England and to the purposes for which he
did it.
The evidence which I have prepared is collected in three document books.
In view of the acceleration of the Trial desired by the Tribunal, I
shall forego quoting any documents whatsoever from the first book and
ask the Tribunal to take cognizance only of those parts of the document
book which have been marked in red. I shall read only the affidavit
which is at the end of the document book, and that is the affidavit of
the former secretary of the Defendant Rudolf Hess, Hildegard Fath, and I
shall read furthermore . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, if your are passing from your opening remarks
and going to deal with the documents, I think it is right to point out
to you that there can be no challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court,
here. Article 3 provides that the Tribunal shall not be challenged by
the Prosecution or by the Defendants or their Counsel, and the Tribunal
cannot hear any argument upon that subject. Now you can go on with your
documents.
DR. SEIDL: There will furthermore be read from the second volume the
record of a conversation between the Defendant Rudolf Hess and Lord
Simon, which took place on 10 June 1941 in England. So as to prevent
interruption in the reading of the documentary evidence, I shall today
read only the affidavit of the witness Hildegard Fath, Page 164 of the
document book. The affidavit reads as follows:
“Having been advised of the consequences of a false affidavit, I
declare under oath the following, which is to be submitted to
the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg:
Then come the “Personal Data;” and I am now quoting literally from
Figure 2:
“I was employed as private secretary of the Führer’s Deputy,
Rudolf Hess, in Munich, from 17 October 1933 until his flight to
England on 10 May 1941.
“Beginning in the summer of 1940—I cannot remember the exact
time—I had, by order of Hess, to obtain secret weather reports
about weather conditions over the British Isles and the North
Sea, and to forward them to Hess. I received the reports from a
Captain Busch. In part I also received reports from Miss Sperr,
the secretary of Hess with his liaison staff in Berlin.
“Hess left a letter behind on his departure by air for England,
which was handed to the Führer at a time when Hess had already
landed in England. I read a copy of this letter. The letter
began with words more or less like this:
“‘My Führer; when you receive this letter, I shall be in
England.’ I do not remember the exact wording of the letter.
Hess occupied himself in the letter mainly with the proposals
which he wanted to submit to England in order to achieve peace.
I can no longer remember the details of the proposed settlement.
I can however state definitely that no word was mentioned about
the Soviet Union or about the idea that a peace treaty should be
concluded with England in order to have the rear free on another
front. If this had been discussed in the letter, it certainly
would have been impressed upon my memory. From the content of
the letter the definite impression was to be gained that Hess
undertook this extraordinary flight in order to prevent further
bloodshed, and in order to create favorable conditions for the
conclusion of a peace.
“In my capacity as secretary of long standing, I have come to
know Rudolf Hess quite well and his attitude towards certain
questions. If I am told now that, in a letter of the Reich
Minister of Justice to the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich
Chancellery, Dr. Lammers, of 17 April 1941, it was mentioned
that the Führer’s Deputy had discussed the introduction of
corporal punishment against Poles in the annexed Polish
territories, I cannot believe that this attitude of the
department headed by Hess was due to any personal decision of
his. Such a proposal would be totally contradictory to the
behavior and attitude which the Führer’s Deputy displayed with
regard to similar questions on other occasions.”
I shall refrain from reading the affidavit of the witness Ingeborg
Sperr, Page 166 of the document book.
From the first two volumes of the document book I wish still, as I have
already said, to read only parts from a discussion between Hess and Lord
Simon. However, in order to prevent the report of this discussion from
being interrupted, I ask permission of the Tribunal to read this
document to the Tribunal next Monday?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. You mean not to go on any more now?
DR. SEIDL: With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall stop now.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you no other document you wish to produce?
DR. SEIDL: I beg your pardon? Yes, there are some documents in Volume 3
of the document book; but, however, I should prefer to submit these
documents coherently to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Seidl, if you wish it, we will adjourn
now.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 23 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]
EIGHTY-NINTH DAY
Saturday, 23 March 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: Have you consulted the Defense Counsel as to the order in
which they wish to take these supplementary applications?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have the order which the Tribunal has,
beginning with Streicher.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that would be the most convenient then. Is
Streicher’s counsel ready? Dr. Marx?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes; Dr. Marx is here.
DR. HANNS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Your Honors, Mr.
President, on behalf of the Defendant Streicher I have applied for the
calling of Fritz Herrwerth as a witness before the Tribunal. This
witness is a man who has been in the immediate vicinity of the Defendant
Streicher for years and who, because of that, is in a position to offer
information on all political events that can in many ways have a bearing
on the decision and judgment in the case of Streicher. In particular, I
have applied for this witness because he was present on that night of 9
to 10 November when the Defendant Streicher had a conference with the SA
leader Von Obernitz, at which Von Obernitz informed Streicher that he,
Obernitz, had received the order to carry out demonstrations against the
Jewish population during that night. Streicher will establish that he
then told Herr Von Obernitz that he, Streicher, kept himself aloof in
this affair, that he considered these demonstrations a mistake, and
disapproved of them. Obernitz thereupon stated that he had received the
order from Berlin and had to carry it out. It can . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you object to this alteration of our
previous order?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we have not seen any change in the
situation as the Tribunal decided it, but we do not want to press
against this witness being called orally, except that we must point out
that there is not any change. All these matters were gone into by the
Tribunal. If the Tribunal feels that it would be better that the witness
should be called orally, then the Prosecution will not take any
objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Have these interrogatories been drawn up?
DR. MARX: No, they have not yet been completed. I beg your pardon, Mr.
President; is this question put with reference to the witness Herrwerth?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. MARX: Yes, the questions to the witness have been completed; the
questions which the Defendant wishes . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, we will reconsider that. You have got something
else, haven’t you, Dr. Marx? You want some document; you have got a
document you are asking for, have you not, or don’t you ask for that?
DR. MARX: May I speak, Mr. President? Actually, I should like to ask
that both the documents referred to be placed at my disposal. That is,
the matter of the suit against Karl Holz in the year 1931, and the files
of the disciplinary proceedings against Julius Streicher, concerning
which I am unfortunately not able to give the year. It might be 1931.
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Marx, did we not, with the agreement of the
Prosecution, strike out a passage from a document which was critical of
the Defendant Streicher? Does that not render this evidence entirely
irrelevant?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was about the witness Lothar Streicher, the
son, about an interview that took place in prison at which there were
certain allegations, and these were struck out by the consent of the
Prosecution. I confess I don’t know whether the disciplinary proceedings
in the matter of Streicher . . .
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. May I speak? The matter in
which Lothar Streicher figures is from the Göring report concerning the
visit or the conversation Streicher had with three youthful criminals,
during which Streicher was supposed to have taken an ugly or improper
attitude. Lothar Streicher was named as a witness by me to testify that
at that time no such thing happened. That is in connection with the
report of the Göring commission, whereas the other matter is concerned
with a disciplinary action. This proceeding was completed in 1931 before
the disciplinary court at Munich.
THE PRESIDENT: Wasn’t it all in connection with the same alleged offense
by Streicher?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have the details now, if I might read
them. I think it makes them clear. The first application in relation to
the proceedings against Karl Holz reads:
“The documents requested herein will be used to prove the
following facts:
“During these proceedings Dr. Erich Bischof, an authority on the
_Talmud_, from Leipzig, gave evidence under oath that there was,
in the Jewish religious book _Sohar_ a law allowing ritual
murder.”
THE PRESIDENT: But, Sir David, there are two different applications,
aren’t there? There is this application with reference to the Jewish
religious book, and then there is the other application with reference
to the trial of Karl Holz.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understood it, My Lord, this application is
headed, “Files in the Trial in the Matter of Karl Holz,” and one of the
pieces of evidence in the trial of Karl Holz, according to Dr. Marx’s
application, was the evidence of Dr. Erich Bischof as to the _Talmud_;
and the application goes on to say that “these facts are relevant to my
defense for the following reasons: The accused wishes to prove with
these court records”—that is, the record from the trial of Holz—“that
_Der Stürmer_ did not deal with the question of ritual murder contrary
to his better knowledge.” That is, as I understand it, that _Der
Stürmer_ dealt with ritual murder according to the knowledge of Dr.
Bischof, as expressed at that trial. That, in my respectful submission,
would be quite irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of this religious book? It was written
in the Middle Ages, wasn’t it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think so, My Lord, and it was produced on 30
October and 4 November 1931, by Dr. Bischof.
Then, My Lord, the second one—just to get it clear, so Your Lordship
will have it in mind—it is the files of the disciplinary proceedings in
the matter of Streicher at the disciplinary court at Munich.
“The documents requested herein will be used to prove the
following facts:
“The accused wishes to prove, with the production of these
files, that he was not dismissed from his profession because of
indecent assault, but on political grounds, and with the
granting of part of his salary.”
I myself don’t see the relevance of it, but perhaps Dr. Marx can inform
the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it charged against him in the Indictment?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, there is nothing about his criminal record
other than on anti-Jewish grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: In that connection the Prosecution agreed to strike out
any reference to that incident, didn’t it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not sure that it is the same incident, but
the Prosecution did agree to strike out the only reference to it that
appeared in the record, to my knowledge—to any reference to a matter of
that kind. That was as to the treatment of certain boys in prison.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I, to clarify the matter, make a few
statements now. The defense counsel for the Defendant Streicher applied
to have the file on this disciplinary case produced for the following
reason:
Streicher was asked by a Russian interrogator whether he had been
dismissed from his office because of moral delinquency and therefore it
is necessary to have the file on this disciplinary case produced. This
file shows that Streicher was not dismissed from his school post because
of indecent conduct, but because of his political attitude. That is one
point. And quite apart from that is the matter in which Lothar Streicher
is supposed to act as a witness. That was the matter mentioned in the
report of the Göring commission concerning the three young delinquents
who were visited by Streicher, and on which occasion he is supposed to
have been guilty of indecent manipulations or gestures.
I come now to the question of Dr. Bischof, Mr. President. This matter
concerns the following: Streicher is accused, with reference to
quotations from the _Talmud_, or quotations referring to ritual murder,
either of having consulted an incorrect translation, or of not having
ascertained facts sufficiently, in a frivolous and grossly negligent
way.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say, Dr. Marx, that he is being reproved with
that, there is no such charge in the Indictment. No such charge has been
made in the course of the case of the Prosecution. The charge against
him is that he provoked the German people to excesses against the Jews,
not by misquoting some Jewish book, but by referring to Jewish books of
the Middle Ages.
DR. MARX: I take the liberty of drawing attention to the fact that, on
the contrary, the Prosecutor, Lieutenant Colonel Griffith-Jones, when he
presented the case against Streicher, referred to this point explicitly
and accused Streicher of having here, against better knowledge, quoted
passages from the _Talmud_. And consequently, it is important that this
file against Holz is consulted, because in it is established, by the
witness Dr. Bischof, how the quotations came about. This Dr. Bischof is
a recognized scholar. But, Mr. President, the whole matter could still
be shortened if the Prosecution would state today that this whole matter
regarding the ritual murder is not to be made a subject of the
Indictment. There would then be eliminated from the trial an element
which could only extend it in any case, and which can play no important
part against the defendant anyhow, and has nothing to do with the actual
Indictment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to make that position perfectly clear.
The important point in the case for the Prosecution is the use of the
suggestion against the Jews that they committed ritual murder. If
someone takes something out of a book in the Middle Ages and reproduces
it so that it will be understood by the ordinary reader as being a
practice of Jews, or a reason for disliking Jews, then the Prosecution
says that that is an evil method of stirring up hatred against the Jews.
Whether anyone can find in the Jewish book of the Middle Ages some
remark about ritual murders is really immaterial. The gravamen of the
case for the Prosecution is using the ritual murder accusation as a
method for stirring up hatred against the Jews today. That is the case
which the defendant has to meet.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the application.
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon! I consider it necessary, nevertheless, to
answer at least very briefly the statements of the preceding speaker,
Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. The fact is that the special number of _Der
Stürmer_ under discussion makes reference in particular to a trial which
took place in 1899 at Piseck, in Moravia or Bohemia, and during which
this question also figured. It is thus not true that the Defendant
Streicher had as his basis only medieval superstition, but on the
contrary, that he dealt with material taken from modern legal history,
using material, the genuineness of which I cannot establish, but which I
cannot simply dispose of as incorrect and which the Tribunal also would
probably have to investigate. That is why I said that this entire matter
ought not to be touched at all. For here it is a question merely of
whether Streicher was acting in good faith or not, and if he can say
that trials of that kind have taken place and the judges actually were
not unanimous, then one cannot say in fact that he acted against his
better knowledge. That is what is essential in this matter. Thus, I
personally would prefer to have this matter eliminated, if the
Prosecution would no longer consider this whole subject matter as part
of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the application.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next one on the list that I have, My Lord,
is an application by the Defendant Göring for a Major Buex; spelled
“B-u-e-x.” I asked Dr. Stahmer and he was good enough to tell me that
that was the same gentleman who was asked for as a witness by the
Defendant Jodl, under the spelling of “B-u-e-c-h-s.” I understand the
Tribunal has granted him as a witness to the Defendant Jodl, and Dr.
Stahmer will have the opportunity of asking him the questions then.
DR. STAHMER: I agree.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is an application by the Defendant Von
Ribbentrop. He requests Herr Hilger as a witness. The grounds of the
application are that Dr. Horn and the Defendant Ribbentrop found that
the witness Gaus, for whom he had asked, was not able to give as much
assistance as had been expected, and that they desired this witness
Hilger in addition. The view of the Prosecution is that the defendant
should have either Hilger or Gaus as a witness and an interrogatory to
the other one, and we have no objection to the witness Hilger being
brought to Nuremberg for consultation.
DR. SIEMERS: I am deputizing at the moment for Dr. Horn, defense counsel
for the Defendant Ribbentrop. Actually, I had wanted to ask Sir David to
postpone this matter a little, as I have had Dr. Horn asked to come here
himself. We, the Defense Counsel, were not informed which applications
would be dealt with today. Hence Dr. Horn is not present at the moment.
But I think that, if the Tribunal agree, the matter can perhaps be dealt
with now, as far as I know, but I have to speak with Dr. Horn first, at
any rate. I am speaking without prejudice.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know what you mean about not being informed
about these applications. I made the statement yesterday that
supplementary applications for witnesses and documents would be taken
this morning. I do not understand your saying you did not know what
would be done. The Tribunal has no objection to it being taken later
when Dr. Horn is here, if he comes in time.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, and may I suggest that if Dr. Horn does not return in
time, I am ready to settle the matter for him; by then I will be in a
position to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MARX: Pardon, Mr. President; may I make one more very brief
statement? Streicher just informs me that I should state that he will
forego the witness Lothar Streicher. If, therefore, the calling of this
witness was considered, then I state that the Defense will withdraw
application for him.
THE PRESIDENT: Hasn’t that been allowed—Lothar Streicher?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He was the witness who was not to be allowed on
condition that the Prosecution applied to strike out this passage, and
we agreed to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is an application for the Defendant Von
Papen.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Sir David. Has that letter about withdrawing
the statement about the witness Lothar Streicher been read into the
record?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not know if it has been read into the
record. It has been sent to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: It had better be put in as a document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases. My Lord, the next is
the application for the Defendant Von Papen, who requests that the
witness Josten, who has been approved by the Tribunal as a witness, be
changed to an affidavit, which counsel already has, and Dr. Kubuschok
requests that Kroll be allowed as a witness. My Lord, the position with
regard to Kroll was that the Prosecution submitted that he was not
relevant, but the Tribunal allowed interrogatories for Kroll and,
therefore, the Prosecution accepts the decision of the Tribunal that he
is therefore relevant. On that basis, as Dr. Kubuschok is dropping one
witness, we feel that we cannot object to his being brought as an oral
witness, since the Tribunal has decided that his testimony is relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; and as to Josten, has the affidavit been submitted
to you?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, I have just received it with his signature. The
witness Josten has appeared today and has signed the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: All I am thinking of is that the Prosecution may
hereafter want to have him called for cross-examination.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have not seen the affidavit yet, My Lord; I
am sorry. I will look into that.
THE PRESIDENT: The result of that would be that both witnesses would
have to be here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I appreciate that, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I was taking it that Dr. Kubuschok meant an affidavit and
not an interrogatory.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, a sworn affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps, My Lord, the Tribunal would postpone a
decision on this point until I have had a chance to consider the
affidavit, and then I will communicate with Dr. Kubuschok and with the
Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I, Mr. President, mention yet another case. I had
been granted the witness Von Tschirschky, who is at present in England,
for oral interrogation. The witness has written to the Tribunal that it
is difficult for him to be absent from England at the moment, and
requests that his evidence be taken in writing. I am agreeable to this
and have drafted an interrogatory which is now being submitted to the
Tribunal. This, again, would mean another witness gone, Tschirschky, as
well as Josten, so that I request earnestly that the witness Kroll be
granted as an oral witness, since a considerable saving of time has now
been accomplished.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you have no objection to that?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I have no objection to that. I may have to
consider certain cross-interrogatories for the witness, but that will
not affect the position of Dr. Tschirschky.
Next is the application by the Defendant Rosenberg for a
document—Hitler’s letter to Rosenberg dated 1924. This document is in
regard to Rosenberg’s anti-Semitism. As far as I know, the Prosecution
has not any of these documents, but Dr. Thoma can explain what he wants.
I have no objection to having these documents if they can be found.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, may I first draw your attention to the fact
that my application for a document—Rosenberg’s letter to Hitler, in
which Rosenberg asks not to be a candidate for the Reichstag—has since
been handed to me. This application has thus been settled. Secondly, I
have . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Dr. Thoma. You withdraw that application
because you have that letter, do you not? You said, “With that, the
application has been settled.” Do you mean that you withdraw that
application?
DR. THOMA: No, Mr. President. The Tribunal has already permitted me to
offer this document as soon as it was found. It has since been found.
Furthermore, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the
document in which Rosenberg writes to Hitler and asks to be relieved
from the position of editor-in-chief of the _Völkischer Beobachter_ has
been allowed me likewise. But I have not yet received it.
Thirdly, may I ask that two further documents be granted me. Two
documents, which, during interrogation, have already been shown to
Rosenberg by the Prosecution. The first is a decree of Hitler sent to
Rosenberg in June 1943, in which Hitler instructs Rosenberg to limit
himself to the principal matters in Eastern questions . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, you are now dealing with applications which
are not in writing; are you not?
DR. THOMA: Yes, I have already submitted them in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: I have only two applications here as far as I can see.
One with reference to Hitler’s letter to Rosenberg dated 1924, and the
other with reference to three books about Jews. These are the only two
applications I have got.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I already made these applications during open
session, and as far as I know, I had submitted them in writing even
before making them in open session. I have in fact received an answer as
regards two documents applied for. But for two applications the reply is
still outstanding. Hence I request the Tribunal’s permission to submit
these two applications in writing again.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you will be allowed to if you will make them clear.
You ask for two further documents, and the first one, I understood you
to say, was a decree dated June 1943. Is that right?
DR. THOMA: That is correct. And the next document is a letter from
Hitler to Rosenberg in which Hitler informs Rosenberg of the reasons for
his not wanting to work in the Reichstag and for not wanting to
participate in the elections. But I do recall that I submitted this
application in writing, and I beg to submit it again now.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the application will be considered. Are you
referring to the document of 1924, the letter from Hitler to Rosenberg
dated 1924?
DR. THOMA: Yes, 1923 or 1924. Then, Gentlemen, I have also this
fundamental application regarding the question of anti-Semitism. I have
asked here to be permitted only a few historic writings, these on the
question as to why the Jewish problem has existed in Germany, I believe
even from the 8th century, and why persecutions of the Jews recur
persistently in Germany. I want thereby to establish that in this
connection we are concerned with some tragic fact which we do not
rationally understand. By producing evidence both from Jewish and from
Christian theological literature, I want to prove that we are not
concerned with the fact that the German people were misled into
exterminating the Jews, and that the influence of the National Socialist
Party was such as to bring the German people to such hate for the Jews,
but that we are rather here facing irrational conditions and that this
is recognized both in Jewish and Christian literature. I wish also to
establish that an intellectual dispute between Jewry and the German race
has existed on a purely intellectual level, and in fact in a purely
intellectual way, because actually Moritz Goldstein said in 1911—I
mention only one example—that the Jews in Germany administer the
intellectual wealth of Germany. Thus here it is a matter of depicting
the problem in Germany, the role of Judaism in the cultural history of
Germany, and why such a drastic contrast between Judaism and the German
race exists here in Germany. I intend to quote only literature in this
connection, but I believe that my statements in the closing speech will
not be sufficiently credible to the Court if I have not also quoted
scientific—recognized scientific—writings. That is all with which I am
concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, your applications will be considered.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next application is on behalf of the
Defendant Speer, who requests a number of documents dealing with the
Central Planning Committee. I have not actually had the opportunity of
checking these with the exhibits, but if, as I believe, they are the
ones which were put by Mr. Justice Jackson to the Defendant Göring in
cross-examination, I think they are all either exhibits or the documents
which the Prosecution have, and they relate to the Defendant Speer. If
he does not have them, then we should do our best to give them copies.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you said they all had been put to the
Defendant Göring in cross-examination and were either exhibits or
documents; but if they have been put to the Defendant Göring, then they
should be exhibits . . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, Your Honor, they should be exhibits; I have
not had the opportunity of checking them, but if they have been
presented in Court they must be exhibits.
The next one is an application on behalf of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart
for interrogatories to be submitted to Dr. Uiberreither. The Tribunal
will remember he was Gauleiter of one of the outstanding Austrian Gaue,
and a collaborator in the National Socialist Movement in Austria. I have
no objection to these interrogatories being submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: He gave another affidavit, did he not, a day or two ago?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, Sir. That was for another defendant,
Göring. Dr. Uiberreither obviously has some knowledge of the Austrian
position. The only question is as to the requirements and the special
subject of the interrogatories. I don’t know. I have to reserve my
position as to actual wording of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you seen the interrogatory?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: They have been deposited before us.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord; I had seen them. It is my
mistake. Dr. Uiberreither right here comes into the picture once or
twice. I had seen this application. And the only objection the
Prosecution felt was to the somewhat leading form of the questions that
were put, and perhaps my friends, Mr. Dodd and Colonel Baldwin, could
have a word on that point with Dr. Kubuschok, or whoever represents
Seyss-Inquart, before they are actually delivered.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next one is an application in regard to the
Defendant Sauckel. Dr. Kubuschok tells me there is another application
on behalf of Seyss-Inquart which was not on the form in front of me.
[_Turning to Dr. Kubuschok._] Perhaps you would develop that?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Defendant Seyss-Inquart is requesting permission for
an interrogatory to the witness Bohle. The examination of this witness
has been refused by the Tribunal on the grounds that it would be
cumulative evidence. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart requests again to have
these matters of evidence clarified, this time only by way of an
interrogatory. The witness is essential, particularly as the subject of
his evidence cannot be established by means of other direct witnesses.
The other witnesses who have been named in this connection can only
state what they have been told by Bohle. Regarding the actual events,
Bohle is the only man who can make statements based on his own
knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, if other witnesses who have been granted
are going to give what we call hearsay evidence, from what they heard
from Bohle, why wasn’t Bohle asked for instead of one of these other
witnesses?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I do not know the intention of my colleague who is
defending Seyss-Inquart. All I know is that he has asked supplementarily
for indirect witnesses here, but I am told now that Bohle is considered
as a direct witness, and this because it must be expected that the other
witnesses, for whom this matter is not so important, may not remember
some points.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you want to say anything about it, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal will remember that I informed the
Tribunal that all the questions to Bohle were the same as those to the
witness Von der Wense, except two, which I think dealt with the
requisitioning of lorries, and about which there could be little
dispute. It seemed to the Prosecution therefore that here was clear
proof that this witness was entirely cumulative. The interrogation is
the same, word for word, as the interrogation of the witness, Von der
Wense.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: It was certainly not expressed clearly in the original
applications that the other witnesses only know what they have heard
from Bohle. In fact, we are here concerned with evidence on instructions
given by Bohle personally, on which he is of course the best witness. If
necessary we would agree that the subject of that evidence be eliminated
as far as the other witnesses are concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless the matter can be agreed upon, the Tribunal can
scarcely decide on it without seeing the interrogatory to Bohle and the
interrogatories to these other witnesses. Would it meet the case if we
were to grant this interrogatory on the condition that, if it appeared
subsequently that other interrogatories when considered with this one
were cumulative, they might be disregarded?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, as far as I am concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is the Defendant Sauckel, and Dr.
Servatius and Mr. Roberts of my staff have been considering this
carefully together. Dr. Servatius is not here. Perhaps Mr. Roberts can
tell the Tribunal how far they got.
MR. ROBERTS: Dr. Servatius submitted a list of about 90 documents, a
formidable number; but most of them are short extracts from various
decrees and orders relating to the employment of labor, and it is
difficult to find any reason for objecting to them. Dr. Servatius at my
suggestion agreed to take from his list about 10 or 15 as cumulative.
There are about four documents relating to alleged ill-treatment of
workers at the hands of the enemies of Germany, to which I have objected
on the ground that they are not relevant, and as to those documents a
decision of the Tribunal will be necessary as a question of principle.
My Lord, as Dr. Servatius could not, as I understand, be here today,
perhaps we could discuss the matter with the General Secretary on his
return at the beginning of next week, so that the matter then could be
put in a convenient and more or less agreed on form to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Then you haven’t been able to come to any agreement about the witnesses,
have you?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I thought the position as to the witnesses was
this: That Sir David some weeks ago discussed it before the Tribunal and
Dr. Servatius discussed it, and Sir David conceded the calling of six
witnesses and affidavits from a number of others. That was considered by
Dr. Servatius, and he submitted his final and much-reduced list of 11
witnesses, which I handed to an official of the Tribunal, and which I
understood has been before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you the date there? Is it 4 March 1946?
MR. ROBERTS: I have a document before me in German . . .
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
MR. ROBERTS: And the Prosecution’s position was fully stated by Sir
David when these matters were being considered before, and it would be
now really for the Tribunal, I think, to decide on those two
contentions—one for 6 witnesses, and one for 11. What their decision
should be . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, that takes us to the end of the listed ones.
There were some that were received later.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is one from the Defendant Frank who
requests interrogatories to Ambassador Messersmith. That was granted by
the Tribunal, and in an executive session. It was not requested in
Counsels’ consolidated applications, but heard in open court. There is
obviously no objection to that in principle that the Prosecution are
aware of.
Then the Defendant Von Ribbentrop requests the book, _America in the
Battle of the Continents_, by Sven Hedin . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Other defendants have administered interrogatories to Mr.
Messersmith, have they not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the answers been received yet?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They have not been received, I am told.
THE PRESIDENT: How long is it since they were sent off?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will find out, My Lord. 21 February.
THE PRESIDENT: You have seen these interrogatories, the ones now
suggested by the Defendant Frank?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not sure.
THE PRESIDENT: There are five of them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The position is that we got them yesterday and
they are still being discussed between my delegation and the American
delegation. They have not actually come to me yet.
THE PRESIDENT: We had better consider this.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is an application by the Defendant Von
Ribbentrop, who asks for the book, _America in the Battle of the
Continents_, by Sven Hedin. That must be subject to the general use of
books, and if there are passages that the defendant wants to use, if he
will submit them then we can deal with their relevance when the
individual passage comes up.
THE PRESIDENT: That also will be considered.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases. Then there is an
application on behalf of the Defendant Schacht for the book, _Warnings
and Prophecies_, by the late Lord Rothermere. The same, I submit, should
apply to that. Any passages desired to be used can be extracted and
shown to us, and then their relevance can be considered when use is
attempted to be made of them. Dr. Dix nods agreement to that.
Now, I understand there is an application on behalf of the Defendant Von
Neurath. I understand that he wishes copies of the interrogations of Dr.
Gaus, who is the gentleman who is mentioned as a witness for the
Defendant Von Ribbentrop. The general ruling of the Tribunal has been,
as I understand it, that the defendants are only entitled to copies of
interrogations which are going to be used against them, that is, their
own interrogations, and it would be an extension of the rule which might
lead us into general difficulties if this were extended to copies of the
interrogations of other witnesses. Therefore the Prosecution object in
principle to that.
But as I gather that Dr. Von Lüdinghausen wants it for the purpose of
preparing the case, if he would care to come and see me or my staff,
perhaps it could be conveyed to him; and if he indicates any matters on
which we can help him, we will be very pleased to discuss them with him.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is Dr. Gaus?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In Nuremberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Can’t Dr. Lüdinghausen see him here?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would welcome that. I have not the least
objection to that at all. That will probably ease the situation.
THE PRESIDENT: Both courses appear appropriate, that Dr. Lüdinghausen
could perhaps see you . . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: . . . with reference to interrogatories and see Dr. Gaus
in the prison here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I welcome both of these courses.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, that concludes the matters.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As far as Ribbentrop is concerned . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, as Dr. Horn is not here, perhaps you could
deal with that application with reference to Hilger.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I am prepared to do that, but since I have not talked
to Dr. Horn I must ask that Dr. Horn not be bound by my statements.
Hilger is a witness of very great importance, since he was an Embassy
Counsellor in Moscow, and that during the period when negotiations for a
pact were conducted between Germany and Russia, until the outbreak of
the war with Russia. He is therefore the person who participated in all
negotiations, is well acquainted with the attitude and the dealings of
Von Ribbentrop, and therefore the best informed and most reliable
witness. Hilger, until now has been in the background as a witness,
since Dr. Horn had asked for the ambassador, Dr. Gaus. But Dr. Horn
withdrew, or has withdrawn, his application for Dr. Gaus, as far as I
know, and wants only, in reference to some lesser points, to have
possibly an affidavit or an interrogatory. I assume that Sir David
agrees to this, if I submit it in that form.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Siemers?
DR. SIEMERS: Sir David has just very kindly expressed his agreement to
this course.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I agree, My Lord, as I suggested, that if this
witness Hilger is called as an oral witness, an interrogatory be
administered to the witness Gaus.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
That is all, isn’t it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn to consider these matters.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 25 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]