THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, can you explain why the application was
withdrawn on the 24th of January?
DR. THOMA: It was said then—I think by the British or American
Prosecution—that the Special Staff would not be mentioned again during
the proceedings. The French Prosecution, however, have now given
detailed accounts of the looting of France; and so this witness is once
more required.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your witnesses, I think?
DR. THOMA: I have one other request. I want to call a further witness,
and I have already filed a request with the General Secretary for this
witness, ministerial Subdirector Bräutigam. Bräutigam was Junior
Assistant Secretary in the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern
Territories, and he is to be called as a witness to prove that
Rosenberg, in his capacity of Reich Minister for Occupied Eastern
Territories, did not persecute the churches but granted freedom to all
religious sects by the issue of an edict of tolerance; that, further,
Rosenberg himself consistently opposed the use of force, supported a
policy of promoting culture and represented the view that the peasant
class should be strengthened and established on a healthy basis.
Further—and this seems to me to be particularly significant—that very
many letters and telegrams of thanks from the clergy in the Soviet Union
arrived at the ministry for Occupied Eastern Territories addressed to
Rosenberg. Gentlemen, if Dankers and Astrowski are not granted as
witnesses, then I request permission to go back to Bräutigam.
And then I have one further witness. To show how Rosenberg behaved
towards his academic opponents, I should like to call one of these
academic opponents, to wit, Dr. Kuenneth, a university professor who
wrote an important book attacking the _Mythos_. He will testify that
those who disagreed with Rosenberg’s philosophy were not at all afraid
of the Gestapo and that they had no cause to fear the Gestapo.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Sir David, did you want to review those last two?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, in my submission these last two
witnesses are not really relevant to the charges against this defendant
which have been developed by the Prosecution. They are general
witnesses, and if I may put it—I hope the Tribunal will not think it
flippant to put it this way—they are really witnesses who say that the
Defendant Rosenberg would not hurt a fly; we have often seen him doing
it—not hurting flies. That really puts it quite briefly as to what this
class of evidence amounts to, and I respectfully submit, on behalf of my
colleagues, that that should not be the subject of oral evidence, and it
should be disallowed; or if there is any special point raised, it should
be dealt with by an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Indictment allege that he instigated the
persecution of churches?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Indictment says that he took part in
antireligious teaching. I am speaking from memory. That is one of the
matters. And I think there was certain correspondence between him and
the Defendant Bormann, which was directed towards his antireligious
views. I do not remember at the moment that there was any evidence that
he had personally participated in physical destruction of churches. That
is my recollection.
My Lord, I am reminded that there is a general allegation in Appendix A
that he authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes and
Crimes against Humanity, including a wide variety of crimes against
persons and property.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; those matters will be considered.
DR. SEIDL: The first witness that I ask be summoned is Dr. Hans Bühler,
State Secretary with the Chief of the Administration in the Government
General. This witness is detained here in Nuremberg, pending trial; and
he is the most important witness for the Defendant Dr. Frank. He is
called for Dr. Frank’s whole policy in the Government General, since he
was head of the government during the entire period from the
establishment of the Government General up to the end.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you got any objection to Dr. Bühler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I have not, My Lord. The only point that I
want to make clear is that the Defendant Frank calls an enormous number
of witnesses from his own officials; he calls something like 15. And I
am not going to object to Dr. Bühler; I am going to ask the Tribunal to
cut down substantially the witnesses who were officials of the
Government General. And it might help Dr. Seidl if I told him before the
adjournment that my suggestion would be that the Tribunal would consider
allowing Dr. Bühler, an affidavit from Dr. Von Burgsdorff, and that they
might consider allowing Fräulein Helene Kraffczyk, the defendant’s
secretary, and Dr. Bilfinger, and Dr. Stepp, but not the succession of
officials from the Government General.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you say your suggestion is to allow Dr.
Bühler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Bühler.
THE PRESIDENT: And affidavits from. . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Affidavits from Burgsdorff, allow Dr.
Lammers—he is in the general list. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Allow the private secretary, Fräulein Kraffczyk,
Number 7, and allow Numbers 9 and 10.
THE PRESIDENT: What are the names?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Bilfinger and Dr. Stepp.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And if these are allowed, I should suggest that
Numbers 13 to 20, who are various officials from the office of the
Government General, should not be allowed. If I may say so, with the
submission of the Prosecution, the height of irrelevancy will be Number
18, Dr. Eisfeldt, who is chief of the Forestry Department.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I thought it might be convenient for Dr. Seidl
to know what the views of the Prosecution were. Of course, if he has any
suggestions of any alternatives we should be pleased to consider them.
THE PRESIDENT: We will continue with that after the adjournment, Dr.
Seidl.
Before the Tribunal rises, before the adjournment, I want to say that
the Tribunal will rise this afternoon at 3:30.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, Your Honors, if I understand correctly, Sir
David has no objection to the calling of the witnesses Dr. Hans Bühler,
Dr. Bilfinger, and Fräulein Kraffczyk.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The second witness named by me is Dr. Von Burgsdorff, whose
last appointment was that of Governor of Kraków. He is at present in the
Moosburg Internment Camp, which means that he is close to Nuremberg.
The witness Dr. Von Burgsdorff is the only one of the nine governors
whom I have named to the Court as a witness. Considering the importance
of the position of the governors in the Government General and in view
of the great difficulties which these governors had to overcome, it
seems proper to me that the witness Dr. Von Burgsdorff should be heard
personally by the Court and not by means of an interrogatory.
Is it necessary for me to read out the evidence material in detail now,
or is it enough to refer to the application for evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: We have got it in writing, and we understand that, while
Sir David suggests an affidavit, you want to insist upon his coming
personally.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President, since the Court approved the calling of
this witness at an earlier date.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich
Chancellery Dr. Lammers. This witness has already been approved for the
Defendant Keitel, so that no further discussion is necessary.
The fourth witness is State Minister Dr. Meissner. With regard to the
fact that this witness is called in connection with evidence for which
the witness Dr. Lammers was also named, I should like to ask the
Tribunal to allow an interrogatory unless this witness is called for
another defendant and can appear in person.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I did check that point as far as I
could from my records, and I could not find that he was being called as
a witness for any other defendant. And, as Dr. Seidl very fairly says in
his first sentence, Dr. Meissner is named for the same evidence material
as the witness Dr. Lammers. That is my point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Dr. Max Meidinger, former Chief of the
Chancellery of the Government General, who, like Dr. Von Burgsdorff, is
in Moosburg. My written application shows that this witness held a very
important appointment. He received all the correspondence of the
administration of the Government General and is acquainted in particular
with the substance, with suggestions and complaints addressed by the
Defendant Dr. Frank to the central government authorities in Berlin, and
in particular with the proposals which the Defendant Dr. Frank
repeatedly made to the Führer himself.
The witness was likewise approved previously by the Tribunal, and I
think that considering the vast knowledge of this witness—he worked in
the Government General for several years—a personal hearing before this
Court seems advisable.
THE PRESIDENT: You say he was approved. Was he not approved as one out
of a group of which Frank was to choose three? There was a large group
of witnesses.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President. The witnesses Von Burgsdorff and Dr. Max
Meidinger were chosen from this group. Those are the two witnesses who
were selected from a group of 13.
THE PRESIDENT: Which was the other one?
DR. SEIDL: The other one was witness Number 2, Dr. Von Burgsdorff.
Witness Number 6, whom I have named and whom I should like to have
called in person, is the witness Hans Gassner. His last appointment was
that of press chief of the Government General, and he is also in the
Moosburg Internment Camp. He was named, along with some others, to give
evidence that the Defendant Frank did not hear of the existence of the
camp of Maidanek and the conditions prevailing there until 1944, and
then only because the witness informed him of reports published by the
foreign press.
The witness was also present—this is not stated in my application—when
Dr. Frank told a press reporter that the forests of Poland would not be
large enough to publish the death warrants. The witness will also be
able to describe the interview in detail, to say what Frank meant by
this remark, how he intended it to be understood, and what his reasons
were for making the remark.
I may add that the Court likewise approved this witness at an earlier
date. I may say also, generally speaking, that, according to the wishes
of the Tribunal, my applications for evidence will only indicate the
general lines on which the witnesses are to be questioned and that I
have consciously refrained from formulating the separate questions which
I intend to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, will you express your view about Number 6?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, it seemed to the
Prosecution that the second matter which Herr Gassner was desired to
speak about, that the Defendant Frank learned from him only in 1944
about Maidanek, is really a matter about which no witness can be as
satisfactory as the defendant himself. All the witness can say is, “I
told the Defendant Frank about Maidanek, and it appeared to me that he
did not know anything about it.” Well, that is not, in the view of the
Prosecution, satisfactory evidence.
The Court will be able to judge from the Defendant Frank himself when he
has been cross-examined on that point. If it is desired that that
interview should be before the Court, the Prosecution submit that it
could be adequately dealt with by an affidavit or an interrogatory.
Apart from that, the grounds are entirely general and again could be
covered by a written statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, the next one Sir David has already expressed
his views on.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President.
The next witness is Helene Kraffczyk, the defendant’s last secretary. If
I understand correctly, there are no objections on the part of the
Prosecution.
Witness Number 8 is General Von Epp, the last Reich Governor of Bavaria.
He is at present in the internment camp at Oberursel. The statements to
be made by this witness will be mainly concerned with the attitude of
the Defendant Frank towards the concentration camps in 1933. As the
witness is at present in the neighborhood of Frankfurt, I should be
satisfied in this case with an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will see that General Ritter von
Epp seems to cover the same incident as Dr. Stepp. I said that I would
not object to Dr. Stepp, but if Dr. Seidl wishes an interrogatory on
some specific points from General Ritter von Epp, I should not make any
objections.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Number 9, is Dr. Rudolf Bilfinger, late
Oberregierungsrat and SS Obersturmbannführer in the Reich Security Main
Office. This witness is already here in Nuremberg. The Prosecution
apparently has no objection to the hearing of this witness.
The next witness, Number 10. . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: [_Interposing_] My Lord, I would just like to
say one word about Dr. Bilfinger. I want the Tribunal to understand what
the Prosecution have in mind. The general plan for these witnesses is to
show from both ends the relationship between the Defendant Frank and the
central agencies. The Prosecution thought that it was right that the
defendant should be allowed to call two or three members of his own
staff and a member from headquarters, who was in the position of Dr.
Bilfinger, to give the other side of the picture. I just wanted the
Tribunal to understand the plan on which we were working.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: Number 10 is Dr. Walter Stepp, former chief judge of the
highest regional court of appeal in Munich. He is at present in the
internment camp at Ludwigsburg. If I understand Sir David correctly, he
has no objection to the calling of this witness.
I should be glad if in this case I could submit to the Court an
affidavit which is in my possession, and which will prove the veracity
of these points. The reading of this affidavit would only take a few
minutes, if the Court would permit me to call another witness instead,
or if it would withdraw its objection to my calling another witness. . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE; I have to ask for some notice as to who the
other witness is. I was stating that I had no objection to Dr. Stepp,
because he speaks as to the Defendant Frank’s position in relation to
other people in Bavaria in earlier years. Of course I cannot speak on
behalf of my colleagues and accept just another witness blindly until I
know who the witness is and what he is going to say.
DR. SEIDL: The witness is Dr. Max Meidinger.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to be as reasonable as possible. The
reason that I had objected to Dr. Meidinger was because, as the Tribunal
will see under Number 7, it is stated that Fräulein Kraffczyk is called
for positive facts for which the witness Dr. Meidinger has already been
named. It seemed to me that the private secretary is probably the most
useful witness, but I am afraid that I cannot help Dr. Seidl any
further. I have put my view, but I shall not say anything further
against him. I am afraid that is as far as I can go on that point.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Number 11, is Von dem Bach-Zelewski, SS
Obergruppenführer and general of the Waffen-SS, who has already been
heard by this Tribunal as a witness for the Prosecution. The Court has
already at an earlier date granted permission for an interrogatory. In
the meantime I have spoken to the witness. He has made an affidavit,
which I shall submit instead of calling him in person.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought that it would be most
convenient if the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski came back, and then Dr.
Seidl could put any affidavit to him if he wanted. We might want to
re-examine on the point. I do not know what is in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Was he cross-examined by Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: When the witness was heard here I had no opportunity to
cross-examine him, and for that reason. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you have no opportunity to cross-examine him?
DR. SEIDL: Because I did not know beforehand that he would be called by
the Prosecution as a witness and had no opportunity to speak to the
Defendant Frank about the questions which might have been put to this
witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will consider whether the witness ought to be
recalled for cross-examination or whether you will be allowed to call
him yourself. The affidavit which you say he has made, has that been
submitted to the Prosecution?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not seen it, My Lord.
DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, my opinion on this point is the
following. . .
THE PRESIDENT: When you saw Von dem Bach-Zelewski did you see him with a
representative of the Prosecution?
DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, the General Secretary himself granted me
permission to speak to the witness, and that was after the Court had
already approved the use of an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: But when the witness was called by the Prosecution and
you had the opportunity of cross-examination, if you were not ready to
cross-examine, you ought to have asked to cross-examine him at a later
date. I mean if you were not able to cross-examine at that time, because
you had not had any communication with the Defendant Frank on the
subject, you ought to have asked to cross-examine at a later date.
DR. SEIDL: I could have made this application to the Court if I had
thought that there was any reason for questioning the witness. I did not
find out until later that the witness possessed any vital information
relevant to Frank’s case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider the matter.
DR. SEIDL: May I perhaps add something to this point? The difficulty of
a cross-examination is just this, that we do not learn of the intended
calling of a witness by the Prosecution until the witness is led into
the courtroom, and we do not know the subject of the evidence until the
Prosecution start to examine the witness. It would have been much easier
for us to cross-examine, if we had received information about the
witnesses and the subjects of evidence as far in advance as the
Prosecution—that is, as the Prosecution is informed about the witnesses
for the Defense.
The next witness is witness Number 12, Von Palezieux. His last
appointment was that of art expert in the Government General. In regard
to this witness I should like to suggest that an interrogatory might be
granted in this case too.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl asks for an interrogatory, I have
no objection. I just want to be clear that that is a written
interrogatory. I do not want Dr. Seidl to be under a misapprehension.
THE PRESIDENT: You meant a written interrogatory, did you not, Dr.
Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: Yes; I assume that in cases where a written interrogatory is
admitted the submission of an affidavit is also admitted by the Court.
The purpose is obviously to avoid bringing witnesses here and thus to
save time.
The next witness is Number 13, Dr. Böpple. His last appointment was that
of State Secretary in the administration of the Government General. He
is now in the internment camp at Ludwigsburg near Stuttgart. This
witness seems to me to be one of the most important because in the
administration of the Government General he answered a number of
questions which play an important part in the case against the Defendant
Frank. I may refer to the details in my list of evidence and should like
to add, above all, that this witness can give detailed information as to
whether, during the 5 years of the Government General’s existence, the
industrial equipment of the area was exploited or whether in 1943 and
1944, as a result of transfers from the Reich, the Government General
did not possess a considerably greater industrial potential than before.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution submit that, as is stated in the
first sentence, Dr. Böpple is called for a number of facts of evidence
for which Dr. Bühler has been already generally mentioned. Part of the
evidence stated is the relationship with the Government General
agencies, and the remainder, as to the happenings in the Government
General, can be dealt with by the witness already agreed to by the
Prosecution.
DR. SEIDL: It is correct that some of the things which Dr. Böpple is to
confirm are also to be testified to by Bühler. But in my opinion it
cannot be denied that the subject of evidence for which I have named
this witness is so important that one witness might not be sufficient to
convince the Court.
I should like furthermore to point out the following: The witness Bühler
was chief of the administration of the Government General. He has
already been interrogated many times by the Polish Delegation as well.
There is a danger that proceedings may be instituted against this
witness as well, on account of the importance of the position he held.
It is self-evident that under these circumstances every conscientious
Defense Counsel should take into account the fact that the witness may
try to shield himself when he answers certain questions; and considering
the importance of the evidence, it seems proper that, in these difficult
circumstances, the Defendant Frank be granted additional witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in your suggestion, did you include any of the
other witnesses who were cumulative to Bühler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggested an affidavit from Böpple and only
Fräulein Kraffczyk on the general work of the Government General. The
others, I think, are on the different points of the relationship with
the central agencies.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Number 14, President Struve, whose last
appointment was that of chief of the main labor department of the
Government General. In other words, he was Minister for Labor in the
Government General. Since both the United States Prosecution and the
Russian Prosecution have made grave charges against the Defendant Dr.
Frank on this very point of the alleged compulsory transfer of workers,
it seems to me proper that one witness at least—the competent
official—should be examined on the facts presented by the Prosecution
so that he can say what orders he received on the subject from the
Government General. Information as to the location of this witness has
also been obtained. He is in an internment camp near Paderborn.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should suggest, My Lord, with great deference,
that if Dr. Seidl would run through the other witnesses and show those
to which he attaches special importance, it would be convenient for the
Tribunal; and if Dr. Seidl would be good enough to say quite bluntly
whether he attaches importance to any of the others or if he does not,
then it might be possible for the Prosecution to reconsider the
elimination of all these witnesses; but the position at the moment is
that there are requests for all sections, all departments of the
Government General, and the Prosecution failed to see how these are
necessary. If Dr. Seidl would indicate any special purpose that he
attaches to any of them, then one might come back and consider President
Struve again; but the position at the moment is that the Prosecution do
not see how it really helps the case of the Defendant Frank that each
one of the departmental chiefs should be called.
DR. SEIDL: It is not the case that all the officers or rather holders of
office, were named as witnesses. A good many others could have been
named. For instance, I have already said that out of nine governors,
each of whom was in charge of 3 to 3½ million people, I have named only
one: the witness Von Burgsdorff.
I have also foregone witnesses whom I had previously named—for
instance, the various military commanders. If, however, the Prosecution
wishes to know which witnesses I consider of special importance, I shall
give the numbers of these witnesses.
They are, besides State Secretary Dr. Bühler, witness Number 2, Von
Burgsdorff; Lammers has already been approved; further, the witness Dr.
Max Meidinger; the witness Gassner, Number 6; the witness Number 7,
Helene Kraffczyk; the witness Number 9, Bilfinger—he was not a member
of the administration of the Government General; members of the
Government General; Numbers 13, 14, 15, and 19. That does not mean,
however, that I am willing to forego the witnesses which I have not
mentioned. Witness Number 15, President Dr. Naumann, is an important
witness because he was the chief of the main department for food and
agriculture and can give us detailed information about the Defendant Dr.
Frank’s policy with regard to the feeding of the Polish and Ukrainian
peoples and how he tried in particular, through the highest authorities
of the Reich, to have the demands of the Reich reduced. The witness’
address was not known until now, but I understand that the chief Polish
public prosecutor, Dr. Sawicki, is supposed to know where he is at
present. The next witness is Number 16, President Ohlenbusch, who is
called mainly to testify to the cultural policy pursued by the Defendant
Frank in the Government General. He is not, however, one of our most
important witnesses; and I imagine that in his case an interrogatory
would suffice.
The same applies to witness Number 17. Witness Number 18 is Dr. Eisfeldt
whose last appointment was head of the main department of forestry, and
who will testify to the forestry policy of the defendant and
especially—this seems to me an essential point—to the fact that there
was so much trouble with the partisans in the Government General that it
was in the interest of the Polish and Ukrainian people themselves to
take strong measures against them. Witness Number 19 is President
Lesacker, lately head of the main department of internal administration,
whose last known place of residence was Bad Tölz. His present address
may now have become known. Witness Number 20 is Professor Dr. Teitge,
who, as my application shows, is to testify to the efforts made by the
Defendant Dr. Frank in the field of public health.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I have now had the
advantage of hearing everything that Dr. Seidl has to say, and it seems
to me that, so far as the witnesses from the Government General itself
are concerned, the position is that Dr. Böpple, Number 13, does not add
greatly to the general position which would be explained by Dr. Bühler
and Dr. Von Burgsdorff and Fräulein Kraffczyk; that the witness Number
5, Dr. Meidinger, seems to deal with very much the same problems as
President Struve, witness Number 14, and the witness Naumann, Number 15,
and that, on reconsideration, I think the Prosecution would be prepared
to agree that one of these witnesses, either Dr. Meidinger, or Dr.
Struve, or Dr. Naumann, might well be called.
With regard to all the others, Dr. Ohlenbusch, Dr. Senkowsky, and Dr.
Eisfeldt seem to speak about points that are really removed from the
issues in this case, and Dr. Lesacker speaks on the general attitude of
the defendant towards Poles and Ukrainians, which is covered by Dr.
Bühler and Von Burgsdorff, and Meidinger, if he is granted; and the last
witness, Teitge, seems again to speak on a really departmental point
which is not a serious issue in the case. And, therefore, in trying to
apply our own principle of recommending any witness where there is a
real relevancy, the Prosecution would be prepared to go as far as I said
in their recommendation, that, in addition to the witnesses that I have
mentioned, they would suggest that either Dr. Meidinger or one of the
witnesses Struve or Naumann should be called.
COL. POKROVSKY: I ask for permission to add a few words to that which
has been said by my esteemed colleague, Sir David.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: After listening very carefully to Dr. Seidl, I have come
to the conclusion that we must ask you to take notice of our negative
attitude towards a further summoning of the witness Von dem
Bach-Zelewski. The Soviet Delegation fears that should the Tribunal deem
it possible to grant Dr. Seidl’s application—which, to my mind, appears
completely unfounded—then a very dangerous precedent would be created
for the factual annulment of the basic decision already accepted by the
Tribunal in this respect.
As far as I understand, the Tribunal are of opinion that every witness
can and must be called once only for purpose of cross-interrogation. In
reply to your question Dr. Seidl confirms that he was present here
during the cross-examination by my colleague, Colonel Taylor, and
myself. He saw and heard how the cross-examination was progressing. His
reference to the fact that he did not have time enough to prepare for
participation in this cross-examination appears to me unworthy of the
slightest attention. He was in the same position as the rest of us. The
Tribunal will remember that a number of the Defense Counsel participated
in the cross-examination of the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski. I see no
reason why a different attitude should be adopted for Dr. Seidl’s sake
and I do not see why, to gratify a wish of Dr. Seidl, which, to me, is
completely incomprehensible, the basic decision of the Tribunal should
be changed concerning the repeated calling of witnesses for
cross-examination.
This is what I wanted to add to the words of my respected colleague, Sir
David Maxwell-Fyfe.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I do not believe that the desire to hear an
important witness is incomprehensible in itself, if the
cross-examination is rendered difficult for reasons over which we have
no control. In the first place, I have only asked the Court for
permission to submit an affidavit from this witness to the Tribunal. If
now the affidavit is such. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing with Number 20?
DR. SEIDL: No, Sir. I am speaking about the witness Von dem
Bach-Zelewski.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you said about it.
DR. SEIDL: May I now begin with the list of documents?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the
documents, Dr. Seidl asks for the correspondence between the Governor
General and the Reich Chancellery. I have just verified that we do not
have the other part of the correspondence. Of course, if any of it comes
into our possession, we will be only too pleased to give it to Dr.
Seidl. We do not have it, and we also do not have the personal files of
the Defendant Frank in the Reich Security Main Office. The same applies
to that—that if we do get possession we will let Dr. Seidl know at
once.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the Prosecution any objection to the other documents
which are asked for?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that is all. The others are the diary.
Dr. Seidl can comment on and call evidence as he desires as to the
diary.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Now counsel for the Defendant Frick.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Your Honors, the first witness I have named is Dr.
Lammers, who has, however, already been approved for the Defendant
Keitel. I believe, therefore, that I need make no statement on this
point.
As my second witness I have named the former State Secretary of the
Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Stuckart. He is one of the State
Secretaries of the Ministry of the Interior, and he is in custody in
Nuremberg. He was chief of the central office.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Stuckart being asked for by the Defendant Keitel?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think the explanation is that it was certainly
thought that on the 9th of February this witness was to be so called by
the Defendant Keitel, and on that basis he was approved in connection
with the Defendant Frick. That is not directly my request to write it on
the Defendant Keitel’s final list.
THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection to him?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to him, Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Mr. President, as witness Number 3 I have named
General Daluege, who was formerly general of the Regular Police, and who
is now in custody here in Nuremberg. He is informed especially about the
attitude of the Defendant Frick to the anti-Jewish demonstration on 9
November 1938, and he also knows the relations between Frick and
Himmler.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection.
DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 4 I have named Dr. Diels, who is now
in an internment camp in the Hanover district. The witness was chief of
the Gestapo in Prussia in 1933-1934. He is acquainted with the measures
which the Defendant Frick, as Reich Minister of the Interior, decreed
for the supervision of the provinces by the Reich, as well as about the
concentration camps, and also, in particular, about measures taken in
individual cases and about conditions in the camps.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I submit that this witness’ evidence should be
taken in writing. With regard to the earlier part, the Tribunal will
have the advantage of the Defendant Göring who was concerned especially
with the practices of the police in Prussia in 1933 and 1934, and with
regard to the other points, as to the measures of the Defendant Frick,
these are either laws or orders or administrative measures, which could
be included, in the submission of the Prosecution, as being dealt with
by written testimony supplemented by testimony of the Defendant Frick
himself.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I should like to say something to that. I believe that
it would be more practical to hear the witness here before the Court. We
can then have a talk with him beforehand and find out the points on
which he has detailed information, whereas in an interrogatory these
things could not be discussed in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that.
DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 5 I have named the former police
commissioner, Gillhuber. Gillhuber accompanied the Defendant Frick on
all his official trips as his police guard. He therefore knows what
trips Frick made and can therefore testify that Frick never went to the
Dachau Concentration Camp, which contradicts the testimony given here by
the witness Dr. Blaha.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection, of course, to the Defendant
Frick’s dealing with that point. The only difficulty as to a witness of
this sort is, I will say, the unfamiliarity with all of his travels,
because if he is or was a bodyguard, he is almost certain to have
periods of leave, and periods of interruption would occur. I should have
thought that this could have been dealt with by affidavits, or an
interrogatory, if necessary. When they are seen the matter could be
reconsidered. But I would suggest at first stage the interrogatories,
indicating in the witness’ own account how often he was with the
Defendant Frick and what interruptions would be most frequent in that
period; therefore, it is for the Court to decide.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I agree with that, Mr. President.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now dealing with the next point, I have a
suggestion to make in regard to the witness—the next witness, Denson.
The point, as I understand it there, is that the Witness Blaha said
before the Tribunal that Frick had visited Dachau, that it was, however,
his evidence at the Dachau trial that Frick did not come to Dachau. I
should say the most satisfactory way in dealing with that is to get the
shorthand notes of the Witness Blaha’s evidence at the Dachau trial and
put in a certified copy.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Agreed. I believe also that these notes. . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Actually we have a certified copy of the
shorthand notes of Blaha’s evidence here, and I also say in fairness to
the witness that it does show he did say that at Dachau Frick visited
the concentration camp, and I will show it to Dr. Pannenbecker whenever
he likes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness Number 7 I have named Dr. Messersmith. An
affidavit from him has been read here by the Prosecution. An
interrogatory has already been approved for this witness. We have not as
yet received an answer. I should like for the time being to withhold the
question as to whether a hearing of this witness in person seems
necessary.
As an additional application I have also named the witness Dr. Gisevius.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should submit that Dr. Gisevius’ evidence
might also be reasonably dealt with directly in an affidavit in answer
to interrogatories. He was consultant of the Reich Minister of the
Interior under the Defendant Frick and supposedly went to Switzerland
after 20 July 1944; he has exact knowledge of the responsibility and
actual authority of the Defendant Frick to issue orders in police
matters. I should think that such matters might be conveniently dealt
with in an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say, Dr. Pannenbecker?
DR. PANNENBECKER: I should like to say that the Witness Dr. Gisevius is
also required as a witness by the Defendant Schacht, as far as I know,
about the events of 20 July 1944. I believe that this witness will have
to appear in person for the Defendant Schacht. It would also be better
if the witness could be heard here in person for the Defendant Frick. In
case of necessity an affidavit would suffice.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one other point about it. You asked earlier for
the return of Colonel Ratke. I think that you were told you could have
him or Stuckart. Will you now leave him out of your application because
you have Stuckart?
DR. PANNENBECKER: No, it was like this. I had named three witnesses for
Dr. Blaha—Gillhuber, Ratke, and a third. We dropped Ratke when I got
Gillhuber.
May I speak about the document book here?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: In order to give a general description of the
Defendant Frick’s character, I asked permission to refer to two books.
One of them is a small book, _We Build the Third Reich_, which contains
speeches made by Frick. I intend merely to quote short excerpts from
these speeches in the course of my presentation of evidence. As regards
the other book, _Inside Europe_, by John Gunther, I want to read here,
too, only a short excerpt, one sentence about Frick.
Then I have offered further evidence material on the question of whether
Frick intervened by means of restrictive decrees against arbitrary
measures in imposing protective custody and have based my observations
mainly on documents originally submitted by the Prosecution but not read
in court. These documents I have listed simply under Number 2a-c.
I have further asked for permission to refer to the files of the police
department of the Ministry of the Interior, where restrictive decrees
issued by the Defendant Frick in regard to protective custody are also
to be found.
With reference to his intervention in individual cases, I request
permission to read a letter written to me by the former Reichstag Deputy
Wulle. I have listed it under Number 3. The Prosecution has submitted an
affidavit by Seger, in which the latter declares that Frick, as chairman
of the Committee for Foreign Affairs of the Reichstag, had made
statements on putting political opponents into concentration camps as
early as December 1932. In Number 4 I have asked for the stenographic
records of the Foreign Affairs Committee to prove that such a statement
was never recorded and never made.
Number 5 concerns the records of the Dachau trial in regard to the Blaha
incident already discussed.
Number 6 concerns an affidavit by the Witness Dr. Stuckart, which he
made for the American Prosecution on 21 September 1945. I could just as
well ask this witness about these questions when he is heard in person;
but it would shorten the hearing if I could read this affidavit, which
was made for the Prosecution.
With regard to Frick’s position as Reich Protector of Bohemia and
Moravia, I should like to submit the Prosecution’s Document Number
1368-PS, which contains details of the limitations imposed on the
Defendant Frick’s powers as Reich Protector at the time of his
appointment.
I have also made a supplementary application for Gisevius’ book, _To the
Bitter End_. I learned of this book through an extract published in the
_Süddeutsche Zeitung_ on 26 February 1946 which gave interesting details
of the Röhm Putsch of 30 June 1934. This extract states that for the
events of 30 June 1934, police power was assumed by Hitler and
transferred to Göring and Himmler. The book will give further details in
precisely this field, since Gisevius was at that time expert for police
matters in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. I request the Tribunal,
therefore, to refer to this book, which is not yet in my hands, or to
assist me to procure a copy.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I might say I do not think that there is much
disagreement between Dr. Pannenbecker and the Prosecution. I might run
through the documents asked for. In the book, _We Build the Third
Reich_, if Dr. Pannenbecker will indicate the excerpts he is going to
use, the Prosecution will have no objection to his quoting from them,
and the same with regard to the quotations from Mr. Gunther’s book,
_Inside Europe_. To Paragraph 2 of the Document 779-PS and the excerpt
from a newspaper, the Document 775-PS—to these there are no objections.
The files of the police division are not in the hands of the
Prosecution. If we do get any of them, then we shall let Dr.
Pannenbecker know. As far as the letter from the former representative
Wulle is concerned, there is no objection to that. I have not seen any
letter yet, but there is no objection to it in principle.
With regard to Number 4, I think there is some misunderstanding there.
That is Document L-83. The affidavit of Seger is before the Tribunal as
Exhibit Number USA-234, and the statement referred to by Seger was that
the Defendant Frick said to him, “Don’t worry, when we are in power, we
shall put all of you guys into concentration camps.” This was alleged in
the affidavit as said by Frick to Seger during the course of a
conversation. It is not alleged to have been said in the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Then Number 5—I say I have the shorthand notes, and it will be shown to
Dr. Pannenbecker. As to Number 6, I understand that Dr. Stuckart is
going to be called. Of course, the affidavit can be put to him and he
can verify its truth. The Document 1336-PS will be put at the disposal
of the Defense and they can make such use of it as they can. That covers
the documents. As to Dr. Gisevius’ book, I understand that Dr.
Pannenbecker has not a copy of that. Perhaps the Tribunal will see that
a copy can be obtained for him. I do not know whether we have a copy. We
will see what we can do and see that a copy is available.
DR. PANNENBECKER: As to Number 4, Dr. Seger, I still have a brief
comment to make on Document 83. Perhaps an interrogatory could show
whether or not Frick made the statement in question in his capacity as
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee—in other words whether or not
that statement is in the stenographic minutes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understood that it was not in the minutes.
It would not be in the minutes because Dr. Seger alleges that it was
made during the course of a conversation, and not in that committee.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will continue tomorrow morning at 10
o’clock, if possible, with the further applications for witnesses and
documents, which the Tribunal understand have been lodged on Friday
evening.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 5 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]
SEVENTY-FOURTH DAY
Tuesday, 5 March 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.
The attention of the Tribunal has been drawn by Dr. Hanns Marx, one of
the German counsel appearing in this case for the Defense, to an article
which was published in the newspaper _Berliner Zeitung_ for February 2,
under the heading, “A Defense Counsel.” The article, which I do not
propose to read, criticizes Dr. Marx in the severest terms for an error
in his cross-examination of a witness when he deputized for Dr. Babel on
behalf of the SS. The article suggested that in asking the question he
did he was behaving most improperly, that he was expressing private and
personal views under the guise of acting as counsel, and that his proper
course was to remain silent in view of the character of the evidence.
The matter assumes a graver aspect still because the article goes on to
threaten Dr. Marx with complete ostracism in the future and does so in
language both violent and intimidating.
The Tribunal desires to say in the plainest language that such conduct
cannot be tolerated. The right of any accused person to be represented
by counsel is one of the most important elements in the administration
of justice. Counsel is an officer of the Court, and he must be permitted
freely to make his defense without fear from threats or intimidations.
In conformity with the express provisions of the Charter, the Tribunal
was at great pains to see that all the individual defendants and the
named organizations should have the advantage of being represented by
counsel; and the Defense Counsel have already shown the great service
they are rendering in this Trial, and their conduct in this regard
should certainly not leave them open to reproach of any kind from any
quarter.
The Tribunal itself is the sole judge of what is proper conduct in Court
and will be zealous to insure that the highest standard of professional
conduct is maintained. Counsel, in discharge of their duties under the
Charter, may count upon the fullest protection which it is in the power
of the Tribunal to afford. In the present instance the Tribunal does not
think that Dr. Marx in any way exceeded his professional duty.
The Tribunal regards the matter as one of such importance in its bearing
on the due administration of justice that they have asked the Control
Council for Germany to investigate the facts and to report to the
Tribunal.
That is all.
Sir David, the first application is for the Defendant Streicher. I call
upon counsel for the Defendant Streicher.
DR. HANNS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Mr. President, the
Defendant Streicher is indicted under two counts: Firstly, that he was
active in the planning and in the conspiracy for preparation of
aggressive war; and secondly, Crimes against Humanity.
As far as the first point is concerned, the Defense does not think it
necessary to offer any evidence because the Defendant Streicher, during
the whole of this proceeding, was never mentioned in a single document;
neither can it be proved that he took part in any of the intimate
conferences with Hitler. In this respect I did not see fit to offer any
proof. As to the second point, first of all I should like to call the
wife of the Defendant Streicher, Frau Adele Streicher nee Tappe as
witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if it would be convenient for me to
indicate the views of the Prosecution on these witnesses; there are only
six of them. Then perhaps Dr. Marx could make his comments on my
suggestions.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal will see that there are six
witnesses, and if it would take them in my order, I would indicate the
point of view of the Prosecution.
Number 3, Ernst Hiemer, was the editor in chief of _Der Stürmer_, and
apparently the defendant’s principal lieutenant.
Number 4, Wurzbacher, was an SA brigade leader in Nuremberg, and is
alleged to be able to give evidence as to the speeches of the defendant.
Number 2, Herrwerth, was the defendant’s chauffeur, and he is to speak
on one point, namely, the defendant’s annoyance at violence being used
on the 10th of November 1938.
And Number 6, Dr. Strobel, who is a lawyer, is to speak on the same
point, the disapproval expressed by the defendant in December 1938 of
the measures taken in November.
Then there are two members of the defendant’s family: Frau Streicher,
who was his secretary from 1940 to 1945; and his son, Lothar Streicher.
The Prosecution would have no objection to Herr Hiemer, as the
defendant’s principal lieutenant, speaking, as suggested by Dr. Marx, on
what Dr. Marx calls the Defendant Streicher’s basic attitude to the
Jewish question. There are a number of matters on which he is said to be
able to speak, to which the Prosecution would object as irrelevant.
However, the time for so doing is later.
Then, with regard to Herr Wurzbacher, he is said to have always been
present at meetings where Streicher spoke, from the early days. To that
also the Prosecution would not make objection, but they draw attention
to the fact that in the earlier applications Herr Wurzbacher was said to
be able to speak as to the boycott in 1933 and the events of November
1938. Therefore the Prosecution respectfully remind the Tribunal that he
can speak on the events in 1938, and, in the view of the Prosecution, it
is not necessary to have oral testimony to repeat that point. They
therefore suggest that with regard to Herr Herrwerth, the defendant’s
chauffeur, who really speaks on one main point—that the defendant
showed anger with regard to the events of 1938—an affidavit would be
sufficient. They suggest the same course with regard to Dr. Strobel, the
attorney who is mentioned.
With regard to Frau Streicher, Number 1, the Tribunal will see that it
is said that Frau Streicher was the defendant’s secretary during the
period from May 1940 to May 1945. The gist of the case against this
defendant refers, of course, to a much earlier period, both before and
immediately after the rise to power.
The Prosecution suggest that the evidence which is desired from Frau
Streicher is really a description of the life of the defendant during
the war years, and they suggest that that, again, be covered by an
affidavit.
That leaves Lieutenant Lothar Streicher, the eldest son of the
defendant. If I may remind the Tribunal of how the matters mentioned in
regard to him come into the case: In a report of the Göring commission
on the question of corruption in regard to Aryanization, part of the
report stated that this defendant paid a visit to three boys in prison,
and that certain disgusting and cruel actions took place. The
Prosecution, of course, submit that that is not really a matter relevant
to the charges against the defendant, but they realize that it is a
highly prejudicial matter; it has been read and a bad effect has
resulted from that evidence. Therefore they feel it must be a matter for
the Tribunal; and the Prosecution, having put in the report including
that, ought not to take objection, except to point out that it is not
strictly relevant. However, if the Tribunal feel that this defendant
ought to have the advantage of his son’s counteracting that account of
very unpleasant matters, the Prosecution would not take any objection,
although they are bound to point out that it is not strictly relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: In the view of the Prosecution, would an affidavit be
suitable in that case?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, that is the line the Prosecution
would suggest.
Therefore, if I may summarize, what I am suggesting is that the
Prosecution would make no objection to Herr Hiemer and Herr Wurzbacher
giving oral evidence, and to affidavits from the other witnesses.
DR. MARX: I beg to differ in a few respects with Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.
The Prosecution hold that the testimony to be given by Frau Adele
Streicher would not be specially relevant. Opposing this I should like
to state that this witness was for 5 years, that is from 1940 to 1945,
close to the defendant, handled his entire correspondence, and knows
what contacts Streicher had during the whole war.
The Defense is particularly anxious to prove that Streicher had no
connection with any of the leading men of the State or Party while he
lived in isolation in Pleikershof. There was no exchange of letters or
opinions with Hitler, Himmler, Kaltenbrunner, or Heydrich, or any other
leading personalities, whatever their names might be. Streicher was
completely isolated and played no political role whatsoever; neither had
he any authority. In view of this, I, as his counsel, cannot waive the
evidence of this witness, as otherwise the vital interests of the
Defendant Streicher would be prejudiced. I therefore suggest that my
application to call Frau Streicher as witness before the Tribunal be
granted, so that the pertinent questions may be put to her.
The same applies to the witness Herrwerth. It cannot be said that this
witness can give information only on irrelevant matters or on an
insignificant incident. On the contrary the incident in question is of
decisive importance. This man Herrwerth was present on the night of 9
November 1938, when SA Group Leader Von Obernitz reported to the then
Gauleiter Streicher that demonstrations against the Jewish population
were being planned. He therefore knows from personal experience what
passed between these two men, and that Streicher was opposed to this
demonstration, because he considered such a demonstration to be entirely
wrong.
Thus, in opposition to the Führer’s will and order, Streicher kept
himself aloof from this demonstration against the Jewish population.
There can be no doubt that this incident is of particular importance. It
is clear that the behavior of Streicher, who at the time was already in
bed and received Obernitz in his bedroom, corroborated the stand taken
by his defense, I therefore submit that Fritz Herrwerth be called as
witness before the Tribunal, so that he can be examined by me and, if
necessary, also by the Prosecution.
As to the witness Hiemer, the Prosecution and I seem to be in agreement
that he as well as Wurzbacher appear before the Tribunal. I may mention
that Wurzbacher is now in the Altenstaedt Camp near Schongau, Camp
Number 10.
As to the witness Lothar Streicher, the Defendant Streicher attaches
particular importance to having it confirmed by this witness that what
the Göring report mentions about the Defendant Streicher’s indecent
words or acts, when visiting the prison, is untrue.
If the Prosecution are prepared to state that they will drop this point
and no longer use this report, then I would agree to refrain from
calling this witness. Otherwise, I consider it my duty to insist on
having this witness called before the Tribunal to vindicate my client’s
honor. An affidavit could not possibly meet this purpose, and I
therefore ask that the application of the Defense be granted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that last point, My Lord, I have indicated
from the Prosecution that that incident is not relevant to the charges
against the Defendant Streicher. The Prosecution, of course, produced
the report and I thought I had made it clear to the Tribunal that it is
one of these collateral matters that do come in, and the Prosecution for
that reason would not oppose an affidavit from Lothar Streicher. But the
main case of the Prosecution against this defendant is on the stirring
up of and consistent incitement to persecution of the Jews. I do not
think I can put it further than that. But I had hoped I had made clear
that the incident was not one that was relevant upon any other issue.
The report under discussion was on the Aryanization of Jewish
properties, and that was a passage in the report. The report itself is
relevant to persecution.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that matter.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I make a few additional remarks?
This matter which is to be proved by Lothar Streicher forms a part of
the Göring report and cannot therefore be dealt with separated from its
context. The defendant contends that this Göring report originates from
a man who wanted to harm him, who, after having received many favors
from him, became his enemy and used this Göring commission, which was
originally meant for quite other purposes, to deal the defendant, whom
he hated, a sudden blow.
It is a rather serious matter to say of a man that he indulged in sadism
in the presence of other persons in a disgusting manner. That is why the
defendant is so anxious to have the falsity of this allegation exposed
here publicly. I therefore request once more that Lothar Streicher be
brought before this Tribunal.
As to the last witness, Attorney Strobel, I would be very pleased to
comply with Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe’s wishes, but also in this case I am
afraid I cannot do so.
Attorney Strobel’s testimony is offered as proof for the following:
Sometime, approximately three weeks after the events on the night of 9
November 1938, Streicher addressed a meeting of the Association of
Lawyers at Nuremberg. At that public meeting of lawyers, Streicher
defined his attitude to the events of 9 November 1938 and made it clear
that he had been against the demonstration and the firing of synagogues.
Attorney Strobel, as he said, was very surprised at the time that
Streicher so openly took a stand against Hitler’s order and made no
secret of what he had said to Obernitz, that he would not take part in
the demonstration and that he considered the whole thing to be a
mistake.
Strobel’s testimony may carry more weight than that of chauffeur
Herrwerth, since in the case of the latter the Prosecution can hold
against the Defense the fact that Herrwerth was an employee of the
defendant and may therefore be inclined to take the defendant’s side.
This argument, however, does not apply to Attorney Strobel, as he, in a
letter addressed to the Tribunal, wanted to express his aversion to the
defendant and mentioned the meeting only incidentally.
Consequently, Strobel must be regarded as an impartial witness, whereas
one might say of Herrwerth that he is perhaps not wholly disinterested.
I therefore submit that Attorney Strobel also be called before the
Tribunal in order to enable the Defense and, if necessary, also the
Prosecution to put direct questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your witnesses, does it not? Now you can
turn to the documents. No documents? Very well, the Tribunal will
consider your applications.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I have a word please? Up to now it has not
been possible for me to collect all the documents we need. There are a
number of newspaper articles which I should like to submit to the
Tribunal, and I ask for leave to submit the list of documents later on.
I shall get in touch with the Prosecution beforehand as to which
documents should be discarded and which should be put in.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Marx, the Tribunal will have no objection to
your getting in touch with the Prosecution with reference to documents
later on, but you must understand that no delay can be permitted.