THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite clear as to whether you are suggesting
that the Tribunal should call the panel of experts or whether you would
like to designate the persons who would form that panel.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The selection of experts I wish to place in the hands of
the Tribunal. At the moment I myself should not have the opportunity of
finding a suitable person. I am fully aware, though, that in the
department of economic warfare there were persons who would be very
suitable as experts and who have the knowledge which is necessary in the
judgment of these questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, supposing that the Tribunal were not to accept your
contention as to appointing a panel of experts, there is nobody whom you
wish to add to your list of interrogatories?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: I believe not, Mr. President. I have only one more
request. This expert should voice an opinion as to whether the figures
given by Mr. Deuss in his affidavit—Document Number 2520-PS—would
stand up under close examination. In this affidavit Mr. Deuss stated
statistically how many of all the workers employed in Germany were
foreign workers in the armament industry, _et cetera_.
Important technical objections can be raised to the method of figuring
used by Mr. Deuss. If the Tribunal is not to grant the use of an expert
in this matter, I wish to ask for permission to submit certain questions
to Mr. Deuss, in the form of an interrogatory, naturally, in order to
give him the opportunity of checking his figures.
The affidavit as given by Mr. Deuss and the statements contained therein
were considered relevant by the Prosecution at the time; I assume that
the objections made to Mr. Deuss’ figures will also be considered
relevant. I should then have to ask permission to call Mr. Deuss’
attention, by means of an interrogatory, to these points which in my
opinion are technically incorrect.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
COL. POKROVSKY: Please forgive me. I have not had the time to exchange
opinions on the subject with my friend, Sir David, and my other
colleagues. Therefore, at the present time, I am merely expressing the
point of view of the Soviet Delegation on the subject of experts.
I do not consider that the appointment of a board of experts would be a
method of solving the problem which could be recognized as correct. We
would object to the introduction of experts for the clarification of the
circumstances interesting the Defendant Speer and his counsel, as set
forth in the document submitted by them. We do not consider it right
that a question like the procedure governing the request for manpower
for Speer’s ministry, and the ratification of this request by Sauckel,
as well as the allocation of workers by the competent local labor
offices should call for the findings of a board of experts. We do not
consider it right that questions of technical productions, as emanating
from Speer’s ministry, should call for expert opinion.
I could say as much with regard to all the subsequent points. We are
inclined to defend the point of view that all these problems can be
adequately elucidated by the high Tribunal, and this without the
intervention of experts. Therefore the Soviet Prosecution objects to the
granting of this claim and requests the Tribunal to reject the
application for a board of experts.
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the Defendant Von Neurath.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the
witnesses of the Defendant Von Neurath, the Prosecution makes no
objection to Number 1, Dr. Koepke, who was the director of the political
division in the Foreign Office.
Then, Number 2, Dr. Gauss, is the witness who has already been granted
for the Defendant Ribbentrop.
With regard to the third, Dr. Dieckhoff, the Tribunal granted this
witness on the 19th of December, but the Prosecution, having considered
the basis of the present application, respectfully suggests that it
might be covered by interrogatories.
DR. OTTO FREIHERR VON LÜDINGHAUSEN (Counsel for Defendant Von Neurath):
Mr. President, I agree, and I have already worked out an interrogatory
which will be submitted to the General Secretary today; but I wish to
reserve the right of asking under certain circumstances that, when the
interrogatory is returned to me, the witness nevertheless be heard in
person before the Tribunal. In principle I agree, however, to his being
heard by means of an interrogatory.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Much obliged. And the same view is taken by the
Prosecution of Number 4, the witness Prüfer; again it seemed to be
largely a historical matter and they suggested an interrogatory. There
is no objection to the evidence of the witness being brought before the
Court.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: This interrogatory has already been submitted by
me to the General Secretary several weeks ago. I assume that it will be
returned to me, answered, within a reasonable period of time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, Number 5 is Count Schwerin von Krosigk,
who was Finance Minister for a long period of years in the Government of
the Reich. If the Tribunal would be good enough to look at the
application which Dr. Von Lüdinghausen has put in: He says this witness
is most accurately informed about the personality of the defendant, his
political viewpoints as well as the basic thoughts and aims of the
policy of peace carried on by the defendant, and his avoidance of all
use of force as well as his endeavors for the maintenance of peace, even
after being Foreign Minister, and about his opinion of National
Socialism and about the happenings in the Cabinet session of 30 January
1937.
The Prosecution felt that these matters were really emphasizing points
that the defendant would speak on, and that it was difficult to see that
Count Schwerin von Krosigk was being asked to speak on any particular
point that was an issue. Therefore, again, they would suggest that an
interrogatory would be sufficient for the purpose of the defense.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I do not believe that an interrogatory will serve
the purpose that I wish to accomplish, for several sectors of the
activity of the Defendant Von Neurath are dealt with, in regard to which
the witness is to give us information.
For instance, the Indictment asserts that Defendant Von Neurath acted as
a sort of Fifth Column in the ranks of the conservative, that is, the
German National Party. In regard to the fact that this is not true, the
witness named by me, Count Schwerin von Krosigk, can give extensive
information; and I attach importance to having this take place before
the Tribunal in such a way that the Tribunal may have an idea also of
the atmosphere in the ranks of the parties of the Right at the time
these things took place.
A further subject for his hearing is the question of the outstanding
manner in which the Defendant Von Neurath intervened, although he was no
longer Foreign Minister at the time, in order to bring about the
conference at Munich in September 1938, and the measure in which he had
an effect on the outcome of this conference which, at that time, was
generally considered a happy one.
I should consider the summoning before the Tribunal of this witness, who
is present in Nuremberg, and who will therefore not have to be brought
from another city, important.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not desire to say anything more on that
point.
Then, Field Marshal Von Blomberg is, we understand, ill, and there will
be an interrogatory.
Number 7, Dr. Guido Schmidt, is the same witness as was dealt with this
morning in the case of Seyss-Inquart. He is an Austrian ex-Foreign
Minister. I made no objection in the case of Seyss-Inquart and I make no
objection now, of course.
Lord Halifax has been the subject of interrogatories.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: The interrogatory has already been sent to Lord
Halifax, as I have been told by the General Secretary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Mastny, who was the Czechoslovakian
Ambassador in Berlin, came into the case in that the Prosecution put in
a letter from Jan Masaryk describing a visit of Dr. Mastny to the
Defendant Von Neurath. Of course, if there is any issue as to that
report—its not being true—then there would be some reason for calling
him as a witness; but if it is merely a question of clarifying it, I
should believe an interrogatory would be sufficient.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I agree to an interrogatory in this case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then with regard to the next witness, Dr.
Stroelin—if the Tribunal would consider that along with Number 12, Dr.
Wurm—I understand that the Tribunal granted Number 12 on the 19th of
December as an alternative to Stroelin, giving the choice between the
witness Stroelin and the witness Wurm. Dr. Stroelin is Oberbürgermeister
of Stuttgart. I do not know if Dr. Seidl can tell the Tribunal if it is
the same Dr. Stroelin he desires in the case of Hess.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Von Lüdinghausen tells me that he is, so the
Tribunal might note that point—that that witness will also be asked for
by Dr. Seidl in the case of Hess—and therefore I should suggest that we
might leave that undecided for the moment. If the Tribunal grant it in
the case of Hess, of course, Dr. Von Lüdinghausen will automatically
have the advantage of this witness; and if he is not granted—and I do
not know whether Dr. Von Lüdinghausen feels strongly about his personal
presence—I am not the Court—I do not feel very strongly on the point
myself. Do you want to be heard?
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree that I should make this decision at
that time when the question is settled as to whether the witness is
granted to another defendant or not. I should like to make the following
remark. . .
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Which witness?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 10, Dr. Stroelin.
THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Stroelin were granted would you require Dr. Wurm
at all, Number 12?
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I do not insist on Dr. Wurm’s being
heard in person at Nuremberg. Bishop Wurm has already told me that he
would give me the information requested in the form of an affidavit. I
should ask for permission to submit this affidavit to the Tribunal. I do
not insist on his being heard in person.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is merely cumulative, Number 10, but if it is
felt that an affidavit would help—it will be along the same lines—I
shall not press an objection.
Now, Number 11. The Prosecution felt, with regard to the witness
Zimmermann, that he was really speaking on the contents of the
defendant’s mind. If I might read the first five lines:
“The witness is in a position to give information about the
personality, the character, and the philosophy of the defendant,
as well as about the fact that he entered the Cabinet only at
the express request of the Reich President Von Hindenburg, and
that he remained in the Cabinet after the latter’s death because
he was a convinced friend of peace and an opponent of any policy
pointing toward force or war, and that because of this reason he
handed in his resignation as Reich Foreign Minister soon after 5
November 1937; also about the reasons because of which he
declared himself ready to take over the office of Reich
Protector of Bohemia and Moravia.”
It would appear that these are all matters which Dr. Zimmermann has
heard from the defendant. I do not really think it helps the defendant’s
case any further. The Prosecution therefore felt that that witness was
irrelevant.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I should like to request that he be heard here.
The witness has been a very intimate friend of Defendant Von Neurath for
many, many years. The defendant considered him somewhat as a father
confessor and informed him of everything which oppressed him. From this
information the witness has a very clear impression of events and
happenings. Thus this lawyer, Dr. Zimmermann, is very closely informed
about the incidents that took place in September 1932, when Von Neurath
entered the newly-formed Cabinet of Von Papen upon the express desire of
the then Reich President Von Hindenburg. The witness is informed of the
fact that Defendant Von Neurath did not wish to accept the call, and
that it took very earnest persuasion on the part of the Reich President
Von Hindenburg, concerning his patriotic and personal duty, before the
defendant could be moved to assume the office of Reich Foreign Minister.
This witness also knows the motives because of which the defendant after
the death of the Reich President considered it his duty, in response to
a wish expressed previously by the Reich President, to remain in office,
and in that way to fulfill the wishes of the Reich President.
He also knows very well what a really devastating effect it had on Von
Neurath when, on 5 November 1937, Hitler for the first time came to the
fore with martial intent. Witness Zimmermann also knows very exactly the
reasons which moved the defendant after very long deliberation to assume
the office of Reich Protector. The witness also is very well informed
not only about the difficulties confronting the position of Reich
Protector, but also about the attitude of the defendant to the problems
in the Reich Protectorate. These matters are all of decisive importance
so far as a judgment of the defendant is concerned, and I do not believe
that even an affidavit or minutes of interrogation which has been worked
out with the greatest care can have the same weight as a personal
hearing of the witness. For these reasons I request that this witness,
who has already given me his assurance that he will be glad to come here
from Berlin, be granted me. We do not have to find him; he is a
practicing lawyer and notary in Berlin.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not wish to add to that. That leaves one
point, My Lord, the two witnesses, 13 and 14. The first one, Dr.
Völkers, was the chief of the Cabinet of Defendant Von Neurath in
Prague. He has not been located. The second, Von Holleben, was. . .
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: This witness is in an internment camp at
Neumünster, and I indicated the exact address.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then I think the submission of the Prosecution
is that one of these witnesses is suitable, and that it would be
unnecessary to call the second witness if Dr. Völkers is available. That
is my point.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree, but I ask you to consent to witness
Consul Von Holleben’s being heard by means of an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: It is now a quarter to 1; we will adjourn until 2.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: It appears probable that the Tribunal will finish the
applications for witnesses and documents before the end of the sitting
today, but they do not propose to go on with the case against the
Defendant Göring until tomorrow. They will take that case at 10 o’clock
tomorrow morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the
documents applied for by the Defendant Von Neurath, Paragraph 1 requires
no comment.
Paragraph 2 refers to documents which Dr. Von Lüdinghausen has in his
possession. If they are treated in the usual way and extracts are made,
I have nothing further to say.
Then we come to documents that are not yet in his possession. Number 1
and Number 4 are minutes of the Disarmament Conference in 1932 and in
May 1933 respectively. I am afraid I do not know what the difficulty has
been in obtaining those documents, and if there is any way in which the
Prosecution can help, they will.
DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Concerning Document Number 1 I was able to find,
in the meantime, in one of the documents which referred to the
Disarmament Conference, a copy of this document which is important for
me, namely, the resolution about Germany’s equality of rights. If the
document which I have asked for is not here in time, I am nevertheless
in the position of having to submit an excerpt from this German book.
However, that does not apply to Number 4, and I should like to be able
to get that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 2 is a request for the interrogation of
Karl Hermann Frank.
The ruling of the Tribunal was that only the portions of interrogations
of defendants used by the Prosecution might be re-used. If any portions
of this interrogation were used by the Soviet Prosecution, and I
confess. . .
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please, Sir David. As I understood you, you
did not state our ruling quite accurately.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I think our ruling was that if the Prosecution put in any
part of an interrogation of a defendant, then the defendants would have
the opportunity of using any other part of the interrogation, treating
the interrogation as one document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very grateful to Your Lordship. That was
the rule so far as defendants are concerned, but Karl Hermann Frank is
not a defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And any portion that has been used would have
appeared in the ordinary way in the document book of whichever
delegation had used it. The general interrogation was taken, of course,
not only for the Prosecution’s purpose at this Trial, but also for the
purposes of the Czech Government, in the trial of Karl Hermann Frank
himself. Therefore, what I suggest is that Dr. Lüdinghausen put
interrogatories to Karl Hermann Frank, on whatever points he wants to
raise. The Prosecution would have no objection to that.
DR. LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I make the following reply?
These minutes of the four interrogations of Karl Hermann Frank are
mentioned and discussed in Exhibit Number USSR-60, which has been given
to me and which contains the indictment made by the Czech Government.
I cannot judge to what extent these interrogations are important in
reference to my client, the Defendant Von Neurath, as Reich Protector,
or whether they have to do with a later period. For that reason I have
asked that these protocols be made available to me. I know that Karl
Hermann Frank has also been questioned about the document concerning the
meeting in Prague on a policy of Germanization of the Czech country. To
this document, which was presented, that is to say, which is contained
in a report of General Friderici, reference is made in the respective
minutes.
Now, I know that Frank once made a report to the Reich Protector in
which he labeled all the opinions and proposals—which actually,
however, were never put into actions—ridiculous and declared them to be
impossible. Therefore, it is important for me to know just what is said
in these minutes which the Czech indictment has drawn on at this point.
If nothing is contained therein, then, of course, I shall dispense with
these minutes, but I have to examine them myself. It is, therefore,
important for me to see these minutes, at least, and then to present
from them whatever is of importance for me.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, would you have any objection to counsel for
Von Neurath seeing these interrogations?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have to consult the Czech Government
before I could agree, because, frankly, I have not gone through the
parts which we were not concerned with in this case, and I do not know
on what subjects the interrogation was based.
THE PRESIDENT: But treating the matter as a matter of principle, if a
certain document or a part of a document is used, ought it not to be
open to the defendants to use the rest of the document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought it a matter of principle,
My Lord, only if there were connected parts. I think that is the general
rule that is applied, say, to interrogatories in the English courts. For
example, supposing that one day Karl Hermann Frank was examined about
the early days of the Protectorate, and then on another day he was
examined on a specific point at the end of the Protectorate. Then I
should not have thought that the two things were sufficiently closely
connected.
My Lord, I am reminded that there is another point, which Mr. Barrington
has just brought to my attention. These interrogatories were the basis
of the Czech Government report. They are not introduced as
interrogatories but—so I am told—as part of the report by the person
who drew it. It is not material that we are in a position to introduce
as interrogatories. They come in as a Government report from the Czech
Government.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): If it should develop later that it is
relevant to the occasion, could the Prosecution object to that material
being introduced?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. If he can get the material, but the material
is the property of the Czech Government.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then your position is really that it is not
in your hands, but for the Czech Government to determine it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I see.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The only other document is the treaty between
France and the Soviet Union, in 1935. This document was authorized by
the General Secretary on 29 January, and if there is any difficulty in
getting a copy, I will try to do anything I can to help, subject to the
reservation of objecting to its relevance when I know what use is going
to be made of it.
DR. LÜDINGHAUSEN: May I add a few more words to this point?
During the very last few days I have received, from various sides,
suggestions of information which seem important to my defense; but I
have not yet had the opportunity of checking this information and
finding out whether it is really of importance to the conduct of the
Defense. May I therefore ask, if this should be the case and if there
should be one or two other witnesses or documents which I can find out
about only later, that I be permitted to make an application
supplementary to the list of witnesses and documents I have given today.
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the Defendant Fritzsche.
[_Dr. Fritz approached the lectern._]
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, there are only two
witnesses applied for in this case.
The first of them is Von Schirmeister, who was an official of the late
Dr. Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry. The Prosecution have no
objection to that witness.
With regard to the second witness, Dr. Otto Kriegk, the application says
that he received his information and instructions from the Defendant
Fritzsche and he can speak as to the directives issued to journalists.
On the assumption that these were more or less official directives that
he gave in the course of his duty, again, I do not think there can be
any objection from the Prosecution. But I do not know what Dr. Fritz
would think about interrogatories, or whether he has any strong views
about calling Dr. Kriegk on that point. As I understand it, it would be
more or less a synopsis of the directives given, but in view of the very
modest proportions of the applications in this case, I do not want to be
unreasonable if there is any special reason for calling Dr. Kriegk.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Your Honors, I have
presented a very restricted list of evidence material and I should be
grateful if the personal appearance of the second witness, Dr. Kriegk,
were granted, for the following reasons: First the witness Von
Schirmeister has been named because he is to give us information about
the internal tasks which the Defendant Fritzsche had in the Ministry for
Propaganda, especially about his relations to Dr. Goebbels. As far as
the daily press conferences which the Defendant Fritzsche held are
concerned, this first witness, Von Schirmeister, did not take part in
them. From the subjective angle, especially, it is important to know
what directives the Defendant Fritzsche gave the journalists,
specifically the most important German journalists who assembled daily
at his press conferences.
As a further reason for my request that the personal appearance of this
witness be granted, I point out that, of the collection of documents or
rather of the two document collections, 1 and 2 of my list are not yet
available to me, so that there are various points which I had wanted to
prove by presenting documents or quotations therefrom which I now hope
to prove by questioning these two witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not press the point of an affidavit. I
leave it to the Tribunal.
With regard to the documents, Number 1 is the broadcasts of the
Defendant Fritzsche, and there is obviously no objection from the
Prosecution to that.
Number 2 is the archives of the section German Express Service. And
again we make no objection at this stage. We will perhaps have to
consider the reports when we get them.
There is a little trouble about the third group, sworn testimony or
letters which contain objective observations on the part of the writers
about the acts of the Defendant Fritzsche. If these are official reports
or anything of that kind, of course, there would be no objection, if
they were contemporaneous; but the course which the Prosecution
respectfully suggests to the Tribunal is that we wait and see these in
the document book and then we can consider them and make any objection
when they come up.
DR. FRITZ: I agree to this procedure. I believe I need say nothing more
about Documents 1 and 2 after the statement Sir David has just made.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, some of the defense counsel want to put in
supplementary applications. It would be convenient to deal with them
now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps Your Lordship will allow me to confer
with my colleagues as we deal with each one, as we go along, in case
they have any further views to express.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. I think there are some supplementary
applications by Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President and Your Honors, on 28 February 1946, I
submitted to the Tribunal a supplementary application for the Defendant
Rudolf Hess. The application was necessary for the following reasons: In
my first application I mentioned the witness Bohle, the former Gauleiter
of the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, for a number of subjects,
among others in reference to the German Foreign Institute and the
activity of the League for Germans Abroad. When I made that application
to question the witness Bohle I had not yet had any opportunity to speak
to the witness. After approval by the Tribunal, however, I did so, and I
found out that the witness Bohle, although he can make very concrete
statements about the Auslands-Organisation, does not have any immediate
first-hand information about the activity of the German Foreign
Institute and the activity of the League for Germans Abroad.
I therefore ask that the following be approved as further witnesses:
First, Dr. Karl Stroelin, former Oberbürgermeister of Stuttgart and
finally President of the German Foreign Institute. The witness is here
in Nuremberg as a prisoner awaiting trial, and it is the same witness
who has also been requested by the Defendant Von Neurath in his case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps it would be convenient, My Lord, if Dr.
Seidl would indicate what the final position of these witnesses is. As I
understand it, he no longer wants Herr Bohle. Is that right? I am not
clear whether this witness is in addition to or in substitution for Herr
Bohle.
DR. SEIDL: With regard to the witness Dr. Stroelin, this is an
additional witness. The witness Bohle will still be needed as a witness,
but only concerning the matter of the activity of the
Auslands-Organisation. The witness Stroelin, since the witness Bohle has
not first-hand information about the Foreign Institute, should speak
about this latter point.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I understand it, that would mean that Dr.
Seidl is now asking for Herr Bohle, Herr Stroelin, Dr. Haushofer, and an
affidavit, I think it is, from Alfred Hess.
I am not sure that this is not rather an accumulation of witnesses on
what is, perhaps, a narrower point than Dr. Seidl realizes, from the
point of view of the Prosecution. The Prosecution said that the
Auslands-Organisation was used for promoting Fifth Column activities,
but it was only put in this way: That by using the Auslands-Organisation
there was, first of all, complete record and organization of Party
members abroad; secondly, the intelligence service of that organization,
through the organization, reported on all German officials of every
section of the Government who came abroad and kept check on them in
their work, in addition to German subjects; and because of this
intelligence service, these Germans were ready for use and in fact were
used when there was a question of invasion of the country.
It was not suggested that there were direct orders, for example, to blow
up bridges or commit acts of sabotage, given directly to the
organization, which is a matter of inference from the functioning of the
organization that I have described.
I say that only because it should be helpful to Dr. Seidl to know the
case he has to meet. The Prosecution has never proved direct orders for
sabotage in this regard.
DR. SEIDL: The trial brief on his case has accused Rudolf Hess of the
fact that, under his leadership, the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP,
as well as the Foreign Institute and the League for Germans Abroad had
developed an activity which was almost equivalent to that of a Fifth
Column. It is correct that in the original indictment of the Defendant
Hess, personally, there were no details given by means of which the
indictment meant to show this activity and above all Hess’ guilt in
regard to the activities of these organizations.
As long, however, as the Auslands-Organisation and the Foreign Institute
and the League for Germans Abroad are accused of any connection with the
activities of a Fifth Column, the Defendant Hess has a reasonable
interest in seeing explained, first, what kind of activity these
organizations had and, second, which orders or directives he had given
to these organizations.
The witness Bohle is in a position to make very concrete statements
regarding the Auslands-Organisation. The same is necessary for the
German Foreign Institute about which Dr. Stroelin, who is here in
Nuremberg, can make authentic statements, and for the League for Germans
Abroad, about which the witness Dr. Haushofer can speak.
I agree, however, with regard to the physical condition of the witness,
Dr. Haushofer, that only an interrogatory be used for this witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to interrogation as far as
Dr. Haushofer is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one more you want?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Sir, a third one. Before I come to the third witness,
whom I wish to name as an additional witness, I should like to inform
the Tribunal that I do not insist on a personal hearing of the witness
Ingeborg Sperr, who has already been approved by the Court. Instead of
that, I shall submit a short affidavit, which is already in the document
book which I have already given to the General Secretary.
In the place of the witness Sperr, I request, however, that the witness
Alfred Leitgen be called. Leitgen was for many years, until the flight
of Rudolf Hess to England, his adjutant.
I could not apply for this witness any sooner because I have found out
only now where this witness is. I believe that a personal hearing of
this witness is so important that one should not dispense with it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The two points which Dr. Seidl specifies both
seem to be relevant points, and in view of the fact that he is prepared
to drop the calling of the secretary, the Prosecution will not take
objection to that witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any more applications?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if Your Lordship will allow me to say
one thing. Dr. Servatius has already had certain conversations with a
member of my staff. I think they will prove profitable and helpful on
the lines that Your Lordship suggested, and if the Tribunal will be good
enough to safeguard Dr. Servatius’ rights for a day or two, we hope to
have something practical and useful to put before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean with reference to the organizations?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, with reference to the Defendant Sauckel.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will remember that you allowed the
matter to stand over. We have been working along the lines that Your
Lordship suggested, but I am afraid that I have not had time to go into
it myself and see the final result.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
DR. SERVATIUS: In discussing the witnesses, I proposed a restriction
which is being presented to the Court in writing. Concerning the
documents, I have also practically come to an agreement as to how they
should be handled. There are, however, two principal applications which
I should like to submit and which have not been mentioned so far. But I
believe that a decision will have to be made by the Tribunal in respect
to principle. The applications are Documents 80 and 81.
Document 80 is a photostat of a deportation order which had been issued
in the city of Oels by the Soviet local commander, whereby the native
male population had to report for deportation; and it can be seen from
this order that it is deportation for the purpose of labor. I want to
submit this to show that the Hague agreement concerning land warfare has
been considered obsolete by the Soviet Army. I have only this one
deportation order. I should therefore like to suggest that the Tribunal
make use of Article 17(e) of the Charter and have a judge determine on
the spot to what extent this deportation took place, and I should like
thereby to have it shown that it is not only the town of Oels, but that
it was done similarly on a large scale in the cities of East Prussia and
Upper Silesia. The population was deported in large numbers for purposes
of work and, if the information which I have received is correct, part
of the population of Königsberg is today still in the Ural Mountains. I
am not in a position to submit documents about all these things, because
of the difficulties of mailing, and the difficulties of receiving news
from the East at all. But the Tribunal should be in a position, by
asking the mayors and other officials, to find out that what I have just
said is correct.
Under Document 81 I submit an affidavit concerning the city of Saaz in
Czechoslovakia. There 10,000 inhabitants of the city of Saaz were put
into a camp and, until Christmas 1945, they worked there without pay. I
believe also that this is proof of the fact that the Hague agreement
concerning land warfare is considered to be obsolete and outmoded in
regard to labor employment.
Furthermore, Documents 90 and 91: These are two books with affidavits
meant as a substitute for an investigation. It would be irrelevant if I
were to produce one or two affidavits concerning conditions in the labor
camps. One could object to that as being irrelevant because, in view of
the large number of factories and camps which exist, little proof would
be afforded by these affidavits. These mass conditions have somehow to
be considered juridically. Therefore, the Charter has admitted
government reports. I am not in a position to ask a government to help
me in this matter. Therefore I have to find a substitute by collecting
affidavits and grouping them in logical form in a notebook in order to
submit them to the Tribunal. This is the purpose of my proposal to
introduce a presentation of proof which is an innovation and is
difficult for me; but thereby the same objections are justified which
one might make to an investigation. An investigation has great
weaknesses, especially if it is conducted in a one-sided manner without
participation of those involved on the other side. In the case of my
affidavits, this danger is greatly reduced because it is hard to find
anybody who would fill out these affidavits unless he has very serious
reasons for doing so. I therefore ask the Tribunal to decide about my
application concerning these Documents 90 and 91. That is the matter I
wanted to submit here; the rest I shall discuss with the Prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I have already
intimated the grounds on which the Prosecution object to Documents 80
and 81. To test their admissibility the easiest way is to assume that
Dr. Servatius has proved the facts alleged. And if that is done they
would not, in my opinion, come within miles of proving that Article 52
had become obsolete; and it is illustrative of the danger which I
ventured to point out to the Tribunal in regard to these two
arguments—that vague and hypothetical suggestion that there might be
some evidence that Article 52 had become obsolete. It is suggested that
the Tribunal should try the conduct of the Soviet Union with regard to
labor conditions and, as I understand, send a commission to collect
evidence on that point; and I do not want to repeat the arguments, but
the Prosecution most strenuously object to the suggestion and say that
nothing has been indicated which provides any basis for it.
With regard to 90 and 91, I really feel that the best method would be by
_solvitur ambulando_. Let us see the affidavits and get some idea of
their contents and the source of knowledge disclosed and then the
Prosecution can make a decision regarding them. At this stage I do not
want to do anything to exclude them and they will receive the most
careful attention by my colleagues and me when they are brought forward.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told that there are other supplementary applications
for the Defendant Schacht and for the Defendant Keitel. I think there
may be some mistake about that.
Is the Defendant Bormann’s counsel here?
DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD (Counsel for Defendant Bormann): Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to deal with anything yet?
DR. BERGOLD: No.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal made an order that your applications
would stand over for some application within the next three weeks. So
you are not ready yet? I am told your documents are all here. Is that
so?
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, my documents are here, as far as I know.
However, since I have to collect my own information from the books, I
cannot tell the Tribunal whether these will be all my documents. I
therefore have asked permission to speak to the secretary, Wunderlich,
who was secretary for a long time, and also to another woman secretary.
Only from these two shall we get satisfactory information. Bormann, I
cannot reach. Therefore, for practical reasons, I ask permission to
present everything at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the Tribunal will now—I am told that
there are applications from the Defendants Keitel, Rosenberg. . .
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, Defense Counsel for Keitel and Rosenberg are
not present at the moment. They probably did not expect that their
applications would be presented today. Maybe that could be done tomorrow
before the beginning of the Göring case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will now adjourn.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 8 March 1946 at 1000 hours._]