Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 9


Saturday, 23 March 1946

Morning Session

THE PRESIDENT: Have you consulted the Defense Counsel as to the order in which they wish to take these supplementary applications?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have the order which the Tribunal has, beginning with Streicher.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that would be the most convenient then. Is Streicher's counsel ready? Dr. Marx?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes; Dr. Marx is here.

DR. HANNS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Your Honors, Mr. President, on behalf of the Defendant Streicher I have applied for the calling of Fritz Herrwerth as a witness before the Tribunal. This witness is a man who has been in the immediate vicinity of the Defendant Streicher for years and who, because of that, is in a position to offer information on all political events that can in many ways have a bearing on the decision and judgment in the case of Streicher. In particular, I have applied for this witness because he was present on that night of 9 to 10 November when the Defendant Streicher had a conference with the SA leader Von Obernitz, at which Von Obernitz informed Streicher that he, Obernitz, had received the order to carry out demonstrations against the Jewish population during that night. Streicher will establish that he then told Herr Von Obernitz that he, Streicher, kept himself aloof in this affair, that he considered these demonstrations a mistake, and disapproved of them. Obernitz thereupon stated that he had received the order from Berlin and had to carry it out. It can ...

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you object to this alteration of our previous order?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we have not seen any change in the situation as the Tribunal decided it, but we do not want to press against this witness being called orally, except that we must point out that there is not any change. All these matters were gone into by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal feels that it would be better that the witness should be called orally, then the Prosecution will not take any objection.

TBE PRESIDENT: Have these interrogatories been drawn up?


23 March 46

DR. MARX: No, they have not yet been completed. I beg your pardon, Mr. President; is this question put with reference to the witness Herrwerth?


DR. MARX: Yes, the questions to the witness have been completed; the questions which the Defendant wishes ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, we will reconsider that. You have got something else, haven't you, Dr. Marx? You want some document; you have got a document you are asking for, have you not, or don't you ask for that?

DR. MARX: May I speak, Mr. President? Actually, I should like to ask that both the documents referred to be placed at my disposal. That is, the matter of the suit against Karl Holz in the year 1931, and the files of the disciplinary proceedings against Julius Streicher, concerning which I am unfortunately not able to give the year. It might be 1931.

THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Marx, did we not, with the agreement of the Prosecution, strike out a passage from a document which was critical of the Defendant Streicher? Does that not render this evidence entirely irrelevant?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was about the witness Lothar Streicher, the son, about an interview that took place in prison at which there were certain allegations, and these were struck out by the consent of the Prosecution. I confess I don't know whether the disciplinary proceedings in the matter of Streicher...

DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. May I speak? The matter in which Lothar Streicher figures is from the Goering report concerning the visit or the conversation Streicher had with three youthful criminals, during which Streicher was supposed to have taken an ugly or improper attitude. Lothar Streicher was named as a witness by me to testify that at that time no such thing happened. That is in connection with the report of the Goering commission, whereas the other matter is concerned with a disciplinary action. This proceeding was completed in 1931 before the disciplinary court at Munich.

THE PRESIDENT: Wasn't it all in connection with the same alleged offense by Streicher?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have the details now, if I might read them. I think it makes them clear. The first application in relation to the proceedings against Karl Holz reads:

"The documents requested herein will be used to prove the following facts:


23 March 46

"During these proceedings Dr. Erich Bischof, an authority on the Talmud, from Leipzig, gave evidence under oath that there was, in the Jewish religious book Sohar a law allowing ritual murder."

THE PRESIDENT: But, Sir David, there are two different applications, aren't there? There is this application with reference to the Jewish religious book, and then there is the other application with reference to the trial of Karl Holz.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understood it, My Lord, this application is headed, "Files in the Trial in the Matter of Karl Holz," and one of the pieces of evidence in the trial of Karl Holz, according to Dr. Marx's application, was the evidence of Dr. Erich Bischof as to the Talmud, and the application does on to say that "these facts are relevant to my defense for the following reasons: The accused wishes to prove with these court records" -- that is, the record from the trial of Holz -- "that Der Sturmer did not deal with the question of ritual murder contrary to his better knowledge." That is, as I understand it, that Der Sturmer dealt with ritual murder according to the knowledge of Dr. Bischof, as expressed at that trial. That, in my respectful submission, would be quite irrelevant.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of this religious book? It was written in the Middle Ages, wasn't it?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think so, My Lord, and it was produced on 30 October and 4 November 1931, by Dr. Bischof.

Then, My Lord, the second one -- just to get it clear, so Your Lordship will have it in mind -- it is the files of the disciplinary proceedings in the matter of Streicher at the disciplinary court at Munich.

"The documents requested herein will be used to prove the following facts:
"The accused wishes to prove, with the production of these files, that he was not dismissed from his profession because of indecent assault, but on political grounds, and with the granting of part of his salary."

I myself don't see the relevance of it, but perhaps Dr. Marx can inform the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it charged against him in the Indictment?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, there is nothing about his criminal record other than on anti-Jewish grounds.

THE PRESIDENT: In that connection the Prosecution agreed to strike out any reference to that incident, didn't it?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not sure that it is the same incident, but the Prosecution did agree to strike out the only reference to it that appeared in the record, to my knowledge -- to any


23 March 46

reference to a matter of that kind. That was as to the treatment of certain boys in prison.

DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I, to clarify the matter, make a few statements now. The defense counsel for the Defendant Streicher applied to have the file on this disciplinary case produced for the following reason:

Streicher was asked by a Russian interrogator whether he had been dismissed from his office because of moral delinquency and therefore it is necessary to have the file on this disciplinary case produced. This file shows that Streicher was not dismissed from his school post because of indecent conduct, but because of his political attitude. That is one point. And quite apart from that is the matter in which Lothar Streicher is supposed to act as a witness. That was the matter mentioned in the report of the Goering commission concerning the three young delinquents who were visited by Streicher, and on which occasion he is supposed to have been guilty of indecent manipulations or gestures.

I come now to the question of Dr. Bischof, Mr. President. This matter concerns the following: Streicher is accused, with reference to quotations from the Talmud, or quotations referring to ritual murder, either of having consulted an incorrect translation, or of not having ascertained facts sufficiently, in a frivolous and grossly negligent way.

THE PRESIDENT: When you say, Dr. Marx, that he is being reproved with that, there is no such charge in the Indictment. No such charge has been made in the course of the case of the Prosecution. The charge against him is that he provoked the German people to excesses against the Jews, not by misquoting some Jewish book, but by referring to Jewish books of the Middle Ages.

DR. MARX: I take the liberty of drawing attention to the fact that, on the contrary, the Prosecutor, Lieutenant Colonel Griffith-Jones, when he presented the case against Streicher, referred to this point explicitly and accused Streicher of having here, against better knowledge, quoted passages from the Talmud. And consequently, it is important that this file against Holz is consulted, because in it is established, by the witness Dr. Bischof, how the quotations came about. This Dr. Bischof is a recognized scholar. But, Mr. President, the whole matter could still be shortened if the Prosecution would state today that this whole matter regarding the ritual murder is not to be made a subject of the Indictment. There would then be eliminated from the trial an element which could only extend it in any case, and which can play no important part against the defendant anyhow, and has nothing to do with the actual Indictment.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to make that position perfectly clear. The important point in the case for the Prosecution


23 March 46

is the use of the suggestion against the Jews that they committed ritual murder. If someone takes something out of a book in the Middle Ages and reproduces it so that it will be understood by the ordinary reader as being a practice of Jews, or a reason for disliking Jews, then the Prosecution says that that is an evil method of stirring up hattred against the Jews. Whether anyone can find in the Jewish book of the Middle Ages some remark about ritual murders is really immaterial. The gravamen of the case for the Prosecution is using the ritual murder accusation as a method for stirring up hatred against the Jews today. That is the case which the defendant has to meet.

THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the application.

DR. MARX: I beg your pardon! I consider it necessary, nevertheless, to answer at least very briefly the statements of the preceding speaker, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. The fact is that the special number of Der Sturmer under discussion makes reference in particular to a trial which took place in 1899 at Piseck, in Moravia or Bohemia, and during which this question also figured. It is thus not true that the Defendant Streicher had as his basis only medieval superstition, but on the contrary, that he dealt, with material taken from modem legal history, using material, the genuineness of which I cannot establish, but which I cannot simply dispose of as incorrect and which the Tribunal also would probably have to investigate. That is why I said that this entire matter ought not to be touched at all. For here it is a question merely of whether Streicher was acting in good faith or not, and if he can say that trials of that kind have taken place and the judges actually were not unanimous, then one cannot say in fact that he acted against his better knowledge. That is what is essential in this matter. Thus, I personally would prefer to have this matter eliminated, if the Prosecution would no longer consider this whole subject matter as part of the Indictment.

THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the application.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next one on the list that I have, My Lord, is an application by the Defendant Goering for a Major Buex; spelled "B-u-e-x." I asked Dr. Stahmer and he was good enough to tell me that that was the same gentleman who was asked for as a witness by the Defendant Jodl, under the spelling of "B-u-e-c-h-s." I understand the Tribunal has granted him as a witness to the Defendant Jodl, and Dr. Stahmer will have the opportunity of asking him the questions then.

DR. STAHMER: I agree.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is an application by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. He requests Herr Hilger as a witness. The grounds of the application are that Dr. Horn and the Defendant


23 March 46

Ribbentrop found that the witness Gaus, for whom he had asked, was not able to give as much assistance as had been expected, and that they desired this witness Hilger in addition. The view of the Prosecution is that the defendant should have either Hilger or Gaus as a witness and an interrogatory to the other one, and we have no objection to the witness Hilger being brought to Nuremberg for consultation.

DR. SIEMERS: I am deputizing at the moment for Dr. Horn, defense counsel for the Defendant Ribbentrop. Actually, I had wanted to ask Sir David to postpone this matter a little, as I have had Dr. Horn asked to come here himself. We, the Defense Counsel, were not informed which applications would be dealt with today. Hence Dr. Horn is not present, at the moment. But I think that, if the Tribunal agree, the matter can perhaps be dealt with now, as far as I know, but I have to speak with Dr. Horn first, at any rate. I am speaking without prejudice.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not know what you mean about not being informed about these applications. I made the statement yesterday that supplementary applications for witnesses and documents would be taken this morning. I do not understand your saying you did not know what would be done. The Tribunal has no objection to it being taken later when Dr. Horn is here, if he comes in time.

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, and may I suggest that if Dr. Horn does not return in time, I am ready to settle the matter for him; by then I will be in a position to do so.


DR. MARX: Pardon, Mr. President; may I make one more very brief statement? Streicher just informs me that I should state that he will forego the witness Lothar Streicher. If, therefore, the calling of this witness was considered, then I state that the Defense will withdraw application for him.

THE PRESIDENT: Hasn't that been allowed -- Lothar Streicher?

SIR DAVID MAXWELI-FYFE: He was the witness who was not to be allowed on condition that the Prosecution applied to strike out this passage, and we agreed to that.


SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is an application for the Defendant Von Papen.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Sir David. Has that letter about withdrawing the statement about the witness Lothar Streicher been read into the record?


23 March 46

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not know if it has be read, into the record. It has been sent to the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: It had better be put in as a document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases. My Lord, the next is the application for the Defendant Von Papen, who requests that the witness Josten, who has been approved by the Tribunal as a witness, be changed to an affidavit, which counsel already has, and Dr. Kubuschok requests that Kroll be allowed as a witness. My Lord, the position with regard to Kroll was that the Prosecution submitted that he was not relevant, but the Tribunal allowed interrogatories for Kroll and, therefore, the Prosecution accepts the decision of the Tribunal that he is therefore relevant. On that basis, as Dr. Kubuschok is dropping one witness, we feel that we cannot object to his being brought as an oral witness, since the Tribunal has decided that his testimony is relevant.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes; and as to Josten, has the affidavit been submitted to you?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, I have just received itwith his signature. The witness Josten has appeared today and has signed the affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: All I am thinking of is that the Prosecution may hereafter want to have him called for cross-examination.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have not seen the affidavit yet, My Lord; I am sorry. I will look into that.

THE PRESIDENT: The result of that would be that both witnesses would have to be here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I appreciate that, My Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: I was taking it that Dr. Kubuschok meant an affidavit and not an interrogatory.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, a sworn affidavit.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps, My Lord, the Tribunal would postpone a decision on this point until I have had a chance to consider the affidavit, and then I will communicate with Dr. Kubuschok and with the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I Mr. President, mention yet another case. I had been granted the witness Von Tschirschky, who is at present in England, for oral interrogation. The witness has written to the Tribunal that it is difficult for him to be absent from England at the moment, and requests that his evidence be taken in writing. I am agreeable to this and have drafted an interrogatory which is now being submitted to the Tribunal. This, again, would mean


23 March 46

another witness gone, Tschirschky, as well as Josten, so that I request earnestly that the witness Kroll be granted as an oral witness, since a considerable saving of time has now been accomplished.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you have no objection to that?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I have no objection to that. I may have to consider certain cross-interrogatories for the witness, but that will not affect the position of Dr. Tschirschky.

Next is the application by the Defendant Rosenberg for a document -- Hitler's letter to Rosenberg dated 1924. This document is in regard to Rosenberg's anti-Semitism. As far as I know, the Prosecution has not any of these documents, but Dr. Thoma can explain what he wants. I have no objection to having these documents if they can be found.

DR. THOMA: Mr. President, may I first draw your attention to the fact that my application for a document -- Rosenberg's letter to Hitler, in which Rosenberg asks not to be a candidate for the Reichstag -- has since been handed to me. This application has thus been settled. Secondly, I have...

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Dr. Thoma. You withdraw that application because you have that letter, do you not? You said, "With that, the application has been settled." Do you mean that you withdraw that application?

DR. THOMA: No, Mr. President. The Tribunal has already permitted me to offer this document as soon as it was found. It has since been found.

Furthermore. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the document in which Rosenberg writes to Hitler and asks to be relieved from the position of editor-in-chief of the Volkischer Beobachter has been allowed me likewise. But I have not yet received it.

Thirdly, may I ask that two further documents be granted me. Two documents, which, during interrogation, have already been shown to Rosenberg by the Prosecution. The first is a decree of Hitler sent to Rosenberg in June 1943, in which Hitler instructs Rosenberg to limit himself to the principal matters in Eastern questions ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, you are now dealing with applications which are not in writing; are you not?

DR. THOMA: Yes, I have already submitted them in writing.

THE PRESIDENT: I have only two applications here as far as can see.


23 March 46

One with reference to Hitler's letter to Rosenberg dated 1924, and the other with reference to three books about Jews. These are the only two applications I have got.

DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I already made these applications during open session, and as far as I know, I had submitted them in writing even before making them in open session. I have in fact received an answer as regards two documents applied for. But for two applications the reply is still outstanding. Hence I request the Tribunal's permission to submit these two applications in writing again.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you will be allowed to if you will make them clear. You ask for two further documents, and the first one, I understood you to say, was a decree dated June 1943. Is that right?

DR. THOMA: That is correct. And the next document is a letter from Hitler to Rosenberg in which Hitler informs Rosenberg of the reasons for his not wanting to work in the Reichstag and for not wanting to participate in the elections. But I do recall that I submitted this application in writing, and I beg to submit it again now.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the application will be considered. Are you referring to the document of 1924, the letter from Hitler to Rosenberg dated 1924?

DR. THOMA: Yes, 1923 or 1924. Then, Gentlemen, I have also this fundamental application regarding the question of anti-Semitism. I have asked here to be permitted only a few historic writings, these on the question as to why the Jewish problem has existed in Germany, I believe even from the 8th century, and why persecutions of the Jews recur persistently in Germany. I want thereby to establish that in this connection we are concerned with some tragic fact which we do not rationally understand. By producing evidence both from Jewish and from Christian theological literature, I want to prove that we are not concerned with the fact that the German people were misled into exterminating the Jews, and that the influence of the National Socialist Party was such as to bring the German people to such hate for the Jews, but that we are rather here facing irrational conditions and that this is recognized both in Jewish and Christian literature. I wish also to establish that an ffitellectual dispute between Jewry and the German race has existed on a purely intellectual level, and in fact in a purely intellectual way, because actually Moritz Goldstein said in 1911 -- I mention only one example -- that the Jews in Germany administer the intellectual wealth of Germany. Thus here it is a matter of depicting the problem in Germany, the role of Judaism in the cultural history of Germany, and why such a drastic contrast between Judaism and the


23 March 46

German race exists here in Germany. I intend to quote only literature in this connection, but I believe that my statements in the closing speech will not be sufficiently credible to the Court if I have not also quoted scientific -- recognized scientific -- writings. That is all with which I am concerned.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, your applications will be considered.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next application is on behalf of the Defendant Speer, who requests a number of documents dealing with the Central Planning Committee. I have not actually had the opportunity of checking these with the exhibits, but if, as I believe, they are the ones which were put by Mr. Justice Jackson to the Defendant Goering in cross-examination, I think they are all either exhibits or the documents which the Prosecution have, and they relate to the Defendant Speer. If he does not have them, then we should do our best to give them copies.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you said they all had been put to the Defendant Goering in cross-examination and were either exhibits or documents; but if they have been put to the Defendant Goering, then they should be exhibits ...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, Your Honor, they should be exhibits; I have not had the opportunity of checking them, but if they have been presented in Court they must be exhibits.

The next one is an application on behalf of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart for interrogatories to be submitted to Dr. Uiberreither. The Tribunal will remember he was Gauleiter of one of the outstanding Austrian Gaue, and a collaborator in the National Socialist Movement in Austria. I have no objection to these interrogatories being submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: He gave another affidavit, did he not, a day or two ago?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, Sir. That was for another defendant, Goering. Dr. Uiberreither obviously has some knowledge of the Austrian position. The only question is as to the requirements and the special subject of the interrogatories. I don't know. I have to reserve my position as to actual wording of questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you seen the interrogatory?


THE PRESIDENT: They have been deposited before us.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord; I had seen them. It is my mistake. Dr. Uiberreither right here comes into the picture once or twice. I had seen this application. And the only


23 March 46

objection the Prosecution felt was to the somewhat leading form of the questions that were put, and perhaps my friends, Mr. Dodd and Colonel Baldwin, could have a word on that point with Dr. Kubuschok, or whoever represents Seyss-Inquart, before they are actually delivered.


SIR DAVID MAXWELL-YYFE: The next one is an application in regard to the Defendant Sauckel. Dr. Kubuschok tells me there is another application on behalf of Seyss-Inquart which was not on the form in front of me. [Turning to Dr. Kubuschok.] Perhaps you would develop that?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Defendant Seyss-Inquart is requesting permission for an interrogatory to the witness Bohle. The examination of this witness has been refused by the Tribunal on the grounds that it would be cumulative evidence. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart requests again to have these matters of evidence clarified, this time only by way of an interrogatory. The witness is essential, particularly as the subject of his evidence cannot be established by means of other direct witnesses. The other witnesses who have been named in this connection can only state what they have been told by Bohle. Regarding the actual events, Bohle is the only man who can make statements based on his own knowledge.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, if other witnesses who have been granted are going to give what we call hearsay evidence, from what they heard from Bohle, why wasn't Bohle asked for instead of one of these other witnesses? I

DR. KUBUSCHOK: I do not know the intention of my colleague who is defending Seyss-Inquart. All I know is that he has asked supplementarily for indirect witnesses here, but I am told now that Bohle is considered as a direct witness, and this because it must be expected that the other witnesses, for whom this matter is not so important, may not remember some points.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you want to say anything about it, Sir David?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal will remember that I informed the Tribunal that all the questions to Bohle were the same as those to the witness Von der Wense, except two, which I think dealt with the requisitioning of lorries, and about which there could be little dispute. It seemed to the Prosecution therefore that here was clear proof that this witness was entirely cumulative. The interrogation is the same, word for word, as the interrogation of the witness, Von der Wense.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: It was certainly not expressed clearly in the original applications that the other witnesses only know what they


23 March 46

have heard from Bohle. In fact, we are here concerned with evidence on instructions given by Bohle personally, on which he is of course the best witness. If necessary we would agree that the subject of that evidence be eliminated as far as the other witnesses are concerned.

THE PRESIDENT: Unless the matter can be agreed upon, the Tribunal can scarcely decide on it without seeing the interrogatory to Bohle and the interrogatories to these other witnesses. Would it meet the case if we were to grant this interrogatory on the condition that, if it appeared subsequently that other interrogatories when considered with this one were cumulative, they might be disregarded?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, as far as I am concerned.


SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is the Defendant Sauckel, and Dr. Servatius and Mr. Roberts of my staff have been considering this carefully together. Dr. Servatius is not here. Perhaps Mr. Roberts can tell the Tribunal how far they got.

MR. ROBERTS: Dr. Servatius submitted a list of about 90 documents, a formidable number; but most of them are short extracts from various decrees and orders relating to the employment of labor, and it is difficult to find any reason for objecting to them. Dr. Servatius at my suggestion agreed to take from his list about 10 or 15 as cumulative. There are about four documents relating to alleged ill-treatment of workers at the hands of the enemies of Germany, to which I have objected on the ground that they are not relevant, and as to those documents a decision of the Tribunal will be necessary as a question of principle.

My Lord, as Dr. Servatius could not, as I understand, be here today, perhaps we could discuss the matter with the General Secretary on his return at the beginning of next week, so that the matter then could be put in a convenient and more or less agreed on form to the Tribunal.


Then you haven't been able to come to any agreement about the witnesses, have you?

MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I thought the position as to the witnesses was this: That Sir David some weeks ago discussed it before the Tribunal and Dr. Servatius discussed it, and Sir David conceded the calling of six witnesses and affidavits from a number of others. That was considered by Dr. Servatius, and he submitted his final and much-reduced list of 11 witnesses, which I handed to an official of the Tribunal, and which I understood has been before the Tribunal.


23 March 46

THE PRESIDENT: Have you the date there? Is it 4 March 1946?

MR. ROBERTS: I have a document before me in German ...


MR. ROBERTS: And the Prosecution's position was fully stated by Sir David when these matters were being considered before, and it would be now really for the Tribunal. I think, to decide on those two contentions -- one for 6 witnesses, and one for 11. What their decision should be ...

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, that takes us to the end of the listed ones. There were some that were received later.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is one from the Defendant Frank who requests interrogatories to Ambassador Messersmith. That was granted by the Tribunal, and in an executive session. It was not requested in Counsels' consolidated applications, but heard in open court. There is obviously no objection to that in principle that the Prosecution are aware of.

Then the Defendant Von Ribbentrop requests the book, America in the Battle of the Continents, by Sven Hedin ...

THE PRESIDENT: Other defendants have administered interrogatories to Mr. Messersmith, have they not?


THE PRESIDENT: Have the answers been received yet?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They have not been received, I am told.

THE PRESIDENT: How long is it since they were sent off?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will find out, My Lord. 21 February.

THE PRESIDENT: You have seen these interrogatories, the ones now suggested by the Defendant Frank?


THE PRESIDENT: There are five of them.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The position is that we got them yesterday and they are still being discussed between my delegation and the American delegation. They have not actually come to me yet.

THE PRESIDENT: We had better consider this.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is an application by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop, who asks for the book, America in the Battle of the Continents, by Sven Hedin. That must be subject


23 March 46

to the general use of books, and if there are passages that the defendant wants to use, if he will submit them then we can deal with their relevance when the individual passage comes up.

THE PRESIDENT: That also will be considered.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases. Then there is an application on behalf of the Defendant Schacht for the book, Warnings and Prophecies, by the late Lord Rothermere. The same, I submit, should apply to that. Any passages desired to be used can be extracted and shown to us, and then their relevance can be considered when use is attempted to be made of them. Dr. Dix nods agreement to that.

Now, I understand there is an application on behalf of the Defendant Von Neurath. I understand that he wishes copies of the interrogations of Dr. Gaus, who is the gentleman who is mentioned as a witness for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. The general ruling of the Tribunal has been, as I understand it, that the defendants are only entitled to copies of interrogations which are going to be used against them, that is, their own interrogations, and it would be an extension of the rule which might lead us into general difficulties if this were extended to copies of the interrogations of other witnesses. Therefore the Prosecution object in principle to that.

But as I gather that Dr. Von Ludinghausen wants it for the purpose of preparing the case, if he would care to come and see me or my staff, perhaps it could be conveyed to him; and if he indicates any matters on which we can help him, we will be very pleased to discuss them with him.

THE PRESIDENT: Where is Dr. Gaus?


THE PRESIDENT: Can't Dr. Ludinghausen see him here?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would welcome that. I have not the least objection to that at all. That will probably ease the situation.

THE PRESIDENT: Both courses appear appropriate, that Dr. Ludinghausen could perhaps see you ...


THE PRESIDENT: ... with reference to interrogatories and see Dr. Gaus in the prison here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELIFYFE: I welcome both of these courses.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, that concludes the matters.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As far as Ribbentrop is concerned ....


23 March 46

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, as Dr. Horn is not here, perhaps you could deal with that application with reference to Hilger.

DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I am prepared to do that, but since I have not talked to Dr. Horn I must ask that Dr. Horn not be bound by my statements.

Hilger is a witness of very great importance, since he was an Embassy Counsellor in Moscow, and that during the period when negotiations for a pact were conducted between Germany and Russia, until the outbreak of the war with Russia. He is therefore the person who participated in all negotiations, is well acquainted with the attitude and the dealings of Von Ribbentrop, and therefore the best informed and most reliable witness. Hilger, until now has been in the background as a witness, since Dr. Horn had asked for the ambassador, Dr. Gaus. But Dr. Horn withdrew, or has withdrawn, his application for Dr. Gaus, as far as I know, and wants only, in reference to some lesser points, to have possibly an affidavit or an interrogatory. I assume that Sir David agrees to this, if I submit it in that form.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Siemers?

DR. SIEMERS: Sir David has just very kindly expressed his agreement to this course.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I agree, My Lord, as I suggested, that if this witness Hilger is called as an oral witness, an interrogatory be administered to the witness Gaus.


That is all, isn't it?


THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn to consider these matters.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 25 March 1946 at 1000 hours.]


Nuremberg Trials Page Volume 9 Menu

127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06511.