4000bce - 399
400 - 1399
1400 - 1499
1500 - 1599
1600 - 1699
1700 - 1799
1800 - 1899
1900 - 1999
THE PRESIDENT: I will deal with the supplementary applications for documents.
The first application on this list was on behalf of the Defendant Von Neurath, and that has been dealt with.
The second was on behalf of the Defendant Streicher. That was withdrawn. '
The third was on behalf of the Defendant Doenitz for an affidavit of former Fleet Judge Jackel. That application is granted.
The next two, 4 and 5, were on behalf of the Defendant Von Neurath. Those have been withdrawn.
The next three, 6, 7, and 8, on behalf of the Defendant Rosenberg, are denied.
The next, on behalf of the Defendant Von Papen, have all been dealt with during the presentation of the defense on behalf of Von Papen.
The next two, on behalf of the Defendant Bormann, are granted.
The last three, 12, 13, and 14, on behalf of the Defendant Goering, are subject to the possibility of agreement being reached upon the question of whether affidavits are to be presented or witnesses called, and therefore that application is postponed.
That is all.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, before the Tribunal goes on with the business of the day, I should like to inform the Tribunal of the results of my inquiries as to outstanding witnesses and perhaps these could be supplemented by any of the learned counsel who can.
My Lord, as far as I can see, there are the witnesses whom Your Lordship has just mentioned of the Defendant Goering, dealing with the question of Katyn.
My Lord the next witnesses that were outstanding were three that the Tribunal allowed to be called for cross-examination if desired in respect to the case of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. I have just had a word with Dr. Kauffmann, and he says that he will
29 June 46
not require the witnesses Tiefenbacher, Steinbauer, and Strupp for cross-examination.
As far as my information goes, the next is Admiral Bohm in the case of the Defendant Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you get to that, Sir David, on the list that I have there was a witness called Strupp for Kaltenbrunner.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, there are three, Tiefenbacher, Steinbauer, and Strupp. Dr. Kauffmann tells me he does not want these.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well Then you were speaking about the Defendant Raeder.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is the question of Admiral Bohm. Dr. Siemers was going to let the Prosecution see an affidavit, and I have not seen it yet; but, My Lord, I do not anticipate that the Prosecution will require that witness unless the affidavit is in very different form from what I expect.
My Lord, the only other witnesses that I know about are the three for which application was made by Dr. Fritz yesterday in the present case. The Tribunal is considering that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that, as far as I can see, is the full extent of the outstanding witnesses, unless I have missed some.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there an application for witnesses from the Defendant Bormann on the 26th of June?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I asked Bergold this morning. He has only got one witness that he is calling, he told me, who unfortunately is not here today.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am told he has just now arrived.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE My Lord, Your Lordship's information is later than mine.
THE PRESIDENT: It has only this moment come through.
But so far as the others are concerned, there is only the one that Dr. Bergold wants to call now?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So Dr. Bergold informed me this morning.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Court, only one witness has arrived. But I have put in several more requests which have not been decided on, and I cannot say whether these witnesses will ever arrive or whether they can be found. The Bormann case is characterized by the fact that not only the defendant cannot be found but
29 June 46
almost all the witnesses cannot be found either. In the course of today's proceedings on the Bormann case I should like to put a special application before the High Tribunal which I do not wish to do just now.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Will you tell us exactly which witnesses you are referring to?
In your letter of the 29th of June you withdraw your application for Fraulein Christians.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Klopfer is the witness who just arrived in Nuremberg.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes. Then there are the witnesses Kupfer and Rattenhuber who are still not here and also the witness Christians.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Helmut Friedrich has not been located?
DR. BERGOLD: No, he has not-been found.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you wanting to call Fraulein Christians?
DR. BERGOLD: She has not yet arrived either. She was at Camp Oberursel. She received leave and while on leave disappeared-obviously she has fled.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got your application of 26 June or did you make an application of 26 June?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I did make an application.
THE PRESIDENT: Whom did you ask for then?
DR. BERGOLD: Just a minute, I have to consult my secretary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Fraulein Christians and Dr. Helmut Friedrich.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Klopfer and Friedrich.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, and Fraulein Christians, My Lord.
DR. BERGOLD: On 26 June I applied for the witnesses Falkenhorst, Rattenhuber, and Kempka. I could dispense with Falkenhorst if I might have Dr. Klopfer instead.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Klopfer is the only one who has arrived, as I understand it.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, the only one who has arrived, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What the Tribunal wants to know is how many you want to call now, and with reference to the others you had better withdraw them if you cannot find them.
DR. BERGOLD: Very well, Your Lordship, I wanted to put in an application for postponement. The witness Dr. Klopfer has only
just arrived. Up to now I have not had a chance to talk to him and I consider it unjust for him to have to testify here for the first time. Moreover, he is not prepared, he does not know the documents which have been presented by the Prosecution, and I myself do not know whether he has any knowledge about the things on which I want to question him. Therefore, I should like to apply for the proceedings in the case of Bormann to be postponed until 10 o'clock on Monday to give me the opportunity to hear my one chief witness and to discuss the case with him. I do not even know whether I want to have the witness interrogated for he may possibly make statements that are quite irrelevant. It is not my fault that I have not heard him until now. I applied many months ago to have him brought here and I would not have found him even today if at the last moment I had not had the very kind assistance of the American Prosecution. I believe-I have also spoken to Sir Maxwell-Fyfe-a postponement until Monday at 10 o'clock would be quite proper for my case in order to give me at least time to prepare; if not-my defendant has not been here and my witnesses have not been here and I have not been able to prepare anything.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Bergold, you have had many months in which to prepare your case and the Tribunal has put the matter back for you already for a very long time and this witness is now here. You can see him immediately and the Tribunal thinks you ought to go on. You must have known that the case would come on, in the same way every other case has come on, in its proper place, subject to the license which has been allowed to you to have your case put back to the end and all your applications for witnesses and documents put back to the very latest possible moment; and the witness is here and we still have some time to deal with the witnesses for Fritzsche and documents.
The Tribunal thinks in those-circumstances you ought to go on.
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, it is quite correct I have had months at my disposal; but if I can obtain no witnesses and no information-I ask the Tribunal to put themselves in my place. What is the use to me of waiting many months in vain, months during which I could do nothing. The witnesses were not here, nobody could tell me where the witness Klopfer could be found. He was only found at the very last moment. I cannot discuss the entire case with him in 15 minutes. I am just asking for a very short postponement until Monday morning. The Tribunal will lose only a very few hours through that. It is not my fault that I have been assigned such an unusual defendant, one who is not present.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, the only thing you propose to prove by this witness is the alleged fact that Bormann is dead and
29 June 46
any evidence he can give about that. That is what the application says.
DR. BERGOLD: No, may it please the Court, that is a mistake. The witness Klopfer cannot testify as to that. He can only give his opinion as to the rest of the Indictment, namely whether Bormann is guilty or not. Only the witnesses Christians, Lueger, and Rattenhuber can give evidence as to the death of the Defendant Bormann. But the witness Klopfer can only testify concerning the Indictment itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the application for Klopfer? Where is your application?
DR. BERGOLD: It is my application of 26 May.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me see it. Have you got it there? Dr. Bergold, do you not have anything else at all in the way of documents or evidence that you can continue with without calling this witness Klopfer?,
DR. BERGOLD: My Lord, what I have is so small and meager that I myself do not know whether it is relevant until I have questioned the witness. Up to this point I have been dependent on pure supposition. I have not been able to receive or obtain any effective data. They are all legal constructions which can be made untenable by one word from the witness.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): Mr. President, I have an objection to any postponement for this case. As the Court has pointed out, counsel has had months and he had every co-operation from our office, both for his documents and for his seeking out of his witnesses; and if he would stop talking and go out and talk with his witness, who is here now, I think he might be prepared to go on with his case.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, the Tribunal will go on with the case against the Defendant Fritzsche now, and in the meantime, you will have an opportunity of seeing this witness Klopfer; and if after seeing him you wish to make further application, you may do so; but the Tribunal hopes that, if you can ascertain what the nature of his evidence is, that you will be able to go on with it.
I now have your-I had it only in German before-but I now have in English your application for the witness Klopfer, and a summary of it is that he was head of Section III in the Party Chancellery and he can deal with questions relating to the drafting and elaboration of laws and that he is to testify that the activity of Bormann in the proclamation of laws and ordinances was an entirely subordinate one. That is the only reason why you allege that you want to call him in your application.
29 June 46
DR. BERGOLD: That is my supposition. There is the possibility that the witness, of course, really knows much more, for he was one of the chief collaborators. I drew up my applications very carefully, because as a lawyer I did not want to submit a fantasy to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have said what you can do with reference to Klopfer, and are you still asking to call a witness called Falkenhorst?
DR. BERGOLD: I can only decide on that after I have talked with the witness Klopfer. In all probability I shall forego the calling of this witness Falkenhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you heard what I said, Dr. Bergold. You can now see Dr. Klopfer.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I only wanted the Tribunal to know that that was the position as to witnesses; and when Your Lordship asked me, I said that the process of finishing off witnesses might take 2 days. My Lord, subject to the Katyn witnesses, it might take much shorter than that, as I am at present advised.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And when shall we be informed what the position is with reference to the Katyn witnesses, as to whether there is an agreement as to using affidavits or calling witnesses?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I Will make inquiries and try to let Your Lordship know at the end of the session.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it that we shall not be able to go into that this morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not think so. Apart from that, there are certain outstanding interrogatories which Counsel for the Defense may want to refer the Tribunal to; but that is the only other matter I know. From the point of view of the Prosecution, there may be a few documents which will be put in more or less to clarify points that have arisen during the case, rather than formal evidence and rebuttal. They will be quite small in number and will not take any time.
THE PRESIDENT: Were there any documents on behalf of the Defendant Von Neurath which have got to be dealt with?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My recollection is that there were one or two interrogatories, but apart from that I do not know of any others.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps those matters had better be gone into on Monday morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
29 June 46
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal hopes that counsel for the defendants understand that the Tribunal will expect them to be prepared to go on with their speeches on behalf of the defendants directly the evidence is finished.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is to try to give some indication of the time that I ventured to intervene this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understand it, the proposal is that Professor Jahrreiss will make his general speech first.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understand the professor is ready to do that and I thought it would be useful if it were known that that might occur even on Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then, now, Dr. Fritz, perhaps you will continue with your witness.
[The witness Von Schirmeister resumed the stand.]
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I beg to be permitted to continue with the examination of the witness Von Schirmeister.
Witness, yesterday, at the end of the session, we stopped at the point dealing with the anti-Semitism expressed by the Defendant Fritzsche in his radio speeches; in connection with that point, I have a further question. According to the statement made by Dr. Goebbels, to where were the Jews evacuated?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Up to the first year of the Russian campaign, Dr. Goebbels in the conferences over which he presided, repeatedly mentioned the Madagascar plan. Later he changed this and said that a new Jewish state was to be formed in the East, to which the Jews were to be taken.
DR. FRITZ: Do you know whether, in dealing with reports from abroad concerning alleged German atrocities, not only towards the Jews but towards other peoples as well, Fritzsche always had inquiries made at the RSHA or other authorities concerned?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Yes. Not only with regard to atrocity reports but all propaganda reports from abroad which were embarrassing to us. He made inquiries sometimes at the office of Muller, at the RSHA in Berlin, and sometimes he inquired of the authorities that were directly concerned in these matters.
DR. FRITZ: And what other agencies were concerned besides the RSHA where he might have made inquiries?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: For example, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the Armament Ministry, the OKW; it all depended.
29 June 46
DR. FRITZ: Do you know whether in reply to such inquiries a clear and completely plausible denial was given, or how was a matter of this sort handled?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: There were not always denials, not at all; very frequently we had quite precise answers. For example, if it was asserted that there had been a strike in Bohemia-Moravia, then the answer was: Yes, in such and such a factory a strike took place. But always and without exception, there was a very definite denial of concentration camp atrocities and so forth. That is precisely why these denials were so widely believed. I must emphasize that this was our only possibility of getting information. These pieces of information were not intended for the public, but for the minister, and again and again the answer came: "No, there is no word of truth in this." Even today I do not know by what other means we could have obtained information.
DR. FRITZ: Can you say anything about Fritzsche's attitude on church questions?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Herr Fritzsche adopted the views taken by the minister during the war. At the beginning of the war, the minister demanded complete cessation of the strife regarding this question, for anything which could have brought dissension among the German people would have had a disturbing influence. I do not know whether I should go into further details.
DR. FRITZ: No, I shall turn to another very important topic. Do you know what reasons Goebbels gave to his assistants for the various military actions of Germany?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: He gave no reasons of his own at all. He only added his comments to the announcements coming from the Fuehrer. '`
DR. FRITZ: To quote some examples, can you say briefly whether the Defendant Fritzsche knew in advance that a military attack was being planned on first, Poland; second, Belgium and Holland; third, Yugoslavia?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: In the case of Poland, we knew of course that the question of Danzig and the Corridor was awaiting a decision. But Dr. Goebbels himself repeatedly assured us, and he himself believed, that this question would not lead to war because, completely mistaken in his view of the attitude of the Western Powers, he was convinced that they were only bluffing and that Poland would not risk a war without the military support of the Western Powers.
DR. FRITZ: What about Belgium and Holland?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: On the day before the attack on Belgium and Holland events were overshadowed by the state visit of the
29 June 46
Italian Minister Pavolini. In the evening there was a performance at the theater and afterwards a reception in the House of the Airmen. At night Dr. Goebbels went with me to the ministry where he occasionally spent the night. During the night I had to telephone to several gentlemen; and in the morning the minister, in my presence, presented to Herr Fritzsche the two announcements which were then broadcast, the first containing the military reasons and the second containing the secret service reasons. Herr Fritzsche did not even have time to look at these announcements, moreover, he had a sore throat and I had to read the second broadcast with the secret service reasons; I also had not seen these announcements beforehand.
DR. FRITZ: What about Yugoslavia?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: The same thing happened In the evening the minister had dismissed his adjutant, had given him leave. During the night I had to call the various gentlemen over the phone and ask them to assemble; and early in the morning the statement, which up to that time had been completely unknown to us, was read to us over the radio.
DR. FRITZ: And what happened in the case of the attack on the Soviet Union? ~
VON SCHIRMEISTER: That was even more preposterous. Before the attack on the Soviet Union, the minister, for purposes of camouflage, had lied to his own department chiefs. Around the beginning of May he selected 10 of his colleagues out of the 20 who ordinarily participated in the conferences, and he told them:
"Gentlemen, I know that some of you think that we are going to fight Russia, but I must tell you today that we are going to fight England; the invasion is imminent. Please adapt your work accordingly. You, Dr. Glasmeier, will launch a new propaganda campaign against England..."
These were impudent lies told to his own department chiefs for purposes of camouflage.
DR. FRITZ: Are you implying that no one in the Propaganda Ministry knew of the imminent campaign against Russia?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: No. The following gentlemen in the Propaganda Ministry knew about the Russian campaign-if I may presume, a letter to Dr. Goebbels from Lammers offered a clue for it, for in it Lammers told the minister in confidence that the Fuehrer intended to appoint Herr Rosenberg to be Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories; the letter also asked Dr. Goebbels to name a liaison man from our ministry to Herr Rosenberg personally, and that, of course, gave away the secret. The people who knew of this were the minister; Herr Hadamowsky, as his provisional personal
29 June 46
representative; Dr. Tauber, the liaison man to be appointed; I, myself, because by accident I had read this letter; and the head of the foreign press department, Dr. Bohme. Dr. Bohme, and this is very important, told me on the day before his arrest in the presence of Prince Schaumburg-Lippe that he had received this information from Rosenberg's circle, that is-and I want to emphasize this-not from our ministry or from our minister. Otherwise, as heads of two parallel departments, both would, of course, have been informed. If Bohme did not know it from the minister, then Herr Fritzsche could not have known it either. As a result of a careless remark on this subject, Bohme was arrested on the following day and later killed in action.
DR. FRITZ: Now I want to summarize this part of my examination in the following general question: Did you ever notice that before important political or military actions of the Government or the NSDAP, Goebbels exchanged ideas about future plans with the Defendant Fritzsche?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: It is quite impossible that that occurred; it would have been in complete contradiction to the minister's principles. Not only did he not exchange ideas on future plans but. he did not even inform anyone.
DR. FRITZ: Now we shall turn to a different subject. The Prosecution charges the Defendant Fritzsche with having influenced the German people in the idea of the master race and thus with having incited hatred against other nations. Did Fritzsche ever receive instructions at all to conduct a propaganda campaign on behalf of the theory of the master race?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: No, under no circumstances. In this connection, one must know that Dr. Goebbels could not at all use this Party dogma and myth. These are not things which attract the masses. To him the Party was a large reservoir in which as many different sections of the German people as possible should be united; and particularly this idea of the master race, perhaps on account of his own physical disability, he ridiculed and rejected completely; it did not appeal to him. Shall I answer the question of hatred now? You also asked me about that.
DR. FRITZ: Yes.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: A propaganda of hatred against other nations was quite contrary to the propaganda line as set out by Dr. Goebbels, for he hoped, and to the end he clung to this hope like a fata morgana, that one day he could change from the policy of "against England" and "against America" to the policy of "with England" and "with America." And if one wants to do that one
29 June 46
cannot foster hatred against a nation. He wanted to be in line with the nations, not against them.
DR. FRITZ: Against whom then was this propaganda in the press and on the radio directed?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Primarily, against systems; it was Dr. Goebbels who established the concept "plutocracy" in the sense in which the whole world knows it today, later the concept "Bolshevism" was added from the other side. Sometimes his propaganda was directed against some of the men in power; but he could not get the full co-operation of the German press on that point. That annoyed him; and in a conference he once said, "Gentlemen, if I could put 10 Jews in your place, I could get it done." But later he stopped these attacks on personalities such as Churchill; he was afraid that these men would become too popular as a result of his counterpropaganda. Apart from that he did not hate
Churchill personally at all, secretly he actuary admired him; just as, for example, throughout the war he had a picture of the Duke of Windsor on his desk. Therefore the propaganda of hatred was directed temporarily against individual men but always against systems.
DR. FRITZ: Witness, before answering the next question, will you check your memory very carefully, and particularly remember your oath. Was it the aim of this propaganda for which Fritzsche received orders and which he carried out, to arouse unrestrained passions tantamount to incitement to murder and violence, or what was its purpose?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: No. The minister could not use passions at all in his propaganda, for passions flare up and die down again. What the minister did need was a steady and constant line, steadfastness even in hard times. Stirring up of passions, inciting to hatred, or even murder would not have appealed to the German people nor could Dr. Goebbels use anything like that.
DR. FRITZ: Did German propaganda abroad, especially in Russia, come under the direction of the Propaganda Ministry at all?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I must differentiate here. I do not know whether I should go into the well-known differences between Dr. Goebbels and Ribbentrop. At the beginning of the war the Foreign Office had demanded charge of all foreign propaganda, namely, propaganda in foreign countries, radio propaganda broadcasts to foreign countries, and propaganda directed towards foreigners living in Germany. Very disagreeable controversies resulted; the problem was put to the Fuehrer himself, but finally both sides interpreted his decision in their own favor.
DR. FRITZ: Witness, would you, perhaps, be a little more brief?
29 June 46
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Very well, I can leave that. The differences between the two men are well known. However, in regard to Russia, I must add that there both press and propaganda came under the jurisdiction of Herr Rosenberg up to about March of 1944. And in this sphere as well, Dr. Goebbels. ..
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, wait a minute. What has this Russian propaganda got to do with the defendant?
DR. FRITZ: No; the German propaganda in Russian territory- that is what I asked him about. He is only going to say one sentence about it; in fact, he has already said it,
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Up to 1944, Rosenberg-to the great concern of Dr. Goebbels who believed that the Russian campaign could have been won in the field of propaganda.
DR. FRITZ: I have one more question to put to you.
Yesterday, when Herr Fritzsche was being cross-examined, the Prosecution submitted several interrogation records; among them, for example, that of Field Marshal Schorner, in which the testimony is unanimous in saying that Fritzsche was the permanent deputy of Goebbels as Propaganda Minister. Is that correct?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: That is bare nonsense. I cannot imagine how a statement like that came to be made. There is not a word of truth in it.
DR. FRITZ: Thank you. Mr. President, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any of the other defendants' counsel want to ask any questions of the witness?
[There was no response.]
Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, the Prosecution do not intend to question this witness; but this does not mean that we accept without objection the testimony which he has given here.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may retire.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I should like to point out and request the Tribunal to take judicial notice also of the documents which are contained in both my document books but which I did not quote. In my Document Book Number 2 there is another affidavit deposed by Dr. Scharping, a document which I offer to the Tribunal as Document Number Fritzsche-3, Pages 16 to 19. This affidavit deals with the attitude of the Defendant Fritzsche on measures which Hitler had planned after the large-scale air attacks on the city of Dresden. May I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the entire contents of this affidavit, on Page 16 and the following pages, Document Book Number 2.
29 June 46
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, the Tribunal observe that in Exhibit 3, which you have just presented to us, there is a statement by the person making the affidavit that after the bombing of German cities in the fall of 1944, "Dr. Goebbels stated that there was no longer any objection to handing over crew members of crashed airplanes to the wrath of the people."
The Tribunal would like to have the Defendant Fritzsche back in the witness box and to question him about that.
Did you ask any questions of the Defendant Fritzsche in reference to this matter in your examination of him?
DR. FRITZ: No, Mr. President, I expected-I wanted to say at the conclusion of my ease that I had expected a statement on this subject from the representative of the protecting power, the Swiss Ambassador in Berlin. This statement has, however, not yet reached me. I wanted to ask permission to submit it later if it arrives in time.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that another interrogatory or affidavit that you ' mean?
DR. FRITZ: Yes, it is a statement which deals with this subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. FRITZ: And if I may be permitted to add this, Mr. President, I also expect a statement from a British radio commentator, Clifton Delmar. That statement has not yet arrived. May I perhaps submit that?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, you may. But what the Tribunal is concerned with at the moment is that they think it material that they should know...
DR. FRITZ: Yes, I quite understand, Mr. President.
[The Defendant Fritzsche resumed the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: You are still under oath. You may sit down.
You have read this affidavit?
FRITZSCHE: But I no longer remember it in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: We did not hear the answer to that.
FRITZSCHE: I no longer recall in detail this affidavit which my counsel has just submitted to the Tribunal. I know that it exists, however.
THE PRESIDENT: The statement that the Tribunal wished you to be asked about was this:
"Beginning in the fall of 1944, Dr. Goebbels also spoke about this frequently during his so-called conferences of ministers . . ."
29 June 46
I'll begin before that:
"The increasing effect of English and American air bombardments on German cities caused Hitler and his more intimate advisers to seek drastic measures of reprisal. Beginning in the fall of 1944, Dr. Goebbels also spoke about this frequently during his so-called conferences of ministers, to which numerous officials and technicians of his ministry were convened and which, as a rule, I also attended."
That is Franz Scharping?
"On such occasions Dr. Goebbels stated that there was no longer any objection to handing over crew members of crashed planes to the wrath of the people."
As you know, there has been a great deal of evidence about that before this Tribunal. Did you in your propaganda speeches make any references to this subject?
FRITZSCHE: No, I never advocated in my propaganda speeches that the crews of aircraft which had been shot down should be killed. On the other hand, I know that Dr. Goebbels, for reasons of intimidation, ordered reports to be sent abroad already in the fall of 1944, reports to the effect that, to quote an example, an Anglo Saxon airplane which had machine-gunned church-goers in the street on a Sunday had been shot down and the members of the crew had been lynched by the people. Actually this report had no factual basis; it hardly could have been true, since it is quite improbable that an airplane is shot down at just such a moment.
I know that Dr. Goebbels, through a circular letter addressed to the Gau Propaganda Offices, asked that details of such incidents, if they actually occurred, should be transmitted to him; but to my knowledge he did not receive any factual details of this sort. That was also the time in which he had an article on this subject written in Reich; I cannot recall the title of this article at the moment. In any event, this campaign, having died down in January or February, flared up again in the days after the air attack on Dresden, and the following incident occurred. Dr. Goebbels announced in the "11 o'clock morning conference," which has been mentioned quite frequently in this courtroom, that in the Dresden attack 40,000 people had been killed. It was not known then that the actual figure was a considerably higher one. Dr. Goebbels added that in one way or another an end would now have to be put to this terror; and Hitler was firmly determined to have English, American, and Russian flyers shot in Dresden in numbers equal to the figure of Dresden inhabitants who had lost their lives in this air attack. Then
29 June 46
he turned to me and asked me to prepare and announce this action. There followed an incident: I jumped up and refused to do this. Dr. Goebbels broke off the conference, asked me to come to his room, and there a very heated discussion developed between us.
Finally I had persuaded him at least to the point where he promised me to use his influence with Hitler himself, so that this plan would not be carried through. I then spoke to Ambassador Ruble, the liaison man of the Foreign Office and asked him to enlist the aid of his minister to the same end. I also requested State Secretary Naumann to speak along the same lines with Bormann, whose predominant influence was well known.
Following that, I had a discussion-under the existing regulations this was not really permitted-with the representative of the protecting power. In confidence, I gave him certain indications about the plan of which I had heard and asked him whether he could suggest or supply me with some argument or some means for countering this plan more intensively.
He said he would attend to the matter with the utmost speed and he called me up on the following morning. We had a second discussion, and he told me that in the meantime a prospect for an exchange of prisoners had been held out to him-that is, an exchange of German and English prisoners-to comprise, I believe, 50,000 men.
I asked him to have this matter go through the normal diplomatic channels, but to permit me to discuss this possibility of an exchange of prisoners of war with Dr. Goebbels, Naumann, and Bormann. I did so, and since just at that time the leaders were obviously especially interested in returning prisoners of war who could perhaps still be used at the front, this prospective offer. . .
THE PRESIDENT: How did you think that this possible exchange of prisoners was going to affect the question of whether 40,000 English and American, and Russian fliers would be killed as a reprisal?
FRITZSCHE: It appeared to me that at a time when we had the opportunity of effecting an exchange of prisoners of war, all thought of an action which was quite outside all human laws had to be repressed; that is, if there was talk about an exchange of prisoners of war, the idea of a gigantic shooting of prisoners had to be shunted into the background.
I conclude briefly. This plan was discussed. I told Dr. Goebbels about it; and it was discussed in the evening with Hitler, according to concurring reports which I had from two different sources. By some strange accident the offer itself ran aground somewhere along the bureaucratic channels many days after the settlement of this exciting incident.
29 June 46
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Can you hear now? I am asking you when you heard about Hitler's order, not with respect to these prisoners, but with respect to the fliers who had landed? When did you first hear of that? You said that in the fall Goebbels had sent abroad some propaganda with respect to that order. Did you know about it then?
FRITZSCHE: Yes. ,
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): In the autumn of 1944 you knew about that order?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): When did you?
FRITZSCHE: I cannot say exactly, but in the autumn of 1944 I did not know this order. I have to be extremely careful since I am under oath. I believe I heard of the order only here in. this courtroom, but that is somewhat confused in my memory with the campaign of Dr. Goebbels which I have just described. I cannot clearly . . .
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Surely in that meeting in February that order was discussed when they were discussing the killing of 40,000 prisoners, was it not?
FRITZSCHE: No, on that occasion not at all.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You had no doubt that Hitler wished to have those prisoners killed, did you?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, at the time when Dr. Goebbels related the plan, I believed that Hitler wished to carry through this action.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Then the answer is "yes." Now, you had no doubt that Goebbels wanted them killed, did you?
FRITZSCHE: The 40,000 in Dresden?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.
FRITZSCHE: In general, yes.
1~; TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Yes.
FRITZSCHE: Yes, I had no doubt that Goebbels also approved it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And which other of the leaders wished them kited? It was apparently discussed a good deal; who else in the Government was in favor of this policy?
FRITZSCHE: I cannot say with certainty whether Bormann was in favor of it; he was the only other concerned. I do know, however, that Von Ribbentrop, through Ambassador Ruble, made an attempt to dissuade Hitler from this step. He opposed Hitler's plan.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Ribbentrop was working in this particular problem of killing the prisoners? I am not clear about
that. Did Ribbentrop know about it?
29 June 46
FRITZSCHE: At that time I told Ambassador Ruble about this affair and asked him to inform Ribbentrop and to enlist his aid. A day or two later Ruble told me-we had frequent excited telephone conversations on this matter-that Ribbentrop was...
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): I do not need the details. The answer is that the Foreign Office knew, even if Ribbentrop may not have known personally. Is that right?
FRITZSCHE: Ribbentrop was informed personally.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is all I want to know.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Do you know what attitude Bormann took in this matter?
FRITZSCHE: According to the accounts that I heard, he at first supported Hitler's plan to shoot those 40,000; but afterwards, under the influence of Goebbels and Naumann, he took the opposite view and co-operated in dissuading Hitler from his intention.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Were they only consulted in the matter as far as the commanders of the Wehrmacht were concerned?
FRITZSCHE: I know nothing about that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): It is suggested that I should also ask you this: Do you know what attitude Ribbentrop took on the shooting of these prisoners?
FRITZSCHE: Yes. After Ambassador Ruhle's report to him, he used his influence to prevent the execution of Hitler's plan; in what way, I do not know.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, do you wish to ask the defendant any question?
DR. FRITZ: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Prosecution wish to ask any questions arising out of the questions that the Tribunal has asked?
GEN. RUDENKO: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the defendant can return to the dock.
DR. FRITZ Mr. President, this brings me to the end of the evidence in the case of the Defendant Fritzsche.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering in evidence all of the documents in your two document books, each one of them?
DR. FRITZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they marked with exhibit numbers?
DR. FRITZ: Yes, I submitted all the originals.
29 June 46
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Have you not got two Exhibits 1; Exhibit 1 in one book and Exhibit 1 in the other book?
DR. FRITZ: No, there are no Fritzsche exhibits at all in my Document Book 1, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh! I see. Very well. Well, that concludes the case of Fritzsche?
DR. FRITZ: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Tribunal, first of all I want to say that I can also dispense with the witness Dr. Klopfer, since he worked in close contact with Bormann only after 1942, since he cannot testify on most of the documents on which the Prosecution based its case, and since he only directed the constitutional law department in the Party Chancellery.
Mr. President, I want to begin my case by making a very brief basic statement. The Defendant Bormann is absent; his associates, generally speaking, are not at my disposal either. For that reason, I can only attempt, on the basis of the documents presented by the Prosecution, to submit some little evidence to prove that the defendant did not play the large, legendary part which is now, after the collapse, attributed to him. As a lawyer it has always been much against my will to build something out of nothing; and I beg the High Tribunal to take this into consideration when weighing my evidence, which must, therefore, be extremely small in quantity. It is not negligence on my part that I present so little, but it is the inability to find anything positive from the available documents without the assistance of the defendant.
First of all, then, I come to the question of whether the case against Bormann can be tried at all. I have offered evidence to show that it is most likely that the Defendant Bormann died on 1 May 1945, during an attempted escape from the Reich Chancellery. As my first witness who could testify on this, I named the witness Else Kruger, and my application for her was granted by the Tribunal. In my application of 26 June, I stated that I would waive the examining of this witness if the High Tribunal would permit me to submit instead an affidavit containing her testimony. I have not yet received an answer to this application; but I presume, since I heard from Dr. Kempner that the Prosecution will agree to this, that the High Tribunal also will not raise any objection.
29 June 46
THE PRESIDENT: I thought the application was withdrawn with reference to the witness Kruger,
DR. BERGOLD: I stated that I would dispense with the witness provided that I could submit her affidavit. There appears to be a misunderstanding. The Prosecution informed me that it has no objection.
MR. DODD: We have said we had no objection, Mr. President, to the use of the affidavit since he was waiving the calling of the witness.
DR. BERGOLD: I submit the affidavit as Document Number Bormann-12.
Then, I named three other witnesses who could testify that Bormann had died. First, the witness Kempka, who for many years was Hitler's chauffeur and who was present when the attempted escape from the Reich Chancellery failed. This witness is not here. According to information which I have, he was interned at the camp at Freising in December 1945 in the hands of the American authorities; but unfortunately he has not yet been produced.
I also named the witness Rattenhuber, who was also present when Bormann died and who, according to the information which I have, is said to be in the hands of the U.S.S.R.
The woman witness, Christians, who had been granted me, could not be located. She was interned in the camp at Oberursel; from there she was given leave of which she took advantage to vanish. Apart from the affidavit of the witness Kruger, therefore, I have no proof for my statement that Bormann is dead. I regret very much indeed that I am not in a position to present clear evidence on this point and that the members of the Prosecution were not able to give me more support, for in this way the formation of legends will be considerably strengthened. Indeed, a sort of false Demetrius, false Martin Bormann, have already made their appearance and are sending me letters which are signed Martin Bormann but which cannot possibly have been written by him. I believe that a service would have been rendered to the German nation, to the Allies, and to the world generally if I had been in a position to furnish this proof for which I had asked.
I come now to my documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal would like to hear this affidavit of Kruger read.
DR. BERGOLD: The text is as follows:
"Fraulein Else Kruger, born 9 February 1915, at Hamburg-Altona; secretary, at present residing at Hamburg (39), Hansenweg 1...From approximately the end of 1942 was one of several secretaries of the Defendant Martin Bormann; there
29 June 46
were, roughly, 30 to 40 secretaries. I can no longer give accurate figures and names. I occupied this position until the end and after Hitler's death.
"On 1 May 1945 I saw and talked to Bormann in the bunker of the Reich Chancellery for the last time; but I was then no longer working for him, since at that time he was writing his own orders and wireless messages by hand. All I had to do in those days in the bunker of the Reich Chancellery was to prepare myself mentally for my death. The last words he spoke to me, when he met me accidentally in the bunker, were, 'Well, then, farewell. There is not much sense in it now, but I will try to get through. Very probably I shall not succeed.' These approximately, were his last words, I can no longer recollect them literally.
"Later in the course of the evening when I thought that the Russians had come very close to the shelter of the Reich Chancellery I, together with a group of about 20 people, mostly soldiers, fled from the shelter through subterranean passages, then through an exit in one of the walls of the Chancellery, across the Wilhelmsplatz into the entrance of the underground station Kaiserhof. From there we fled through more subterranean passages to the Friedrichstrasse, and then through a number of streets, debris of houses, and so on; I can no longer remember the exact details on account of the confusion and excitement of those days. Eventually, in the course of the following morning, we reached another shelter; I no longer recollect where it was; it might have been the shelter at Humboldthain."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, does not the affidavit deal with the Defendant Bormann at all?
DR. BERGOLD: Oh yes, I am now coming to that:
"After some time the SS-Gruppenfuehrer Rattenhuber appeared there quite suddenly. He had been severely wounded in the leg and was put on a camp bed. Other people asked him where he had come from; and he said, in my presence, that he, together with Bormann and others, had fled by car through the Friedrichstrasse. Presumably everybody was dead; there had been masses of bodies. I gathered from his statement that he believed Bormann was dead. This also appeared probable to me because, according to reports I heard from some soldiers whom I did not know, all people who had left the shelter after us had been taken under strong Russian fire and hundreds of dead were said to have been left behind on the Weidendammer Bridge."
I omit one unimportant sentence.
29 June 46
"I remember reading afterwards in a British paper that Hitler's driver for many years, Kempka, made a statement somewhere that Bormann, with whom apparently he fled, was dead."
That is all I am able to submit, Mr. President; the real witnesses have unfortunately not been found.
I now come to the documents. In order to shorten my evidence, may I refer to the document book which I have submitted. All these documents contain orders of Bormann which were collected and have appeared in a body of laws called Orders of the Deputy of the Fuehrer. I request that the Tribunal take judicial notice of these official orders. I shall bring up the legal argument arising from these documents in my final speech.
I merely want to refer now briefly to Order Number 23/36; it is the order under the figure 8.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean PS?
DR. BERGOLD: No, it is order Number 8 in my document book, Mr. President. I particularly want to draw the Tribunal's attention to it without quoting from it.
I now turn to the document book submitted by the Prosecution, and I should like to read a short passage from 098-PS, on Page 4, the second paragraph at the top.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say 098-PS?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Document 098-PS, Bormann's letter dated 22 February 1940 and addressed to Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 4?
DR. BERGOLD: Page 4. It is the letter in which Bormann rails against the Christian religion. Nevertheless, he writes as follows, Page 4:
"With regard to religious instruction in schools it seems to me that the existing conditions need not be changed. No National Socialist teacher, according to the clear-cut directives of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, must be accused in any way, if he is prepared to teach the Christian religion in the schools."
I omit one sentence.
"In the circular of the Deputy of the Fuehrer Number 3/39, of 4 January 1939, it is expressly stated that teachers of religion are not by any means to make their own choice of Biblical material for religious instruction but are obliged to give instruction on all the Biblical subjects. They are to abstain from all reinterpreting, analyzing, or paraphrasing of this
29 June 46
directive; attempts of this sort have been made several times by certain church groups."
This is a reference to the so-called German Christians.
I then quote from Document 113-PS, document book of the Prosecution. It is Directive Number 104/38, I quote:
"The neutrality of the Party with respect to the Church, which has been emphasized from the beginning, demands that any possible friction be avoided. Clergymen, as political leaders or as leaders or section leaders in the Party and its affiliated organizations, do not possess the required freedom of decision in this dual obligation, as has been shown by experience;
moreover, there is the danger that owing to their church of lice they will make use of the Movement for their purposes in the church struggle. The Deputy of the Fuehrer has therefore ordered:
"1. Clergymen holding positions in the Party are to be immediately relieved of their Party functions."
I then quote from Document O99-PS, in which Bormann, in a letter of 19 January 1940, addressed to the Reich Minister of Finance, criticizes the low contributions of the Church toward the war. I quote from the second paragraph:
"The assessment of so low a contribution has surprised me. I gather from numerous reports that the political communities have to raise so high a war contribution that the carrying out of their own tasks, which are often very important, as for instance their work in public welfare, is in jeopardy."
I omit one sentence.
"I understand that the assessment of so low a contribution is partly explained by the fact that only the churches of the old Reich which are entitled to raise taxes are called upon to make their contribution to the war, whereas the sections of the Protestant and Catholic Church, which are entitled to demand church dues in Austria and the Sudetenland, are exempted . . ."
I omit the rest of the sentence.
"This differentiation in the treatment of individual sections of the churches and church organizations is, in my opinion, quite unjustified."
I then quote from Document 117-PS, a letter from Bormann to Rosenberg, dated 28 January 1939. I quote from the second paragraph: '
"The Party has repeatedly in recent years had to explain its attitude on the plan for a State Church or for some other measure establishing closer connection between the State and
29 June 46
the Church. The Party has always emphatically rejected such plans for two reasons. First, a connection between the State and the Church, as the organization of a religious community which does not in all fields aim at the practical application of National Socialist principles, would not fulfill the ideological demands of National Socialism. Second, purely practical and political considerations speak against such a formal union."
I then refer to Document L-22, which deals with a conference in the Fuehrer's headquarters on 16 July 1941, at which Hitler, Rosenberg, Lammers, Keitel, Goering, and Bormann were present.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you tell us in what part of the book this is and what is the number?
DR. BERGOLD: L-22. It is approximately in the middle of the book. Bormann acted as secretary of the conference and wrote the minutes. The Prosecution stated that Bormann's incidental remarks showed that he had participated in the discussion, at that conference, of plans for the incorporation of Russian territory into the Reich. I shall therefore have to read this incidental remark which he made.
THE PRESIDENT: This is L-221, not L-22.
DR. BERGOLD: The first incidental remark is in the 14th paragraph and reads as follows:
"Incidentally, does an educated class still exist in the Ukraine, or are the Ukrainians of a higher class to be found only as emigrants outside Russia?"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, could you not tell us what original page it is? In our document book there are headings "original page" so and so.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, they are there, but-one moment, please, I shall have to look for it again. The translation which I have received has a different type of division-Page 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
"We have to create a garden of Eden...." The first part of
Page 4 is, "We have to create a garden of Eden...."
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, yes, yes, the second paragraph, the third paragraph, no, after each one-it is the third paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, then.
DR. BERGOLD: Have you got it, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: I shall not know until you tell me how it begins.
DR. BERGOLD: It begins, "Incidentally, does an educated class still exist in the Ukraine...?"
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I have got that, yes. Page 3.
29 June 46
DR. BERGOLD: It is on Page 3.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is on Page 4. It goes like this: "Is there still anything like an educated class in the Ukraine?"
DR. BERGOLD: According to the document book which has just been submitted to me, it is on Page 3, but it may be Page 4.
THE PRESIDENT: The original is Page 4.
DR. BERGOLD: Then on Page 5, Page 4, no, it is Page 3, Your Lordship. Page 4 has a very similar remark which reads:
"It has frequently become apparent that Rosenberg has a great deal of liking for the Ukrainians, He wants to enlarge the old Ukraine considerably."
And then the last remark on Page Page 5 in the English text, third paragraph from the end, a note for Party member Klopfer:
"Please ask Dr. Meyer as soon as possible for the data on the proposed organization and the filling of the positions."
Then at the end, Page 6 of your original, last paragraph:
"Incidentally, the Fuehrer emphasized that activity of the churches was out of the question. Papen had already submitted to him through the Foreign Office a long memorandum stating that now the right moment for re-establishing the churches had arrived. But that was definitely out of the question."
This refers to a statement by Hitler.
Then I come to Document 1520-PS. I want first of all to draw the Tribunal's attention to the fact that in this record, which Lammers wrote, Bormann is not at all mentioned at the beginning among those present, apparently because his activity as secretary was considered a matter of course.
I should now like to read from Page 2 of your original, from the paragraph beginning, "Then the discussion turned to the question of freedom of religion..." I shall begin on the eighth line of the fourth paragraph:
"Bormann agreed with this attitude absolutely but said that the only question was whether the Reich Minister for the East, who after all had a name in Germany, would not through such a law create too far-reaching obligations which would then have repercussions in the Reich. The churches themselves were going to define what was meant by 'religious freedom,' and he predicted that such a law would result in hundreds of new letters and complaints on the part of the churches within the Reich."
I omit one sentence.
29 June 46
"Finally it was agreed that the entire question should not be settled by me"-that is, Lammers-"in the form of a law but that the Reich Commissioners should take the existing religious freedom for granted and should issue the necessary directives."
Then Document 072-PS, a letter from Bormann to Rosenberg; of that I should like to read the third paragraph:
"The Fuehrer emphasized that in the Balkans the use of your experts would not be necessary, since there were no art objects to be confiscated. In Belgrade there was only the collection of Prince Paul which would be returned to him intact. The remaining material of the lodges, et cetera, would be taken care of by the representatives of Gruppenfuehrer Heydrich."
From Document 062-PS I should like to read the introduction, in which the Defendant Hess deals with the orders he had issued for the treatment of airmen. I quote:
"The French civilian population received official instructions by radio and otherwise on what they were to do at landings of German aircraft."
From Document 205-PS I should like to read the opening words of Bormann, the second paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of 062-PS? [The interpreter wrongly translated this as 205-PS.]
DR. BERGOLD: 5th of May 1943, circular letter Number 70/43.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I have got it now.
THE INTERPRETER: You have 205, My Lord.
DR. BERGOLD: 5th of May 1943.
THE PRESIDENT; No, but I wanted to know the date of 062-PS. It appears to be 13 March 1940.
DR. BERGOLD: 062-PS? Yes, the date of that is 13 March 1940. That is the one I read before.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not understand why you read the document in view of Paragraph 4 of it which is as follows:
"Likewise, enemy parachutists are immediately to be arrested or liquidated."
DR. BERGOLD: I shad return to that in my final speech, Mr. President. I can present my arguments now if the Tribunal so desires, but I do not think the argument is wanted now.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no; I thought you might have another paragraph in the document which you wish to refer to.
29 June 46
DR. BERGOLD: No. I referred to the introduction, which was the reason for this document, namely, the statement of the Defendant Hess preceding Bormann's document.
I come then to Document 205-PS, dated 5 May 1943, circular letter Number 70/43. I shall quote the following sentence:
"I request that along the lines set out in the attached copy the necessity for a firm but just treatment of the foreign workers be made clear in a suitable manner to members of the Party and the population."
This circular letter itself was issued by the Defendant Sauckel. I now come to Document 025-PS, of 4 September 1942 and I read . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Which number are you going to now?
DR. BERGOLD: 025-PS, dated 4 September 1942. I shad quote the last sentence of the second paragraph:
"Therefore, and this is also the opinion of the Reich Marshal and of Reichsleiter Bormann, the problem of domestic workers must be solved in a way different from that mentioned above."
And then I quote from Paragraph 3, starting with the second sentence:
"In connection with this"-namely, the employment in Germany of women workers from the East-"Reichsleiter Bormann also agrees that members of the Armed Forces or other agencies who have brought female domestic workers into the Reich illegally will have their action subsequently approved; approval of such action in the future will not be withheld, regardless of the official recruiting scheme. The determining factor in the recruiting of Ukrainian female workers is the specific wish of the Fuehrer that only girls whose conduct and appearance permit a permanent stay in Germany should be brought into the Reich."
Then I shall read from Figure 1, almost the last paragraph on Page 3 of your document book:
"Recruiting, especially in the case of domestic servants, must be on a voluntary basis and must in practice be carried out with the help of the offices of the Reichsfuehrer SS."
This concludes my quotations from the document book of the Prosecution, and I should like now to refer only to the Russian Document USSR-172 and to Document Doenitz-91, of which I shall make use in my final speech.
This, then, brings me to the end of the presentation of my evidence.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, may I suggest that if this witness Kempka can be located, counsel might submit an affidavit or an
29 June 46
interrogatory to any persons who have knowledge of the alleged death of Defendant Bormann. We certainly would have no objection to it.
DR. BERGOLD: I have no objection either.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, have you any information as to what this witness Kempka can tell us about the death of Bormann?
DR. BERGOLD: According to the affidavit, which I read to the Tribunal, he is said to have been present when Bormann was killed by a tank explosion. He would, therefore, be an eye witness of Bormann's death, like the witness Rattenhuber, from whom the witness Kruger obtained her information. If the witnesses Kempka and Rattenhuber were found, I would be satisfied with affidavits and interrogatories.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have seen this statement by Kempka some time ago, which is in affidavit form and which has come to our attention. But my recollection is that he does not state positively that he saw him die. But I again suggest we might make further efforts to get an affidavit from him, or an interrogatory, or carefully question him about the circumstances of the death.
THE PRESIDENT: A statement was made to the Tribunal at one
time by the Prosecution suggesting that Bormann had escaped from the Chancellery in a tank and then the tank had been stopped or blown up on a bridge and that two of the persons inside the tank had last seen Bormann wounded, or something of that sort.
MR. DODD: Yes, I think that is the best information.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, if the Prosecution has any material in the shape of affidavits or anything of that sort, the Tribunal would like to have them placed before them.
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir. I am sure we do not have an affidavit. As I recall, it was last fall when someone sent down here what purported to be a narrative account by Kempka of the last days in Berlin. Now, I will try to look that up and present it to you.
THE PRESIDENT: If you can go into the matter, then possibly
they might be located through the investigations which you would make.
MR. DODD: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Then interrogatories or affidavits could be obtained.
MR. DODD: Very well, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Then that concludes your presentation of evidence on behalf of Bormann?
DR. BERGOLD: That is all I have, Mr. President.
29 June 46
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you.
Colonel Pokrovsky, is there anything you wish to say? I beg your pardon.
Dr. Bergold, you have offered in evidence all the exhibits that you want to offer and have given them exhibit numbers, have you?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, in my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: You are intending to offer your document book as evidence?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It has exhibit numbers on each document, has it?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, each document has a number.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal would like to know whether you have arrived at any agreement with Dr. Stahmer on behalf of the Defendant Goering with reference to affidavit evidence or witnesses, with reference to the Katyn matter.
COLONEL Y. V. POKROVSKY (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): My Lord, we have had three conferences with the Defense Counsel. After the second meeting I told the Tribunal that, in order to shorten the proceedings, the Soviet Prosecution was willing to read into the record only a part of the evidence submitted. About 15 minutes ago I had a meeting with Dr. Exner and Dr. Stahmer, and they told me that their understanding of the Tribunal's ruling was that the old decision for the summoning of two witnesses was still in force and that only additional documents were now under discussion.
In view of this interpretation of the Tribunal's ruling, I do not think that we shall be able to come to an agreement with the Defense. As I see it, the decision in this matter must now rest in the hands of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal orders that, unless an agreement is arrived at, the evidence shall not be given entirely by affidavits and that the three witnesses on either side shall be called first thing on Monday morning at 10 o'clock, unless you can arrive at an agreement before that, that the evidence is to be offered in affidavits.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, may I say something on this subject?
A number of counsel who are interested in the Katyn case had a conference this morning; among them were Professor Exner and Dr. Stahmer. We agreed to ask the Tribunal to allow two witnesses
29 June 46
to be examined here in person by the Defense. These witnesses would be Colonel Ahrens and First Lieutenant Von Eichborn. We also agreed to dispense with the hearing of the third witness but decided to request that an affidavit of this witness, and in addition two other affidavits, be submitted. I believe this to be a suggestion which both satisfies us and saves the most time: Two witnesses would be heard and three affidavits submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal sees no objection to there being two witnesses called and one affidavit. But their order was that three witnesses on either side-that the evidence should be limited to three witnesses on either side; and they, therefore, are not prepared to allow further affidavits to be given. The evidence must be confined to the evidence of three persons on either side. They may give their evidence either by oral evidence or by affidavit.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, as far as I was informed, the original decision stated that three witnesses were allowed but did not mention affidavits. That was the reason why Dr. Stahmer and Professor Exner assumed that, regardless of the witnesses, certain individual points could be proved by means of affidavits. I think that the hearing of two witnesses and three affidavits would be quicker than the examination of three witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid Dr. Stahmer and Dr. Exner drew a wrong inference from the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal intended and intends that the evidence should be limited to the evidence of three witnesses on either side, and whether they give their evidence orally or by affidavit does not matter. We left it to the Soviet Prosecution and to defendant's counsel to see whether they could agree that it should be given by affidavit in order to save time. But that was not intended to extend the number of witnesses who might give evidence.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, in that case, I should be grateful if Dr. Stahmer and Professor Exner would be heard. I myself have not been in Nuremberg recently; I was therefore not present when these details were discussed and it is difficult for me-I see that Dr. Stahmer is now-perhaps Dr. Stahmer himself could speak about it.
DR. STAHMER: I have just heard Dr. Siemers' report, at least a part of it. I mentioned already during the last discussion, Mr. President, that Professor Exner arid I had understood the decision to mean that besides the three witnesses we were also allowed to submit affidavits. Indeed, the original decision granted us five witnesses, though it made the reservation that only three of them could give evidence here in Court. We assumed, therefore, that we
29 June 46
could submit affidavits of those witnesses out of the five who had been originally granted us but who would not give evidence in Court. The original decision granted us five witnesses, and then a later decision of the Tribunal...
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, that is not the recollection of the Tribunal; and if you say so, you must produce written evidence that that was the decision. The Tribunal's recollection is not that five witnesses were allowed.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, yes, yes. I shall submit written evidence of these decisions to the Tribunal. I cannot remember offhand when they were made, but originally five witnesses were granted; then I named another witness, who was also granted, and it was only afterwards that the decision to allow only three witnesses to give evidence in Court was announced.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, when the order was made limiting it to three out of five, there was no reference in that order to affidavits, as far as I know.
DR. STAHMER: No, affidavits were not mentioned then.
THE PRESIDENT: What I am telling you is that the Tribunal in making that order of limitation intended to limit the whole of the evidence to three witnesses on either side, because the matter is only a subsidiary allegation of fact; and the Tribunal thinks that at this stage of the proceedings such an allegation of fact ought not to be investigated by a great number of witnesses, and three witnesses are quite sufficient on either side.
Therefore the Tribunal does not desire to hear and did not intend that it should have to hear any evidence except the evidence of three witnesses, either orally or by affidavit.
The Tribunal will now adjourn.
[The Tribunal adjourned until Monday 1 July at 1000 hours.]