4000bce - 399
400 - 1399
1400 - 1499
1500 - 1599
1600 - 1699
1700 - 1799
1800 - 1899
1900 - 1999
THE PRESIDENT: Has Dr. Bergold asked any of the defendants' counsel to represent him?
[There was no response.]
Has the Marshal been able to get in touch with Dr. Bergold?
MARSHAL: No, Sir.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, Dr. Bergold was advised yesterday that his presence would be required in the courtroom today. As far as I have heard-and I have only heard this-the General Secretary also got in touch with him regarding this matter. I am sorry I cannot tell you any more about it. As far as I know, he did not ask anyone to represent him in Court today.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Dr. Stahmer.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I shall look pinto this matter immediately, to see whether he has arrived or whether I can contact him.
THE PRESIDENT: Very good; and Dr. Stahmer, I think the best course would be for the Tribunal to consider the various applications with reference to interrogatories and documents, which I think you and other counsel wish to offer in evidence, and the Tribunal will then examine these witnesses if Dr. Bergold is not here by that time. The Tribunal, of course, expect him to be here if it is possible. Perhaps you will communicate with him, and the Marshal should also communicate with Dr. Bergold.
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
MARSHAL: Yes, Sir.
PROFESSOR DR. HERMANN JAHRREISS (Counsel for Defendant Jodl): Mr. President, I have learned that the son of Dr. Bergold returned yesterday unexpectedly and suddenly from a prisoner-of-war camp. Therefore, Dr. Bergold went to his home, a short distance from Nuremberg. I asked his secretary to go to Dr. Bergold's home and to bring him here and I assume he will be here within approximately half an hour.
3 July 46
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, you have some interrogatories, I think, which you want to offer in evidence, have you not?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Sir. At the end of my presentation I still had some interrogatories which I had been permitted to present but which had not arrived.
First of all, I shall turn to the interrogatory of Kammhuber, who was a general in the Air Force. He submitted an organizational study for 1950, which was completed on 2 May 1938. He was questioned about the purpose and significance of this study and he stated-I will give a short summary-that a part of it' which came under the heading of "long term objective" was a tentative sketch based on theoretical assumptions.- Then there was a second part which gave the deadline of 1942, and the interim solution for 1 October 1938. This was a positive proposal for the organization of the Luftwaffe..
This study was compiled by the author on his own initiative. The witness does not know whether it was actually submitted to Goering. He considers it improbable, but he does assume that he did suggest the positive proposal for the organization of the Luftwaffe to Goering.
That is the substance of this interrogatory which will be called Exhibit Number Goering-54.
I have another interrogatory which I should like to submit, which originates from General Kurt Student. This deals with the air attack on Rotterdam in May of 1940. It is an explanation...
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got copies of these affidavits, I mean these interrogatories? We have got this one you are now offering of Student, but we have not got the one of Kammhuber.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I submitted this material to the Translation Division and I asked that the translations should be ready. I shall look into the matter and see what has become of it. At any rate, I did submit the originals to the Translation Division.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; the General Secretary will look into it.
And this one of Student, has that been applied for and granted? It is not on my list.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President, it has been granted, and the Prosecution has submitted a counter-interrogatory to this one. I believe . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: If I am not mistaken, this interrogatory of Student's was granted on 14 February, if I remember rightly.
Student deals with the air attack on Rotterdam in May 1940. He gives the necessary explanation as to how it came about that during
3 July 46
capitulation negotiations bombs were still being dropped on Rotterdam. Here, too, I believe, I can refer to this interrogatory. The facts were that capitulation negotiations were in progress when an air attack had been planned and the squadron which was being employed could not be advised in time by wireless. Then the ground troops gave signals, which were misunderstood by one group. . .
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that it covers the same ground that has already been in evidence; does it not?
DR. STAHMER: It has been dealt with in the examination; yes, that is correct, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then it should not be read under any circumstances note
DR. STAHMER: Then I shall submit this document. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, offer it in evidence. But I mean, you need not read it in detail.
DR. STAHMER: Very well, Mr. President. This will be Exhibit Number Goering-53.
Then, Mr. President, I have another interrogatory by a general of the Air Force, Koller, which, I should like to submit. This will be submitted as Exhibit Number Goering-55.
Mr. President, I ask the permission of the High Tribunal to read these questions, for there is a special significance connected with the testimony given by this witness in relation to the defendant in this proceeding:
"Question 1: Did the former Reich Marshal Goering at any time issue an order that enemy airmen who had been shot down should be handed over to the Police, the SD, or that they should be shot without a trial?
"Answer: As far as I know, no. In any case, I know of no such order issued by the Reich Marshal.
"Question 2: Did the former Reich Marshal Goering help to formulate an order on the strength of which the British flying officers who escaped from Stalag III at Sagan in March 1944 were shot by the Police or SD?
"Answer: General Korten told me that the Luftwaffe, the Air Force-meaning the Reich Marshal and he, Korten, himself- had no part in the issuing of this order.
"Question 3: Did the former Reich Marshal Goering learn of the fact contained in Question 2 only after the order given by Hitler had been carried out?
"Answer: General Korten told me that he and the Reich Marshal did not get to know of it until later.
3 July 46
"Question 4: On what day was this order issued by Hitler?
"Answer: I do not know.
"Question 5: On what day, or on what days, was this order carried out?
"Answer: I do not know.
"Question 6: Do you know whether the former Reich Marshal - Goering very strongly condemned the shooting of these 50 British Air Force officers?
"Answer: General Korten told me that the Reich Marshal was very angry about this shooting.
"Question 7: Have you any knowledge as to whether the former Reich Marshal Goering and his deputy for the Air Force, the Chief of the General Staff, repeatedly remonstrated with Hitler about the measures which Hitler had ordered to be taken against the enemy terror fliers who had been shot down?
"Answer: According to statements which General Korten made to me in June of 1944, that is correct. I remember too that some time afterward it was reported to me that the Reich Marshal had complained to the Fuehrer about the action taken by Party organizations and individuals among the population against so-called terror-fliers, for the reason that some of our own air crews had come to harm.
"In March of 1945 he flatly turned down the order given by the Fuehrer that all enemy crews which had been shot down and which would be shot down in the future should be turned over to the SD.
"Replying to Questions 1 to 7, I should like to state in explanation and in supplement: During the period which is covered by the report I was Chief of the Luftwaffe Operations Staff. In February 1944 the Fuehrer's headquarters transferred to Berchtesgaden the High Command of the Armed Forces, the Reich Marshal with his personal entourage and the Chief of the General Staff of the Air Force, General Korten, together with two or three ordnance officers. I had to stay with the High Command of the Luftwaffe, that is, with the whole working staff known as Robinson, in East Prussia, as it was expected that the Fuehrer's headquarters would have to be moved back quickly. The whole signal apparatus and the apparatus for the issuing of orders for Luftwaffe supplies was to be under the control of Robinson.
"Due to the separation of the High Command of the Luftwaffe on the one hand and the Commander-in-Chief and Chief of General Staff on the other hand, a separation which was prolonged
3 July 4G
from week to week, we in East Prussia did not have knowledge about many things which were being handled directly in Berchtesgaden. Often we received no knowledge at all of important Fuehrer directives, or if we did, we received the information very late. It was not until the beginning of June- I believe it was the week after Whitsun-that I, together with some assistant officers, was transferred to Berchtesgaden. From February until that time, I think I had attended only one conference at Berchtesgaden.
"As to Questions 2 to 6, which deal with Sagan, it was from General Korten that I learned, and I believe Colonel Christian informed me almost at the same time, that the airmen who had escaped from Sagan had been shot by order of the Fuehrer. I rather think I heard about it first from General Korten, who, if I remember rightly, told me about it during one of the rather long telephone conversations which we had every evening. Korten made it quite clear that he disapproved of this, for the reasons which I mentioned in reply to Questions 2, 3, and 6. The conversation must have taken place at the end of March or the beginning of April. However, I cannot give the exact date.
"In reply to Questions 1 and 7, concerning the terror-fliers, it was approximately the beginning of June 1944-at first I thought that it was in July, but I think now that it must have been June-when General Korten advised me that the Fuehrer intended to order that terror-fliers be left to the fury of the people.
"We discussed this matter repeatedly and we all agreed in our opposition. We had always considered the direct attacks by low-flying enemy aircraft on the civilian population, on women and children, gatherings of civilians, civilian passenger trains, hospitals, school children who were out for a walk, our own crews who were parachuting to earth, and farmers who were tilling their fields, cruel and contrary to international law, but we did not consider the decree which the Fuehrer intended to issue to be the proper way to solve this very difficult problem. Our reasons for this refusal were articles of war, international law, it was against fundamental soldierly principles, and it would lead to many misunderstandings inflicting harm not only to enemy fliers, but also to our own men and affecting the morale of our own crews . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, is this not really going into argument and not dealing with facts? It really is not necessary for you to read all this witness' arguments about it. He is not really dealing with facts at all now and it is in detail . . .
3 July 46
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, these are the facts which he discussed with General Korten, the facts which decided them to reject the Fuehrer's order. These were the reasons which he and
THE PRESIDENT: Some of what you have read no doubt is a matter of fact, but what you are now reading is a matter of argument.
DR. STAHMER: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, surely you can summarize the rest of this.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, this document is of great importance to the defendant because it deals with just those points with which he is accused and which distress him most and. . .
THE PRESIDENT: I heard you say it is of great importance and therefore you have been reading it and insofar as it is statement of fact, it seems to me that there is some excuse for reading it in detail. But when you come to matters of argument, it seems to me there is no excuse for reading it, because argument by a particular witness is not really relevant for the Tribunal's consideration at all. Summarize the argument, if you like. I mean, you have read the factual part. Summarize the rest which-maybe you can tell us, if you like, what the argument is.
DR. STAHMER: Very well, Mr. President. General Korten further stated that all the documents which are relevant to the question of terror-fliers and the shooting of the Royal Air Force officers have been submitted to him and after perusing them he arrived at the conclusion that the contents of these documents is
proof of the fact that the High Command of the Armed Forces as well as the Reich Marshal opposed this action and did everything in their power to prevent the measure intended by Hitler from being put into effect. He particularly points out that in one of these letters there is a marginal note to the effect that it was not possible to get a reply from the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, and he concludes from that that the Reich Marshal personally opposed any final decision of this matter.
Then there is a further incident dealt with in:
"Question 8: Did the Fuehrer, for the reason stated under Figure 5, on the occasion of a situation discussion and in the presence of all who attended it, excitedly accuse the German Luftwaffe of having made a mutual coward's agreement with the Allied Air Forces?
"Answer: During the first half of March 1945, Bormann showed the Fuehrer a note taken from a correspondent's report
3 July 46
in the Allied press. The gist of this note was: The crew of an American fighter plane, which shortly before had been shot down over Germany, had been picked up by advancing American troops. The crew had testified that the enraged civilians had mishandled them, had threatened them with death, and in all probability they would have been lynched if it had not been for the German soldiers who had liberated them and protected them. Bormann pointed out to Hitler in a few words that this confirmed the fact that German soldiers, in instances such as this, were going against their own countrymen; and he concluded his remarks somewhat as follows: 'My Fuehrer, that is the way your orders are being carried out.' Thereupon in the presence of all who attended the situation discussion the Fuehrer made some very excited statements and among other things the Fuehrer said 'to me, 'If my orders are not being carried out it is due to the cowardice of the Luftwaffe because the men in the Luftwaffe are cowards and they are afraid that something might happen to them, too, some day. The whole business is nothing but a cowards' agreement between the German Luftwaffe and the English and American airmen.' I reported this to the Reich Marshal.
"Whether Hitler made the same remark to the Reich Marshal personally, that I am not able to say; but I consider it quite probable, because when making reproaches of this kind, especially if they applied to the Luftwaffe, he often repeated himself and used the same expressions.
"Question 9: On what day did this discussion take place?
"Answer: I cannot give the date."
Now we come to:
"Question 10: Did the Fuehrer repeatedly order the former Reich Marshal to divulge the name of the officer of the Luftwaffe who, in May of 1944, protected an Allied airman who had been shot down in Munich from being lynched by the population? But despite repeated inquiries on the part of the Fuehrer, the Reich Marshal gave no instructions to find out the name of this officer and to make it known to the Fuehrer?"
I can summarize the answer. He says he cannot state this from his own experience; it had only been reported to him that an officer of the Luftwaffe and an Ortsgruppenleiter had interfered on behalf of this American crew; that the Ortsgruppenleiter, who was known, was shot on Hitler's order; that Hitler then demanded to have the name of the Luftwaffe officer given to him and that he had not been told the name. He, said further that if the Reich Marshal had actually
3 July 46
wanted to find out the name of this Luftwaffe officer, he could easily have done so.
"Question 11: At the end of the war did the Luftwaffe ever receive orders to destroy Dachau Concentration Camp with bombs at the approach of the enemy? In particular, was an order to that effect given by the Gauleiter in Munich under the code word 'Wolke'? Could a Gauleiter give such instructions to the Luftwaffe?"
Here again I can summarize the answer. The witness says,
"I do not recall any order to that effect," and especially he does not know whether the Gauleiter in Munich gave such an order. The Gauleiter was not competent to give an order of this kind and he does not believe that a senior officer of the Luftwaffe would have been willing to carry out such an order.
"Question 12: What do you know about the attitude of the Reich Marshal and his Luftwaffe to enemy airmen who had been shot down?
"Answer: Notwithstanding occasional expressions of displeasure, the attitude of the Reich Marshal was always correct and chivalrous, which was in line with the Air Force tradition which he learned in the first World War and to which he frequently referred.
"Of course, in his anxiety about the great difficulties of air defense and pressed by the Fuehrer, perhaps on occasion he used harsh words. These words, however, were soon forgotten and I do not know of a single case where the Reich Marshal followed up these spontaneous utterances by incorrect or harsh measures or orders against members of foreign air forces. The conduct of the entire Luftwaffe was always correct and humane. To fight in a chivalrous manner was a matter of honor with the German airmen. To quote only a few examples of many: Although the enemy crews shot at German airmen who were parachuting to earth, and these practices were bitterly resented by our airmen and some..."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Stahmer. Again, what you are now reading is all comment; it is not statement of facts, it is comment and argument.
DR. STAHMER: Now Mr. President, he is coming to an example in which he reports about those things.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let us come to it.
DR. STAHMER: Yes. The sea rescue services of the Luftwaffe from the Bay of Helgoland through the English Channel as far as Brest, in the Bay of Biscay, in the Atlantic, and in the Mediterranean,
3 July 46
was put into use for the enemy in the same way as for the Germans. The rescue service fliers and the rescue service boats made untiring efforts and showed exemplary self-sacrifice in going to the rescue of friend and foe in distress. Even when...
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Stahmer, these were not particular instances. These were not particular facts. They are just general statements which are really comments and argument about the chivalry of the German Air Force; that is all.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, by this he is trying to prove the chivalry of the German Air Force.
THE PRESIDENT: But he does not prove it by making a general statement.
DR. STAHMER: No. Later on he comes-he will go on to say how many they have rescued, how many of those were enemies and how many were their own people. I believe these facts, Mr. President, are important when judging the attitude of the Luftwaffe.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, as I said just now, if you will get down to the facts, if you have got the numbers, well then, no doubt that will be a matter of fact.
DR. STAHMER: Of the thousands who were rescued from the sea by the German Luftwaffe Rescue Service the great majority belonged to the enemy-members of enemy air crews, crews of enemy ships. Without being able to give exact figures at the moment, I would estimate-according to my memory I would say that the proportion of enemy rescued was from 70 to 80 percent. And he continues:
"If, when we went out to rescue our own people or to make reconnaissance flights for them or were engaged on other work, we saw that crews, also enemy crews, were in distress off the enemy coast or beyond the range of our own rescue services, we immediately signaled to the enemy and called upon him to go to the rescue."
Then there are several questions put by the Prosecution. The first question is: "What had Kaltenbrunner to do with. . ."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, it is for the Prosecution to read their questions if they want to read them.
DR. STAHMER: I am not interested in these questions, Mr. President.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution do not want the questions read.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will read them. Do you mean you want to put them in-put them in evidence?
3 July 46
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will put them in, but we do not want them read.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
DR. STAHMER: I have already stated that this is Exhibit Goering-55.
Then I have one more interrogatory, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, you realize that the Tribunal proposes to read all the evidence and therefore these interrogatories will be read and considered even though they are not read now in open court. You have offered them in evidence, so the Tribunal will be grateful if you will cut short the reading of these affidavits and interrogatories as far as possible.
DR. STAHMER: I shall proceed accordingly, Mr. President. Now, we turn to the interrogatory of Hammerstein which I shall submit as Exhibit Number Goering-52. Mr. President, this interrogatory is not at my disposal in the original. I can only submit an attested copy. It has been submitted to the Prosecution; it has been translated but it cannot be found at the moment. But I assume I shall find the original very soon; I have advised Sir David of this. The British Prosecution has already had it and this document has been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the original has been mislaid or something.
DR. STAHMER: It has been mislaid, Mr. President, and I am unable to find it at the moment. Anyhow, it has been submitted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is no objection to this affidavit. I have a copy in front of me. It is general in its terms and, if I may say so' I thought it would serve its purpose admirably if Dr. Stahmer put it in and the Tribunal consider it in due course.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: The original will be submitted in the next few days. It is an interrogatory of the Judge Advocate of the Air Force, Dr. Von Hammerstein. For several years he was the Supreme Judge of the Air Force and in that capacity he reported once a month to the Defendant Goering. Thus he was in a position to judge the attitude of Goering as supreme legal authority and he now describes in detail how seriously the Defendant Goering took his duties as supreme legal authority.
He further describes how the Reich Marshal Goering reserved to himself the right to decide the more important matters; how he took great care in dealing with all matters, how he insisted that the soldiers under his command must maintain strict discipline. He
3 July 46
particularly saw to it that the soldiers under his command were punished most severely if they committed illegal acts against the civilian population and especially against the civilian population in the occupied countries.
Then he further describes how Reich Marshal Goering demanded severe punishment particularly when it Divas a question of violating the honor of women and how in the many decrees he always insisted that due respect to the honor of women was the first duty of a soldier; how in serious cases of rape, he always demanded the death penalty, no matter what the nationality of the woman was. In two cases, for instance, he rescinded the sentences because they were too lenient and he confirmed the sentence only after the death penalty had been pronounced.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, surely, what you have said, Dr. Stahmer, has given us the substance of the affidavit. You said that this man was the Judge Advocate for the Air Force and that the law with reference to offenses in the Air Force was strictly carried out. I am sure that is all you want to say in summarizing it.
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President. What I wanted to bring out was that it did not matter what the nationality of the woman involved was. In one case against a Russian woman, he . . .
THE PRESIDENT: That is exactly what I have said, that the
law was strictly carried out. It is only an illustration of how the law was strictly carried out.
DR. STAHMER: Very well, Mr. President, I have given the substance. I shall dispense with all further explanation and submit this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal thinks that their time is being wasted, and unless Counsel for the Defense can do what the Tribunal desires them to do, which is to offer these affidavits and interrogatories in evidence, giving the shortest possible summary or description of the affidavits or interrogatories, the Tribunal will have to order that the interrogatories and affidavits shall be simply offered in evidence, and they will hear no comment whatever on them.
The time is approaching immediately when the defense counsel are going to make their speeches, and if there is anything in these affidavits or interrogatories of real importance, they will have the opportunity then of commenting upon it. And also, the Tribunal itself proposes to read not only the oral evidence, but the documentary evidence in this case.
DR. STAHMER: Then, Mr. President, I should like to submit this document under Exhibit Number Goering-52.
3 July 46
THE PRESIDENT: Now then, the counsel for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop, Dr. Horn, you have no affidavits or interrogatories to put in, have you, that have been approved by the Tribunal?
DR. HORN: Mr. President, I ask to be permitted to submit four affidavits to the Tribunal.
We are concerned here with the affidavit of Legation Counsellor Dr. Eberhardt von Thadden. Legation Counsellor Von Thadden was in the Information Office Number 14 of the Foreign Office, which was a branch which dealt with the Jewish problem and with the co-ordination of anti-Semitic propaganda in foreign countries with other German agencies. It was. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, have you applied for these documents?
DR. HORN: I applied to the General Secretary in writing and I asked that these affidavits be accepted. This morning I received confirmation that these affidavits had been given to the Prosecution and to the Translation Division. Therefore, I beg to submit this document as Exhibit Number Ribbentrop-319.
A further affidavit which I am submitting, and I have applied to the General Secretary in writing for its acceptance, is the affidavit of Dr. Werner Best, the former Reich plenipotentiary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, but I was telling Dr. Horn that we have not had copies of these yet; they have not reached us so far.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have before me a list of four affidavits, Thadden, Best, Ribbentrop and Schulze, and it is stated that they are not approved by the Tribunal. Therefore. . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, Dr. Horn mentioned them to me a day or two ago and asked me whether I should object to their being translated, and I said "no," that I should not object to their being translated. Of course, I have not had a chance to see them.
THE PRESIDENT: Would not the best course, as they have gone to the Translation Division, be for them to be offered in evidence now, as I understand Dr. Horn is intending to do, subject, of course, to any question which may arise as to their admissibility?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, if you will just give us the numbers then.
DR. HORN: The affidavit signed by Best I should like to submit as Exhibit Ribbentrop-320. I should like to give a brief explanation of the reason for this affidavit.
3 July 46
In cross-examination, my client was confronted with Document 2375-PS. This document is an affidavit of a colonel of the Police, Dr. Rudolf Mildner. A passage from this affidavit which dealt with the handling of the Jewish question in Denmark was quoted to my client. I examined this document and have ascertained that two documents bear the Number 2375-PS. One document is a statement made by Dr. Mildner which was not made under oath. This statement which was not made under oath contained that passage which was put to my client in cross-examination. Under the same number there is an affidavit which has been sworn and is also by Dr. Mildner. The passage about the attitude of Ribbentrop to the Jewish question is not contained in this affidavit.
For this reason, I have got Dr. Best, who had been instructed by Ribbentrop to handle the Jewish question and, according to Dr. Mildner, did do so, to give this affidavit, Document Number Ribbentrop-320, which I am now submitting to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HORN: Apart from that my client was confronted in crossexamination with a series of documents to which he could make only brief statements as they were lengthy documents, most of which he had not seen before. I should like to ask the Tribunal to permit me to submit a few brief explanations on behalf of my client in the form of an affidavit, which I shall call Exhibit Number Ribbentrop-321.
Then, I should like to be permitted to define my attitude on Document TC-75. TC-75 represents a note sent by Ribbentrop to Hitler. This was submitted by the Prosecution in a very abbreviated form. When I had this document given to me in the original for the first time, the photo copy tallied with the copy submitted by the Prosecution. When I had this same document given to me a second time, I received a photostatic copy of nine pages. In my final speech I should like to refer to this document. Therefore, in order to save the Tribunal's time I ask for permission to submit this complete Document TC-75.
I have no further applications, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Horn, you did not give a number to that last affidavit.
DR. HORN: TC-75 will become Exhibit Number Ribbentrop-322.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to deal with those points of my examination which have not yet been dealt with.
3 July 46
First of all we are concerned with the witness who has been allowed me by the Tribunal, Generaladmiral Bohm. The Tribunal will recall that I was permitted to examine this witness at the end of the presentation of evidence. In the meantime, after consultation with Mr. Elwyn Jones and Sir David, I have obtained an affidavit from Generaladmiral Bohm in Hamburg, so that I could perhaps dispense with calling him as a witness.
I submitted this affidavit to Sir David and to Mr. Elwyn Jones and Mr. Jones told me yesterday afternoon that Sir David agreed, and that he would dispense with the cross-examination, and at the same time I agreed not to insist on an examination, but to be satisfied with the submitting and the reading of the affidavit. I believe Sir David agrees.
I should like to submit this affidavit of Generaladmiral Boehm's as Exhibit Number Raeder-129. This was sworn to on 13 June this year in the presence of notary Dr. Sieveking at Hamburg.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not necessary to read it now, is it?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President. I should be very grateful if I might be permitted to read this affidavit, alit deals with a portion of evidence which is quite significant. The Tribunal will, I am sure, recall the fact...
THE PRESIDENT: But I have already told you, Dr. Siemers- you can certainly confine yourself to the really important part of it and summarize anything that is really not so important. We cannot have all these documents read out to us.
DR. SIEMERS: The Tribunal will agree with me that as far as my other documents are concerned, I read remarkably little. My reason for wanting to read a part of it was because the British Delegation. at the close of the cross-examination, submitted two very lengthy summaries, GB-464 and GB-465. These are summaries about the key documents of the 22d.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, surely you can tell us what the subject matter of the affidavit is. We will then know the general subject matter of it. and then I should have thought you could direct your attention to the Particular matters which are of special importance here. It only takes 'up time if you are going to tell us what the Prosecution have done.
DR. SIEMERS: I beg your pardon. Mr. President, if I have been misunderstood. It was my intention to do that.
I shall not read from "I" of the affidavit. I shall only summarize it. It is a discussion between Raeder and Generaladmiral Boehm in the summer of 1939, on which occasion Boehm told Raeder that he was worried about the political developments. He then asked Raeder
3 July 46
whether he had called Hitler's attention to the great dangers and to the fact that the German Navy would not be in a position to carry on a war at sea:
"Grossadmiral Raeder replied to me"-and these are his words-"that he had put this up to Hitler more than once, and that he had concluded his exposition to Hitler with the fundamental sentence: 'In such a case the Navy could not do anything but die gloriously.' "
Number II of the affidavit of Generaladmiral Bohm:
"On 22 August 1939 Hitler made a speech to the top leaders of the Armed Forces at the Obersalzberg. I was present during the entire speech, which lasted 2 to 21/z hours. The speech was delivered in Hitler's office."
I am omitting the next few points and continue:
"The speech"-which was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number Raeder-27-"has been set down by me with great accuracy, and I can state under oath that the speech was delivered in the way in which I have set it down. In particular I can confirm that my account contains all the important ideas and words.
"The versions submitted by the Prosecution, Documents Number 798-PS and 1014-PS, have been submitted to me by Dr. Siemers. I have now compared my version with these two versions."
I am again skipping a paragraph.
"I declare under oath that some of the expressions used in these documents were not used by Hitler at all, while others were used by Hitler partly in another sense and partly in another form.
"As to Document 798-PS, the following numbers of the pages and lines agree with the version which I have just received, and which was submitted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe."
I should like to remind the Tribunal that this is the 10-page summary, GB-464. In this version you will find the sentence:
" 'Afterward we shall discuss military details.'
"Comment: This sentence was not used. Military details did not follow in 798-PS either.
"Page 1, Lines 7 to 10: 'I made this decision already in the spring, but I thought that first of all, in a few years' time, I should turn against the West, and only afterward against the East.'
"Comment: The account as set down by me, on Page 1, Lines 5 to 8, is absolutely true. In any case Hitler never used the words that he would first of all turn against the West.
3 July 46
"Page 1, Lines 12 to 14: 'First of all I wanted to bring about satisfactory relations with Poland so that I could first of all fight against the West.'
"Comment: This sentence was never used, and what I have just said applies here, too. Hitler never voiced the intention that he wanted to fight against the West."
Now I shall omit the next point and on Lines 15 to 18 on Page 2 it says:
" 'It is easy for us to make decisions. We have nothing to lose, only to gain. Our economic situation, due to our limited resources, is such that we can hold out only a few more years.'
"Comment: As to the attitude taken here-the version in my statement, Page 2, lines 21 to 26, is absolutely correct. Above all the sentence, 'I have nothing . . .' "
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, does it not come to this? There are two or three versions of this particular speech and this admiral is saying that his version is correct. That is all it comes to. I mean, he does not think the other versions are correct. Well, the Tribunal will no doubt have to compare the three versions and compare it with this affidavit. But what is the purpose or use of reading it to us at this stage I do not know.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you very much. Then I ask that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the further statements, as set out therein. I should like to refer only to the fact that Generaladmiral Boehm expressly asserts and declares under oath that the sentence which has been quoted several times: "I am afraid that at the last moment some dirty dog will submit to me a plan for mediation"-was not uttered by Hitler.
Referring to Document 1014-PS, I should like to read a sentence which has been brought up by the Prosecution six or seven times:
"The destruction of Poland is in the foreground and the aim is the elimination of Polish vitality, not the reaching of a certain line."
In this connection Boehm says:
"There was never any talk of destroying Poland or of eliminating the vitality of the Polish people. What was discussed was the breaking of the military forces."
And I should like the Tribunal to take judicial notice of these very carefully set down statements for it seems to me that this is important in assessing the evidence value of the documents presented by the Prosecution.
Then under "III" Generaladmiral Boehm describes that period during which he was commanding admiral in Norway. I should like
3 July 46
the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this. This statement chiefly concerns the struggle carried on by Raeder and Boehm against Terboven, against the German civilian administration, and the attempts to make peace with Norway.
Mr. President, after many weeks the interrogatory of Albrecht has reached me in its final form. I sent it to the Translation Division several days ago and have not yet received the translation. This interrogatory has been approved and I put it in as Exhibit Number Raeder-128. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this interrogatory.
I should like to mention that Generaladmiral Albrecht was for many years one of Raeder's closest co-workers. He resigned in October 1939. He knows the attitude taken by Raeder and he knows the High Command of the Navy before 1933 and up to 1938. He, too, confirms the fact that Raeder constantly warned Hitler of complications, and that Hitler always stated, "I have matters under control and I will not let it come to war."
As regards all the other points, I ask, Mr. President, that the Tribunal take judicial notice of these.
Then I should like to refer to the following: One interrogatory by Generaladmiral Schulze has not yet come to hand. My efforts to obtain this interrogatory date back to March 1946. I have given his address. The witness is in retirement and lives in Hamburg-Blankenese. Unfortunately until now the interrogatory has not arrived in Hamburg. I should be very grateful to the Tribunal if it would give me permission to submit this interrogatory at a later date, as I myself have no means of expediting it. I do not know when it will come in, as in the meantime it has been sent to Washington for reasons I do not understand, but I certainly hope that it will be returned at some future date. Finally, Mr. President . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. What do you mean by it having been sent to Washington? Did you say Washington?
DR. SIEMERS: I was informed by the General Secretary that this interrogatory had been sent to Washington in order to locate the witness there. But the witness resides in Hamburg-Blankenese. I am sorry that I have no means of using my influence even though I have been trying for 3 months.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no doubt the General Secretary is making every effort to have the witness found. If he is found, then-what are the dates? You say that 3 months ago you submitted this interrogatory? Was it sent to Hamburg or where was it sent?
DR. SIEMERS: I have . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, Dr. Siemers, you ought to know. You have been in touch all these 3 months with the General Secretary
3 July 46
and you are stating that he sent it to Washington. You ought to know. Have you given him any address in Hamburg? What is your complaint?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, you have misunderstood. I was not complaining. I was just stating the facts in order to show why the interrogatory is not here, and I ask that when the interrogatory arrives I may be permitted to submit it then, though by that time the evidence...
THE PRESIDENT: I know you say that, but the Tribunal wants to know where the interrogatory was first sent and why it was sent to Washington, and why it was not sent to Hamburg and what you know about the fact-the alleged fact-that the person who was to make the interrogatory was at Hamburg?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I am from Hamburg myself and last November I talked with the witness, and I gave his address when I put in my first application to the General Secretary. Perhaps some misunderstanding arose with the other of flees which transmitted the interrogatory. Perhaps they looked for a witness by the name of Schulze in some other place. The name of the Generaladmiral is Otto Schulze and it is quite possible that they looked up someone else with this rather common name.
The only answer I received was that the witness was being looked for, to which I replied that it was not necessary to look for the witness.
MR. DODD: I think the Tribunal might be interested in knowing that Dr. Siemers himself returned from Hamburg a few days ago, and I think he has been there two or three times since he asked for this interrogatory. Now, if he knows where this witness is, all he had to do while he was up there was to go to a Military Government officer, submit his questions, get them answered, and bring them back; and I think it is a little bit unfair to blame the General Secretary under these circumstances.
DR. SIEMERS: I regret very much that Mr. Dodd considers it necessary to reproach me with unfairness. I was told that an interrogatory could not be given to the witness by me. The interrogatory for Admiral Albrecht I brought back with me from Hamburg at the request of the General Secretary because the formula of the oath had been omitted. In a case of this kind I consider it quite natural that I should co-operate with the General Secretary. However, I have submitted this interrogatory and I cannot understand how Mr. Dodd could blame me if I have not brought the interrogatory back with me.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this seems to me a waste of time. We had better get a report from the General Secretary.
3 July 96
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe that I still have not been understood. I am not accusing anyone. I am just asking for permission to submit my interrogatory subsequently.
THE PRESIDENT: Well. We will consider that. We will not make any decision until we have heard a report from the General Secretary upon the circumstances.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, then I should like to point out that two of my applications were granted, which were not carried out completely. One was the application concerning the files of the British Admiralty containing the Allies' plans regarding Scandinavia and Finland. Purely as a matter of form I should like to say that the answer from the Foreign Office, which is known to the Tribunal, is available, and the Tribunal had approved the submission of these files, but the request was turned down by the Foreign Office. As this matter has not been dealt with before I should like it to be made absolutely clear.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, I think, has the communication from the Foreign Office.
DR. SIEMERS: But I did not submit it, Mr. President. Therefore, I did not know under what number, what exhibit number it can be found in the files of the Tribunal. Would it be possible, Mr. President . . .
THE PRESIDENT: You can give it a number, certainly. Give it whatever number you think right. What is the number you want?
DR. SIEMERS: May I submit this document as Exhibit Number Raeder-130 either this afternoon or at the latest tomorrow morning?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Then, Mr. President, I made the request that the first edition of Hitler's book Mein Kampf be placed at my disposal. In this case as well, I should like to point out that according to information received the General Secretary has made every effort, for which I am grateful, but he has not been successful in providing me with this first edition.
I should like to remind you of the fact that the edition used by the Prosecution is from the year 1933 and therefore it cannot be used as a basis for the argument put by the Prosecution concerning the period before 1933.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter of argument.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes indeed.
During my absence four documents were submitted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. As far as I was able to ascertain, these documents, which all come from Admiral Assmann, were submitted with the remark that Admiral Assmann belonged to the Staff of Grossadmiral
3 July 46
Raeder. This fact was also mentioned several times in preceding records.
For the sake of order, I should like to clear up this error. Assmann was in the historical section and he was in no way concerned with the staff of Raeder. In this connection...
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any evidence of the facts you are stating, or do the Prosecution accept them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We accept, I am sure. My Lord, we have had it in evidence and we accept the fact that he was in the Naval Historical Section of the German Admiralty. My Lord, when I said `'staff" I was speaking generally. I did not mean the Operations Staff.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we need not waste further time about that.
DR. SIEMERS: I should like to refer to one point, Mr. President, concerning these four documents: D-879, D-881, D-892, and D-854.
I hope that in this matter as well Sir David will agree with me. All the English translations bear the heading "Diary"...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is simply a point of how the compilation of Admiral Assmann should be described. I am quite prepared that it should be described as it is in the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Well...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Siemers objected to its being described as a `diary', and said that it should have been described as an index. My Lord, I do not mind what it is described as.
THE PRESIDENT: What does it matter? Let us call it an index then. Is that all your points?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, this is important insofar as here in this courtroom many "Tagebucher" have been submitted under the designation of a Diary," and these were really entries made at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David says that he will withdraw the word "diary," and you may call it anything else you like. Really, it is only a waste of our time to make this sort of technical point. Sir David agrees with you, and he is prepared to withdraw the word "diary."
DR. SIEMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well then, let us not say anything more about it.
DR. SIEMERS: I quite agree, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I do not wish to take up the time of the Tribunal with all the other and very numerous errors in translation. My final speech will show how important this point was in connection
3 July 46
with the Assmann document. As suggested by the Tribunal I have brought the other errors in translation to the notice of the General Secretary only.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are any errors in translation, that matter can be taken up through the General Secretary with the Translation Division. ~
Dr. Siemers, it is very improper for counsel in your position to make statements of that sort for which you have no proof at all. You know perfectly well that when there have been any alleged mis-translations, the matter has always been referred through the General Secretary to the Translation Division and then they have been corrected; and for you to get up at this stage of the Trial and say that there are many mis-translations, without any proof of it at all, simply upon your own word, is a most improper thing for counsel to do, and that is the view of the Tribunal.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I beg to apologize, but I think I probably did not express myself correctly. I am not making an accusation, but with so many documents it is not surprising that these errors did occur. I myself make mistakes. I am sorry if my remarks should have been misunderstood.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody makes mistakes, and everybody is capable of having different opinions as to translations, but you and every other member of the defendants' counsel know that those mistakes, if they are mistakes, will be corrected, if it is possible, and they know the way that it can be done, and, therefore, as I said before, it is very improper for you to get up and allege that there are a lot of mis-translations. I do not want to hear anything more about it.
The Tribunal will adjourn.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, have you any documents that you wish to offer in evidence?
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, with a letter dated 1 July 1946, I put in three affidavits, after having submitted them previously to the Prosecution. Those three documents will become Documents Keitel-23, Keitel-24, and Keitel-25. I beg the Tribunal to receive them, since the Prosecution, as Sir David has told me, does not object to their being offered in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: And they are at present being translated, or have they been translated?
DR. NELTE: They are in the process of being translated. I have merely submitted the originals to the Tribunal.
3 July 46
THE PRESIDENT: Very well then, we will receive them in evidence and consider them.
DR. NELTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann?
DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): Mr. President, I have a few interrogatories which have been granted to me by the Tribunal. I have the originals here with me; they have been numbered, and I should like to submit them.
The Translation Division has informed me that the translations are not yet at the disposal of the Tribunal, but I assume they will be in the hands of the Tribunal in the next few days.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I should like to state, in a few short sentences, what the contents of the documents are, if the Tribunal wishes me to do so.
There are three documents which refer to the same subject: The testimony given by the President of the Red Cross at Geneva, Professor Burckhardt; the testimony given by Dr. Bachmann, who was the delegate of the Red Cross; and then there is Dr. Meyer's testimony, and he too was an official representative of the Red Cross.
In these documents these witnesses deal with the discussions during March and April 1945 which they had with the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. They also show that agreements were reached on the strength of these discussions which made it possible for thousands of French, Belgian, and Dutch women and children to be returned to their home countries. Prisoners of war were also released under these agreements and internees from concentration
camps were allowed to return. Another result was that Kaltenbrunner gave permission to visit the Jewish camp at Theresienstadt and took pains that other camps received medical supplies, food, et cetera.
All that is contained in detail in these three documents.
THE PRESIDENT: What numbers are you giving them?
DR. KAUFFMANN: The Professor Burckhardt document will be Number Kaltenbrunner-3; Dr. Meyer and Dr. Bachmann, Numbers Kaltenbrunner-4 and 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: A further document is the interrogatory supplied by the former Gauleiter in Upper Austria, Eigruber. That is Exhibit Number Kaltenbrunner-6. Here again I should like to draw attention to one point. Among other things, this witness states that the concentration camp at Mauthausen was not set up by Kaltenbrunner, as has been alleged by the Prosecution and that he was
not responsible for the life there or the presence of the internees at the camp. That is stated here in detail and I do not propose to read it.
The next document is the interrogatory of Freiherr von Eberstein, which is Number Kaltenbrunner-7. Again, I shall not read from it, but perhaps I may say, in just one sentence, that this witness is testifying that he knows that the concentration camp at Dachau and the two auxiliary camps belonging to Dachau were not, as has been alleged by the Prosecution, to be exterminated during the last months or weeks of the war, but that such a plan had been contemplated exclusively by the Gauleiter of Munich, Giessler.
Then there is a further interrogatory, which is the testimony of the witness Wanneck. That will be Exhibit Kaltenbrunner-8. I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal particularly to this document. It is a lengthy document, and I- shall not read from it. However, I believe I can say that this man was particularly well acquainted with the defendant and the whole of his official activities in the course of many years. This witness held for years a leading position in the Foreign Intelligence Service.. He knows Kaltenbrunner's attitude regarding the executive and he confirms the fact that Kaltenbrunner agreed with Himmler at the time, that he, Himmler, would retain the executive powers while Kaltenbrunner would work mostly in the sector of the Intelligence Service as a whole.
Finally, Mr. President, there are two documents which have not yet been discussed. Therefore, first of all, the Tribunal would have to decide as to the relevancy of the documents, and as to whether I shall be entitled to submit the documents. They are two short letters which I have received.
One is a letter from the mayor of the town of Dachau, dated 4 April 1946. The Tribunal may possibly remember that during the taking of evidence by the Prosecution it was frequently mentioned that the population in the vicinity had knowledge of the abuses. This man, who has now been instated by the American authorities, confirms his own experiences. In my opinion they do not bear out the thesis of the Prosecution.
Immediately connected with this is the second letter, which is from the well-known Pastor Niemoller, and which is dated 17 April 1946. Niemoller had spent some time in Dachau.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, would it not be best if we were heard on the first affidavit before the Niemoller affidavit is taken up?
We have objected to this affidavit by the mayor of, Dachau for the reason that it is simply a letter. We have had no opportunity to file any cross-questions or to ask any questions of the man at all.
3 July 46
These letters come in here. If we are going to submit all the letters that come in-we have bales of them, actually.
We do not like to object on purely technical grounds, if there is anything here that would really be helpful to the Tribunal. On the other hand, we do not feel that we should deny ourselves the opportunity to make clear the entire story by cross-questions of some kind.
THE PRESIDENT: That is with reference to Schwalber?
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I did not quite understand what you said, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What Mr. Dodd said was that they objected to this document from Schwalber because they have not had any opportunity to put any questions to him, either by way of having him called as a witness or by a cross-interrogatory. Therefore, they object to the introduction of the document in its present form.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I understand. I know this is somewhat problematical, but the Tribunal will be able to assess the evidence value of the letters according to their own opinion. Perhaps I may submit these two short documents to the Tribunal. So far as I know, the Prosecution is acquainted with these two documents, because they have been in the Translation Division, and some time ago a representative of the Prosecution told me that very probably objections would be raised. That was why, at the beginning, I told the Tribunal it would first have to decide as to the relevancy of the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Kauffmann, the best way will be for the Tribunal to read the document and to consider it. We will do that.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you.
MR. DODD: I should also like to indicate to the Tribunal that we take the same position with respect to the Niemoller letter.
THE PRESIDENT: You consider them both, then? You are objecting also to the Niemoller letter?
MR. DODD: Yes, on the same grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): Mr. President, the reply to the Messersmith interrogatory has not yet been submitted. The reply has been received in the meantime, and has been translated, too. I believe, however, that the Tribunal has probably not yet received it.
THE PRESIDENT. Can you offer it in evidence and give it a number?
3 July 46
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, Sir; I was going to. But I did not expect that it would come up today, and I have not the number which I shall give to the exhibit. May I be permitted to furnish the number later? Yes-I have it here, Mr. President, and I shall now submit it as Exhibit Number Frick-14. This is the reply to an interrogatory. The replies are in the same form as those which Mr. Messersmith gave in the interrogatories concerning other defendants. I shall refer to this interrogatory in detail during my final speech. Therefore I need not read it now.
Then there is still one reply outstanding in an interrogatory of Konrad, and I beg to be permitted to submit it as soon as I receive it.
THE PRESIDENT: That has been granted, has it? And it is now before the witness?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius.
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel): Mr. President, several interrogatories have still to be submitted. First of all, I submit Exhibit Number Sauckel-15 to the Tribunal. That is a Darre interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Whose interrogatory was that? Whose interrogatory?
DR. SERVATIUS: Darre, the Minister for Food and Agriculture. This interrogatory deals with matters which have in part already come up at this Trial. I should like to draw your attention to a few points. There is the question of what was Sauckel's general attitude, particularly toward Himmler's views; and the witness stresses the fact there was considerable controversy between Himmler and Sauckel in this respect. He mentions one particular instance which he himself witnessed. He speaks about a factory in Thuringia which was directly under Sauckel's control and says that the workers there were so free that they hired themselves out to farmers during the day, which was rather too much of a good thing. He then talked about a clash between Sauckel and Himmler in the presence of the Fuehrer about the question of treatment, and he says that Himmler stated, "I am subordinate to the Fuehrer only, and for my official business I am under the Reich Marshal; and I do not have to justify myself to you."
Then there is an interrogatory from Minister of Labor Seldte, which has been allowed by the Tribunal and which I shall submit as Exhibit Number Sauckel-16. I should like to bring out just a few points. The witness talks about Sauckel's functions and the
3 July 46
functions of Dr. Ley, and he says that Sauckel carried out the functions of the state while Ley looked after the social welfare and social supervision.
Then he goes on to talk about inspections and control, and he says that the offices for accident insurance, health, and factory inspection were in existence before and had continued to function under the responsibility of the Ministry of Labor.
Then comes the interrogatory of Dr. Voss, which I submit as Exhibit Number Sauckel-17. I shall submit the original later. I am afraid I cannot find it at the moment. This doctor was medical officer in a camp, and he speaks of the conditions in the camps, particularly after air attacks, and about the activities and care of the Labor Front. He not only deals with the camps in which he was working but he knows a great deal generally about conditions in other camps.
His statement is in contradiction to the testimony given by Dr. Jager. In the same way the following document, which I shall submit as Exhibit Number Sauckel-18 and which comes from Dr. Ludwig Scharmann, although dealing with another sector, contains similar statements, too, which are also in direct contrast to the testimony given by Dr. Jager.
That completes the interrogatories which have been granted me. Now I have still another number of documents for which I have applied, but on which a decision has not yet been given. I do not know whether I should now submit them to the Tribunal. They are mostly concerned with laws and decrees and I would like to submit them in addition to what I have already submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal would like you to submit them now, because the Tribunal wishes to deal with the evidence on behalf of the Defense finally, now and today.
DR. SERVATIUS: There is a decree by Sauckel dealing with the return of sick foreign workers to their homes. It shows that workers who had fallen sick were sent back and that Red Cross employees had to accompany them. The actual decree is in the official collection of laws and decrees which has already been submitted. I shall ascertain my exhibit number presently. It will be Number Sauckel-99 in the supplementary document book.
Then there is Document Number Sauckel-100, which comes from the Reichsarbeitsblatt, 1943, which has already been offered in evidence, too. This deals with the investigation of sanitary measures in camps, and it concerns the accusations which have been made with reference to these accommodation problems.
Then there is Document Number Sauckel-101 which is a memorandum for French prisoners of war on leave regarding their
3 July 48
improved status under the so-called `'transformation." I shall submit it and give the exhibit a number. For the moment it is Document Number Sauckel-101.
Then come Documents 102 and 103. Both are laws contained in the official Reichspesetzblatt. They are "German Instructions Regarding Compulsory Labor Service." It is the Emergency Services Order which I submit as Document Number Sauckel-102. Then there is the Compulsory Labor Decree which will be Document Number Sauckel-103, in the supplement.
Then I find that Document 4006-PS contains a number of important regulations, but I am told that the Prosecution is going to read them, and therefore I assume that I need not do so.
Then I have received an affidavit from Count Spreti, who, from the beginning of the Eastern campaign, was active as a recruiting officer in the East. It deals with conditions, and it states particularly that Sauckel's activity had brought about a basic change in the general attitude. It is short and I consider that it is of particular importance, because up to now no recruiting officer has been heard on the subject.
Then I was proposing to submit Document Number Sauckel-109, which will be a list...
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, with regard to that affidavit I am told, the Prosecution having not seen it at all,' that that should be accepted with the same reservations as have been made in the previous cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. Was that affidavit you spoke of by Count von Spreti, S-p-r-e-t-i ?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord. ,
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I was going to submit a list of all of Sauckel's decrees as Document Number Sauckel-109 which will give an idea of the great care he took of all kinds of matters. This list will give the titles only.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you did not give a number to the affidavit of Count von Spreti.
DR. SERVATIUS: It will be given Number Sauckel-108 in my document book and then I shall give it an exhibit number later when I submit the numbers for the other documents.
Then as Document Number Sauckel-110, 111, and 112...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, are you not giving us exhibit numbers now?
3 July 46
DR. SERVATIUS: I cannot do so at the moment because I have not got the originals with me and part of these are official records which have been submitted already.
THE PRESIDENT: But you see in the case of the Defendant Sauckel, as in the case of every other defendant, the exhibits put in on his behalf, the exhibits offered in evidence on his behalf should have a consecutive series of numbers and that is a consecutive series which is settled by the counsel himself who offers the documents in evidence. It does not depend upon whether he has the original before him.
DR. SERVATIUS: In that case I can give them exhibit numbers. Document Number-108 will be Exhibit Number Sauckel-18.
THE PRESIDENT: Which is that?
DR. SERVATIUS: Exhibit Number 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the most convenient way would be if you would carefully go through your exhibits and give the list to the General Secretary, giving the exact exhibit number of each document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Very well.
Then Documents Number 110, 111, and 112, contained in the supplement, are three laws which deal with the position of the Reich Defense Commissioner who was mentioned in connection with the allocation of labor. The Reich Defense Commissioner is, of course, the Gauleiter who was mentioned during the case of Speer in connection with the armament industry. These are merely the basic laws, so as to have them at hand.
After the case of Speer had been heard, I received an affidavit from the witnesses Hildebrandt and Stothfang, who had been examined here in Court. It deals with the question of how far Sauckel had to obey Speer's instructions and what the relations were between the two offices. The Prosecution have not yet defined their attitude and I think perhaps it would be best if...
MR. DODD: We will be glad to have this affidavit submitted, Mr. President. We have no objection whatever to it. As a matter of fact, if it was not submitted by Dr. Servatius, we intended to offer it ourselves.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Of course the Tribunal thinks it is irregular, really, that a witness who has been called and has given evidence, has been cross-examined-has been re-examined and cross-examined by any other counsel for the defense who want to-that he should be entitled to give any other evidence, but if you are both agreed that it is convenient in this case, as a special circumstance, we will admit it.
3 July 46
MR. DODD: I think-Mr. President, I, of course, recognize at once the Court's observation about submitting affidavits of witnesses who have been before the Tribunal. What happened here was that some rather material matters were not gone into when he was here, and I think the Tribunal will find them quite helpful in clearing up the situation about Sauckel and Speer with respect to their relative and individual responsibilities for this slave labor program. Other than that, I, of course, would not urge it at all. I think the Court will find it helpful.
DR. HANS FLACHSNER (Counsel for Defendant Speer): Mr. President, I would not make a formal objection against the admission of such an affidavit if I were not convinced, in this particular case, that with the admission of such an affidavit a series of questions will be opened up which will, in turn, necessitate further arguments. I saw the wording of this affidavit only this morning and I am convinced that at least further investigation of its contents will be necessary. I believe, therefore, that if this Trial is to be shortened, in the case before us as well, one ought not to depart from the general rule that affidavits from witnesses who have already appeared before the Tribunal should not be permitted. In this particular case, where there are references to the publication with which the affidavit deals, the case could be made quite clear if these publications were submitted and, therefore, the affidavit is not at all necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything in answer to that objection?
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, this affidavit is, in fact, a supplementation of the instructions contained in Document 4006, which the Prosecution is proposing to submit; but I did not know that this was proposed. What we are actually concerned with here is a question which was opened up by Speer's examination, namely, the significance of Speer's Ministry as compared to Sauckel's office: Who, of the two, was the more powerful? Who 'could give orders? Who had to obey? I think the documents will make that clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you and the Prosecution had the opportunity of cross-examining Speer when he was in the witness box and you could then have elucidated anything you wanted to elucidate at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, only the circumstances were not known to me at that moment.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I do not wish to press this at all, and if the Tribunal has any doubt about it at all I will withdraw my position. I thought it might be helpful, but it really is not important and if there is any question I think it is better we let it go.
3 July 46
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal think it is irregular to introduce new evidence by affidavits from a person who has already been called as a witness, and in view of the objection on behalf of the Defendant Speer, they cannot accept the evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS: In that case, I will withdraw it. That completes my statement of evidence. The only thing that is still outstanding is the witness Letsch's interrogatory, which has been granted, and the interrogatory of the witness Bichenbach. I have no hope of still receiving them.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer?
DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant SeyssInquart): Mr. President, I have four documents which I beg to submit and which I have received through the General Secretary. The Tribunal has allowed them and the Prosecution know of them. Unfortunately, however, the translations have not yet been completed.
The first document contains questions and answers from Director Dirk Hannema, director of the Bovymans Museum in Rotterdam, about the alleged plundering of art treasures. I shall give this document the Number Seyss-Inquart-108. I shall submit the English text and the Dutch original.
The next document is an edition of the newspaper Nienwe Rotterdamsche Courant, dated 17 May 1942, of which I have the original and a German translation. It contains a warning regarding the shooting of hostages. This document I shall submit in the original under Document Number Seyss-Inquart-109.
The following document is also an edition of the same newspaper; it is dated 10 August 1942, and it also contains an announcement regarding the shooting of hostages. In connection with this document I should like to draw your attention to the fact that this announcement was the result of an order from, the Military Commander in Holland, General Christiansen, and that the Senior SS and Police Leader, Rauter, signed it. I shall give it Document Number Seyss-Inquart-ll0.
The next document I received only yesterday from the General Secretariat, and it is a copy of the interrogatory of General of the Cavalry Von Kleffel. From 27 March 1945 until 8 April 1945, he was Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the 25th Army in Holland. He confirms that Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart, in a letter to the Fuehrer, had requested that the fighting should cease, in order to save the country from being heavily damaged and also to prevent a famine. This document is Number Seyss-Inquart-111 in my document book. This document had been allowed by the Tribunal. I beg, therefore, that it be received in evidence.
3 July 40
Today the General Secretary's office sent me two affidavits. One comes from the former commanders of the Defense District of Scheveningen. His name is Erwin Tschoppe. He is submitting an affidavit dealing with the attitude and conduct of the defendant with respect to the evacuation of the coastal area. Because of the short time at my disposal, I have not yet been able to hand this document and the following one to the Prosecution, but I have already informed the Prosecution that these two documents exist. The second document is also...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, these documents, I apprehend, have not been shown to the Prosecution?
DR. STEINBAUER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute; they have not been approved by the Tribunal and one question that arises is: Are they very long? Because I find that the Translation Division is being overloaded with very long documents.
DR. STEINBAUER: No, it is a short document, but it appears to me to be important, because it shows how the defendant acted during that difficult situation and how he took care of the Dutch population.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is short and if you will submit it to the Prosecution, then it can be translated and admitted subject to any objection.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Sir. The same applies to the following document which I also received today. It is an affidavit of Adalbert Joppich. He was President of the German Supreme Court in the Netherlands, and he makes a very brief statement about the position and the attitude of the defendant with regard to legal questions affecting the Dutch civilian population. I beg that this document should also be admitted in evidence and that I may use the same procedure of submitting a copy of the translation to the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: What number did you give?
DR. STEINBAUER: The Tschoppe document will be Document Number Seyss-Inquart-112 and the Adalbert Joppich document will be Document Number Seyss-Inquart-113. Documents allowed by the Tribunal and still outstanding are affidavits by Bolle, Dr. Reuter, Volkers, and Lindhorst-Homan. The General Secretariat and I are trying to obtain these affidavits. So far it has only been possible to ascertain Bolle's address. Finally, I request that two applications which I have made in writing should be granted; one concerns the obtaining of the defendant's NSDAP membership card which was impounded when he was arrested, and which must be among his personal documents in the custody of the Tribunal. A few
3 July 46
months ago I made a request to that effect, but both sides apparently lost sight of the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, you do not mean that it is in the custody of the Tribunal; you may mean that it is in the custody of the military authorities.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes. I meant the prison administration.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no doubt, they can reproduce it. What was the other document?
DR. STEINBAUER: Well, Mr. President, then in the cross-examination . . .
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I do not want to take up Your Lordship's time, but that membership card, that could have been applied for months ago. It is on the same footing as these documents which counsel has been putting in. We have not seen them. I do not know what this card is going to prove, but it is going tube a great deal of trouble to get it here, just as these documents are giving a great deal of work to the Translation Division.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the importance of the membership card? Presumably he knows when he became a member. What relevance does the card have to this?
DR. STEINBAUER: It is of importance because according to the war crime law which has now been published in Austria, all members having a membership number above 6,500,000 will not be regarded as so-called "old fighters" or illegals. Seyss-Inquart has stated in the witness box...
THE PRESIDENT: That has nothing to do with the Tribunal. It may be relevant in some other proceeding and before some other court but not before this Court.
DR. STEINBAUER: Only insofar as the Prosecution had alleged that he had been a member of the NSDAP since 1931. But, of course, I am not trying to make difficulties. I only thought that the membership card might be among the belongings which were taken away from the prisoner and that one could have a look at it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But did he deny that he was a member since 1931?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, oh, yes. He states that he did not become a member until 13 March 1938-formally.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, formally; I remember, yes. But he had been a member of the Austrian Nazi Party very much longer, if I remember rightly.
MR. DODD: We will agree here and now, Mr. President, that that card would show that he became a member, as far as the card
3 July 46
is concerned, on that date. I am sure that is what it will show and if it will help the doctor, we will be glad to agree to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STEINBAUER: The last document for which I am applying is the following: During cross-examination a document was submitted in which an 18 year-old female police clerk named Hildegard Kunze confirms that my client caused Dutch Jews to be sterilized. Seyss-Inquart maintains that he has never written to
the Police directly, but that in three personal letters addressed directly to Himmler, he did object to the treatment of Jews, and that in one of his letters he mentioned sterilization. This, presumably, was the reason why the witness mentioned it and probably she gained knowledge of these facts because Himmler sent the original or copy of the letters to the Main Security Office. In connection with this important matter my client has requested me to make an attempt to have these letters which he wrote to Himmler produced in order to disprove the incriminating statement made by the witness Hildegard Kunze. I do not conceal the fact that it will probably be difficult to find these letters among the very many documents of the Main Security Office.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you made your application in writing about this?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, I have made a written application.
THE PRESIDENT: Giving the dates when the letters were written?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, everything I could ascertain regarding the dates and the addresses is contained in my application.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that, but you understand that the work involved in this sort of thing is very great indeed.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, far be it from me to underestimate the difficulties which are connected with my application. Apart from this, I have no further application to make.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
3 July 46
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not sit in open session Saturday next, nor will it sit in open session on any Saturday in the
future unless it gives notice that it is going to do so.
Yes, Dr. Thoma?
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, yesterday I mentioned an affidavit of Dr. Heinz Oeppert, Reichshauptstellenleiter. I have now received this affidavit, and I have also already conferred with Mr. Dodd about it.
I now beg the permission of the High Tribunal to submit this affidavit. Mr. Dodd has no objections to the submission of this affidavit.
May I read a very brief passage from this affidavit, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell us what the affidavit is about?
DR. THOMA: Yes, Mr. President. This Dr. Oeppert had the Office of Ideological Enlightenment in the of lice of the Fuehrer's deputy for the supervision of the entire ideological and intellectual framing of the Party. Concerning this activity and this office he testified that it involved almost exclusively a reporting and registration of events in this sphere.
Any active interference in the church policy of the State or the Party would not have been possible even if they had wished it, for this office had no executive facilities of any kind. There were
constantly very intense differences with the State and Party organizations which participated in this sphere of activity, that is, between the Propaganda Ministry and the Church and the SD and Party Chancellery. The suppression of certain ideological groups and sects as well as the measures taken against individual clergymen, as far as I know, were taken by the SD or the Gestapo without the knowledge or authority of this office.
I am asking the High Tribunal to take judicial notice of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. THOMA: Exhibit Number Rosenberg-51.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz. On behalf of Fritzsche-is anyone representing Dr. Fritz?
DR. ALFRED SCHILF (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Dr. Schilf for Dr. Fritz, who is absent, representing the Defendant Fritzsche.
Mr. President, Dr. Fritz applied in writing last Monday concerning two affidavits which are still outstanding, one an affidavit
3 July 46
by the journalist-the English journalist, Clifton Delilah-and the other an affidavit by His Excellency Feldscher, then Minister of the protective power in Berlin, now in Berne. Neither of these affidavits has arrived yet, and we are asking the High Tribunal if we may submit and be allowed these documents later.
I have no further comments. No other applications have been made.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you-I did not hear the name of the second one. Was it Feldscher?
DR. SCHILF: Excellency Feldscher, Minister of the protective power. He is now at Berne in Switzerland.
THE PRESIDENT: Have these affidavits been placed before the Prosecution?
DR. SCHILF: No, Mr. President, they are not yet available. They have not arrived yet.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Are they affidavits or interrogatories?
DR. SCHILF: They are two interrogatories, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Interrogatories, I see. Well then, when the interrogatories come back answered, they can be shown to the Prosecution if they want to put in cross-interrogatories; and then they can be translated and submitted to the.- Tribunal.
Dr. Schilf, there was an application-I am not sure whether it was in writing or whether it was only oral-with reference to Schorner and Voss, and one other man, whose statements were used in cross-examination by the Prosecution. I think they were affidavits, I am not sure; and there was an oral application, I think, to cross-examine those persons. Do you want that to be done, or have you withdrawn that?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, that application has not been withdrawn, but it was put in only as an auxiliary application, to have effect only if the interrogation notes submitted by the Russian Prosecution-it seems to me that these interrogation notes cannot be considered as affidavits, but only interrogation records of a police character.
And Dr. Fritz made application to the effect that if these three documents were to be used as documents of evidence, we cannot waive the cross-examination. These three documents were used in the examination of the Defendant Fritzsche only in part, and' only short passages were submitted to the defendant in his examination. Every detail there he has . . .
THE PRESIDENT: What you were saying is that in case the Prosecution do not want to use the whole of these documents, but
3 July 46
only the parts which were put to the Defendant Fritzsche in the course of cross-examination, then you do not need to have those persons, Voss and Schorner, called for cross-examination; but if the Prosecution wish to put in the whole document, then you want to cross-examine them. Is that right?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you meaning that you are asking the Tribunal to strike out the passages in the Defendant Fritzsche's evidence which deal with these statements or are you merely meaning that if the Prosecution wish to use, not only the parts which they have put to the defendant in cross-examination but other parts of the document, that in that event you would like to crossexamine the deponents Voss and Schorner?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, we only want the cross-examination to take place in case the Court should regard the three interrogation records, as a whole, as documentary evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, then you do mean what I first of all put to you.
Well, perhaps the Prosecution, General Rudenko, would tell us whether he is wanting to put in the whole document or whether he has put enough of it in.
GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, as I have already stated to the Tribunal, when these written statements were submitted, the records of the interrogations were written down in agreement with the rules of procedure which is in existence in the Soviet Union. The Prosecution will only use those parts which were read here before the Tribunal and on which the Defendant Fritzsche was crossexamined.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then it is not necessary to have those witnesses brought here for cross-examination. Very well.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, indeed, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then that brings the Tribunal to the end of the evidence for the Defense, with the exception of two witnesses who are to be-who are here and to be called on behalf of the Defendant Bormann.
DR.FLACHSNER: Mr. President, on behalf of the Defendant Speer may I submit in addition a document which has already been translated and is known to the Prosecution. This is the Fuehrer protocol of 3 January 1943. This shall have the Document Number Speer-35. I had already listed it as Exhibit Number 35 in the index of the documents submitted by me which I gave the Court. Only at that time it had not yet been translated. I should like to submit it now.
3 July 46
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
What I wanted to say was that that concludes the whole of the evidence on behalf of the defendants with the exception of interrogatories which have already been granted, the answers to which have not yet been received. Of course, those interrogatories, subject to their being admissible, will be admitted when the answers are received and that applies also to anything in the shape of an affidavit which has been allowed by the Tribunal; but otherwise the evidence for the defendants is now closed with the exception of Dr. Bergold.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have another question regarding the appearance for testimony of the witness Walkenhorst. In case he is not called as a witness, I have an affidavit at my disposal, which I have received; and I assume that I may submit this in case this witness is not examined here before the Court. It deals with a very brief question, namely, the telephone conversation which Sauckel had regarding the evacuation of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. Walkenhorst happened to be the man at the other end of the wire. I have an affidavit on this one question.
Of course, if the witness is being questioned here in Court I shall ask him; but in case he is not examined I request that this be held open.
THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking of Walkenhorst?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, the witness Walkenhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he is just going to be examined now.
DR. SERVATIUS: I hope so, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT; But-I believe he is here.
I have before me a list of supplementary applications but I think that they have all been dealt with in the discussion which we have had during the last 2 days. And if there is any other matter which the defendants' counsel wish to raise they should raise it now.
Well then, I take it then, that as I said, the evidence for the Defense is now concluded, subject to the reception of documents which I may describe as outstanding, either interrogatories or affidavits.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I be permitted, please, to introduce three more documents with the permission of the Tribunal. They concern the following questions:
When considering what influence the paper published by Streicher exercised on the German population, it is of decisive importance to know how the circulation of this paper developed and to what circumstances the fact is to be attributed that, within a certain period of time, there was a marked increase in its circulation.
3 July 46
I set myself the task of determining from the mastheads of the weekly paper, Der Sturmer) how its circulation developed.
THE PRESIDENT: But-we have already dealt with this application. We have had the application before us and we have considered it and we have refused it.
DR. MARX: Yes, I beg your pardon, Mr. President; it concerns the following:
Quite by accident, when looking at various issues of this news
paper, I ascertained that in the year 1935 a marked jump in circulation took place and the Defense would like to prove that this increase is not to be traced to an increased demand by the German people but rather to the fact that high Party offices exercised their influence and, together with a new publishing management, brought about a threefold increase. Naturally, it is of essential significance whether a threefold increase results from a demand' by the people or whether, as in this case, the German Labor Front intervened in the person of Dr. Ley, and a special publicity number was published, which was then circulated by Dr. Ley's efforts and by using the huge machinery of the German Labor Front.
That is something I want to prove and I am of the opinion that it is of importance to the Defense.
I have three documents along these lines, Mr. President; and with the permission of the Tribunal I shall read a directive, and I ask that I be allowed to introduce it as evidence. From this it appears that Dr. Ley as the leader of the German Labor Front, gave the order to all the offices of the German Labor Front to circulate this special edition and to see to it that it was widely circulated in the factories, and so forth. For, indeed, it is one of the essential points of the Indictment that the German people were influenced against the Jews by Der Sturmer and by the Defendant Streicher, and thereby later made ripe to support the measures in the East, even to the extent of mass extermination.
Therefore, I ask that this evidence be admitted and that it be declared relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: You said you have got three documents. The first one is a directive from Ley?
DR. MARX: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. What are the other two?
DR. MARX: One is an excerpt from the newspaper Der Sturmer in May 1935, Number 18, which reads as follows:
"Bernhard", who fled from Berlin to France, writes in the Pariser Tageblatt (Paris, 29 March 1935) under the heading, 'Sturmer Circulation Increases Threefold,' as follows:
3 July 46
"'The support which the pornographer Streicher received from the highest of flees of the Reich in circulating his Sturmer helped him to triple his circulation within less than a year . . ."'
THE PRESIDENT: Wait. You have already told us that the circulation of the Sturmer went up threefold. It is not necessary to repeat it all again. We only want to know what the documents are. The first one is a directive of Ley. The second one is an issue of Der Sturmer. What is the third one?
DR. MARX: And the third-the third is a summary of the circulation from January 1935 until the middle of October 1935; and from this it appears that, within the period of 1 year, the circulation increased from 113,800 to 486,000. Anybody will probably. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is quite sufficient. We do not want to know any snore about it. '
DR. MARX: Very well, Mr. President. Then, may I be permitted . . .
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I-it is entirely in the hands of the Tribunal, but we should see no objection from the Prosecution's point of view to admitting these documents. The first would appear to directly link the Defendant Streicher with another of the conspirators. It would be a most important document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Marx. Then the three documents will be admitted. ~
DR. MARX: I should like to submit the documents under Exhibit Numbers 19, 20, and 21.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. May I make one more remark? Why the matter came about now and was so delayed is that I personally did not know anything about it before. It was only by accident that I learned this from Der Sturmer's masthead. It was previously unknown to me, and I considered it-considered it from my point of view as pertinent evidence. I ask to be excused for not submitting it before now.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I naturally do not wish to submit any further evidence; but I should like to ask you to clarify a question, a question of law.
At this time interrogations are going on constantly in the commissions in order to gather evidence with regard to the organizations. Witnesses are being interrogated there whom we here do not know, and documents are being submitted which we have not yet seen. It will be several weeks before we know the results of this evidence about the organizations.
3 July 46
Now we defense attorneys, who are working here, are thinking of the following It could happen, for instance, that one of these defendants could be incriminated by some new testimony about the organizations, or that documents might be submitted which we, as Defense Counsel for these defendants, would absolutely have to take into consideration in our pleas, or to which we would have to offer evidence in rebuttal.
Now we are agreed that the evidence here should be concluded, but we would naturally like to reserve the right in such cases to learn the results of the hearings for the organizations.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you will find, when you look carefully at the order which the Tribunal made, that this matter was provided for and that, if there is any matter in the course of the hearing of the case against the organizations which in any way materially or directly affects any of the individual defendants, the Tribunal, of course, has discretion to hear counsel for that defendant upon the matter; and I think that is specifically dealt with in the order that we have made.
DR. SAUTER: This order is known to us, of course, Mr. President; but we just wanted to be clear on this point, that this order will still remain in force, even if the presentation of evidence here is concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
Do the Prosecution wish to make any application to the Tribunal?
COL. PHILLIMORE: I have eight documents to put in. My Lord, they are documents which it is intended to refer to in the final speech; and accordingly I would not propose to do more than just to indicate their nature to the Tribunal and put them in very quickly. I have a list of them which I will hand up first.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they documents which have not yet been offered in evidence? It may be convenient to see their nature.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord; I, am offering them in rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: You have a list here?
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord, the first document is . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Have they been communicated to the defendants' counsel?
COL. PHILLIMORE: No, My Lord; I have copies here.
The first document, 1519-PS, contains orders for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war. My Lord, that is not strictly offered in rebuttal; but the Tribunal has had before it a document, EC-338, which was put in as Exhibit USSR-356. That document consisted of
3 July 46
a commentary by Admiral Canaris on these orders, and Your Lordship may remember the document. Defendant Keitel had made certain notes on it on which he was cross-examined, the reference in the shorthand notes being Pages 7219 to 7223 (Volume X, Pages 622-625). My Lord, it seems appropriate that the actual orders should be before the Court and not merely the commentary.
My Lord, that will be GB-525, and the Tribunal will see it consists of a covering letter from the Defendant Bormann to Gauleiter and Kreisleiter covering the OKW letter signed by General Reinecke, the head of the Prisoners of War Organization; and then there follow the actual regulations.
THE PRESIDENT: Has not this been in before?
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I am told not. What was put in was the commentary on this document, which was by Admiral Canaris. It was included-this document was included in the Keitel document book, but it was not formally put in.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. You mean it will be GB...
COL. PHILLIMORE: 525, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, the second document, D-912, will be GB-526. This is a series of broadcasts from German stations between 6 September and 22 October 1939, monitored by the British Broadcasting Corporation and dealing with the Athenia.
My Lord, I of Per that document in view of the Defendant Raeder's evidence. The Tribunal will remember that, according to him, the article on the 23 October in the Volkischer Beobachter came as a complete surprise. The reference in the shorthand notes is 9832, Page 9832 (Volume XIV, Page 80).
My Lord, it also arises out of the question, I think, put to the Tribunal-put by the Tribunal to the Defendant Fritzsche; and it confirms his evidence that broadcasts blaming Mr. Winston Churchill for being responsible for the sinking of the Athenia started at the early part of September and went right on through the month. Actually, these broadcasts, the Tribunal will see-the first on 6 September. I might read perhaps one sentence in the second line:
"The German press refutes the accusations of the British press that the German submarine had sunk the Athenia. Churchill, as one of his first actions, ordered the Athenia to be sunk in order to stir up anti-German feeling in the U.S.A."
Well, then there are similar broadcasts from other stations on that day, again on the 7th, the 11th, the 25th. I have not got the one on the 27th, put in by General Rudenko; but there is one by the Defendant Fritzsche on 1 October, and so on, culminating with a
3 July 46
broadcast by Goebbels on the 22d, the day before the article appeared. My Lord, that will be GB-526.
The next document, 3881-PS, is an extract from the proceedings before the Peoples' Court on 7 and 8 August 1944, when seven defendants were tried for the attempt on Hitler's life. My Lord, I am only putting in a translated extract, but the photostat is in fact complete. I should have said that what is before the Tribunal is only a translation of certain extracts, but the exhibit contains the complete record of the proceedings. My Lord, I...
THE PRESIDENT: Unless we have it translated, we shall not be able to have it in evidence.
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, we do not intend to refer to more than the translated extracts.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COL. PHILLIMORE: I only said that for the benefit of Defense Counsel, who may wish to look elsewhere.
My Lord, I put that in in view of the Defendant Jodl's evidence that it was only because British generals obeyed orders that the German generals were now being tried. That is Page 11043 of the shorthand notes (Volume XV, Page 383). And the passages-the nature of the passages is that the president of the Peoples' Court is refusing to accept the defense of superior orders put forward by the defendants. My Lord, that will be GB-527.
My Lord, .the next document is D-181, which I offer as Exhibit GB-528. It is a letter by a Gauleiter to Gauamtsleiter, Gauinspektor, and Kreisleiter on the subject of the law of hereditary health and sterilization on the ground of imbecility. It is an important document in connection with the Defendant Frick, and I put it in in view of the statements made on his behalf by his counsel at Page 8296 (Volume XII, Page 162) of the shorthand notes, My Lord, when he said in effect that Frick had no control over the political police and that Himmler's subordination to him was purely nominal.
My Lord, there are a number of references in the letter to the fact that the decree-and indeed its administration-was the responsibility of the Defendant Frick.
My Lord, the next document is of a similar nature, and I attribute it to the same page of the shorthand notes. It is Document M-151, and I offer it as Exhibit GB-529. It consists of three letters on the subject of the murder of mental patients in institutions. The first is dated the 6th of September and addressed by the supervisor of a sanatorium at Stetten to the Reich Minister of Justice. It sets out the feeling of insecurity in the neighborhood of the sanatorium administered by its inspector, in view of the number of deaths which are occurring.
3 July 46
The second, dated the 10th, is a letter from the Minister of Justice acknowledging the complaint and saying that it has been passed to the Defendant Frick.
And the third, of the same date, is the Minister's letter to his. colleague passing the complaint to him.
My Lord, the next document is again on the same subject. It is Document M-152, and I offer it as Exhibit GB-530. It consists of four letters.
The first, dated the 19th of July 1940, is addressed to the Defendant Frick as Reich Minister of the Interior, by Bishop Wurm, the Provincial Bishop of the Wurttemberg Evangelical Provincial Church. My Lord, it again sets out the mass of complaints he is receiving and then goes on to deal with the wickedness of the practice which is apparently going on.
The second letter, dated the 23d of August, is a letter to the Minister of Justice referring to the letter sent to the Defendant Frick.
The third, of the 5th of September, is a letter to the Defendant Frick reminding him of the previous letter of the 19th of July to which no reply had been received.
And, on the 6th of September, the next letter is a parallel communication again to the Minister of Justice.
Finally, on the 11th of September, the last page of the document, there is a memorandum on the Minister of Justice's file indicating that an official of the Ministry had informed the Bishop's dean, presumably Dean Keppler, that the matter was entirely one for the Defendant Frick.
My Lord, the next document, D-455, which I offer as Exhibit GB-531, is a pamphlet prepared by the German Military Government authorities in Belgium. It comes from the files of the German War Office, the OKW, and it is entitled, Belgium's Contributions to Germany's War Economy, and is dated the 1st of March 1942.
My Lord, I offer it in view of the general evidence that German occupation was benevolent and that-the Tribunal has heard, again and again, the suggestion that they did a great deal of good to the countries they occupied. This document is a very graphic illustration of the falsity of that evidence out of the mouths of the Defense.
My Lord, if I might take the Tribunal very quickly through it, at Page 3 is a chart of the population figures in terms of employees, and it shows that more than half the working population was working for Germany. Of the 1,800,000 workers and employees in Belgium, 901,280 were employed with the German Armed Forces and in the German interests.
3 July 46
My Lord, at Page 4 is a comparison between Belgium, Holland, and France in terms of percentage of workers employed as slave labor.
My Lord, at Page 5 is a statement of the production figures for the Belgian contribution to Germany, in-I think it is the seventh line, it is summed up: "Output to the value of 1,200 million Reichsmark."
Page 6-there is a comparison between the coal taken from Belgium and the same amount produced in the year in the Ruhr.
At Page 8 there is comparison of iron, with the total amount of iron used in the West Wall.
Page 9, cement; Page 10, textiles; Page 11, metals. There is a statement there which contains a sentence about the summing up of what had been taken out: "It was possible to achieve these results only by exhausting the last reserves of the country."
At Page 12 there is a chart of how the metal collection has affected individuals. It is a comparison between Belgium, Holland, and France.
At Page 13 there is a statement about the contribution to traffic; and a chart on Page 14.
At Page 15 it appears that the contributions in money exceeded the total earning-earned income of the Belgian workers for the last year.
At Page 16 there are figures with regard to the quantity of gold taken for safekeeping in the Reichsbank.
Page 18 deals with shares, a comparison with the total share capital of I. G. Farben, the comparison being 700 million Reichsmark as against the share capital of I. G. Farben of 800 millions.
Then there is a statement with regard to rations, showing that Germany had imported food into Belgium but that, despite that, the rationing was the lowest of all western countries.
And finally, on the last page, there is an indication of the change in the Belgian rations by comparison between 1938 and under the benevolent rule of the German Military Government in 1941. My Lord, it speaks for itself.
My Lord, I-My Lord, the last document, D-524, is a similar pamphlet referring to France. It comes from the same source, and I offer it as Exhibit GB-532.
My Lord, owing to a breakdown in electric power, I have not been able to finish photostating the English copies, but I will hand them in, if I may, subsequently and for the moment I hand up German photostats.
My Lord, I offer it in view of the Defendant Sauckel's evidence, at Page 10617 of the shorthand notes (Volume XV, Page 52), where
3 July 46
he said that the total slave labor figure was not more than 5 millions. My Lord, at Pages 8 and 9 of this document, the Tribunal will see the slave labor position of Germany at the end of 1943, so that to this must be added slave labor drawn in during 1944. My Lord, it amounts to just under 7 millions, of which 1,462,000 were prisoners of war, so that the figure of slave labor at the date was slightly over 5 millions; that is, slave labor excluding prisoners of war was slightly over 5 millions, and to that, as I say, one must add the increase during 1944.
My Lord, on Page 8 are the figures and comparisons: Men, civilians, 3,631,000; prisoners of war, 1,462,000; women, 1,714,000. And then it is set out how that is divided by countries. And on Page 9 is merely an illustration in color.
My Lord, the rest of the pamphlet merely gives figures illustrative of what was taken from France, very similar to those in the case of Belgium. And I would not propose to take the Tribunal through it unless it is desired that I should do so.
My Lord, I think I gave that a number, Exhibit GB-532.
My Lord, that is all the documents that I have to offer. I understand my friend, Mr. Dodd, has some.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief of Counsel for the United States): May it please the Tribunal, at the time of the crossexamination of the Defendant Hermann Goering we confronted him with a document, numbered 3787-PS. It was received as Exhibit USA-782. It was the report of the second meeting of the Reich Defense Council. Goering acknowledged the authenticity of the minutes as presented to him in the German text. But the document at that time had not been translated, and consequently it was not possible to read into the record the many parts of that document which we considered important as bearing upon his credibility and testimony, and as bearing upon the denials of many other of the defendants that they knew of the planning of the war and that they knew-participated in it.
I would now like to read from the record part of this which we consider extremely important as rebuttal testimony received from several of the defendants.
On the face of it, it is a letter of transmittal dated the 10th day of July 1939, from the supreme command of the Armed Forces, on the subject, "Second Meeting of the Reich Defense Council."
One hundred copies were prepared, and our copy is the 84th. It is labeled "most secret" and merely transmits in the name of the chief of the supreme command of the Armed Forces the enclosed document to following parties, among others. I shall name only the ones to which we have attached some importance: To the Party, the
3 July 46
Elihrer's Deputy, the first copy; to the Chief of the Reich Chancellery; to Ministerprasident, Field Marshal Goering, the Reich Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force; to the Foreign Office; to the Plenipotentiary General for Reich Administration are nine copies, including copies for the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Education, the Minister for Church Affairs, and the Reich Of lice for Planning; also to the Plenipotentiary General for Economy, including copies for the Minister of Economy, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the Ministry of Labor, the Chief Forester, and the Commissioner for Price Control; to the Minister of-Finance; the Minister of Transport, Motor Transport, and Roads; and the Minister of Railways; the Post Minister; the Minister of Enlightenment and Propaganda; the Reichsbank Directorate; the General Inspector of German Roads; the Armed Forces, including nine copies for the OKH, five copies for the OKM, the Reich Minister for Air and Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force; the supreme command of the Armed Forces; a series of other copies being enclosed.
The enclosure is a report of the second meeting of the Reich Defense Council, held on a date to which we attach importance, the 6th day-the 23d day of June 1939.
"Place: Large conference room of the Reich Air Ministry.
"Commencement: 1110; termination: 1355.
"President: Ministerprasident, General Field Marshal Goering.
I shall name only those to which we attach some importance, because the list is very long:
The Fuehrer's Deputy; the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Dr. Lammers; Reichsministerprasident General Field Marshal Goering's staff, Secretary of State Korner, Secretary of State Neumann, Councillor Bergbohm, and several others; Plenipotentiary General for Reich Administration, Reichsminister Frick, Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler and uniformed police, Daluege; Plenipotentiary General for the Economy, Reichsminister Funk; the Reichsminister of Finance Von Krosigk; Minister of Transport; General Inspector of German Roads, Dr. Todt; supreme command of the Armed Forces, Generaloberst Keitel, Warlimont, and Generalmajor Thomas;. supreme command of the Army, by-from the General Staff, General of Artillery Halder; supreme command of the Navy, General Admiral- Grossadmiral Raeder; Reich Minister for Air Force, Milch and Bodenschatz, both of whom were witnesses here.
The contents, summarized, I will not read.
The minutes of the meeting:
"Ministerprasident, General Field Marshal Goering emphasized
in a preamble that according to the Fuehrer's wishes the Reich
3 July 46
Defense Council was the determining body in the Reich for all questions of preparation for war. It is to discuss only the most important questions of Reich defense. They will be worked out by the Reich Defense Committee.
"Meetings of the Reich Defense Council are to be convened only for these decisions which are unavoidable. It is urged that the departmental chiefs themselves be present.
"Distribution of labor.
"I. The President announced the following directives to govern the distribution and employment of the population in wartime.
"1. The total strength of the Armed Forces is determined by the Fuehrer. It includes only half of the number of those fit and liable for military service. Nevertheless, their disposition will involve difficulties for economy, the administration, and the whole of the civil sphere.
"2. When a schedule of manpower is made out, the basis on which the question is to be judged is how the remaining number, after those required for the Armed Forces have been withdrawn, can be most suitably employed.
"3. Of equal importance to the requirements of the Armed Forces are those of the armament industry. It, above all, must be organized in peacetime as regards material and personnel in such a way that its production does not decrease but increases immediately with the outbreak of war.
"4. The direction of labor to the vital war armament industry and to other civilian requirements is the main task of the Plenipotentiary General for Economy.
"a. War armament covers not only the works producing war materials, but also those producing synthetic rubber (Buna), armament production tools, hydrogenation works, coal mining, et cetera.
"b. (1) As a rule, no essential and irreplaceable specialists may be taken away from 'war decisive' factories, on whose production depends the course of the war, unless they can be replaced.
"Coal mining is the most urgent work. Every worker who is essential to coal mining is 'indispensable.'
"Note: Coal mining has even now become the key point of the whole armament industry, of communications, and of export. If the necessary labor is not made available for it now, the most important part of the export trade, the export of coal, will cease. The purchase of coal in Poland will stop. The correct distribution of labor is determinative. In order to be
3 July 46
able to man these key points with the right people, severe demands will shortly be submitted to the Fuehrer which, even in the current mobilization year, will under certain circumstances lead to an exceptional war economy, for instance, to the immobilization of lorries and to the closing down of unessential factories owing to lack of coal.
"In addition, there is the supplying of Italy and other countries such as Scandinavia with coal (to maintain the German supplies of iron)."
I shall omit certain parts of the document which do not seem particularly important to our argument and pass to Item 2, Page 9 of the English translation:
"(2) A second category of workers liable for military service will be called up during the war after their replacements have been trained. A decisive role is played by the extensive preliminary training and retraining of workers.
"(3) Preparations must be made for replacing the mass of other workers liable for military service, even by drawing on an increased number of women. There are also disabled servicemen.
"(4) Compulsory work for women is of decisive importance in wartime. It is important to proceed to a great extent with the training of women in important war work, as replacements and to augment the number of male workers.
"(d) In order to avoid confusion when mobilization takes place, persons working in important war branches, that is, administration, communications, police, food, will not be removed at first. It is essential to establish the degrees of urgency and importance.
"In the interests of the auxiliary civilian service, provided by every European people to gain and maintain the lead in the decisive initial weeks of a war, efforts must in this way be made to insure by an efficient organization that every German in wartime not only possesses his mobilization orders but has also been thoroughly prepared for his wartime activity. The works must also be adapted to receive the replacements and additional workers."
I shall skip to the bottom of Page 10, Item 6:
"The Plenipotentiary General for Economy is given the task of settling what work is to be given to prisoners of war, to those in prison concentration camps and penitentiaries.
"According to a statement by the Reichsfuehrer SS, -greater use will be made of the concentration camps in wartime. The
3 July 48
20,000 inmates will be employed mainly in workshops inside the concentration camps.
"IV. Secretary of State Dr. Syrup, of the Reich Ministry of Labor, made a report on the allocation of labor in the event of mobilization and the schedule of manpower for the war."
This seems a little detailed; but it is, I think, very important, showing the totality of the mobilization planned months before the war started and indicating, as we shall argue, preparations for a war more extensive than the mere brush, with Poland.
"The figures for the schedule of manpower, drawn up experimentally, could only be of a preparatory character and merely give certain guiding principles. The basis of a population of 79 millions was taken. Of these, 56.5 millions are between the ages of 14 and 65, It is also possible to draw upon men over the age of 65 and upon minors of between 13 and 14. The disabled and the infirm must be deducted from the 56.5 millions. Most prisoners are already employed in industry. The greatest deduction is that of 11 million mothers with children under 14. After deduction of these groups, there remains an employable population of 43.5 millions: 26.2 million men- after deducting 7 million members of the Armed Forces, 19.2; 17.3 million women-after deducting 250,000 nurses et cetera, 17.1 for the whole of Germany's economic and civil life. The President does not consider women over the age of 60 as employable.
"8. The number of workers at present employed and of employees (two-thirds of the wage workers) distributed over 20 large branches of industry amounts roughly to the following: 24 million men (excluding 2 million service men), 14 million women.
"9. No information was then available regarding the number which the Armed Forces will take from the individual branches of industry. Therefore an estimate was made of the numbers remaining in the individual branches of industry after 5 million servicemen had been called up.
"The President's demand that the exact number liable to military service be established, is being complied with. These inquiries are not secret apart from figures given and formations."
I shall skip the next paragraph, 10, as of no importance.
"11. Apart from the 13.8 million women at present employed, a further, 3.5 million unemployed women, who are listed on the card index of the population, can be employed.
3 July 46
"2 million women would have to be redirected; that is, a transfer can be made to agriculture and to the metal and chemical industry, from the textile, clothing, and ceramic industries, from small trading, insurance and banking businesses, and from the number of women in domestic service.
"12. The lack of workers in agriculture, from which about 25 percent of the physically fit male workers will be withdrawn, must be made up by women (2 in the place of 1 man) and prisoners of war. No foreign workers can be counted on. The Armed Forces are requested to release to a great extent owners and specialists such as milkers, tractor drivers, 35 percent of whom are still liable for call-up.
"13. The President emphasized that factory managers, police, and the Armed Forces must make preparations for the employment of prisoners of war.
"14. In the agricultural sphere preparations must also be made to relieve bottlenecks by help from neighboring farms, systematic use of all machines and laying in stocks of spare parts.
"15. The President announced that in wartime hundreds of thousands of workers from nonwar industries in the Protectorate are to be employed under supervision in Germany, particularly in agriculture. They are to be housed in barracks. General Field Marshal Goering will obtain a decision from the Fuehrer on this matter."
I shall omit 16.
If I may say as I offer this, it seems rather detailed as showing the extent of preparation already accomplished at the time, in June of 1939:
"17. a. The result of the procedure of establishing indispensable and guaranteed workers is at present as follows: Of 1,172,000 applications for indispensability, 727,000 have been approved and 233,000 rejected."
I shall pass to "c" near the bottom of the page:
"The orders to supplementary personnel to report for duty are ready and tied up in bundles at the labor offices."
The meeting proceeds to consider production premiums in connection with wages, and I pass to 21, a detail which I offer as indicating that a long war was in anticipation.
"When labor is being regrouped, it is important-and with specialists even essential-that the workers are retrained for their work in the new factory, in order to avoid setbacks in the initial months of the war. After a few months have passed
3 July 46
even the replacement of most of the specialists must be possible."
I pass to the Point V:
"The Plenipotentiary General for Economy, Reich Minister of Economy Funk, stated his opinion on the fluctuations of the schedule of manpower, from the viewpoint of the carrying on of industry.
"24. a. In accordance with the verbal agreements made with the OKW, the regulations regarding indispensable personnel have been laid down and the certificates of indispensability issued."
I shall pass to Point Number 25 on Page 15:
"In reply to the request by the speaker that when withdrawing workers for the naval dockyards, more consideration should be shown for the important sections of industry, particularly export and newspaper concerns, the President pointed out the necessity of carrying out the naval building program as ordered by the Fuehrer in full."
I pass to the large heading VI:
"The Plenipotentiary General for Administration, Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick, dealt with the saving of labor in the public administration.
"27. The task is primarily a problem of organization. As can be seen from the surveys, which were submitted to those attending the conference, showing how the authorities, economic and social services are organized, there are approximately 50 different kinds of officials in the district administration, each quite independent of the other-an impossible state of affairs. Formerly there were in the State two main divisions, the state civil service and the Wehrmacht. After the seizure of power, the Party and the permanent organizations (Reichsnahrstand, et cetera) were added to these, with all their machinery from top to bottom. In this way the number of public posts and officials was increased many times over. This makes public service more difficult.
"28. Since the war tasks have increased enormously."-The context makes it clear that that is the preceding war.-"The organizing of total war naturally requires much more labor, even in the public administration, than in 1914. But it is an impossibility that this system should have increased its numbers 20 to 40 fold in the lowest grade alone. For this reason, the Reich Ministry of the Interior is striving for uniformity of administration."
3 July 46
A small conference-small commission was created. I offer Number 29 in connection with Goering's testimony that they ceased to function:
"Instead of further discussions before the whole assembly, the forming of a small commission which will make definite proposals is recommended. Extensive preparatory work has been undertaken."
And a note by the committee that the committee had been functioning.
"The President requested that the commission's proposals be submitted. It was an important section for the preparation for war."
I shall pass to the large subdivision C which relates to increasing the efficiency of the communications service, starting with the receipt of a report from the Army General Staff.
"31. Eighteen months ago the result of the examination of the plan for strategic concentration showed that the transport service could not meet all the demands made on it by the Armed Forces. The Minister of Transport confirmed this statement. The 1938 part of the Four Year Plan will presumably be completed in August 1939.
"32. Shortly after this program was drawn up demands were made on the Wehrmacht which had changed completely compared with the traditional use of the Wehrmacht at the beginning of a war. Troops had to be brought to the frontier, in the shortest possible time, in numbers which had until then been completely unforeseen. The Wehrmacht was able to fulfill these demands by means of organizational measures but transport could not.
"33. In the field of transportation Germany is at the moment not yet ready for war."
I offer the detail which follows, in contradiction of the statements repeatedly made by a number of witnesses that the movements of the Wehrmacht in the Rhineland, the Anschluss, and all the rest of it, even Czechoslovakia, were surprise movements.
"a. In the case of the three operations in 1938/1939 there was no question of an actual strategic concentration. The troops were transported a long time beforehand near to the area of strategic concentration by means of camouflaged measures.
"b. This stop-gap is of no use whatever when the time limit cannot be fixed or is not known a long time beforehand, but when an unexpected and almost immediate military decision
3 July 46
is required. According to the present situation transport is not in a position, despite all preparations, to bring up the troops."
"a" is unimportant for my purposes, "a" on Page 18. "b" and "c" represent steps to be taken to meet the deficiency. On Page 19 I shad not bother to read the statements on 38,~ showing the preparation of highways from east to west and from north to south.
I read Number 39, if I may:
"The President remarked that even in peacetime certain vital supply stores of industry and the Armed Forces are to be transferred to the war industrial centers to economize in transport later on."
I shall pass to Point Number 41 on Page 20:
"To sum up, the President affirmed that all essential points had been cleared up at this meeting."
The American branch of the Prosecution has some additional documents which Mr. Dodd will submit, if it is agreeable to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, you have got some other papers to put in?
MR. DODD: I would like to offer, Mr. President, Document 4006-PS, which is the bulletin of the Reich Minister for Armament and Ammunition; and it is a matter that the Tribunal, in our judgment, may take judicial notice of. It is an official publication, but it will be quite helpful in connection with the labor program as between Sauckel and Speer; and it is offered for that purpose, to clear up some of the doubts that may have arisen after the Speer and Sauckel testimony. I think there is no necessity to read it at all but simply to offer it. And it would become Exhibit USA-902. And then I would like to offer Document 1452-PS. This is a report of a conference of the chiefs with the chief of the department of the Economic Armament Office, and I would just like to read a short excerpt from it. It is Document 1452-PS, dated the 24th of March 1942. It says:
"Conferences of the chiefs with the chief of the department. Report of the chief of the department on the conference on the 23d of March with Milch, Witzell, Leeb, in Minister Speer's office. The Fuehrer looks upon Speer as his principal mouthpiece, his trusted adviser in all economic spheres. Speer is the
3 July 46
only one who has something to say today. He can interfere in any department. He already disregards all other departments."
The remainder of the document we do not wish to quote, I do not think it is necessary because the text is not changed any by what we have quoted from it. That becomes Exhibit USA-903.
Now, we also have here some photographs, Mr. President; and these are offered with respect to the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. They were turned over to us by our colleagues of the French Prosecution. And the first one is Document F-894, which becomes Exhibit USA-904. That is a picture showing Himmler congratulating someone, Kaltenbrunner immediately to his rear.
THE PRESIDENT: How are they identified?
MR. DODD: I will submit it-well, these are all captured documents, of course, but-you mean in the picture, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I mean by capture or any other way. Where do they come from?
MR. DODD: Well, I assume them to be all captured documents. Oh, I see now-there are affidavits attached to each one which explain their source. Here, this first one is a man by the name of Francois Boix, who says that he is a photographer and was interned at Mauthausen and so on; and he attests that this photograph was taken, and so forth. I think that is sufficient-I assume it is-to identify the picture. I believe that each one of them has a similar statement.
Now the next one is Document F-896, which becomes Exhibit USA-905. And this as well on the back of the original bears an affidavit by Francois Boix.
The next one is Document F-897, which becomes Exhibit USA-906. And this as well, bears the affidavit of Francois Boix and shows Kaltenbrunner and Himmler and other SS officials.
And then, lastly, Document F-895, which becomes Exhibit USA-907; and this picture we particularly call to the Tribunal's attention. It, as well, bears the certificate of Francois Boix. Kaltenbrunner is there in the second row, Himmler and Hitler in the immediate center between Kaltenbrunner and, apparently, Martin Bormann, taken at a concentration camp, which appears from the picture of the inmates on the left side.
Then we wish to offer a very short affidavit, which is Document 4033-PS and we offer as Exhibit USA-907-no, 8, 908. It is the deposition of Oswald Pohl, P-o-h-l, dated the 28th of May 1946. The affidavit-the substance of the affidavit reads as follows:
3 July 46
"I can say with absolute certainty that while on official business at Mauthausen I saw and spoke to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner . . ."
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Was Pohl called as a witness?
MR. DODD: No, Sir, he was not, he was not called. That was Puhl, P-u-h-l. The names are similar.
". . . I saw and spoke to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner there at the officers' mess on the right-hand side of the camp entrance either in the autumn of 1943 or the spring of 1944. I took lunch with him there at the mess table."
And then another affidavit, Document 4032-PS, which becomes Exhibit USA-908-no, 909. I think it is unnecessary to read this; it has been translated. It is the deposition of one Karl Reif, R-e-i-f, in which he states that he saw Kaltenbrunner either in May or June, about midday, in 1942 in the camp at Mauthausen.
That is an we have to offer, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the other members of the Prosecution wish to offer any other evidence?
[There was no response.]
Then now we can pass to evidence to be called on behalf of Bormann. Dr. Bergold, will you call the witnesses you wish to call- Kempka.
DR. BERGOLD: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I shall call the witness Kempka.
[The witness Kempka took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please.
ERICH KEMPKA (Witness): My name is Erich Kempka.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing.
[The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. BERGOLD: Witness, in what capacity were you employed near Hitler during the war?
KEMPKA: During the war I worked for Adolf Hitler as his personal driver.
DR. BERGOLD: Did you meet Martin Bormann in that capacity?
KEMPKA: Yes, I met Martin-Reichsleiter Martin Bormann in this capacity at that time as my indirect superior.
DR. BERGOLD: Witness, on what day did you see the Defendant Martin Bormann for the last time?
3 July 46
KEMPKA: I saw the Reichsleiter, the former Reichsleiter Martin Bormann, on the night of 1-2 May 1945 near the Friedrichstrasse railroad station, at the Weidendammer Bridge. Reichsleiter Bormann-former Reichsleiter Bormann-asked me what the general situation was at the Friedrichstrasse station, and I told him that there at the station it was hardly possible...
THE PRESIDENT: You are going too fast. He asked you what?
KEMPKA: He asked me what the situation was and whether one could get through there at the Friedrichstrasse station. I told him that was practically impossible, since the defensive fighting there was too heavy. Then he went on to ask whether it might be possible to do so with armored cars. I told him that there was nothing like trying it.
Then a few tanks and a few SPW (armored personnel carrier) cars came along, and small groups boarded them and hung on. Then the armored cars pushed their way through the antitank trap and afterwards the leading tank-along about at the middle of the tank on the left-hand side, where Martin Bormann was walking- suddenly received a direct hit, I imagine from a bazooka fired from a window, and this tank was blown up. A flash of fire suddenly shot up on the very side where Bormann was walking and I saw. ..
THE PRESIDENT: You are going too fast. You are still going much too fast. The last thing I heard you say was that Bormann was walking in the middle of the column. Is that right?
KEMPKA: Yes, at the middle of the tank, on the left-hand side.
Then, after it had got 40 to 50 meters past the antitank trap, this tank received a direct hit, I imagine from a bazooka fired from a window. The tank was blown to pieces right there where Martin- Reichsleiter Bormann-was walking.
I myself was flung aside by the explosion and by a person thrown against me who had been walking in front of me-I think it was Standartenfuehrer Dr. Stumpfecker-and I became unconscious. When I came to myself I could not see anything either; I was blinded by the flash. Then I crawled back again to the tank trap, and since then I have seen nothing more of Martin Bormann.
DR. BERGOLD: Witness, did you see Martin Bormann collapse in the flash of fire when it occurred?
KEMPKA: Yes, indeed, I still saw a movement which was a sort of collapsing. You might call it a flying away.
DR. BERGOLD: Was this explosion so strong that according to your observation Martin Bormann must have lost his life by it?
KEMPKA: Yes, I assume for certain that the force of the explosion was such that he lost his life.
3 July 46
DR. BERGOLD: How was Martin Bormann dressed at that time?
KEMPKA: Martin Bormann was wearing a leather coat, an SS leader's cap, and the insignia of an SS Obergruppenfuehrer.
DR. BERGOLD: Do you therefore believe that if he had been found wounded on that occasion he would have been immediately identified, by this clothing, as being one of the leading men of the Movement?
KEMPKA: Yes, indeed.
DR. BERGOLD: You said that another man was walking either beside or ahead of Martin Bormann, namely a Herr Naumann of the Propaganda Ministry?
KEMPKA: Yes, it was the former State Secretary, Dr. Naumann.
DR. BERGOLD: Was he approximately at the same distance from the explosion?
KEMPKA: No, he was about 1 or 2 meters ahead of Martin Bormann.
DR. BERGOLD: Have you seen anything of this State Secretary Naumann subsequently?
KEMPKA: No, I have not seen him again either, nor Standartenfuehrer Dr. Stumpfecker.
DR. BERGOLD: Then you crawled back, did you not?
DR. BERGOLD: And nobody else followed you?
KEMPKA: Certainly. Always, when you passed this antitank trap, you would run into defensive fire; a few only would remain lying on the spot while the rest always retreated. But those on that tank I have never seen again.
DR. BERGOLD: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I have no further questions for this witness.
MR. DODD: I have no questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Defense Counsel want to ask him any questions?
[There was no response.]
[Turning to the witness.] How many tanks were there in this column?
KEMPKA: That I cannot say at the moment-possibly two or three. There may have been four, but there were more SPW cars, armored personnel carriers.
THE PRESIDENT: How many were there of them?
3 July 46
KEMPKA: More and more came up, and then some of them drove away again. They tried to break through at that point. Possibly one or two tried. The others withdrew after the tank was blown up.
THE PRESIDENT: Where did the column start from?
KEMPKA: That I do not know. They came quite suddenly- there they were, I assume that they were tanks which had withdrawn into the middle of the town and were also trying to break out in a southerly direction.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say they were there suddenly, where do you mean they were? Where did they pick you up?
KEMPKA: I was not picked up. I left the Reich Chancellery.. .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, where did they join you? Where did you first see them?
KEMPKA: At the Weidendammer Bridge, behind the Friedrichstrasse station. They turned up there during the night.
THE PRESIDENT: Where was it that Bormann first asked you whether it would be possible to get through?
KEMPKA: That was at the tank barrier behind the Friedrichstrasse station at the Weidendammer Bridge.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that you met him in the street?
KEMPKA: Yes. Martin Bormann was not present when we left the Reich Chancellery; he did not appear at the bridge until between 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: You met him there just by chance, do you mean?
KEMPKA: I only met him by chance, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there anybody with him?
KEMPKA: State Secretary Dr. Naumann from the Ministry of Propaganda was with him, as wed as Dr. Stumpfecker who had been the last doctor who was with the Fuehrer.
THE PRESIDENT: How far were they from the Reich Chancellery?
KEMPKA: That is-are-up to-from the Reich Chancellery to the Friedrichstrasse station is approximately a quarter of an hour's walk under normal circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: And then you saw some tanks and some other armored vehicles coming along, is that right?
KEMPKA: Yes, yes indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: German tanks and German armored vehicles?
3 July 46
KEMPKA: Yes, German armored cars.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you have any conversation with the drivers of them?
KEMPKA: No, I did not talk to the drivers. I think State Secretary-former State Secretary Dr. Naumann did.
THE PRESIDENT: And then you did not get into the tanks or the armored vehicles?
KEMPKA: No, we did not get in-neither State Secretary Dr. Naumann nor Reichsleiter Bormann.
THE PRESIDENT: You just walked along?
KEMPKA: I just walked along, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And where were you with reference to Bormann?
KEMPKA: I was behind the tank, about the left-hand side behind the tank.
THE PRESIDENT: How far from Bormann?
KEMPKA: It was perhaps 3 or 4 meters.
THE PRESIDENT: And then some missile struck the tank, is that right?
KEMPKA: No, I believe the tank was hit by a bazooka fired from a window.
THE PRESIDENT: And then you saw a flash and you became unconscious?
KEMPKA: Yes, I suddenly saw a flash of fire and in the fraction of a second I also saw Reichsleiter Bormann and State Secretary Naumann both make a movement as if collapsing and flying away. I myself was thrown aside with them at that same moment and subsequently lost consciousness.
THE PRESIDENT: And then you crept away?
KEMPKA: When I recovered I could not see anything and then I crawled away and crawled until I bumped my head against the tank barrier.
THE PRESIDENT: Where did you go to that night?
KEMPKA: I waited there for a while, and then I said farewell to my drivers, some of whom were still there; and then I stayed in the ruins of Berlin, and on the following day I left Berlin.
THE PRESIDENT: Where were you captured?
KEMPKA: I was captured at Berchtesgaden.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How near were you to the tank when it exploded?
3 July 46
KEMPKA: I estimate 3 to 4 meters.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And how near was Bormann to the tank when it exploded?
KEMPKA: I assume that he was holding on to it with one hand.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, you say you assume it. Did you see him or did you not see him?
KEMPKA: I did not see him on the tank itself. But to keep pace with the tank I had done the same thing and had held on to the tank at the back.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you see Bormann trying to get on the tank just before the explosion?
KEMPKA: No, I did not see that. I did not see any effort on Bormann's part which indicated that he wanted to climb onto the tank.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): How long before the explosion were you looking at Bormann?
KEMPKA: All this happened in a very brief period. When I was still talking to Bormann the tanks turned up and we passed the tank trap right away and after 30 or 40 meters the tank was hit.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What do you call a brief period?
KEMPKA: Well, while we were talking, that was perhaps a few minutes only.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And how long between the conversation and the explosion? ,
KEMPKA: I cannot tell you the exact time, but surely it was not a quarter of an hour, or perhaps rather not half an hour.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Had you been in the Chancellery just before this?
KEMPKA: I left the Reich Chancellery in the evening about 9 o'clock.
THE TRIBUNAL (or. Biddle): Have you ever told this story to anyone else?
KEMPKA: I have been interrogated several times on this subject and have already made the same statement.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And who took your interrogation, some officers?
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Of what army, what nations?
KEMPKA: I have been interrogated by various officers of the American Army, the first time at Berchtesgaden, the second time at Freising, and the third time at Oberursel.
3 July 46
MR. DODD: As a result of the Court's inquiry there are one or two questions that occur to me that I think perhaps should be brought out which I would like to ask the witness, if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
MR. DODD: You were with Bormann, were you, at 9 o'clock in the bunker in the Reich Chancellery on that night?
KEMPKA: Yes, indeed. I saw him for the last time about 9 o'clock in the evening. When I said farewell to Dr. Goebbels, I also saw Martin Bormann down in the cellar; and then I saw him again during the night about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning.
MR. DODD: Well, maybe you said so, but I did not get it if you did. Where did you see him at 2 or 3 in the morning prior to the time that you started to walk with him along with the tank?
KEMPKA: Before that I saw him at the Friedrichstrasse station between 2 or 3 in the morning, and before that I saw him for the last time at 21 hours in the Reich Chancellery on the preceding evening.
MR. DODD: Well I know you did. But did not you and Bormann have any conversation about how you would get out of Berlin when you left the Reich Chancellery bunker at about 9 o'clock that night?
KEMPKA: I took my orders from the former Brigadefuehrer Milunke. I was not receiving direct orders from Reichsleiter Bormann any more.
MR. DODD: I did not ask you if you got an order from him. I asked if you and Bormann had not-and whoever else was there- had not discussed how you would get out of Berlin. It was 9 o'clock at night and the situation was getting pretty desperate. Did you not talk about how you would get out that night? There were not many of you there.
KEMPKA: Oh yes, there were about 400 to 500 people in all still in the Reich Chancellery and those 400 or 500 people were divided into separate groups, and these groups left the Chancellery one by one.
MR. DODD: I know there may have been that many in the Chancellery. I am talking about that bunker that you were in. You testified about this before, have you not? You told people that you knew that Hitler was dead as well as Bormann. And you must have been in the bunker if you know that.
KEMPKA: Yes, I have already testified to that effect.
MR. DODD: Well, what I want to find out is whether or not you and Bormann and whoever was left in that bunker talked about leaving Berlin that night before you left the bunker?
3 July 46
KEMPKA: No, I did not speak about it any more to Reichsleiter Bormann at that time. We had marching orders only to the effect that if we were successful we should report at Fehrbellin where there was a combat group which we were to join.
MR. DODD: You are the only man who has been able to testify that Hitler is dead and the only one who has been able to testify that Bormann is dead, is that so, so far as you know?
KEMPKA: I can state that Hitler is dead and that he died on 30 April in the afternoon between 2 and 3 o'clock.
MR. DODD: I know, but you did not see him die either, did you?
KEMPKA: No, I did not see him die.
MR. DODD: And you told the interrogators that you believe you carried his body out of the bunker and set it on fire. Are you not the man who has said that?
KEMPKA: I carried out Adolf Hitler's wife, and I saw Adolf Hitler himself wrapped in a blanket.
MR. DODD: Did you actually see Hitler?
KEMPKA: I did not see all of him. The blanket in which he was wrapped was rather short, and I only saw his legs hanging out.
MR. DODD: I do not think I will inquire any further, Mr. President.
DR. BERGOLD: I have no further questions either.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. BERGOLD: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, the witness Walkenhorst is also still present here. It appears to me that there is a misunderstanding between the High Tribunal and myself. I stated Saturday that I did not wish to call any more witnesses besides the witness Kempka, and I expressly waive the witness Walkenhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: What was he? What did you ask for him to prove in the first instance?
DR. BERGOLD: I had originally called him as a substitute...
THE PRESIDENT: We have got your application.
DR. BERGOLD: But after talking to witness Klopfer, whom I have also waived, I am also waiving the witness Walkenhorst because he does not appear to me to be competent enough to testify on what I wanted him to testify about.
My entire presentation of evidence, therefore) is now completed, except for the two documents which the Tribunal have already granted me, namely, the decree about stopping the measures against the churches and Bormann's decree from the year 1944, with which he forbade members of the Chancellery to be members of the SD.
3 July 46
Those two documents I have not yet received. When I have received them I shall submit them.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Dr. Servatius, you have some question or affidavit you wanted to get from this witness Walkenhorst, did you not?
DR. SERVATIUS: I have an affidavit from this witness Walkenhorst which deals briefly with the question of the telephone conversation which Sauckel had at that time about the evacuation of the Buchenwald Camp. He has been accused of having ordered the evacuation of the camp when the American army approached. Now this witness Walkenhorst has accidently been found and it turns out that oddly enough he was the man with whom Sauckel spoke. He has confirmed to me in an affidavit that Sauckel demanded that the camp should be surrendered in an orderly way.
That is all I wanted to ask this witness. I can submit it here in the form of an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Prosecution want the man called or will the affidavit do?
DR. SERVATIUS: I am satisfied with handing over the affidavit.
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, as far as the Prosecution are concerned, an affidavit would suffice.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I shall submit the affidavit and I will give the exhibit number together with my list.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is one other matter to which I wish to draw the attention of defendants' counsel.
The Tribunal have been informed as to the length of the speeches of certain of the defendants' counsel which have been placed before the Translation Division for translation, and in the case of the Defendant Keitel and in the case of the Defendant Jodl the speeches which have been put into the Translation Division seem to be very much longer than the Tribunal had anticipated and quite impossible to be spoken in 1 day.
Would counsel for the Defendant Keitel explain to the Tribunal why that is and what steps he has taken to shorten his speech?
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I have sent a letter to the Court today which I believe is not yet in the Tribunal's possession. In it I requested that in the case of the Defendant Keitel I should be permitted to exceed the regular length of, time, which had been limited to 1 day for the big cases. When, at the request of the Tribunal, I stated the time which my final speech would take, I had my manuscript completed. This manuscript would have taken about 7 hours. I gave that manuscript to the Translation Division
3 July 46
in that form because it was no longer possible to alter it. I submitted the first part last Wednesday and then the second part on Saturday, morning.
If the Tribunal, in accordance with its decision, fixes 1 day, that is, 51/~ hours of actual speech, as the maximum and is unwilling to depart from that ruling in any case, not even in the case of the Defendant Keitel, who has been particularly seriously implicated, then I shall be forced to eliminate certain passages from the manuscript and to submit them only in writing. I hope the Tribunal will also decide whether that is possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal takes note of the fact that when you were asked how long your speech would take, you said, I think, 7 hours.
DR. NELTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: 7 hours. Well, according to the estimate which has been given to the Tribunal, the speech which you submitted for translation would take about 13 hours. That is nearly double as long as you yourself said, and it is almost exactly double the length of the speech which has been submitted for the Defendant Ribbentrop, whose case is almost as extensive if not quite as extensive; and it appears to the Tribunal to be out of all reason to put in a speech which will probably take nearly double the time that you yourself stated. The speech you put in is more than double the length of the speech which has been put in on behalf of the Defendant Goering.
DR. NELTE: Naturally, I am unable to know by what points of view the counsel for Reich Marshal Goering or Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop are guided and governed. I can only be guided by my own views and sense of duty.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that is a matter of comparison, it is true, but you said 7 hours yourself, and you now put in a speech which will probably take 13.
DR. NELTE: I believe, Mr. President, that I shall make that speech in 7 hours, if I have 7 hours speaking time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal has given this matter a very full consideration, as you are aware; and they have said that every speech must be made in 1 day and that will take up some considerable time for the whole of the defendants to make their speeches.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I shall wait for your decision. If I am confined to 1 day, then I shall have to leave out certain parts from my manuscript. But in that case I should have to ask that the remainder be taken cognizance of by the Tribunal, because
3 July 46
every thing that I have included in my manuscript is the minimum of what should be delivered on such a comprehensive case.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, we will consider that application for you to be allowed to put in the other passages in your speech; and we will let defendants' counsel know what our decision is upon that.
Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal has now received a full report showing the immense trouble taken by the Secretariat to find or to try and find the witness Schulze, Otto Schulze, for you since you first asked for him in February of this year; and the Tribunal would like to know what steps you have taken in the meantime to try and find him.
DR. SIEMERS: I believe, Mr. President, that there was no need to find the witness because, actually, it was known that he was living in Hamburg-Blankenese and because, in my opinion, he is still in Hamburg-Blankenese; and I have given this address to the General Secretariat many times.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you knew what the General Secretary's office were doing about the matter. You knew that they were unable to find him at the address. You knew that they had sent the interrogatories to Washington because they were told he had been taken over there, and we are told that you have been in Hamburg yourself.
DR. SIEMERS: That the interrogatory was sent to Washington is something which I have known only since last Friday, after my return from Hamburg. I personally did not anticipate that such a mistake or such a misunderstanding could arise. Unfortunately, I also do not know how it did arise. Far be it from me to make any kind of accusation. I have merely requested that if the document were received, then the Tribunal should agree to receive it in evidence later. Unfortunately, I cannot submit it today. I immediately informed the General Secretariat of the address once more; I do not know anything more than this address in Hamburg, either. In my opinion, Admiral Schulze is not in captivity. It is possible that during my absence some misunderstanding occurred, but I myself heard that only last Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I cannot understand why, during all these months that you have been here and have had full opportunity of seeing the General Secretary and have received all the assistance which you and all the other defendants' counsel have received from the General Secretariat, that you should not have helped the General Secretary better to find this witness. That is all. We will adjourn now.
[The Tribunal adjourned until 4 July 1946 at 1000 hours.]