dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
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.
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. 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. 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 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.
DR. SIEMERS: 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. "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 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.
DR. SIEMERS: 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 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.
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 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 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.