dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you will be allowed to if you will make them clear. You ask for two further documents, and the first one, I understood you to say, was a decree dated June 1943. Is that right?
DR. THOMA: That is correct. And the next document is a letter from Hitler to Rosenberg in which Hitler informs Rosenberg of the reasons for his not wanting to work in the Reichstag and for not wanting to participate in the elections. But I do recall that I submitted this application in writing, and I beg to submit it again now.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the application will be considered. Are you referring to the document of 1924, the letter from Hitler to Rosenberg dated 1924?
DR. THOMA: Yes, 1923 or 1924. Then, Gentlemen, I have also this fundamental application regarding the question of anti-Semitism. I have asked here to be permitted only a few historic writings, these on the question as to why the Jewish problem has existed in Germany, I believe even from the 8th century, and why persecutions of the Jews recur persistently in Germany. I want thereby to establish that in this connection we are concerned with some tragic fact which we do not rationally understand. By producing evidence both from Jewish and from Christian theological literature, I want to prove that we are not concerned with the fact that the German people were misled into exterminating the Jews, and that the influence of the National Socialist Party was such as to bring the German people to such hate for the Jews, but that we are rather here facing irrational conditions and that this is recognized both in Jewish and Christian literature. I wish also to establish that an ffitellectual dispute between Jewry and the German race has existed on a purely intellectual level, and in fact in a purely intellectual way, because actually Moritz Goldstein said in 1911 -- I mention only one example -- that the Jews in Germany administer the intellectual wealth of Germany. Thus here it is a matter of depicting the problem in Germany, the role of Judaism in the cultural history of Germany, and why such a drastic contrast between Judaism and the German race exists here in Germany. I intend to quote only literature in this connection, but I believe that my statements in the closing speech will not be sufficiently credible to the Court if I have not also quoted scientific -- recognized scientific -- writings. That is all with which I am concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, your applications will be considered.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next application is on behalf of the Defendant Speer, who requests a number of documents dealing with the Central Planning Committee. I have not actually had the opportunity of checking these with the exhibits, but if, as I believe, they are the ones which were put by Mr. Justice Jackson to the Defendant Goering in cross-examination, I think they are all either exhibits or the documents which the Prosecution have, and they relate to the Defendant Speer. If he does not have them, then we should do our best to give them copies.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you said they all had been put to the Defendant Goering in cross-examination and were either exhibits or documents; but if they have been put to the Defendant Goering, then they should be exhibits ...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, Your Honor, they should be exhibits; I have not had the opportunity of checking them, but if they have been presented in Court they must be exhibits. The next one is an application on behalf of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart for interrogatories to be submitted to Dr. Uiberreither. The Tribunal will remember he was Gauleiter of one of the outstanding Austrian Gaue, and a collaborator in the National Socialist Movement in Austria. I have no objection to these interrogatories being submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: He gave another affidavit, did he not, a day or two ago?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, Sir. That was for another defendant, Goering. Dr. Uiberreither obviously has some knowledge of the Austrian position. The only question is as to the requirements and the special subject of the interrogatories. I don't know. I have to reserve my position as to actual wording of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you seen the interrogatory?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: They have been deposited before us.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord; I had seen them. It is my mistake. Dr. Uiberreither right here comes into the picture once or twice. I had seen this application. And the only objection the Prosecution felt was to the somewhat leading form of the questions that were put, and perhaps my friends, Mr. Dodd and Colonel Baldwin, could have a word on that point with Dr. Kubuschok, or whoever represents Seyss-Inquart, before they are actually delivered.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-YYFE: The next one is an application in regard to the Defendant Sauckel . Dr. Kubuschok tells me there is another application on behalf of Seyss-Inquart which was not on the form in front of me. [Turning to Dr. Kubuschok.] Perhaps you would develop that?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Defendant Seyss-Inquart is requesting permission for an interrogatory to the witness Bohle. The examination of this witness has been refused by the Tribunal on the grounds that it would be cumulative evidence. The Defendant Seyss-Inquart requests again to have these matters of evidence clarified, this time only by way of an interrogatory. The witness is essential, particularly as the subject of his evidence cannot be established by means of other direct witnesses. The other witnesses who have been named in this connection can only state what they have been told by Bohle. Regarding the actual events, Bohle is the only man who can make statements based on his own knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, if other witnesses who have been granted are going to give what we call hearsay evidence, from what they heard from Bohle, why wasn't Bohle asked for instead of one of these other witnesses? I
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I do not know the intention of my colleague who is defending Seyss-Inquart. All I know is that he has asked supplementarily for indirect witnesses here, but I am told now that Bohle is considered as a direct witness, and this because it must be expected that the other witnesses, for whom this matter is not so important, may not remember some points.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you want to say anything about it, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal will remember that I informed the Tribunal that all the questions to Bohle were the same as those to the witness Von der Wense, except two, which I think dealt with the requisitioning of lorries, and about which there could be little dispute. It seemed to the Prosecution therefore that here was clear proof that this witness was entirely cumulative. The interrogation is the same, word for word, as the interrogation of the witness, Von der Wense.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: It was certainly not expressed clearly in the original applications that the other witnesses only know what they have heard from Bohle. In fact, we are here concerned with evidence on instructions given by Bohle personally, on which he is of course the best witness. If necessary we would agree that the subject of that evidence be eliminated as far as the other witnesses are concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless the matter can be agreed upon, the Tribunal can scarcely decide on it without seeing the interrogatory to Bohle and the interrogatories to these other witnesses. Would it meet the case if we were to grant this interrogatory on the condition that, if it appeared subsequently that other interrogatories when considered with this one were cumulative, they might be disregarded?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, as far as I am concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is the Defendant Sauckel, and Dr. Servatius and Mr. Roberts of my staff have been considering this carefully together. Dr. Servatius is not here. Perhaps Mr. Roberts can tell the Tribunal how far they got.
MR. ROBERTS: Dr. Servatius submitted a list of about 90 documents, a formidable number; but most of them are short extracts from various decrees and orders relating to the employment of labor, and it is difficult to find any reason for objecting to them. Dr. Servatius at my suggestion agreed to take from his list about 10 or 15 as cumulative. There are about four documents relating to alleged ill-treatment of workers at the hands of the enemies of Germany, to which I have objected on the ground that they are not relevant, and as to those documents a decision of the Tribunal will be necessary as a question of principle. My Lord, as Dr. Servatius could not, as I understand, be here today, perhaps we could discuss the matter with the General Secretary on his return at the beginning of next week, so that the matter then could be put in a convenient and more or less agreed on form to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then you haven't been able to come to any agreement about the witnesses, have you?
MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I thought the position as to the witnesses was this: That Sir David some weeks ago discussed it before the Tribunal and Dr. Servatius discussed it, and Sir David conceded the calling of six witnesses and affidavits from a number of others. That was considered by Dr. Servatius, and he submitted his final and much-reduced list of 11 witnesses, which I handed to an official of the Tribunal, and which I understood has been before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you the date there? Is it 4 March 1946?
MR. ROBERTS: I have a document before me in German ...
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
MR. ROBERTS: And the Prosecution's position was fully stated by Sir David when these matters were being considered before, and it would be now really for the Tribunal. I think, to decide on those two contentions -- one for 6 witnesses, and one for 11. What their decision should be ...
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, that takes us to the end of the listed ones. There were some that were received later.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is one from the Defendant Frank who requests interrogatories to Ambassador Messersmith. That was granted by the Tribunal, and in an executive session. It was not requested in Counsels' consolidated applications, but heard in open court. There is obviously no objection to that in principle that the Prosecution are aware of. Then the Defendant Von Ribbentrop requests the book, America in the Battle of the Continents , by Sven Hedin ...
THE PRESIDENT: Other defendants have administered interrogatories to Mr. Messersmith, have they not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the answers been received yet?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They have not been received, I am told.
THE PRESIDENT: How long is it since they were sent off?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will find out, My Lord. 21 February.
THE PRESIDENT: You have seen these interrogatories, the ones now suggested by the Defendant Frank?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not sure.
THE PRESIDENT: There are five of them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The position is that we got them yesterday and they are still being discussed between my delegation and the American delegation. They have not actually come to me yet.
THE PRESIDENT: We had better consider this.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is an application by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop, who asks for the book, America in the Battle of the Continents , by Sven Hedin. That must be subject to the general use of books, and if there are passages that the defendant wants to use, if he will submit them then we can deal with their relevance when the individual passage comes up.
THE PRESIDENT: That also will be considered.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases. Then there is an application on behalf of the Defendant Schacht for the book, Warnings and Prophecies , by the late Lord Rothermere. The same, I submit, should apply to that. Any passages desired to be used can be extracted and shown to us, and then their relevance can be considered when use is attempted to be made of them. Dr. Dix nods agreement to that. Now, I understand there is an application on behalf of the Defendant Von Neurath . I understand that he wishes copies of the interrogations of Dr. Gaus, who is the gentleman who is mentioned as a witness for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. The general ruling of the Tribunal has been, as I understand it, that the defendants are only entitled to copies of interrogations which are going to be used against them, that is, their own interrogations, and it would be an extension of the rule which might lead us into general difficulties if this were extended to copies of the interrogations of other witnesses. Therefore the Prosecution object in principle to that. But as I gather that Dr. Von Ludinghausen wants it for the purpose of preparing the case, if he would care to come and see me or my staff, perhaps it could be conveyed to him; and if he indicates any matters on which we can help him, we will be very pleased to discuss them with him.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is Dr. Gaus?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In Nuremberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Can't Dr. Ludinghausen see him here?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I would welcome that. I have not the least objection to that at all. That will probably ease the situation.
THE PRESIDENT: Both courses appear appropriate, that Dr. Ludinghausen could perhaps see you ...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: ... with reference to interrogatories and see Dr. Gaus in the prison here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELIFYFE: I welcome both of these courses.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, that concludes the matters.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As far as Ribbentrop is concerned ....
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, as Dr. Horn is not here, perhaps you could deal with that application with reference to Hilger.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. I am prepared to do that, but since I have not talked to Dr. Horn I must ask that Dr. Horn not be bound by my statements. Hilger is a witness of very great importance, since he was an Embassy Counsellor in Moscow, and that during the period when negotiations for a pact were conducted between Germany and Russia, until the outbreak of the war with Russia. He is therefore the person who participated in all negotiations, is well acquainted with the attitude and the dealings of Von Ribbentrop, and therefore the best informed and most reliable witness. Hilger, until now has been in the background as a witness, since Dr. Horn had asked for the ambassador, Dr. Gaus. But Dr. Horn withdrew, or has withdrawn, his application for Dr. Gaus, as far as I know, and wants only, in reference to some lesser points, to have possibly an affidavit or an interrogatory. I assume that Sir David agrees to this, if I submit it in that form.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Siemers?
DR. SIEMERS: Sir David has just very kindly expressed his agreement to this course.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I agree, My Lord, as I suggested, that if this witness Hilger is called as an oral witness, an interrogatory be administered to the witness Gaus.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That is all, isn't it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn to consider these matters. [The Tribunal adjourned until 25 March 1946 at 1000 hours.]
MARSHAL (Colonel Charles W. Mays): May it please the Court; the defendants Streicher and Ribbentrop are absent from this session.
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): Dr. Seidl.
DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Hess ): Mr. President, Your Honors, on Friday last I stated that I would not read anything from the first volume of the document book; that does not mean, however, that I should not like to refer to one or another document in my final speech. The question now arises whether, under these circumstances, documents to which I may refer, but which I will not read now should be submitted as evidence to the Court, or whether it is sufficient if these documents are copied down in the book. I would be grateful if the Court would help me regarding this question.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): My Lord, I have a suggestion to make: That the Tribunal take these documents de bene esse at the moment, and that when Dr. Seidl comes to make his final speech, then any point as to admissibility can be discussed. With regard to the third book, for example, that consists of a number of opinions of various politicians and economists in various countries. The Prosecution will, in due course, submit that these have no evidential value and in fact relate to a matter too remote to be relevant. But I should have thought the convenient course would have been to discuss that when we find what ultimate use Dr. Seidl makes of the documents, at the moment letting them go in, as I suggest, de bene esse .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal think that you should offer the documents in evidence now, and that they should be num-bered consecutively. Probably the best way would be with the letter "H" in front of them -- H Number 1 and so on -- and, that then, as Sir David says, as they are being offered all together, objection, if necessary, can be taken to them at a later stage -- objection on the ground of admissibility or relevance.
DR. SEIDL: Very well. I turn once more to Volume 1 of the document book. The first document is a speech made by the Defendant Rudolf Hess on 8 July 1934. This document will bear the Number H-1, Page 23 of the document book. The second document can be found on Page 27 of the document book ...
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Seidl. To what issue has this speech got relevance?
DR. SEIDL: The speech of 8 July 1934?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, it is the one on Page 23. It is 8 July 1934.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President, this speech deals with the ques-tion of war and peace. Since the Defendant Hess is accused of having participated in the psychological preparation of aggressive war, and thus also of being a participant in the conspiracy, it seems to me that the attitude of the Defendant Hess toward the question of war is of considerable importance as regards evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will allow you to read it.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I do not intend to read the speech now. I only want to bring up the speech as an exhibit so as to be able to refer to it in my final speech, if necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SEIDL: I shall read nothing at all from the first document book. I shall only mention certain documents as exhibits. I turn to Page 28 of the document book. This is another speech by the Defendant Hess, delivered on 27 November 1934. The number of this exhibit will be H-2.
THE PRESIDENT: The speech of 8 December 1934 begins on Page 27.
DR. SEIDL: Page 27, that is right. It was marked here incor-rectly. As the third exhibit I submit a speech -- that is to say, an excerpt from a speech -- of 17 November 1935, Page 31 of the docu-ment book, Exhibit Number H-3. I turn to Page 32 of the document book, an excerpt from a speech of 11 October 1936, Exhibit Number H-4. Then comes a speech of 14 March 1936, Page 33 of the document book, Exhibit Number H-5. The next exhibit is on Page 35 of the document book, a speech of 21 March 1936, Exhibit Number H-6. Exhibit Number H-7 is a speech on Page 36 of the document book. Exhibit Number H-8 is a speech of 6 June 1936, on Page 40 of the document book. Then, I turn to Page 43 of the document book, a speech at the Reichsparteitag in Nuremberg 1936, Exhibit Number H-9. There follow excerpts of a speech on Page 59 of the document book, Exhibit Number H-10. A speech of 14 May 1938 at Stockholm is found on Page 70 of the document book, Exhibit Number H-11. The next exhibit is on Page 78 of the document book, Exhibit Number H-12. So much for the first volume of the document book. I pass on to the second volume, to the affidavit which I submitted last Friday. It can be found on Page 164 of the document book. It is an affidavit made by the former Secretary, Hildegard Fath, and it will bear the Exhibit Number H-13. The next exhibit is on Page 86 of the document book, Volume 2, a decree of 3 June 1936, Exhibit Number H-14. And now I come to the point where I shall read certain excerpts from the minutes of the meeting between the Defendant Hess and Lord Simon, which took place on 10 June 1941. These minutes begin on Page 93 of the document book. The minutes will have the Exhibit Number H-15. Your Honors, the Defendant Hess, on 10 May 1941, flew to England. Nobody except his then adjutant, Hitsch, knew of this flight. The Fuehrer himself was informed about the flight and the intentions connected therewith in a letter which was delivered to the Fuehrer after Hess had already landed in England.
DR. SEIDL: After his arrival in England Hess was frequently questioned by officials of the Foreign Office, and, as already mentioned, a meeting took place between him and Lord Simon on 10 June 1941. This meeting lasted two hours and a half. In the course of this meeting the Defendant Hess told Lord Simon the reasons for his extraordinary undertaking and he then submitted four proposals, or four points, which he claimed would give the intentions of Adolf Hitler, and which he considered to be the basis for an understanding and a conclusion of peace. For the conference Lord Simon assumed a pseudonym; in the minutes which were given to the Defendant Hess shortly after the meeting, he is referred to as Dr. Guthrie. As far as I know, this measure was probably taken to prevent the stenographers or the translators from knowing at once what it was all about. In the minutes mention is also made of a Dr. Mackenzie, an official of the Foreign Office, and of Mr. Kirk-patrick, who had previously already spoken with the Defendant Hess. After a few introductory remarks by Lord Simon, the Defendant Hess began to explain the reasons which led him to take his singular step, and I quote liberally from Page 93 of the document book, about the middle of the page. I must add that in the minutes, the Defendant Hess is referred to by the name "J." The Defendant Hess, after the introductory remarks, said the following ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, there seems to be a typographical error, probably in the date. The date is given as the 9th of August. You said the 10th of June, did you not?
DR. SEIDL: 10 June, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this a mistake at the top of Page 93- -- 9.8.41?
DR. SEIDL: On the cover of the document there is the following remark: "Minutes of the conversation which took place on 9 June 1941 somewhere in England." On the inside of the document, there is also the entry 9. 6. 41; so there must obviously be a typographical error here.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it must have been. They put "8" instead of "6."
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SEIDL: I continue on Page 94: I believe I may omit the following incidental remarks and con-tinue quoting further: I turn to Page 95: I turn now to Page 96 of the document book. I turn now to Page 97 of the document book. After a short incidental remark by Dr. Mackenzie, Hess continued:
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, have you got the original document there before you?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Might it be handed up?
DR. SEIDL: Yes. [The document was handed to the President.]
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.