dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: There was another question. Did the Defendant Raeder's counsel apply to have Dahlerus as a witness?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. The only other mention that I know of is by the Defendant Ribbentrop's counsel on a limited point.
DR. HORN: Before the Court makes a decision about the witness Dahlerus, I would like to inform the Tribunal that I have asked for that witness for the Defendant Von Ribbentrop. The witness Dahlerus, in the decisive hours before the outbreak of World War II in 1939, played a decisive role. The witness Dahlerus particularly can give important evidence about the last document which contained the conditions for further negotiations with Poland. This document was the cause of the second World War. I believe that this should be sufficient reason to call the witness Dahlerus to come here, especially since Dr. Siemers has declared that he knows that the witness is prepared to come on his own initiative.
DR. STAHMER: In view of the importance of this motion to me, may I in addition state the following: I have sent an interrogatory with 52 questions; but I do not believe that these questions really exhaust the subject matter of the evidence. For it is impossible, as I said before, to summarize everything that the witness knows strategically and to bring it out in such sequence that the Tribunal can have a complete picture of the important function which Dahlerus exercised at that time in the interests of England as well as of Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that point.
DR.STAHMER: As the next witness, I have named Dr. Baron Von Hammerstein, who was Judge Advocate General in the Air Force and who is at this time a prisoner of war either in American or British hands.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to Dr. Von Hammerstein, the Tribunal allowed interrogatories on the 9th of February; and Dr. Stahmer has not yet submitted the interrogatories; and the witness is not yet located. I have no objection to interrogatories. It seems as if this is essentially the type of witness that interrogatories would be most helpful with. He was the equivalent, as I understand it, of our Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, and interrogatories as to procedure, as foreshadowed in this application, would be a matter to which the Prosecution takes no objection at all. If he can be found, then Dr. Stahmer can administer the interrogatories as soon as he likes.
DR.STAHMER: As far as I can find out, I have not received any resolution that an interrogatory should be submitted, but I would nevertheless like to ask to call Hammerstein as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You must be mistaken about that, Dr. Stahmer, because upon our documents the right to administer interrogatories was granted on the 9th of February.
DR. STAHMER: I cannot find it at the moment. I must check on it first; but in any case I am making the request. Hammerstein has known the defendant for many years, specifically in a field which is of greatest importance for the forming of an opinion concerning the defendant's attitude towards justice and 17d also towards the treatment of the population in occupied territory and of prisoners of war, and here also in my opinion, it will be decisively important that the witness should give to the Tribunal detailed information about these facts and describe them in a manner which cannot possibly be expressed in an interrogatory or in answer to an interrogatory.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am told, My Lord, that the interrogatories have been sent in and reached the Tribunal Secretariat a day or two ago. I don't want to add to my point.
DR. STAHMER: I believe that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr.Stahmer, the next one?
DR. STAHMER: The next witness is Werner von Brauchitsch, Jr., colonel in the Air Force, son of General Field Marshal Von Brauchitsch, who is here in the courthouse prison in Nuremberg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to Colonel Von Brauchitsch.
DR.STAHMER: This witness is to give information about the attitude of the defendant with regard to lynch justice, to terror fliers, and with regard to his attitude towards enemy fliers in general. Next, General of the Air Force Kammhuber, who is a prisoner of war either in American or British captivity.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to General Kammhuber, interrogatories were also allowed on the 9th of February of this year, and they have not been submitted, as far as my information goes, and again the witness has not been located. I have no objection to interrogatories, and when the interrogatories are received, probably Dr. Stahmer could decide whether it is necessary to call the witness. I remind the Tribunal that this sketch was introduced in quite guarded terms by Colonel Griffith-Jones, and therefore it seems to me the sort of subject that might well be investigated by interrogatories.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you think that some agreed statement could be put in about this?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If we could see the result of the interrogatories, we would certainly be willing to consider that, because as the Tribunal will no doubt remember, it was the plan showing the Luftwaffe commands in Warsaw and other districts outside Germany, and Colonel Griffith-Jones, in dealing with it, said that he was not stating positively that it had been placed before the Defendant Goering. Therefore, if we have a statement, we should be most ready to consider it, and, if possible, agree on the point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: General of the Air Force Koller, a prisoner of war in American hands.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution has no objection to General Koller. The Tribunal ordered on 26 January that he should be alerted. He has not yet been located, but if he is located, then clearly the matters suggested are relevant in the view of the Prosecution.
DR.STAHMER: Colonel General Student, a prisoner of war in English hands.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution has no objection to this witness. If Your Lordship will allow me one moment, I have not had the chance to take this particular point up with my French colleague. As far as I know there is no objection. I would like to verify that. [There was a pause in the proceedings.] I am grateful to Your Lordship. My French colleague, M. Champetier de Ribes, agrees that he has no objection.
DR. STAHMER: General Field Marshal Kesselring, who is in the courthouse prison in Nuremberg at the present time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is on the same point, and the Prosecution takes the same attitude: No objection.
THE PRESIDENT: We would like to hear some explanation from you, Dr. Stahmer, on what the evidence -- what is the relevance of Field Marshal Kesselring's evidence.
DR. STAHMER: The facts about which he knows I consider relevant because the Prosecution has declared that Rotterdam had been attacked without military necessity, and that the attack, in addition, took place at a time when negotiations were already under way for the capitulation of the city.
THE PRESIDENT: You do not say where General Student is, but General Student and Field Marshal Kesselring are to give evidence, as I understand it, on exactly the same point, and therefore, if Field Marshal Kesselring were called as a witness, wouldn't it be sufficient to give interrogatories or get an affidavit from General Student?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, I agree.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Agreed, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Dr. Von Ondarza, Chief Surgeon of the Luftwaffe, whose whereabouts are unknown to me, but who has presumably been released from captivity and may be at his home in Hamburg now.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next two witnesses are really on the same point. As I understand it, I thought that -- my copy is very bad, but I read it -- the defendant was not informed of the experiments conducted by two doctors -- the first one must be Rascher, I think, and Dr. Romberg -- on inmates of Dachau and other places; that the defendant himself never arranged for any experiments whatsoever on prisoners, and Field Marshal Milch -- Paragraph A -- said that the defendant was not informed of the letters exchanged between the witness and Wolff concerning the experiments conducted by Dr. Rascher in Dachau, in which prisoners were employed, and the witness did not even inform the defendant of this subject; and that Dr. Rascher, on assuming his activity in Dachau, withdrew from the Luftwaffe and joined the SS as a surgeon. Clearly evidence on that point may be relevant. We have no objection to the witness being called. It is the position with regard to the first witness, Dr. Von Ondarza, that he is not located. The Tribunal ordered that he should be alerted on 26 January. Field Marshal Milch is in the prison. Again I should have thought that in these circumstances we would make no objection to Field Marshal Milch being called on this point, and if the surgeon, Von Ondarza can be located, then I shall agree to interrogatories, but I don't feel very. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be agreeable to you, Dr. Stahmer, if we were to grant the application to call Field Marshal Milch on this point and were to allow an interrogatory for the other witness when he has been located?
DR. STAHMER: I have also examined the question whether the evidence would be cumulative. That is not the case. The evidence to be offered by Milch is slightly different, and the Defendant Goering considers it important to have Ondarza as a witness because Dr. Ondarza was his physician for many years and therefore is well informed, and he is furthermore to tell us that the Defendant Goering did not know anything about the experiments which were made with these 500 brains. That is not yet in my application, but I have just found out about that. There was a long deposition which was submitted by the Prosecution concerning these 500 brains. I protested against that at the time and I was told that I should make this objection at a specified time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider what you say upon that. You can turn now to Korner.
DR. STAHMER: State Secretary Paul Korner, who is here in Nuremberg in the courthouse prison.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection on the part of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, in our documents it is stated that the suggested witness Paul Korner is not located, but in the document of your application you say that he is in the Nuremberg prison.
DR. STAHMER: I did receive that information at one time. At this moment I cannot say where my information comes from.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I do not know, but I could easily find out for the Tribunal. I will ask if the matter can be checked.
THE PRESIDENT: If you would, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I have just been given a roster of internees on the 19th of February and he does not appear to be in that list.
THE PRESIDENT: In the Nuremberg prison?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the information that I had.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you go on about this evidence, Dr. Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: Korner was a state secretary since 1933 and he can testify about the purpose behind the establishment of concentration camps in 1933, about the treatment of the people imprisoned there, and that Goering was in charge of these camps only until 1934. He can also testify about the measures and regulations, the purpose and aim of the Four Year Plan, and also about the attitude of the defendant after he had been informed in November 1938, about the anti-Jewish incidents.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that.
DR. STAHMER: Dr. Lohse, art historian, either in an English or an American camp.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My information, My Lord, is that interrogatories were allowed on the 9th of February. They have not yet been submitted, and the witness is not yet located. I have no objection to interrogatories with regard to Dr. Lohse or the next witness, Dr. Bunjes, who deals with the same point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: Also the testimony of the witness Lohse seems to me important -- considering the weight of the accusations which have been made here against the defendant -- so important that I ask to hear him as witness here before this Tribunal. The question is a very short one: He is to testify as to what the defendant's attitude was toward the acquisition of art objects in the occupied territories. That is, to be sure, a very short subject, but for the judgment of the defendant it is extremely important; and the accusation made by the Prosecution in this respect is extremely serious.
THE PRESIDENT: You are dealing now with Dr. Bunjes?
DR. STAHMER: No, still with Lohse.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal; the interrogatories apparently seemed a suitable method to the Tribunal, and the Prosecution respectfully submits that we should see what Dr. Lohse can say in answer to the interrogatories, and then Dr. Stahmer can, if necessary, renew the application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, is there anything you want to say about Dr. Bunjes?
DR. STAHMER: The last witness is Dr. Bunjes, the art historian.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He seems to be, My Lord, in exactly the same position as Dr. Lohse, and I do not think I need repeat what I said.
THE PRESIDENT: Except that he may be located. I do not know where he is.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I think this is the first reference to Dr. Bunjes, and therefore we have not been able to find out whether he can be located or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, perhaps Dr. Stahmer knows.
DR. STAHMER: I am told just now that Dr. Lohse is in the camp at Hersbruck. That is here in the vicinity of Nuremberg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I shall have inquiries made about him.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bunjes -- do you know where he can be located?
DR. STAHMER: No; his home is in Trier, but whether he is there I do not know.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well, that concludes your witnesses, does it not?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Are those all the witnesses that you are applying for?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: As far as you know, is that your final list?
DR.STAHMER: I cannot yet foresee how far the Prosecution, which has not finished the presentation of its case, will make it necessary for me to make further applications.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we consider your documents the Tribunal will adjourn. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we can deal with the documents more as a whole. Have you anything to say about them?
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I make a statement concerning the two witnesses, Koller and Korner? I was just told that Koller was Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and Korner a lower staff officer. Both were repeatedly questioned by the occupying forces. This indication may make it easier and more possible to locate the witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will note that point and, of course, we will do our best to help in locating them.
THE PRESIDENT: Which two witnesses are those?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Koller and Korner. They are both witnesses to whom I made no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be convenient, if the Tribunal please, if I were to explain the general position of the Prosecution with regard to the documents, and then Dr. Stahmer could deal with these points because they fall into certain groups which I can indicate quite shortly. There are three documents which are not in evidence, but to which there is no objection: Number 19, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. That is a treaty, of course, and the Court can take judicial cognizance of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And the Constitution of the German Reich, the Weimar Constitution of 11 August 1919. Again I shall assume the Court will take judicial cognizance of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And Number 30, Hitler's speech of 21 May 1935.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then there are a number which are already in evidence as far as I know: Number 4, the Rhine Pact of Locarno; Number 5, the Memorandum to the Locarno Powers of the 25th of May 1935; Number 6, Memorandum to the Locarno Powers of the 7th of March 1936; Number 9, the Treaty of Versailles ; Number 17, the speech by the Defendant Von Neurath, of 16 October 1933; Number 18, the proclamation by the Reich Government, of the 16th of March 1935. And then Number 7 was referred to but not read. That is the speech by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop before the League of Nations on the 19th of March 1936. All these are in or have been referred to and, therefore, there is no objection as far as they are concerned. Then we come to a series of books. Dr. Stahmer has at the moment referred to the whole book: Number 1, the late Lord Rothermere's book, Warnings and Prophecies ; Number 2, the late Sir Nevile Henderson's Failure of a Mission ; Number 3, the references to a number of years of the Dokumente der Deutschen Politik .
THE PRESIDENT: Those appear to be repeated, don't they, in the ones that follow or some of them? Six and seven, for instance, are taken from those volumes, aren't they, of the Deutschen Politik?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, apparently they are, My Lord. If I might just give Your Lordship the others so that you have the group together: Number 8, Mr. Fay's book on the Origin of the World War , the first World War; Number 20, Mr. Winston Churchill's book, Step by Step ; Number 24, the Defendant Goering's book, Building up a Nation . Number 26, to which I have already referred, is Mr. Dahlerus' book, The Last Attempt . With regard to these, there are two points: First of all, it is mechanically impossible to translate the whole of these books into Russian and French. I think most of them are in English already; secondly, the relevancy of the book cannot be decided until we see the extract which Dr. Stahmer is going to use. So the Prosecution submits that Dr. Stahmer should at the earliest opportunity let us know what are the extracts on which he relies so that they can be translated and we can decide as to whether they are relevant or not. Now the fourth category of books or documents, where either the issue is not clear or insofar as it is clear, it is obviously irrelevant. One to which I have already referred comes into this: Number 8, Fay on The Origin of the First World War . Number 10, speech by President Wilson, of 8 January 1918 -- that is the 14-point speech; Number 11, the note of President Wilson, of 5 November 1918 -- that is the Armistice note; Number 12, a speech by M. Paul Boncour, of 8 April 1927; Number 13, a speech by General Bliss in Philadelphia, which is before 1921, because it is quoted in What Really Happened at Paris , published in 1921; Number 14, a speech by the late Lord Lloyd George of 7 November 1927; Number 15, an article by Lord Cecil, on the 1st of March 1924, and another on the 18th of November 1926; Number 16, Lord Lloyd George's memorandum for the peace conference of 25 March 1919. May I pause there. As far as the Prosecution can judge, the only relevancy of these books and documents is to the issue of whether the Treaty of Versailles accorded with the 14 Points of President Wilson.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution submits that that is poles removed from the issues of this Trial and is just one of the matters against which the whole intendment of the Charter proceeds and which should not be gone into by this Court. It may be that I am wrong, or so it seems, difficult, in view of the collection of documents, to suppose that there is another issue, but it may be, and I put it in this way, that Dr. Stahmer ought to indicate quite clearly what is the issue to which these documents are directed and, where the document is long, to indicate what extract he refers to. But if the issue be that that I have referred to, then in the submission of the Prosecution --  I speak for all my colleagues -- we submit that it is a completely irrelevant matter. I am sorry; I should have included in that same category Number 21 and 22, which are two letters of General Smuts in 1919. They ought to be added. Then I have already dealt with Number 20, Mr. Churchill's book. Apart from the question of extracts, again the Prosecution submits that it ought to be made clear what is the issue for which that book has been quoted. Number 23 is a missive of M. Tchitcherin, stated to be the Foreign Commissar of the U.S.S.R., to Professor Ludwig Stein. Again the Prosecution has not the slightest idea as to what is the issue to which that is directed. The Defendant Goering's book, I have already dealt with, and I ask that we should get extracts. Number 28, General Fuller's book on Total War or an essay on Total War -- again the Prosecution does not know the issue at which it is directed. Then my fifth category, Number 27, which is the White Books of the German Foreign Office.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And I draw attention to Number 4, document to the Anglo-France policy of extending the war; Number 5, further document as to the western policy of extending the war; Number 6 are secret files of the French General Staff; Number 29, documentations and reports of the German Foreign Office regarding breaches of the Hague regulations for land warfare and Crimes against Humanity committed by the powers at war with the German Reich. These last documents seem to raise quite clearly the issues of tu quoque : If the Reich committed breaches of the laws and usages of war, other people did the same thing. The submission of the Prosecution is that that is entirely irrelevant. The standard is laid down by the conventions and it is no answer, even if it were true that someone else had committed breaches. But, of course, there is the additional reason, that it would be quite impracticable and intolerable if this Tribunal were to embark on the further task of investigating every allegation, however tenuously founded, that some one else had not maintained these conventions. It is in the submission of the Prosecution -- again I speak for all my colleagues -- a matter which is completely irrelevant; and therefore we object to any evidence, whether oral or documentary, intended on that point. Of course, we all along have taken the view that we have no objection to the Defense Counsel having access to these documents in order to use them for refreshing their memory as to the background, but we object to their introduction in evidence for the reasons that I have given.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, perhaps you could say in the first instance whether you agree, that so far as the books are concerned that you would be willing to provide the extracts upon which you rely? You cannot expect the Prosecution or the Tribunal to get the whole books translated.
DR. STAHMER: This was also not my intention, and I believe that I prefaced my list of documents with a remark in which, under Number 2 I had pointed out, and had declared myself willing to specify the quotations. To that extent, of course, the objection in itself is in order.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Another topic the Prosecution has attacked is the books which I have cited, and which refer to the Treaty of Versailles. Here also I will state specifically to what extent I wish to use quotations from these books. As a matter of principle, however, the Defense must be granted the right to present its point of view in this matter, since after all...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, all these books which Sir David referred to, of which the Tribunal will take judicial notice, of course, you can make comment upon them if you wish, as on any document of which the Tribunal takes judicial notice. [There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges conferred.]
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I thought you were referring to the Treaty of Versailles.
DR. STAHMER: No; with the literature concerning the Treaty of Versailles.
THE PRESIDENT: You are now dealing with the ones which Sir David itemized as follows: 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,16, 21, and 22?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.