dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
COL-AATEN: Did you intervene on his behalf on at least one occasion?
STROLIN: I provided for his release from prison.
COL. AMEN: That was in March 1943?
STROLIN: No, there must be some misunderstanding. I mean the Alfred Weninger who is a Frenchman and whom I helped during the war so that he was not sentenced to death, and was later released from prison. However, that took place during the period from 1942 to 1944. 1 do not know another Alfred Weninger. There may be two Alfred Weningers.
COL. AMEN: No, that is correct. He was sentenced along with 12 other comrades for espionage and intelligence with the enemy.
STROLIN: Yes, and he is the one whom I helped.
COL. AMEN: And you intervened with the Attorney General at the People's Court?
STROLIN: Yes, I intervened with Freisler.
COL. AMEN: And also, at the Ministries of the Interior and Justice in Berlin?
STROLIN: I submitted to the Ministry of the Interior a memorandum regarding conditions in Alsace, at the time, in order to have the Alsatians, pardoned.
COL. AMEN: And as a result of your efforts, these people received temporary suspension of their sentences; is that correct?
STROLIN: Yes. I would like to mention expressly that I asked Herr Von Neurath to intervene and it is due to a letter which he wrote to Hitler that these Alsatians were pardoned.
COL. AMEN: So that this individual, to put it mildly, is under a considerable obligation to you at the present time? Correct?
STROLIN: Yes, I imagine so.
COL. AMEN: Well, you saved his life in effect, did you not?
STROLIN: I also saved the lives of many others; I do not know if the people are grateful for it or not.
COL. AMEN: Well, in any event, I take it you do not question the truth of what he might report as a conversation with you, correct?
STROLIN: I do not doubt that he would remember this.
COL. AMEN: Do you recall having a conversation with him in June of 1940?
STROLIN: At the moment I cannot say unless you tell me what it was about.
COL. AMEN: Well, I will tell you what you are reported by him to have said and I ask you whether you recall having said that to him, either in the exact words which I put to you, or in substance. Do you understand?
STROLIN: Yes, I understand.
COL. AMEN: Here are the words: "I warn you against National Socialism, which does not recoil before anything, and which makes justice its servile agent. They are criminals and I have but the one wish -- to get out of it." Did you say that to Weninger in words or in substance? "Yes" or "no"?
STROLIN: I did not quite understand what you said. Will you please repeat it?
COL. AMEN: You understand English, don't you, Witness?
STROLIN: Some. I understand just a little.
COL. AMEN: As a matter of fact, you were interrogated in English by one of our interrogators, were you not?
STROLIN: I spoke a little English only on one occasion, but, I believe that he did not understand me correctly.
COL. AMEN: And you understood perfectly well what I just read to you, did you not?
STROLIN: I did not fully understand the German translation of what you said and the substance of your question is not clear to me.
COL. AMEN: Well, I shall read it to you again. But I suggest that you are merely taking this time in order to find out what answer you want to make. I ask you again whether you said to Weninger in words or in substance, in June of 1940, the following: Do you understand?
STROLIN: Yes, I understand but I do not recall having made that statement.
COL. AMEN: Do you deny having made that statement when I tell you that Weninger so states -- Weninger, whom you have just told us has every obligation to you?
STROLIN: I do not remember it. It may be true that I made critical statements, but I do not recall the wording.
COL. AMEN: Do you deny having made that statement? Answer yes or no.
STROLIN: I deny the statement. I deny that I made it in this form.
COL. AMEN: Did you make it in substance; did you make that statement?
STROLIN: I cannot remember the conversation at all.
COL.ANEN: Do you recall having made another statement to Weninger in 1936 in Strasbourg -- were you in Strasbourg with Weninger in 1936?
STROLIN: At the moment I cannot recall.
COL. AMEN: But you do not deny it?
STROLIN: I cannot recall.
COL. AMEN: It is quite possible?
STROLIN: It is possible, but I cannot recall it. I cannot at a moment's notice recall the date I was there.
COL. AMEN: And did you not say to Weninger in Strasbourg in 1936, in words or in substance, the following: "When I am abroad I am ashamed to be a German!'? "Yes" or "no."
STROLIN: It was entirely out of the question at that time, since in the year of 1936 1 was very proud of the fact that I was a German.
COL. AMEN: And then, do you deny having made that statement to Weninger?
STROLIN: I am quite certain that I did not make that statement in the year 1936.
COL.ANEN: When did you make it?
STROLIN: I do not recall having made such a statement to Weninger at all, at least not in 1936.
COL. AMEN: When did you make that statement to Weninger or anybody else? In what year did you decide to make statements like that?
STROLIN: I cannot recall having made such a statement at all.
COL. AMEN: But you do not deny it?
STROLIN: I frankly admit that there was a time when one was no longer proud of Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the other Prosecutors wish to cross-examine?
DR. SEIDL: I have no questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire. [The witness left the stand.] Does that conclude your case, Dr. Seidl, or have you got any other evidence to offer?
DR. SEIDL: Yes. First, I have to read into the record the questionnaire of the witness Alfred Hess which has arrived in the meantime. The Tribunal has admitted his testimony in the form of a questionnaire. I would then like to refer to various documents in Document Book Number 3, but before going into that and to conclude today's proceedings, I would like to establish upon the request of the Defendant Hess -- this refers to Volume 2 of the document book -- that Lord Simon came to the meeting as the official representative of the British Government; I therefore read a few sentences from Page 93 (Volume 11, Page 93): That was what I wished to state in completion of my reading of the Simon minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you be able to finish tonight if we went on for a few minutes or not?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the answers on this questionnaire are rather long. The witness was cross-examined and I assume that the Prosecution also intend to read the particulars of the cross-examination and I do not believe this would be possible today.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will adjourn. [The Tribunal adjourned until 26 March 1946 at 1000 hours.]
MARSHAL: If it please the Tribunal, Defendant Streicher will be absent from this session of the Court.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, Your Honors, I now turn to the reading of the interrogation of the witness Alfred Hess .
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall we find it?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I received this transcript of the interrogation of the witness only last Saturday, and it has thus not been possible for me to incorporate it into the document book as yet. This witness was interrogated at Bad Mergentheim on 19 March.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that we haven't got copies of it?
DR. SEIDL: I do not know whether the General Secretary, from whom I received this transcript, has supplied a copy for the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you had better go on then. Go on.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. Before answering the first question, the witness made a few preliminary remarks which are as follows: The witness Alfred Hess was then cross-examined in connection with his interrogation. I assume that the Prosecution want to submit this cross-examination themselves to the Tribunal. But if this cross-examination and the questions belonging to it have not yet been translated, it might perhaps be practicable if it were done directly, in this connection.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): If it please the Tribunal, we have received the cross-interrogatories but I suggest respectfully that, rather than take the time to read them, we offer them and if the Court will permit us, have them translated into the four languages. It will take another 10 minutes or so to read them and we are not interested in doing it unless the Tribunal feels that we should.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, Mr. Dodd.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President and Gentlemen, I do not know whether the affidavit of Ambassador Gaus submitted by me yesterday has been translated and whether the Tribunal has received these translations already. Yesterday at midday I gave six copies to the information office and have heard nothing further since.
THE PRESIDENT: Can the Prosecution inform the Tribunal what the position is?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the Prosecution has not had a copy of this affidavit yet so we do not know what is in it. We suggest that perhaps Dr. Seidl could postpone the reading of that until we have had a chance to consider it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I am afraid that must be postponed.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. Now I turn to Volume 3 of the document book. If it please the Tribunal, this volume of the document book contains, in substance, statements and quotations taken from books and speeches of foreign statesmen, diplomats, and political economists, regarding the history and origin of the Versailles Treaty , the contents of the Versailles Treaty, the territorial changes made by this treaty, such as the question of the Polish Corridor, and above all the disastrous economic consequences which this treaty had for Germany and also for the rest of the world.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have read the documents in this book and I should like just to say one or two words about them. They are opinions expressed by a great variety of gentlemen, including politicians, economists, and journalists. They are opinions that are expressed polemically and some of them journalistically, and with most of them one is familiar and knew them when they were expressed 15 to 25 years ago. Now, while I submit, as I have submitted to the Tribunal, that the whole subject is too remote, I have a suggestion which I hope the Tribunal will consider reasonable, that the Prosecution should, as I suggested yesterday, let this book go in at the moment de bene esse and that when Dr. Seidl comes to making his final speech he can adopt the arguments that are put forward by the various gentlemen whom he quotes, if he thinks they are right. He can use the points as illustrations, always provided the thesis that he is developing is one which the Tribunal thinks relevant to the issues before it. That will preserve for Dr. Seidl the advantage of the right to use these documents subject, as I say, to the relevancy of the issues, but I suggest that it would be quite wrong to read them as evidence at the moment. They are merely polemical and journalistic opinions and directed to an issue which the Prosecution has submitted, and I do submit, is too remote. However, I am most anxious that Dr. Seidl should have every advantage for his final speech. Therefore, I suggest it would be convenient if they were put in without being read at the moment and were left subject to the limitation of relevancy, which can be considered when all the evidence is before the Tribunal, for him to make use of in his final speech.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, may I shortly... THE PRESIDENT; Just one moment, Dr. Seidl. We will hear you in a moment -- perhaps it would be better to hear what you have to say now. Do you think the suggestion made by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe would be one which would be acceptable to you?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, at first glance the suggestion of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe seems to be very reasonable. But I believe I must say that if the matter is treated in that way great difficulties will arise for the Defense. For example the arguments on relevancy, which in their nature belong in the presentation of evidence and must be heard there, will be postponed until the final speech of the Defense. This would mean that the defense counsel in his final speech would be interrupted again and again; that he would have to argue for the relevancy of his quotations; that perhaps whole parts of his speech would fall by the wayside in that manner; and that in that way the danger would arise that the cohesion of the speech will be broken completely.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is a danger which every advocate has to meet, that certain portions of his speech may not be deemed relevant, but I thought that that might be a helpful way out. But if it is not accepted, then the Prosecution must respectfully but very strongly submit that the issues of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles are not relevant to this Tribunal. I have already argued that and I do not want to develop it at great length. I do want to make it clear that the questions which are raised by the quotations here were, of course, the subject of political controversy in practically every country in Europe, and different opinions were expressed as to the rightness and the practicality of the provisions, especially the economic provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. I am not disputing that that is a matter of controversy, but I am saying that it is not a controversy that should come before this Tribunal. I myself have replied to practically all the quotations from the English statesmen here as a politician over the past years, and I am sure many people in this Court must have taken one view or the other, but that is not a relevant issue to this Tribunal, and, of course, especially is it wrong in my view to put forward as evidential matter opinions expressed by one side in the controversy. Every one of these speeches, as far as they were English, was either preceded by matters to which it was a reply or was followed by a reply, and I should think the same applies to those of Senator Borah in the United States. These matters -- this is my second point -- are not really evidential, and this is a point for argument; and it will have to be decided what is a convenient time for the Tribunal to decide on whether this is a relevant issue. But that was why I put forward this suggestion that it was better to decide it when the whole of the true evidence of fact had been put before the Tribunal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But I do want, apart from my suggestion, to make quite clear that as regards relevance, the Prosecution unitedly submit that the rightness or practicality of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles is not a relevant matter. The other argument -- I want to distinguish between the two -- the other argument has been adumbrated by Dr. Stahmer as to the actual terms of the preamble to the military clauses. That is quite a different point which we can discuss when, as I understand, certain propositions of law are to be put forward by one of the defense counsel on behalf of the Defense. But, as I say, the rightness and practicality of the Treaty and especially the economic clauses is a subject of enormous controversy on which there are literally thousands of different opinions from one shade to the other, and I submit it is not an issue before this Court, and, secondly, I submit this is not evidence. It is not evidential matter, even if it were an issue.
DR. SEIDL: May I perhaps reply briefly?
TBE PRESIDENT: Then, Sir David, your proposition would be that Dr. Seidl could not quote from any of these documents?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, certainly, yes, on my premise that it is irrelevant matter, he could not.
TBE PRESIDENT: Yes. They are not admissible.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They are not admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My original suggestion was of course, leaving over the discussion of whether they are admissible until all the evidence had been filed, but if that is not accepted, I submit bluntly if I may use the word with all respect -- that they are not admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL: May I reply briefly, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, yes.
DR. SEIDL: It would indicate a complete misinterpretation of my intentions if one were to assume that by the submission of this document book I wanted to show whether or not the Treaty of Versailles is an expression of statesmanly wisdom. I am not concerned with that here. With the submission of this document it is to be shown, or rather there is to be brought under discussion: Firstly: Whether the opposite side at the conclusion of the Treaty, in the preliminary negotiations -- I call your attention to Wilson's Fourteen Points -- was not guilty for its part, of violation of the general treaty obligations, whether a culpa in contrahendo is not to be assumed here. Secondly: The presentation of the documents should show whether the opposite side complied with the obligations arising from the treaty, in order to establish -- that is, to give the Tribunal the opportunity of establishing -- in this way the legal inferences which Germany might draw from this. Thirdly: The Treaty of Versailles and its violation by the defendants forms the nucleus of Count One of the Indictment, namely, the Conspiracy charged by the Prosecution. The Prosecution, in replying to a question of the Tribunal as to when the conspiracy may be said to have started, has said that the date might be set as far back as 1921. Fourthly: The Prosecution has extensive ...
THE PRESIDENT: I have not the least idea what you meant by the last point. I do not understand what you said in the last point in the least.
DR. SEIDL: I wanted to say that for the beginning of the Conspiracy alleged by the Prosecution, the Treaty of Versailles played a decisive part, and that there is at least some causal nexus between the origin of this treaty and the alleged Conspiracy. Before there can be talk of illegality and of guilt, the facts have to be established which were causative for the Conspiracy charged by the Prosecution. Fourthly: The Prosecution has submitted extensive evidence on the development of the NSDAP. Numerous document books were submitted to the Court to show the growth in membership, to demonstrate the increase in the Reichstag mandates. Now, if this evidence was relevant, it is my assertion that also the circumstances and the facts that first enabled this rise of the Party at all must be relevant, if only from the viewpoint of causal nexus.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it your contention that the opinion of a journalist after the Treaty of Versailles was made, stating that, in his opinion, the Treaty of Versailles was unjust to Germany, would be admissible either for the interpretation of the Treaty or for any other purpose with which this Tribunal is concerned?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I admit that of course the isolated opinion of a foreign journalist has not in itself to be a relevant document. But I do maintain that the opinion of Secretary of State Lansing on the coming about of the Treaty of Versailles and his connection with the history of this treaty must be of some evidential relevance. What weight attaches to his opinion is a question which cannot yet be established at this point. This question can be decided by the Tribunal only when the complete evidence has been submitted. I maintain further that the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the Senate of the United States on the Treaty of Versailles, about its formulation, about its effects within the Conspiracy alleged by the Prosecution which purportedly is said to be directed chiefly against the Treaty of Versailles can prima facie have value as evidence. The same applies to most of the other statements quoted in this document book. I would like to call attention to Gustav Cassel, to John Maynard Keynes, the official financial advisor of the British Government, and to a number of others.
THE PRESIDENT: It is your contention that because of the provisions of the Versailles Treaty or because of an infraction of those provisions by the signatory powers, Germany was justified in making an aggressive war?
DR. SEIDL: I cannot answer that now definitely, so long as I have not heard the evidence of the other defendants. I do assert, however, that by violation of the Treaty of Versailles by the opposite side, under certain circumstances Germany or the defendants could infer the right to rearm, and that is an infraction of the Treaty of Versailles with which the defendants are charged. As far as the right to an aggressive war is concerned, I should not like to make any positive statements at least until such time as the Tribunal has taken official notice of the affidavit of Ambassador Gaus.
THE PRESIDENT: One more question I should like to ask you: Are you saying that the Fourteen Points which were laid down by President Wilson are admissible evidence to construe the written document of the Versailles Treaty?
DR. SEIDL: I do not say that the Fourteen Points of Wilson, per se, are admissible evidence. I do assert, on the other hand, that the connection between these Fourteen Points of Wilson and the Treaty of Versailles, and the contradiction resulting therefrom are of causal significance for the Conspiracy alleged by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you are really saying that the Versailles Treaty, insofar as it departed from the Fourteen Points, was an unjust treaty?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, whether the treaty was just or not is a point which I do not wish to prove with this document at all. Whether the treaty was unjust or not is in my opinion a fact which perhaps is beyond the scope of these proceedings. I do assert, however, that the treaty, at least in many of its terms, did not bring that which the victorious states themselves expected of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to add anything more, Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: Not at this point.
DR. RUDOLF DIX (Counsel for Defendant Schacht ): Since it is a very fundamental question which has been raised now for discussion by Sir David, and since the Defense must always calculate on the possibility that the Tribunal, even at this point, may make a decision on the question of whether and how far such documentary material as that discussed can be produced, I consider myself duty-bound to add to the statements of my colleague, Dr. Seidl, with whom I agree fully, just a few supplementary words. And I would like to reply to the very precise question of Your Lordship which starts, "Do you consider it relevant ... ?" I believe -- and I will avoid any repetition -- that a very vital point as far as relevancy is concerned has not been brought out yet, and that is the subjective aspect; that is the relevancy of the investigation of evidence and of facts regarding the subjective state of the individual defendant, that is, of the facts as seen from within. If, for example, one of the defendants committed an act which was, considered purely objectively, a breach of the Treaty of Versailles, then, as far as criminal law is concerned and looking at it from the subjective view, it is of great significance whether in the opinion of reasonable, just, and educated men of an nations, he acted with an attitude and with a viewpoint which was not merely his special viewpoint, but that of the most serious men of the various nations and also, of those nations which fought against Germany in the years 1914-18. In order not to be too abstract, I should like to cite a concrete example: A defendant holds the opinion that he is entitled to rearmament -- not to aggressive war; I will not touch this question. He considers rearmament justified, either because the treaty has not been kept by the other side or because owing to expressis verbis , or to some action, it is to be considered obsolete.