dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I only wanted to make clear to you the difference between interrogatories and being allowed to call a witness to give all the evidence. Of course, if you are submitting to written interrogatories, you would not see the witness; but if, on the other hand, you were going to call the witness as a witness or to present an affidavit from him, you would then be at liberty to see the witness before he made his affidavit or before he drew up his proof.
DR. THOMA: Then I should like to put the request that Wilhelm Scheidt be called as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that you are making that request.
DR. THOMA: As far as Robert Scholz is concerned, I should like to point out to the Tribunal that Scholz was the director of the Special Staff entrusted with the practical application of measures to be taken for the safekeeping of works of art in both eastern and western districts and I should like to draw the special attention of the Tribunal to the fact that a number of learned German experts were members of this Special Staff and that they did a great deal of very conscientious work in safeguarding, restoring, and protecting these works of art and in preserving them for posterity. The way in which this Special Staff did its work is of decisive importance, therefore, for a good many men. Robert Scholl knows every detail of the procedure. Robert Scholz can testify, in particular, to the fact that Rosenberg did not appropriate for himself a single one of the enormous wealth of art treasures that passed through his hands and that he kept a careful record of those that went to Hitler and Goering. He also knows that all these works of art -- or, at least, the greater part of them -- were left where they were at first, especially in the East, and were only brought to the Reich when it was no longer safe to delay. I beg the Tribunal to hear this important witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, can you explain why the application was withdrawn on the 24th of January?
DR. THOMA: It was said then -- I think by the British or American Prosecution -- that the Special Staff would not be mentioned again during the proceedings. The French Prosecution, however, have now given detailed accounts of the looting of France; and so this witness is once more required.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your witnesses, I think?
DR. THOMA: I have one other request. I want to call a further witness, and I have already filed a request with the General Secretary for this witness, ministerial Subdirector Brautigam. Brautigam was Junior Assistant Secretary in the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, and he is to be called as a witness to prove that Rosenberg, in his capacity of Reich Minister for Occupied Eastern Territories, did not persecute the churches but granted freedom to all religious sects by the issue of an edict of tolerance; that, further, Rosenberg himself consistently opposed the use of force, supported a policy of promoting culture and represented the view that the peasant class should be strengthened and established on a healthy basis. Further -- and this seems to me to be particularly significant -- that very many letters and telegrams of thanks from the clergy in the Soviet Union arrived at the ministry for Occupied Eastern Territories addressed to Rosenberg. Gentlemen, if Dankers and Astrowski are not granted as witnesses, then I request permission to go back to Brautigam. And then I have one further witness. To show how Rosenberg behaved towards his academic opponents, I should like to call one of these academic opponents, to wit, Dr. Kuenneth, a university professor who wrote an important book attacking the Mythos. He will testify that those who disagreed with Rosenberg's philosophy were not at all afraid of the Gestapo and that they had no cause to fear the Gestapo.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Sir David, did you want to review those last two?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, in my submission these last two witnesses are not really relevant to the charges against this defendant which have been developed by the Prosecution. They are general witnesses, and if I may put it -- I hope the Tribunal will not think it flippant to put it this way -- they are really witnesses who say that the Defendant Rosenberg would not hurt a fly; we have often seen him doing it -- not hurting flies. That really puts it quite briefly as to what this class of evidence amounts to, and I respectfully submit, on behalf of my colleagues, that that should not be the subject of oral evidence, and it should be disallowed; or if there is any special point raised, it should be dealt with by an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Indictment allege that he instigated the persecution of churches?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Indictment says that he took part in anti-religious teaching. I am speaking from memory. That is one of the matters. And I think there was certain correspondence between him and the Defendant Bormann, which was directed towards his antireligious views. I do not remember at the moment that there was any evidence that he had personally participated in physical destruction of churches. That is my recollection. My Lord, I am reminded that there is a general allegation in Appendix A that he authorized, directed, and participated in the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity, including a wide variety of crimes against persons and property.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; those matters will be considered.
DR. SEIDL: The first witness that I ask be summoned is Dr. Hans Buhler, State Secretary with the Chief of the Administration in the Government General. This witness is detained here in Nuremberg, pending trial; and he is the most important witness for the Defendant Dr. Frank. He is called for Dr. Frank's whole policy in the Government General, since he was head of the government during the entire period from the establishment of the Government General up to the end.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you got any objection to Dr. Buhler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I have not, My Lord. The only point that I want to make clear is that the Defendant Frank calls an enormous number of witnesses from his own officials, he calls something like 15. And I am not going to object to Dr. Buhler; I am going to ask the Tribunal to cut down substantially the witnesses who were officials of the Government General. And it might help Dr. Seidl if I told him before the adjournment that my suggestion would be that the Tribunal would consider allowing Dr. Buhler, an affidavit from Dr. Von Burgsdorff, and that they might consider allowing Fraulein Helene Kraffczyk, the defendant's secretary, and Dr. Bilfinger, and Dr. Stepp, but not the succession of officials from the Government General.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you say your suggestion is to allow Dr. Buhler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Buhler.
THE PRESIDENT: And affidavits from...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Affidavits from Burgsdorff, allow Dr. Lammers -- he is in the general list...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE Allow the private secretary, Fraulein Kraffczyk, Number 7, and allow Numbers 9 and 10.
THE PRESIDENT: What are the names?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Bilfinger and Dr. Stepp.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And if these are allowed, I should suggest that Numbers 13 to 20, who are various officials from the office of the Government General, should not be allowed. If I may say so, with the submission of the Prosecution, the height of irrelevancy will be Number 18, Dr. Eisfeldt, who is chief of the Forestry Department.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I thought it might be convenient for Dr. Seidl to know what the views of the Prosecution were. Of course, if he has any suggestions of any alternatives we should be pleased to consider them.
THE PRESIDENT: We will continue with that after the adjournment, Dr. Seidl. Before the Tribunal rises, before the adjournment, I want to say that the Tribunal will rise this afternoon at 3:30. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, Your Honors, if I understand correctly. Sir David has no objection to the calling of the witnesses Dr. Hans Buhler, Dr.Bilfinger, and Fraulein Kraffczyk.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The second witness named by me is Dr. Von Burgsdorff, whose last appointment was that of Governor of Krakow. He is at present in the Moosburg Internment Camp, which means that he is close to Nuremberg. The witness Dr. Von Burgsdorff is the only one of the nine governors whom I have named to the Court as a witness. Considering the importance of the position of the governors in the Government General and in view of the great difficulties which these governors had to overcome, it seems proper to me that the witness Dr. Von Burgadorff should be heard personally by the Court and not by means of an interrogatory. Is it necessary for me to read out the evidence Material in detail now, or is it enough to refer to the application for evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: We have got it in writing, and we understand that, while Sir David suggests an affidavit, you want to insist upon his coming personally.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President, since the Court approved the calling of this witness at an earlier date.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery Dr. Lammers. This witness has already been approved for the Defendant Keitel, so that no further discussion is necessary. The fourth witness is State Minister Dr. Meissner. With regard to the fact that this witness is called in connection with evidence for which the witness Dr. Lammers was also named, I should like to ask the Tribunal to allow an interrogatory unless this witness is called for another defendant and can appear in person.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I did check that point as far as I could from my records, and I could not find that he was being called as a witness for any other defendant. And, as Dr. Seidl very fairly says in his first sentence, Dr. Meissner is named for the same evidence material as the witness Dr. Lammers. That is my point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Dr. Max Meidinger, former Chief of the Chancellery of the Government General, who, like Dr. Von Burgsdorff, is in Moosburg. My written application shows that this witness held a very important appointment. He received all the correspondence of the administration of the Government General and is acquainted in particular with the substance;, with suggestions and complaints addressed by the Defendant Dr. Frank to the central government authorities in Berlin, and in particular with the proposals which the Defendant Dr. Frank repeatedly made to the Fuehrer himself. The witness was likewise approved previously by the Tribunal, and I think that considering the vast knowledge of this witness -- he worked in the Government General for several years -- a personal hearing before this Court seems advisable.
THE PRESIDENT: You say he was approved. Was he not approved as one out of a group of which Frank was to choose three? There was a large group of witnesses.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President. The witnesses Von Burgsdorff and Dr. Max Meidinger were chosen from this group. Those are the two witnesses who were selected from a group of 13.
THE PRESIDENT: Which was the other one?
DR. SEIDL: The other one was witness Number 2, Dr. Von Burgsdorff. Witness Number 6, whom I have named and whom I should like to have called in person, is the witness Hans Gassner. His last appointment was that of press chief of the Government General, and he is also in the Moosburg Internment Camp. He was named, along with some others, to give evidence that the Defendant Frank did not hear of the existence of the camp of Maidanek and the conditions prevailing there until 1944, and then only because the witness informed him of reports published by the foreign press. The witness was also present -- this is not stated in my application -- when Dr. Frank told a press reporter that the forests of Poland would not be large enough to publish the death warrants. The witness will also be able to describe the interview in detail, to say what Frank meant by this remark, how he intended it to be understood, and what his reasons were for making the remark. I may add that the Court likewise approved this witness at an earlier date. I may say also, generally speaking, that, according to the wishes of the Tribunal, my applications for evidence will only indicate the general lines on which the witnesses are to be questioned and that I have consciously refrained from formulating the separate questions which I intend to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, will you express your view about Number 6?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, it seemed to the Prosecution that the second matter which Herr Gassner was desired to speak about, that the Defendant Frank learned from him only in 1944 about Maidanek, is really a matter about which no witness can be as satisfactory as the defendant himself. All the witness can say is, "I told the Defendant Frank about Maidanek, and it appeared to me that he did not know anything about it." Well, that is not, in the view of the Prosecution, satisfactory evidence. The Court will be able to judge from the Defendant Frank himself when he has been cross-examined on that point. If it is desired that that interview should be before the Court, the Prosecution submit that it could be adequately dealt with by an affidavit or an interrogatory. Apart from that, the grounds are entirely general and again could be covered by a written statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, the next one Sir David has already expressed his views on.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President. The next witness is Helene Kraffczyk, the defendant's last secretary. If I understand correctly, there are no objections on the part of the Prosecution. Witness Number 8 is General Von Epp, the last Reich Governor of Bavaria. He is at present in the internment camp at Oberursel. The statements to be made by this witness will be mainly concerned with the attitude of the Defendant Frank towards the concentration camps in 1933. As the witness is at present in the neighborhood of Frankfurt, I should be satisfied in this case with an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will see that General Ritter von Epp seems to cover the same incident as Dr. Stepp. I said that I would not object to Dr. Stepp, but if Dr. Seidl wishes an interrogatory on some specific points from General Ritter von Epp, I should not make any objections.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Number 9, is Dr. Rudolf Bilfinger, late Oberregierungsrat and SS ObersturmbannFuehrer in the Reich Security Main Office. This witness is already here in Nuremberg. The Prosecution apparently has no objection to the hearing of this witness. The next witness, Number 10...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: (Interposing) My Lord, I would just like to say one word about Dr. Bilfinger. I want the Tribunal to understand what the Prosecution have in mind. The general plan for these witnesses is to show from both ends the relationship between the Defendant Frank and the central agencies. The Prosecution thought that it was right that the defendant should be allowed to call two or three members of his own staff and a member from headquarters, who was in the position of Dr. Bilfinger, to give the other side of the picture. I just wanted the Tribunal to understand the plan on which we were working.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: Number 10 is Dr. Walter Stepp, former chief judge of the highest regional court of appeal in Munich. He is at present in the internment camp at Ludwigsburg. If I understand Sir David correctly, he has no objection to the calling of this witness. I should be glad if in this case I could submit to the Court an affidavit which is in my possession, and which will prove the veracity of these points. The reading of this affidavit would only take a few minutes, if the Court would permit me to call another witness instead, or if it would withdraw its objection to my calling another witness . . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have to ask for some notice as to who the other witness is. I was stating that I had no objection to Dr. Stepp, because he speaks as to the Defendant Frank's position in relation to other people in Bavaria in earlier years. Of course I cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues and accept just another witness blindly until I know who the witness is and what he is going to say.
DR. SEIDL: The witness is Dr. Max Meidinger.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to be as reasonable as possible. The reason that I had objected to Dr. Meidinger was because, as the Tribunal will see under Number 7, it is stated that Fraulein Kraffczyk is called for positive facts for which the witness Dr. Meidinger has already been named. It seemed to me that the private secretary is probably the most useful witness, but I am afraid that I cannot help Dr. Seidl any further. I have put my view, but I shall not say anything further against him. I am afraid that is as far as I can go on that point.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Number 11, is Von dem Bach-Zelewski, SS ObergruppenFuehrer and general of the Waffen-SS, who has already been heard by this Tribunal as a witness for the Prosecution. The Court has already at an earlier date granted permission for an interrogatory. In the meantime I have spoken to the witness. He has made an affidavit, which I shall submit instead of calling him in person.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought that it would be most convenient if the witness Von dem Bach-Zelewski came back, and then Dr. Seidl could put any affidavit to him if he wanted. We might want to re-examine on the point. I do not know what is in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Was he cross-examined by Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: When the witness was heard here I had no opportunity to cross-examine him, and for that reason...
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you have no opportunity to cross-examine him?
DR. SEIDL: Because I did not know beforehand that he would be called by the Prosecution as a witness and had no opportunity to speak to the Defendant Frank about the questions which might hake been put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will consider whether the witness ought to be recalled for cross-examination or whether you will be allowed to call him yourself. The affidavit which you say he has made, has that been submitted to the Prosecution?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not seen it, My Lord.
DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, my opinion on this point is the following . . .
THE PRESIDENT: When you saw Von dem Bach-Zelewski did you see him with a representative of the Prosecution?
DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, the General Secretary himself granted me permission to speak to the witness, and that was after the Court had already approved the use of an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: But when the witness was called by the Prosecution and you had the opportunity of cross-examination, if you were not ready to cross-examine, you ought to have asked to cross-examine him at a later date. I mean if you were not able to cross-examine at that time, because you had not had any communication with the Defendant Frank on the subject, you ought to have asked to cross-examine at a later date.
DR. SEIDL: I could have made this application to the Court if I had thought that there was any reason for questioning the witness. I did not find out until later that the witness possessed any vital information relevant to Frank's case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider the matter.
DR. SEIDL: May I perhaps add something to this point? The difficulty of a cross-examination is just this, that we do not learn of the intended calling of a witness by the Prosecution until the witness is led into the courtroom, and we do not know the subject of the evidence until the ' prosecution start to examine the witness. It would have been much easier for us to cross-examine, if we had received information about the witnesses and the subjects of evidence as far in advance as the Prosecution -- that is, as the Prosecution is informed about the witnesses for the Defense. The next witness is witness Number 12, Von Palezieux. His last appointment was that of art expert in the Government General. In regard to this witness I should like to suggest that an interrogatory might be granted in this case too.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl asks for an interrogatory, I have no objection. I just want to be clear that that is a written interrogatory. I do not want Dr. Seidl to be under a misapprehension.
THE PRESIDENT: You meant a written interrogatory, did you not, Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: Yes; I assume that in cases where a written interrogatory is admitted the submission of an affidavit is also admitted by the Court. The purpose is obviously to avoid bringing witnesses here and thus to save time. The next witness is Number 13, Dr. Bopple. His last appointment was that of State Secretary in the administration of the Government General. He is now in the internment camp at Ludwigsburg near Stuttgart. This witness seems to me to be one of the most important because in the administration of the Government General he answered a number of questions which play an important part in the case against the Defendant Frank. I may refer to the details in my list of evidence and should like to add, above all, that this witness can give detailed information as to whether, during the 5 years of the Government General's existence, the industrial equipment of the area was exploited or whether in 1943 and 1944, as a result of transfers from the Reich, the Government General did not possess a considerably greater industrial potential than before.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution submit that, as is stated in the first sentence, Dr. Bopple is called for a number of facts of evidence for which Dr. Buhler has been already generally mentioned. Part of the evidence stated is the relationship with the Government General agencies, and the remainder, as to the happenings in the Government General, can be dealt with by the witness already agreed to by the Prosecution.
DR. SEIDL: It is correct that some of the things which Dr. Bopple is to confirm are also to be testified to by Buhler. But in my opinion it cannot be denied that the subject of evidence for which I have named this witness is so important that one witness might not be sufficient to convince the Court. I should like furthermore to point out the following: The witness Buhler was chief of the administration of the Government General. He has already been interrogated many times by the Popish Delegation as well. There is a danger that proceedings may be instituted against this witness as well, on account of the importance of the position he held. It is self-evident that under these circumstances every conscientious Defense Counsel should take into account the fact that the witness may try to shield himself when he answers certain questions; and considering the importance of the evidence, it seems proper that, in these difficult circumstances, the Defendant Frank be granted additional witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in your suggestion, did you include any of the other witnesses who were cumulative to Buhler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggested an affidavit from Bopple and only Fraulein Kraffczyk on the general work of the Government General. The others, I think, are on the different points of the relationship with the central agencies.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.