dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MR.JUSTICE JACKSON: I understand they have been handed to the Secretary and they have been marked. The affidavit to Halder is USA-779. It is offered. Document Number 3700-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-780; Document Number 3775-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-781; Document Number 3787-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-782; Document Number 2523-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-783; Document Number 014-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-784; Document Number 1193-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-785; Document Number EC-317 is offered as Exhibit USA-786; Document Number 3786-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-787; Document Number 638-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-788; Document Number 1742-PS is offered as Exhibit USA-789.
M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: Mr. President, Dr. Stahmer in his presentation did not speak of Document Number Goering-26. It concerns a note from the German Government to the French Government relating to the treatment of German prisoners of war in France dated 30 May 1940. The reasons which made us reject the White Book from the discussion make it necessary to reject this document too. I gather that Dr. Stahmer realized that and, therefore, did not speak of it any more, but I would like him to be assured that this document has been definitely rejected from the discussion.
DR. STAHMER: I have not mentioned the document. I withdraw it.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Counsel for the Defendant Hess .
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President and Your Honors: Before commencing the submission of evidence I have to make the following remarks at the request of the Defendant Hess: The Defendant Hess contests the jurisdiction of the Tribunal where other than war crimes proper are the subject of the Trial. However, he specifically assumes full responsibility for all laws or decrees which he has signed. Furthermore, he assumes responsibility for all orders and directives which he issued in his capacity as Deputy of the Fuehrer and Minister of the Reich. For these reasons he does not desire to be defended against any charges which refer to the internal affairs of Germany as a sovereign state. That applies in particular to the relations between Church and State, and similar questions. I shall, therefore, submit evidence only with reference to questions in the clarification of which other countries can have a justified interest. This applies, for instance, to the tasks and activities of the foreign organization of the NSDAP. Beyond that, evidence will be submitted to the Tribunal only insofar as this is necessary to ascertain the historical truth. This applies, among other things, to the motives which caused Rudolf Hess to fly to England and to the purposes for which he did it. The evidence which I have prepared is collected in three document books. In view of the acceleration of the Trial desired by the Tribunal, I shall forego quoting any documents whatsoever from the first book and ask the Tribunal to take cognizance only of those parts of the document book which have been marked in red. I shall read only the affidavit which is at the end of the document book, and that is the affidavit of the former secretary of the Defendant Rudolf Hess, Hildegard Fath, and I shall read furthermore ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, if your are passing from your opening remarks and going to deal with the documents, I think it is right to point out to you that there can be no challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court, here. Article 3 provides that the Tribunal shall not be challenged by the Prosecution or by the Defendants or their Counsel, and the Tribunal cannot hear any argument upon that subject. Now you can go on with your documents.
DR. SEIDL: There will furthermore be read from the second volume the record of a conversation between the Defendant Rudolf Hess and Lord Simon, which took place on 10 June 1941 in England. So as to prevent interruption in the reading of the documentary evidence, I shall today read only the affidavit of the witness Hildegard Fath, Page 164 of the document book. The affidavit reads as follows: Then come the "Personal Data;" and I am now quoting literally from Figure 2: I shall refrain from reading the affidavit of the witness Ingeborg Sperr, Page 166 of the document book. From the first two volumes of the document book I wish still, as I have already said, to read only parts from a discussion between Hess and Lord Simon. However, in order to prevent the report of this discussion from being interrupted, I ask permission of the Tribunal to read this document to the Tribunal next Monday?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. You mean not to go on any more now?
DR. SEIDL: With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall stop now.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you no other document you wish to produce?
DR. SEIDL: I beg your pardon? Yes, there are some documents in Volume 3 of the document book; but, however, I should prefer to submit these documents coherently to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Seidl, if you wish it, we will adjourn now. [The Tribunal adjourned until 23 March 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: Have you consulted the Defense Counsel as to the order in which they wish to take these supplementary applications?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have the order which the Tribunal has, beginning with Streicher .
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that would be the most convenient then. Is Streicher's counsel ready? Dr. Marx?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes; Dr. Marx is here.
DR. HANNS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Your Honors, Mr. President, on behalf of the Defendant Streicher I have applied for the calling of Fritz Herrwerth as a witness before the Tribunal. This witness is a man who has been in the immediate vicinity of the Defendant Streicher for years and who, because of that, is in a position to offer information on all political events that can in many ways have a bearing on the decision and judgment in the case of Streicher. In particular, I have applied for this witness because he was present on that night of 9 to 10 November when the Defendant Streicher had a conference with the SA leader Von Obernitz, at which Von Obernitz informed Streicher that he, Obernitz, had received the order to carry out demonstrations against the Jewish population during that night. Streicher will establish that he then told Herr Von Obernitz that he, Streicher, kept himself aloof in this affair, that he considered these demonstrations a mistake, and disapproved of them. Obernitz thereupon stated that he had received the order from Berlin and had to carry it out. It can ...
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you object to this alteration of our previous order?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we have not seen any change in the situation as the Tribunal decided it, but we do not want to press against this witness being called orally, except that we must point out that there is not any change. All these matters were gone into by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal feels that it would be better that the witness should be called orally, then the Prosecution will not take any objection.
TBE PRESIDENT: Have these interrogatories been drawn up?
DR. MARX: No, they have not yet been completed. I beg your pardon, Mr. President; is this question put with reference to the witness Herrwerth?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. MARX: Yes, the questions to the witness have been completed; the questions which the Defendant wishes ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, we will reconsider that. You have got something else, haven't you, Dr. Marx? You want some document; you have got a document you are asking for, have you not, or don't you ask for that?
DR. MARX: May I speak, Mr. President? Actually, I should like to ask that both the documents referred to be placed at my disposal. That is, the matter of the suit against Karl Holz in the year 1931, and the files of the disciplinary proceedings against Julius Streicher, concerning which I am unfortunately not able to give the year. It might be 1931.
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Marx, did we not, with the agreement of the Prosecution, strike out a passage from a document which was critical of the Defendant Streicher? Does that not render this evidence entirely irrelevant?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was about the witness Lothar Streicher, the son, about an interview that took place in prison at which there were certain allegations, and these were struck out by the consent of the Prosecution. I confess I don't know whether the disciplinary proceedings in the matter of Streicher...
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. May I speak? The matter in which Lothar Streicher figures is from the Goering report concerning the visit or the conversation Streicher had with three youthful criminals, during which Streicher was supposed to have taken an ugly or improper attitude. Lothar Streicher was named as a witness by me to testify that at that time no such thing happened. That is in connection with the report of the Goering commission, whereas the other matter is concerned with a disciplinary action. This proceeding was completed in 1931 before the disciplinary court at Munich.
THE PRESIDENT: Wasn't it all in connection with the same alleged offense by Streicher?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have the details now, if I might read them. I think it makes them clear. The first application in relation to the proceedings against Karl Holz reads:
THE PRESIDENT: But, Sir David, there are two different applications, aren't there? There is this application with reference to the Jewish religious book, and then there is the other application with reference to the trial of Karl Holz.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understood it, My Lord, this application is headed, "Files in the Trial in the Matter of Karl Holz," and one of the pieces of evidence in the trial of Karl Holz, according to Dr. Marx's application, was the evidence of Dr. Erich Bischof as to the Talmud , and the application does on to say that "these facts are relevant to my defense for the following reasons: The accused wishes to prove with these court records" -- that is, the record from the trial of Holz -- "that Der Sturmer did not deal with the question of ritual murder contrary to his better knowledge." That is, as I understand it, that Der Sturmer dealt with ritual murder according to the knowledge of Dr. Bischof, as expressed at that trial. That, in my respectful submission, would be quite irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of this religious book? It was written in the Middle Ages, wasn't it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think so, My Lord, and it was produced on 30 October and 4 November 1931, by Dr. Bischof. Then, My Lord, the second one -- just to get it clear, so Your Lordship will have it in mind -- it is the files of the disciplinary proceedings in the matter of Streicher at the disciplinary court at Munich. I myself don't see the relevance of it, but perhaps Dr. Marx can inform the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it charged against him in the Indictment?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, there is nothing about his criminal record other than on anti-Jewish grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: In that connection the Prosecution agreed to strike out any reference to that incident, didn't it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not sure that it is the same incident, but the Prosecution did agree to strike out the only reference to it that appeared in the record, to my knowledge -- to any reference to a matter of that kind. That was as to the treatment of certain boys in prison.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I, to clarify the matter, make a few statements now. The defense counsel for the Defendant Streicher applied to have the file on this disciplinary case produced for the following reason: Streicher was asked by a Russian interrogator whether he had been dismissed from his office because of moral delinquency and therefore it is necessary to have the file on this disciplinary case produced. This file shows that Streicher was not dismissed from his school post because of indecent conduct, but because of his political attitude. That is one point. And quite apart from that is the matter in which Lothar Streicher is supposed to act as a witness. That was the matter mentioned in the report of the Goering commission concerning the three young delinquents who were visited by Streicher, and on which occasion he is supposed to have been guilty of indecent manipulations or gestures. I come now to the question of Dr. Bischof, Mr. President. This matter concerns the following: Streicher is accused, with reference to quotations from the Talmud , or quotations referring to ritual murder, either of having consulted an incorrect translation, or of not having ascertained facts sufficiently, in a frivolous and grossly negligent way.
THE PRESIDENT: When you say, Dr. Marx, that he is being reproved with that, there is no such charge in the Indictment. No such charge has been made in the course of the case of the Prosecution. The charge against him is that he provoked the German people to excesses against the Jews, not by misquoting some Jewish book, but by referring to Jewish books of the Middle Ages.
DR. MARX: I take the liberty of drawing attention to the fact that, on the contrary, the Prosecutor, Lieutenant Colonel Griffith-Jones, when he presented the case against Streicher, referred to this point explicitly and accused Streicher of having here, against better knowledge, quoted passages from the Talmud. And consequently, it is important that this file against Holz is consulted, because in it is established, by the witness Dr. Bischof, how the quotations came about. This Dr. Bischof is a recognized scholar. But, Mr. President, the whole matter could still be shortened if the Prosecution would state today that this whole matter regarding the ritual murder is not to be made a subject of the Indictment. There would then be eliminated from the trial an element which could only extend it in any case, and which can play no important part against the defendant anyhow, and has nothing to do with the actual Indictment.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to make that position perfectly clear. The important point in the case for the Prosecution is the use of the suggestion against the Jews that they committed ritual murder. If someone takes something out of a book in the Middle Ages and reproduces it so that it will be understood by the ordinary reader as being a practice of Jews, or a reason for disliking Jews, then the Prosecution says that that is an evil method of stirring up hattred against the Jews. Whether anyone can find in the Jewish book of the Middle Ages some remark about ritual murders is really immaterial. The gravamen of the case for the Prosecution is using the ritual murder accusation as a method for stirring up hatred against the Jews today. That is the case which the defendant has to meet.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the application.
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon! I consider it necessary, nevertheless, to answer at least very briefly the statements of the preceding speaker, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. The fact is that the special number of Der Sturmer under discussion makes reference in particular to a trial which took place in 1899 at Piseck, in Moravia or Bohemia, and during which this question also figured. It is thus not true that the Defendant Streicher had as his basis only medieval superstition, but on the contrary, that he dealt, with material taken from modem legal history, using material, the genuineness of which I cannot establish, but which I cannot simply dispose of as incorrect and which the Tribunal also would probably have to investigate. That is why I said that this entire matter ought not to be touched at all. For here it is a question merely of whether Streicher was acting in good faith or not, and if he can say that trials of that kind have taken place and the judges actually were not unanimous, then one cannot say in fact that he acted against his better knowledge. That is what is essential in this matter. Thus, I personally would prefer to have this matter eliminated, if the Prosecution would no longer consider this whole subject matter as part of the Indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the application.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next one on the list that I have, My Lord, is an application by the Defendant Goering for a Major Buex; spelled "B-u-e-x." I asked Dr. Stahmer and he was good enough to tell me that that was the same gentleman who was asked for as a witness by the Defendant Jodl, under the spelling of "B-u-e-c-h-s." I understand the Tribunal has granted him as a witness to the Defendant Jodl, and Dr. Stahmer will have the opportunity of asking him the questions then.
DR. STAHMER: I agree.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is an application by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop . He requests Herr Hilger as a witness. The grounds of the application are that Dr. Horn and the Defendant Ribbentrop found that the witness Gaus, for whom he had asked, was not able to give as much assistance as had been expected, and that they desired this witness Hilger in addition. The view of the Prosecution is that the defendant should have either Hilger or Gaus as a witness and an interrogatory to the other one, and we have no objection to the witness Hilger being brought to Nuremberg for consultation.
DR. SIEMERS: I am deputizing at the moment for Dr. Horn, defense counsel for the Defendant Ribbentrop. Actually, I had wanted to ask Sir David to postpone this matter a little, as I have had Dr. Horn asked to come here himself. We, the Defense Counsel, were not informed which applications would be dealt with today. Hence Dr. Horn is not present, at the moment. But I think that, if the Tribunal agree, the matter can perhaps be dealt with now, as far as I know, but I have to speak with Dr. Horn first, at any rate. I am speaking without prejudice.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know what you mean about not being informed about these applications. I made the statement yesterday that supplementary applications for witnesses and documents would be taken this morning. I do not understand your saying you did not know what would be done. The Tribunal has no objection to it being taken later when Dr. Horn is here, if he comes in time.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, and may I suggest that if Dr. Horn does not return in time, I am ready to settle the matter for him; by then I will be in a position to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MARX: Pardon, Mr. President; may I make one more very brief statement? Streicher just informs me that I should state that he will forego the witness Lothar Streicher. If, therefore, the calling of this witness was considered, then I state that the Defense will withdraw application for him.
THE PRESIDENT: Hasn't that been allowed -- Lothar Streicher?
SIR DAVID MAXWELI-FYFE: He was the witness who was not to be allowed on condition that the Prosecution applied to strike out this passage, and we agreed to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is an application for the Defendant Von Papen .
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Sir David. Has that letter about withdrawing the statement about the witness Lothar Streicher been read into the record?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not know if it has be read, into the record. It has been sent to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: It had better be put in as a document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases. My Lord, the next is the application for the Defendant Von Papen, who requests that the witness Josten, who has been approved by the Tribunal as a witness, be changed to an affidavit, which counsel already has, and Dr. Kubuschok requests that Kroll be allowed as a witness. My Lord, the position with regard to Kroll was that the Prosecution submitted that he was not relevant, but the Tribunal allowed interrogatories for Kroll and, therefore, the Prosecution accepts the decision of the Tribunal that he is therefore relevant. On that basis, as Dr. Kubuschok is dropping one witness, we feel that we cannot object to his being brought as an oral witness, since the Tribunal has decided that his testimony is relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; and as to Josten, has the affidavit been submitted to you?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, I have just received itwith his signature. The witness Josten has appeared today and has signed the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: All I am thinking of is that the Prosecution may hereafter want to have him called for cross-examination.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have not seen the affidavit yet, My Lord; I am sorry. I will look into that.
THE PRESIDENT: The result of that would be that both witnesses would have to be here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I appreciate that, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I was taking it that Dr. Kubuschok meant an affidavit and not an interrogatory.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, a sworn affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps, My Lord, the Tribunal would postpone a decision on this point until I have had a chance to consider the affidavit, and then I will communicate with Dr. Kubuschok and with the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I Mr. President, mention yet another case. I had been granted the witness Von Tschirschky, who is at present in England, for oral interrogation. The witness has written to the Tribunal that it is difficult for him to be absent from England at the moment, and requests that his evidence be taken in writing. I am agreeable to this and have drafted an interrogatory which is now being submitted to the Tribunal. This, again, would mean another witness gone, Tschirschky, as well as Josten, so that I request earnestly that the witness Kroll be granted as an oral witness, since a considerable saving of time has now been accomplished.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you have no objection to that?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I have no objection to that. I may have to consider certain cross-interrogatories for the witness, but that will not affect the position of Dr. Tschirschky. Next is the application by the Defendant Rosenberg for a document -- Hitler's letter to Rosenberg dated 1924. This document is in regard to Rosenberg's anti-Semitism. As far as I know, the Prosecution has not any of these documents, but Dr. Thoma can explain what he wants. I have no objection to having these documents if they can be found.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, may I first draw your attention to the fact that my application for a document -- Rosenberg's letter to Hitler, in which Rosenberg asks not to be a candidate for the Reichstag -- has since been handed to me. This application has thus been settled. Secondly, I have...
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Dr. Thoma. You withdraw that application because you have that letter, do you not? You said, "With that, the application has been settled." Do you mean that you withdraw that application?
DR. THOMA: No, Mr. President. The Tribunal has already permitted me to offer this document as soon as it was found. It has since been found. Furthermore. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the document in which Rosenberg writes to Hitler and asks to be relieved from the position of editor-in-chief of the Volkischer Beobachter has been allowed me likewise. But I have not yet received it. Thirdly, may I ask that two further documents be granted me. Two documents, which, during interrogation, have already been shown to Rosenberg by the Prosecution. The first is a decree of Hitler sent to Rosenberg in June 1943, in which Hitler instructs Rosenberg to limit himself to the principal matters in Eastern questions ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, you are now dealing with applications which are not in writing; are you not?
DR. THOMA: Yes, I have already submitted them in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: I have only two applications here as far as can see. One with reference to Hitler's letter to Rosenberg dated 1924, and the other with reference to three books about Jews. These are the only two applications I have got.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I already made these applications during open session, and as far as I know, I had submitted them in writing even before making them in open session. I have in fact received an answer as regards two documents applied for. But for two applications the reply is still outstanding. Hence I request the Tribunal's permission to submit these two applications in writing again.