dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Number Eleven, Baroness de Nothomb. In this case I will ask for an interrogatory or for approval to submit an affidavit. The subject of the evidence is:  The subject of the evidence is:  The defendant has curing the years 1940 to 1944 continuously intervened for people who in their turn intervened for members of the resistance movement. I want to prove that the defendant von Papen shows again in this case that he was greatly interested to assist in pacifying the German-French relations, and that during the war he had in mind the time after the war to take the poison out of the relations. The intervention of the defendant was done on behalf of the condemned people, which information for the judging of the defendant is important. No. 12, Archbishop Dr. Groeber. The Prosecution asserts that the defendant von Papen had used his position as a prominent German Catholic for a dirty maneuver of deceoption and that the conclusion of the Concordat as such was effected in the course of a policy directed against the church; that is, the conclusion of the Concordat was not taken seriously as could be seen by later violations of the Concordat. Archbishop Dr. Groeber wag at the time of negotiations concerning the Concordat with the Holy See. He was present during all the negotiating,  He knows that the initiative to start negotiations came from von Papen, who got approval from Hitler only later. He knows that the first draft which had been made by von Papen for the Concordat was disapproved by Hitler, and that only after long struggles, Papen could get approval for this draft. The witness knows the defendant von Papen very well. He also knows from which inner attitude to the Catholic question the defendant has approached the matter of the Concordat. He is in aposition also to describe the consequences of the Concordat being a hiding material of the church in Germany.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: He is in a position to judge that the contents of the Concordat at a later time would have been protection for church interests from the knowledge of the personal conditions of the defendant and the entire conditions of the church in Germany. He was in a position to give us information as to whether the defendant agreed or had anything to do with the violations against the Concordat.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, does witness No. 2 deal with the same subject? Where you say in your discussion of the subject of the evidence, 
     does that witness No. 2 accompany the defendant to Rome to conclude the Concordat, and can he testify that against Hitler's strong opposition he succeeded at the last minute in concluding the Concordat? At that time the witness was present at all the speeches.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness Tschirschky was introduced into the negotiations about the Concordat by the defendat. It is very important in my opinion also to examine a witness who was present at the negotiations from the other side. In particular, this witness, Archbishop Dr. Groeber, could also tell something about the later consequences. He can describe the entire situation from the point of the church better than the private Secretary Tschirschky. He was also in a position to get a much better impression about the religious personality of the defendant von Papen, which in this  case was closely connected with his political activities. I have been very modest in my requests so far, but I should like to ask in this case to grant an interrogatory or an affidavit by Archbishop Dr. Groeber because it should be clear that the accusation that a prominent German-Catholic wouldhave used his position for the dirty maneuvers is a very serious one, and my client is greatly interested to have this question clarified. Witness No. 13, concerning an affidavit of von Bealieu, which shall show that the defendant in his position in a large and prominent German organization intervened until very late for non-Arian members in the sense of the terminology at that time. Everything which for the judgment indicates Papen is important is to be found on a rather subjective sphere. We will see very fewactions in the case of Papen. The accusations mostly say that he was present. It is, therefore, considerably difficult to bring proof, and this evidence must be rather subjective. To judge a persons' character in its entirety, it is not unimportant how, for instance, in 1938 his attitude was in the question of the Jews, because if Papen here had definitely separated himself from the general line followed by Hitler and the Nazis, we should be able to draw a conclusion as to whether he was really the faithful follower of Hitler which the accusations try to picture him. Witness No. 14. I have received the statement today.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I did not 
     have time to look it through,  I shall either submit the statement or an affidavit which-I will try to get. No. 15, a questioning of His Majesty King Gustav of Sweden. In whatever way it may be done, this is a very important question. It will touch a major point of the defense; that is to say, how far it was possible for anybody who was not engulfed in the ideas of Nazism, how far could he collaborate to such an extent; how far could he hope that by his personal activity things could be changed or at least modified? If, on the basis of the subject evidence, we are trying to prove that Papen hadnot only within Germany exhausted his means to serve these purposes, but if, moreover, he has used his foreign political connections for this purpose, then I believe this will supplement the picture in an important way about the character of the defendant. This is such a strong activity in the interest of peace that, in my opinion, from such endeavors alone the absolute falsehood of the accusations could be found that the defendant at any time served the purposes and aims of an active policy for conspiracy and aggression.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the documents, Numbers 1 to 8, the Prosecution asks Dr. Kubuschok to submit the extracts, and then we can consider the relevancy at that time. I think that Dr. Kubuschok has Number 9.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I have only the photostat in my possession, which I have received from the Prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry.  I should have said he had a photostatic copy, but the Prosecution have served the photostat.  The original is not obtainable at present.  If it comes into our possession we will let Dr. Kubuschok see it. The third point is that Dr. Kubuschok says that he may have to make a supplementary application after Herr Von Papen, Jr., returns.  That is of course a matter for him and the Tribunal.  The prosecution make no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to 1 to 8, has Dr. Kubuschok got the books?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.  Then he will be prepared to specify what parts of them -
DR. KUBUSCHOK: (Interposing)  Yes, sir, yes, indeed. I would like to supplement the list by one point.  Yesterday I received from the Prosecution a further report by von Papen to Hitler during his activity in Vienna, similar to Number  9, also a report to Hitler.  I have also received it in the form of a photostat.  I shall also submit that report.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Seyss-Inquart.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May we state our position? May it please the Tribunal, with regard to this defendant, the position as to the first four witnesses is that they deal with the Austrian part of the case.  On the 2nd of December the Tribunal allowed to this defendant a choice of four out of nine.  He has chosen Glaise-Horstenau, who was a minister in the Austrian Government; Guido Schmidt, who was the foreign minister at the time of the Schuschnigg-Hitler-Ribbentrop interview; Skubl, who was the police president and State Secretary for Security in 
     Vienna; and Reiner, who is a well known Nazi, who was afterwards Gauleiter of Carinthia. The Prosecution have no objection to these witnesses. Then we come to the period as to Holland, and the Prosecution have no objection to Wimmer and Schwebel, but they do object to Bolle being called as an oral witness.  The position is that he was refused by the Tribunal on the 26th of January.  After the refusal, interrogatories were submitted, but these seem to be almost entirely covered by the interrogatories as administered to the witness Von Der Wense, who is the second under the heading of affidavits.  I think out of the 20 questions suggested for Bolle, there are only two that are not covered by Von Der Wense, which are Numbers 17 and 18, and two others which seem to deal with very obvious points. So that is the objection with regard to Bolle, and the Prosecution submit that he would really be cumulative and is unnecessary. They make no objection to Fischboeck, who speaks as to Jews, financial administration, art treasures and forced labor. They make no objection to Hirschfeld, who speaks about confiscations and destruction of factories. So on the oral witnesses the only objection is as to Bolle. With regard to the affidavits there is no objection--or rather they should be interrogatories.  They were all granted by the Tribunal on the 26th of January, and in these circumstances the Prosecution make no objection to them.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Steinbauer. DR. STEINBAUER  (Counsel for Seyss-Inquart):  Mr. President, your Honors, my client, Dr. Seyss-Inquart, had at first asked for a large number of witnesses and then at my advice, and according to the desire of the Tribunal, reduced this number considerably. I asked to call the witness Von Bolle, because in my opinion the objection made by the Prosecution, that this is a cumulative witness, is not quite correct. Bolle was before the occupation director of the Port of Hamburg, and then during all the years of the occupation he was director of the transportation department in Holland. He is in a position to inform us about the railroad 
     and shipping strike in October, 1944. This chapter of the history of the occupation is extraordinarily important, because but of this strike a halting of traffic resulted which led to an embargo. The Prosecution asserts, moreover, that part of the cause of, as we may call it, the catastrophe of famine in Holland can be based on measures which the Defendant Seyss-Inquart took in October 1944. Just by the examination of this witness Bolle, we shall see that the defendant endeavored to counteract measures by the Wehrmacht, the Army, which of course tried to use the means of transportation for their purposes, that Seyss-Inquart endeavored to remedy this situation or modify it as much as he could. By an interrogatory this complex of questions could not be treated exhaustively. I ask you also to realize that We are dealing here with the examination of the administration of a kingdom of nine million and a time of five years. If we read the report submitted by the Dutch delegation, we see alone in the financial consequences that it is alleged a damage, which had been brought about by the administration and by the fact of war and occupation of Holland by Germany, a figure of 25,725,000 Dutch guides was reqched. And considering the difference of price between 1938 and now, We have to add a margin of 175 percent.
THE PRESIDENT: We are confronted here with the examination of administrative, legal, financial and economic measures during a period of five years. I believe that this request, the request of the defendant to admit this witness, is quite justified. Concerning the affidavits, I took the liberty to make two more applications which have not yet been granted. You will find this on the last page, a very short affidavit by the witness Baron Lindhorst-Horman. He was Kommissar of the Province of Groningen, and is expected to be examined about one point. That is the treatment of the so-called hostages and the fact that none of these hostages was actually shot. In addition to this affidavit, I have also asked to acquire some official proclamations, proclamations by the Higher Police and SS Leader Hauter, about the executions to prove who had done these things. That is, that the point of view of the Defendant is that these regrettable incidents were executed by the police and not by the civil administration. I also intend to submit two affidavits which are already in my possession. One of them is an affidavit by a judge, a German Judge, Kammergerichtsrat Rudolf Fritsch. He was in the administration of SeyssInquart in Holland. He was the expert for applications for currency. He is able to tell us how Seyss-Inquart handled this important chapter of jurisdiction. Another affidavit which I have in my possession comes from a Dr. Walter Stricker. It is here mentioned as Document Number 30. Dr. Walter Stricker was a lawyer in Vienna, and then in 1938 he emigrated to Australia. He served in the Australian Army, and without my asking he sent me an affidavit, notarized affidavit by an Australian Notary Public, in which he testifies about conditions in Vienna in the critical days of October and November of 1938. I ask you to approve also this affidavit. As to the documents, and as I have toldSir David --
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, before you deal with that!   Sir David said that with reference to the affidavits, which are mentioned on page 2, that these ought to be called "interrogatories."  I don't know whether you wish to ask particularly for affidavits which are apropos to interrogatories.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You want affidavits?
DR. STEINBAUER: Interrogatories, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Would there be any objection to the affidavit from the lawyer in Australia being shown to the prosecution, so that they may see whether they wish to put cross-interrogatories to that witness. Australia is too far away from here for him to be brought here for cross-examination.
DR. STEINBAUER: Agreed.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have just been handed that affidavit from the witness Stricker and  also No. 6, on the Dutch questions, from Judge Fritsch,  (?) and if the same course could be taken with regard to that from Baron Lindhorshormer (?), I shall be grateful, then, to consider that, too.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regards to the rest of the documents in the usual course, I ask that the defense will make extracts and show them to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is one point I call attention to the Tribunal.  It may be helpful that No. 28, 3571, that is already in as U.S. Exhibit 112.    I don't know if the defense really wants No. 3.  I shan't deal with it now but the prosecution will submit that.  It is really unnecessary and irrelevant but I think that is a matter  that we can more conveniently discuss when it comes up.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes;  then with reference to No. 2, under the heading concerning the Dutch question, will it be satisfactory if that is in the form of an affidavit and is submitted to you, so that you can put cross-interrogatories if you want to?
DR. STEINBAUER: No. 2, "3 Times Austria", by Schuschnigg.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you mentioned the third book.  You said you haven't got No.8 and 9 and I thought you went on to mention a third one.
DR. STEINBAUER: No, sir;  only these two books.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.  Then, no doubt, the prosecution will help to get you them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will make inquiries, my Lord, and we will communicate with them.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.  I call on counsel for the Defendant Speer.
SIR DAVID MAXWELI-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendant Speer has asked for 22 witnesses, who are all to answer in writing. There are no oral witnesses. And he has asked for 41 documents. He also asked that the Court should appoint a panel of experts to interrogate a number of witnesse on what are termed "economic questions."  Now, I think it would be general if I summarize in four sentences the points of defense that appear on pages 26 and the following pares of the application, because if the Tribunal have these shortly in mind it will make the consideration of the witnesses more easy. There are four points. No.1 is to show the responsibility of Speer. The Defendant Speer says that he was not responsible for the mobilization, allocation or treatment of labor. The second point is to prove that his functions were merely technical and not political. The third point, to prove his actions to stop the importing of foreign labor and the treatment of concentration camp labor in the armament factories, which were his concern. The fourth point is his efforts at the end of the war to stop destruction in Germany and so to benefit the Allies and Germany after the war. Now, on the witnesses, the following are from his own ministry, Nos.1 to 6, 8, 10 and 12. The prosecution submit that nine is rather a large number dealing with the position of the ministry. They are cumulative on many points and we should suggest that if counsel would pick three, that that would cover that part of the case. Now, the following witnesses, Nos.15 to 21, are designed to show the attitude of the defendant at the end of the war. There are a number of documents on this point, and again the prosecution submit that that number of witnesses could be cut down to two or three. Now, dealing with the remaining witnesses, No.7, Field Marshal Milch, has already been allowed to defendant Goering, so that point doesn't arise. And No.9, Dr.
SIR DAVID MAXWELI-FYFE: Malzacher, although not a member of the defendant's ministry, who was in charge of the armaments in the Southeast, would appear to be cumulative as to the members of the ministry. No.11 is the liaison officer between the ministry and the OKW, and also appears cumulative unless counsel could indicate any special point that escaped the prosecution. No.13 is really cumulative No. 12, speaking as to a point on which Frau Kempf can speak. No.14 is the defendant's doctor, to speak as to a period of illness. Again, unless there is some point that the prosecution hasn't appreciated, they would have thought that the defendant and his secretary could speak as to a period of illness. Finally, No.22, Berner, shortly is designed to inform the Tribunal of Hitler's general views on the situation at the end of April 1945, and would appear to be irrelevant. I think the only point that is made is to show that this had some effect on the radio speech which this defendant wanted to make. These are the views of the prosecution as to the witnesses with regard to the panel of experts and the prosecution respectfully say that these matters of supply and labor and armaments are matters which are very generally familiar now and on which a great deal of evidence has been given and that they are essentially matters which can be dealt with by the Tribunal which will decide other questions of fact. They are not really sufficiently specialist matters to merit the Tribunal setting up a special panel to deal with them. These are the views of the prosecution on the question of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Flaeschner.
DR. FLAESCHNER: May I start, Mr. President, with the last point which the prosecutor has mentioned? That is the question whether the case of the Defendant Speer could give reason to have his activity and the area of his activity interpreted by anexpert. The prosecutor is of the opinion that the evidence presented so far is sufficient to inform the Tribunal about the manner of his work, his authority in question which came within the competence of the Defendant Speer or in connection with it. I have to say, however, I regret to say that the description which the prosecution has given about the activities of the Defendant Speer is not correct, that is to say, not complete. It is very difficult to recognize all the activities of the ministry, which has its base in the administration of the Government or State. In all States at war are the ministries of armament and production which have been created during the war. The fear of task in these ministries has been in order from time to time, and that also applies to the ministry of which the defendant Speer has led. Not only the ministries of the defendant Speer were concerned with that question, which the prosecution has brought to the notice of the Tribunal, but other authoritieswithin the administration, and confidence within the authorities, overlapped, and sometimes you could not even limit the confidence, so that the solution had to be sound. Also these are questions of importance for the Tribunal to judge as to how far one ought to make accusations as made by the prosecution, partly concerning the occupation and the work of foreign labor. We have to add that originally in this discomfort, it is only a question that there are points by the defendant Ley, who was there in charge of the labor front, that is, the taking care of labor and the workers, and Ley is not present any more.
DR. FLAESCHNER: In judging the question of the use of foreign labor, or the utilization of foreign labor, it is one of the pain accusations concerning one man, as in theaccusations of the prosecution against Speer, which is to be set back and which is to recognized further; that, therefore, I have contended it is purely a technical question, the utilization of foreign labor, which should be testified to by an expert. The selection, or the appointment of such an expert is not easy, so far as persons are concerned. I had suggested that one of the gentlemen who work in the Economic Branch in Washington could be examined on the question, and should be called as an expert before this Tribunal. As I was told this office does not exist any more, and the persons of whom the defendant Speer had, in turn, the impression of appearing in his interrogations, as well informed, these people are no more here. But there should exist the Allied authorities here who are concerned with the economic questions, and maybe it would be possible to select some one within the circle 
     of gentlemen who are working there; of one certain person who could cooperate in these questions, and will assist the Tribunal in clarifying them. I shall proceed direct on the question of witnesses. I have to correct the wrong impression which may have been formed by the prosecution in this stage of the witnesses 1 to 5 -- no, 1 to 6, 8 and 10 and 12.
THE PRESIDENT: If you are departing now from the question of the panel of experts, this could be a convenient time to break off for recess. (A recess was taken).