dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
KOPKE: On this question Neurath was completely opposed to the Party attitude. In this connection I should like to recall an experience which Neurath told me personally. When the Jewish legislation was about to be proclaimed the Reich Minister of Justice Gurtner came to him in great excitement and told Von Neurath that he, Gurtner, had warned Hitler in vain against proclaiming these quite impossible laws. He strongly urged Herr Von Neurath as Foreign Minister to point out the enormous dangers which this madness could set loose abroad. Neurath told me that he did this immediately, but that all his efforts had been in vain. Neurath's personal attitude on the Jewish problem was thoroughly conciliatory and reasonable, in keeping with his generally kind personality and his religious attitude. Among many examples I should like to refer here to only one, which is the following: During the time when we were in London together, the Jewish doctor at the Embassy was also one of the closest friends of the Neurath family. When he had to leave London during the World War and was homeless and without employment, Neurath immediately took active steps to help his old friend. As Reich Foreign Minister also, Von Neurath always helped non-Aryan colleagues, although that brought him often under attack from the Party circles and was not always easy.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of the defendants' counsel want to ask any question? [There was no response.] Do the Prosecution wish to ask any questions?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the Tribunal will, of course, not consider that the Prosecution are accepting every statement of the witness; but I do not think that it would be a useful appropriation of time to cross-examine him. Therefore, I shall ask no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Sir David. Sir David, would it be convenient to you and to the members of the defendants' counsel to discuss the questions of supplementary applications for witnesses and documents at 2 o'clock?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord, it would be very convenient to me. I do not think there are many serious matters about which there will be serious dispute.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I thought there were not. Very well, we will do that then. The witness can retire. Dr. Von Ludinghausen, call your next witness and then we can have him sworn before the adjournment.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: May I ask that Dr. Dieckhoff be allowed to follow Dr. Kopke? [The witness Dieckhoff took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name please?
HANS HEINRICH DIECKHOFF (Witness): Hans Heinrich Dieckhoff.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. [The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: Now the Tribunal will adjourn. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.] Afternoon Session
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please, My Lord, the first application is on behalf of the Defendant Von Neurath with regard to M. Francois-Poncet. That has been dealt with; that is covered. Then, My Lord, the next is an application from Dr. Marx on behalf of the Defendant Streicher to put in an affidavit by the publisher, Herr Gassner of Der Sturmer. My Lord, the publisher is intended to deal with the question of the rise and the circulation of Der Sturmer during the years 1933 to 1935. The Prosecution have already submitted to the Tribunal that they did not think that that was relevant when an application was made to call Herr Gassner as a witness. The Prosecution still take the same position. My Lord, it is for an affidavit, and we leave to the Tribunal as to whether they would like the affidavit, but the Prosecution fail to see the relevance of that evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Would Dr. Marx like to say something about that now?
DR. HANNS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Mr. President, I have just discussed this matter with Defendant Streicher; and he tells me that the witness, Herr Gassner, whom I have proposed to call and from whom an affidavit had been proposed, would only be in a position to speak about the publication figures of Der Sturmer from the year 1941 onwards. That, of course, is of no interest whatever to the defense. I shall, therefore, forego the affidavit and rely on what the witness Hiemer has said in that respect. Therefore, it will not be necessary at all to procure the affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the next application is by Dr. Kranzbuhler on behalf of the Defendant Doenitz for further consideration and admission of the affidavit of the former fleet judge, Jackel, by reason of the course of the cross-examination. My Lord, I think the most convenient course would be if the Prosecution do not object to the application at this time but reserve the right, when Dr. Kranzbuhler makes the use- that he desires of the affidavit, to consider whether we shall then object.
THE PRESIDENT: This is really evidence in rebuttal, is it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, in rebuttal of the points raised in the cross-examination. It is very difficult to decide whether one should make a final objection until one knows what use Dr. Kranzbuhler is going to make of it. I suggest that we do not object at this stage.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, these applications and the Tribunal's orders granting the witnesses are always subject to that provision.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please, then the Prosecution makes no further objection. My Lord, then there are two applications on behalf of the Defendant Von Neurath, a request for minutes from the interrogatory of the...
THE PRESIDENT: They have both been withdrawn, have they not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, they have? I was not certain. My Lord, then Dr. Thoma makes application on behalf of the Defendant Rosenberg for three matters: The exchange of letters between Dr. Ley and the defendant; the entry of Dr. Strauber 27 May 1944; and third, a note of the Ministerialrat, Dr. Beil. My Lord, the Prosecution feel that these documents are cumulative, and they leave it to the Tribunal with that suggestion-that the case is already well covered. I do not know if Dr. Thoma wishes to say anything further.
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I should like to refer to it quite briefly, as apparently there is an error in the matter of Dr. Beil. It is a question here of the interrogatory. I have sent to Beil an interrogatory which has not yet been returned. Otherwise, there is nothing that I know about this matter; but I have made an application which has not been mentioned yet. I applied for some of Rosenberg's writings, Tradition and Gegenwart, new speeches and translations, to be included in the document book, for these deal with questions which were discussed on the occasion of Gau educational meetings and discussions and which also deal with such questions as the peaceful living together of the nations of Europe, religious tolerance, his advocacy of an ideal humanity, and similar writings. I request that these articles be admitted. Apart from that, I have no further applications to make; and for the rest I leave the decision, of course, to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: If I understand what you said aright, Dr. Thoma, you were not referring to any of the applications which are before us. The applications which are before us are an exchange of letters between Dr. Ley and the defendant in the autumn of 1944; another is an entry which Dr. Strauber made; and the third is a note of Dr. Beil; you have not referred to them, have you?
DR. THOMA: Yes, that is right. I have to confess that these applications are completely new to me. These applications must have been made by Rosenberg on his own initiative, because I cannot find any trace of them. Or perhaps an error was made in the memorandum to the Tribunal. I do not know the applications.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Thoma, the copies of the applications are before us, and they appear to be signed both by the Defendant Rosenberg and by yourself.
DR. THOMA: In that case, this must have happened months ago. I cannot remember; this is from 3 June.
THE PRESIDENT: At any rate, you do not want them?
DR. THOMA: Application Number 3 is settled. I have re-read the applications just now, and I do remember them. I ask you to make a decision favorable to the defendant.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord!, the next applications are for a number of documents on behalf of the Defendant Von Papen, and the Prosecution have no objection to this.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, a good many of them-certainly Numbers 3, 5, and 13-have either been admitted or rejected, I think.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so, My Lord. I had a note opposite 13. I really think they have been dealt with, My Lord; they are in the books, and I do not think any further discussion is required.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they all in the book?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think so, My Lord I do not know if-Dr. Kubuschok says he agrees with me.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please, the next is an application on behalf of the Defendant Bormann, a request for a decree of Hitler's and a decree issued by Bormann in 1944. My Lord, the Prosecution have no objection to these.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not quite understand the meaning of the last one. Can you tell me what it means?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I took it myself that it was "to" the SD, instead of "of" the SD-the appertaining of members of the head of lice of the National Socialist Party of the SD. I am afraid that that guess on my part does not meet with approval.
DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD (Counsel for Defendant Bormann): My Lord, this concerns a decree from Bormann in which he prohibits members of the Party Chancellery belonging to the SD. It is a decree of Bormann's applying to the Party Chancellery.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the remaining applications are on behalf of the Defendant Goering, the admission of an affidavit by Baron van Gersdorff, and a book by Joseph Chapski. My Lord, my Soviet colleague has dealt with that by submission in writing, dated 20 June. I did not propose to say anything further about that, My Lord. Colonel Pokrovsky is here if Your Lordship would like to hear him further.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought we had already made an order with reference to this.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship has.
THE PRESIDENT: We made the order on 9 June, apparently, that for the Defendant Goering three witnesses could be produced either personally... Perhaps we had better hear from Dr. Stahmer about this.
DR. OTTO STAMMER (Counsel for Defendant Goering): Mr. President, that is the way I understood the decision of the Tribunal. I had applied for five witnesses. The Tribunal ordered that I could produce only three out of the five witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
DR. STAMMER: Then with reference to the affidavit nothing was said, as far as I can remember, in that particular decision, so that I had assumed that I would be free to ask for admission of affidavits insofar as the Tribunal considers them necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, after the Tribunal had made that order about limiting the number of witnesses to three, did you not receive a communication, to which you have replied, I think, suggesting that possibly you might be able to dispense with actual oral witnesses and do that whole part of the case by affidavits?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President, I received that communication; and I have already negotiated about the matter with the Russian Prosecution. We did not quite reach an agreement, however; and therefore I made a written application to the Tribunal a few days ago. ,
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but was not the agreement which you were trying to arrive at an agreement that only three affidavits should be produced on either side? Or was it more than three?
DR. STAMMER: No. The question which remains and which we have not agreed upon is whether I will be given the opportunity to read a few of the affidavits here.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Dr. Stahmer, I think the position is, then, that unless you are able to arrive at an agreement with the Soviet Prosecution, we shall have to abide by our previous order.
DR. STAMMER: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: You will make further efforts to achieve an agreement with the Soviet Prosecution and let the Tribunal know.
DR. STAHMER: I will.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if your Lordship will grant me the indulgence of mentioning three exhibits. They all refer to the diary of Admiral Assmann, My Lord, which was introduced during the cases of the Defendants Doenitz and Raeder. There are three exhibits concerned. The first is Document D-879. We thought that would be more complete if a connecting page was put in to make the continuity of the exhibit. For that purpose, My Lord, the Prosecution asks that Exhibit GB-482 be withdrawn and that there be submitted the two pages which were originally in it with a connecting page. That is merely adding a connecting page, My Lord. The second is Document D-881 .. .
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to that on the part of the Defense?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not think so, My Lord; I have not heard of any.
THE PRESIDENT: What do the documents relate to, did you say? SIR DAVID MAXWELL-n Yew: The diary of Admiral Assmann, who was on the staff of the Defendant Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is only a question of putting the exhibit in proper form. The second document, My Lord, is D-881, which is another passage from the same diary, on 23 February 1940. I promised Your Lordship that I should put in an exhibit when I dealt with the diary in cross-examination; and, My Lord, the exhibit has been prepared, and I want to put it in under the Number GB-475. That is, Document D-881 will become Exhibit GB-475. The third, which is in the same position as the second, is Document D-892. That exhibit has now been prepared and will become Exhibit GB-476. Copies are available for the defendants and will be given to them after the approval of the Court is given.
THE PRESIDENT: And copies, of course, will be supplied to the Court as well?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Of course, My Lord. They are just awaiting the formal approval of the Court, and they will be submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David, that is all right. Then, Sir David, we will consider the other matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Yes, Dr. Thoma.
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I just wanted to use this opportunity to submit to the Tribunal the affidavit of Robert Scholz, the Chief of Special Staff Rosenberg. It has been translated into English and French, and I should now like to submit it under Exhibit Number 41 to the Tribunal. I have already shown it to Mr. Dodd, and he has not objected.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
PROFESSOR DR. HERBERT KRAUS (Counsel for Defendant Schacht): Mr. President, I wanted to ascertain whether and up to what date after this session we may submit affidavits and documents. The reason is that during recent days I have received two affidavits and a document, the relevance of which we have not yet definitely decided upon.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know when the Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defense think would be the best time to deal with these matters which are outstanding and with any evidence which either the Defense or the Prosecution may wish to bring in rebuttal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, I have not had the chance of discussing it with any of the Counsel for the Defense; but I should have thought at the end of the evidence. One might reasonably hope that the evidence will finish this week. It might be possible to deal with it on Saturday morning or on Monday, and suit the Counsel for the Defense, and, of course, as the Tribunal decides.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal, I think, will expect the Defense Counsel and the Prosecution to be ready, directly when the end of the evidence comes, to deal with all these additional questions which are outstanding and also with any applications that they may have with reference to rebuttal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I wanted that to be clearly understood, that it will be expected that it is to be done immediately the evidence closes. That, I think, answers Dr. Kraus' point about the affidavits and documents. That would be the most appropriate time. Sir David, have you got any ideas as to how long that would take?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I think a very short time. I should have thought that 2 days or thereabouts would see it through. I have discussed it with Mr. Dodd, and that was the view we took.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. In about 2 days at the outside?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: At the outside, My Lord, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please. [The witness Dieckhoff resumed the stand.]
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Witness, since what date do you know Herr Von Neurath?
DIECKHOFF: Since t913; I met him when I joined the Foreign Of lice. He was legation counsellor in the Foreign Office at that time. I then met him again in Constantinople, and there I had contact with him. Then I did not meet him again until 1930.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: In what capacity did you have dealings with Herr Von Neurath beginning with 1930?
DIECKHOFF: Herr Von Neurath was then, from 1930 till 1932, Ambassador to London; and I was head of the Department "England-America" in the Foreign Office.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: How was the co-operation during that time between the Foreign Office-that is, yourself-and Herr Von Neurath, who was then Ambassador to London?
DIECKHOFF: The co-operation was excellent.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Do you know anything about Herr Von Neurath's appointment to the position of Reich Foreign Minister?
DIECKHOFF: I remember that most of the leading officials of the Foreign Office were greatly upset by the sudden departure of Bruning, whose steady and moderate policy we approved at the time. We submitted to the change in the person of the Foreign Minister only because Neurath replaced Bruning and we knew that Herr Von Neurath was a man of high standards and an experienced diplomat. Furthermore, we knew that he had represented Bruning's policy in London; and we expected that as Foreign Minister he would continue Bruning's policy. I welcomed Herr Von Neurath, I think it was on 2 June, at the station in Berlin when he arrived in Germany. From conversations with him I gathered the impression that he very much disliked to leave London and to take over the Foreign Ministry. But he said to me, "I do not think I shall be able to refuse the wish of the old gentleman." That, of course, was Reich President Von Hindenburg.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: What position did you hold yourself during the time when you worked under Herr Von Neurath in the Foreign Ministry?
DIECKHOFF: At first, I remained at the head of the England America Department until 1936. Afterward, in April 1936, I took over the re-established political department. In June State Secretary Von Bulow died, and in August 1936 I was appointed acting State Secretary in the Foreign Office. I remained in that provisional position until March 1937, and then I became Ambassador to Washington.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Did Herr Von Neurath, as Foreign Minister, retain the old officials of the Foreign Of lice?
DIECKHOFF: He retained the old officials in practically all the leading positions of both the domestic and the foreign service. The State Secretary Von Bulow for instance remained for 4 years, until his death, in the same position in the Foreign Office. He sent Ambassador Von Hoesch to London as his successor, and he sent Ambassador Von Hassell to Rome, and Ambassador Koster to Paris-all of these were old diplomatic officials.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Can you tell us from your own experience during your activities what the aims of Neurath's foreign policy were?
DIECKHOFF: It was the aim of Herr Von Neurath to maintain good relations with all states and thereby to re-establish gradually Germany's status of equal rights which we had lost in 1919. This was the same policy that had been pursued by Stresemann and Bruning. Herr Von Neurath was aware of the difficulties of Germany's position. He talked to me about it repeatedly. He was under no misapprehension about it. He saw things realistically. His tendency was to exercise moderation.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: What do you know about Herr Von Neurath's entry into Hitler's Government, which was formed on 30 January 1933?
DIECKHOFF: I know about this only what I was told by State Secretary Von Bulow when I returned to Berlin from leave at the beginning of February 1933. According to this, Herr Von Neurath had no part in the formation of the new Cabinet, that is, Hitler's Cabinet. Apart from that, he was sick during that time. He heard of the plan of making Hitler Reich Chancellor and of forming a new government. He wanted to discuss it with Reich President Von Hindenburg in order to obtain certain reservations for himself; but he came too late and could not obtain these reservations. In spite of this, he retained the Foreign Ministry in the new Cabinet because he did not want to refuse the wish of the Reich President.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Do you know anything about Herr Von Neurath's attitude toward the National Socialist domestic policy?
DIECKHOFF: I know that Herr Von Neurath, soon after 30 January 1933 viewed the domestic policy with some anxiety, chiefly because he felt that it strongly affected our foreign policy. When, in June 1933, I visited him in London, where he attended a conference as head of the German delegation, he told me about his anxieties; but he thought that these things would die down and that developments would be similar to those in Fascist Italy, where things had been very wild in the beginning, but had settled down afterward. He was hoping that the same would happen in Germany.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: I am coming now to the year 1936. One of the principal questions which dominated that year was the Austrian problem. Can you tell us what Herr Von Neurath's attitude was toward the repeated interferences of German circles in the internal affairs of Austria?
DIECKHOFF: Yes. Herr Von Neurath considered such German interference in the internal affairs of Austria not only inadmissible but damaging. He told me so repeatedly. He was striving for an improvement of the economic relations with Austria and thereby trying to improve gradually the political relations also. He wanted to leave the sovereignty of Austria untouched. This was also the aim of the agreement of 11 July 1936 between Germany and Austria, that is, the economic strengthening of Austria and thereby the reestablishment of good political relations between the two countries.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Did you hear anything before March of 1938 that Hitler had the intention to incorporate Austria into Germany, if necessary, with force?
DIECKHOFF: No.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Did you ever hear anything before 1938 that Hitler had intended to solve the Sudeten problem by force or even to attack Czechoslovakia?
DIECKHOFF: No.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Do you know whether Hitler was in full agreement until November 1937 with the peaceful policy which Herr Von Neurath pursued with regard to both Austria and Czechoslovakia and also with regard to the other European countries?