dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SIEMERS: There is the poss bility that after speaking with these witnesses I shall not want to call them, particularly since I hear today that Schulte-Moenting can be called, and on the supposition that Boehm, will be approved.
THE PRESIDENT: That who will be approved?
DR. SIEMERS: Boehm, Number 10.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.  That was Sir David's only objection to Number 11, wasn't it, that it was cumulative to 5 and 10?
DR. SIEMERS: Number 12, Schrieber. Sir David pointed out correctly-I agree with Sir David in this--that if actually Schulte-Moenting and the witness Boehm can be called Schrieber is, in point of fact, not necessary. Number 13, the witness Lackorn in Leipzig.  Before the occupation of Norway, Lackorn was on business in Oslo.  He has nothing to do with the military.  It is purely by accident that he found out in the Hotel Bristol in Oslo that the landing of the English troops was immediately imminent.  This point is important for this reason, because here we can find out the attitude of the defendant in the matter of Norway and can judge it only if we know the entire situation in Norway at that time.  The entire situation in Norway, however, means the relations between Norway and Germany, England, Sweden, and all the other neighboring countries.  It will not do on so important a point simply to declare that it is only a question of a small sector. I understand that the witness cannot be heard here.  Since I expected this attitude on the part of the Prosecution, I have written to this witness for an affidavit and am agreeable if simply an affidavit is submitted here.  He does not have to come personally as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you didn't deal with that aspect of the matter, if there was an affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, my Lord, I am afraid the view of the Prosecution is that the story, which apparently started in the bar of a hotel in Oslo, is not evidence which is really admissible, 
     relevant or of any weight in a matter of this kind. That is the view we have taken throughout.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, it appears from the application which is before us that you originally made a request for this witness on the 19th of January 1946, which appears to have been in perfectly general terms, and that the Tribunal ordered on the 14th of February that you should furnish supplementary details of the evidence which you wanted to call through this witness.  Thereupon, on the 21st of February, you withdrew your application. You now put in the application again without giving any details at all, simply saying that the witness had been in Oslo on business and received information there of the imminent landing of Allied forces in Norway.  Well, that is a perfectly general statement, just as general as the original statement.  It doesn't seem to comply with the orders of the Tribunal at all.
DR. SIEMERS: On the 21st of February, I withdrew my application in view of the basic point of view that I have told the Court about. I pointed out that in my opinion it cannot be asked of the Defense that they provide each individual detail, after we were consulted for over three months on no single witness called by the Prosecution. Nor did we have the slightest word to say in the conduct of the Prosecution.  We were not given any opportunity by the Prosecution to take an attitude on the relevancy of their witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I have already pointed out on several occasions that the reason why Defendants' counsel have to submit applications for their witnesses is because they are 
     unable to get their witnesses themselves and because they are applying to the Tribunal to get their witnesses for them and their documents for them. It is a work of very considerable magnitude to find and to bring witnesses to Nurnberg. I understand from you that with reference to this witness you are trying new to get an affidavit from him.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. At any rate, I have made the effort.  Whether I shall receive an answer in time from Leipzig I do not know.  In the meantime, to make the matter easier and to avoid delay, I wrote to the witness Lackorn.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: I hope that an affidavit will be available in time. If so, I am perfectly prepared to renounce hearing him here in person.
THE PRESIDENT: If you get the affidavit you will be able to give the Tribunal particulars of the evidence which the witness would give, and also show it to the Prosecution, who would then be able to say whether they wished to have the witnesses brought here for cross-examination.
DR. SIEMERS: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider this application.
DR. SIEMERS: Witness, Number 15, Alf Whist, former Secretary of Commerce.  On the order of the Court of the 14th of February he was rejected as irrelevant. Whist can testify that the attitude toward the German Navy in Norway throughout the occupation was very good, and that their behavior was very good.  The Norwegians objected solely to the civil administration and not to the German Navy. Whist knows, as does every other Norwegian, that the Navy took part in no single illegal or criminal measure during the occupation. I presume that Sir David means in his objection that the Navy during the occupation -- of course this is a question that must be sharply distinguished from the question of the occupation and the attack on Norway. I am speaking now only of the time after the occupation had begun.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The point of the Prosecution is this:  That whatever the facts were, assuming for the moment that the facts were that 
     the German Navy, had behaved with meticulous correctness on every point, the view of Mr. Alf Whist, who was Secretary of Commerce in the Quisling Cabinet of Ministry in Norway, as to how the German Navy behaved would not have the slightest interest or relevance or weight with anyone. That is the view of the Prosecution.
DR. SIEMERS: I had hoped that Sir David would take a position towards the question whether accusations can be directed toward the Navy in this regard.  I should like to ask you to observe that the entire administration of Norway lay with Terboven and that the German Navy had nothing to do with this administration.  If I have named a single witness where I might have called hundreds, I did this only to give the Tribunal a picture of how Admiral Boehm and Raeder behaved in this regard.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider it, Dr. Siemers.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you have got 17, the interpreter.
DR. SIEMERS: Regarding Lt. Colonel Goldenberg, it is Sir David's point of view that he is unnecessary; if Schultze is approved an affidavit is enough from Goldenberg.  A short affidavit appears to be important to me, because Goldenberg as an impartial interpreter was also present at every conference between Darlan and Raeder.  An affidavit would suffice.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you can pass now to your documents.  I ought to call your attention to an observation at the end of your application, which is that you intend to summon one or more witnesses. Who are they?  You say you intend to summon one or more witnesses.
DR. SIEMERS: There would be a witness.  The high Tribunal has declared that the details about a witness are submitted a long time before the case actually comes up because the Tribunal must produce the witness.  If it is a question of a witness who comes on his own initiative to Nurnberg, then it can be decided on this point in connection with my whole case whether the witness will be admitted by the Court of  not.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, I have stated one of the reasons why, one of the prinicpal reasons why Defense Counsel have to make applications, and another prinicpal reasons is a necessity for expedition in this trial; expedition and security.  I am reminded of the question of security; and therefore, we must  insist on being told who the witnesses are that you wish to call.  Dr. Siemers, you will not be able to call them.
DR. SIEMERS: Am I thn obliged, if the witness is here in the building, to name him?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, because, as I have told you, there are twenty or twenty-one defendants in the dock and we have to try and make this trial expeditious and we, therefore,  can't allow them to call as many witnesses as they choose to call; but if it is a  question of your not having the names of the witnesses in your mind at the moment, you can certainly specify them after a short  delay or tomorrow.
DR. SIEMERS: I shall shortly make a statement on this matter.  I haven't spoken of the witness. I shall give further information regarding this point shortly, as I'd like to speak to the witness in question first.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal has no objection to your replying in respect of other witnesses, provided that you do so by tomorrow.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well,  I know that at the moment the witness in question is not in Nurnberg.  At the moment I cannot ask him.  I consequently ask the Tribunal to pardon me for being too careful.  The Tribunal knows that witnesses are taken into custody.  I cannot be responsible for making it difficult for 
     anyone, because of my calling him as a witness, and that is the reason that I should tell you immediately, as soon as the witness is in Nurnberg and I can speak to him, that will be within twnety-four hours. It is here a question of testimony which would take at the most ten minutes of the Court's time.  I do not believe that this could be considered burdensome to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SIEMERS: Then I should only like to add that in the case of Severing, I can give his address.  I received it yesterday by telegraph.  Here is No. 3; and the prosecution is agreeable to his being heard.  I can give you this address in writing.  It is in Bielefeld.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Provided you give it to the prosecution and provided you give it to the General Secretary, that is all that is required; and now would probably be a convenient time to break off for ten minutes.
MR. DODD: Just a minute, your Honor.  It is a matter of Admiral Buerkner now.  So far as we know, Dr. Siemers has made one request about Admiral Buerkner sometime ago and at a time when he was told, as I understand it, that Admiral Buerkner was intended to be called or that the prosecution intended to call him as a witness and that, therefore, we do not think it is proper for him to talk to Admiral Buerkner until after we had called him as a witness. Up to a very late date in this presentation of our case, we still had in mind calling Admiral Buerkner.  I think some reference was made about him, as a matter of fact, before the Tribunal, with reference to the witness Lahousen and it was for that reason that we told Dr. Siemers that we didn't think he should talk to the witness until after he had testified or a decision had been made with reference to his testimony; but we have at all times tried to cooperated with the defense and make available those people who are here in custody so that they may talk with them.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for ten minutes. (A recess was taken)
DR. SIEMERS: Regarding the witness, may I say one more thing concerning witness No.1, Marinedekan, that I won't call him as a witness, I agree to use an affidavit. Concerning the witness Buerkner, I would like to mention that the information received from Mr. Dodd is based on an error. I was not permitted to speak to the witness, because the witness had not been granted to me as my witness. No other reason was given. Furthermore-
THE PRESIDENT: We don't think any further discussion is necessary about this witness. I have already stated what the members of the Tribunal will act upon.
DR. SIEMERS: I only don't understand whether Mr. Dodd agrees now that I may speak to the witness Buerkner.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he said so. He said the prosecution closed their case, and that now they have no longer any objection to your seeing the witness.
DR. SIEMERS: Then as the last remark the Tribunal will have noticed that I have not called any witness concerning naval warfare and U-boat warfare, and this is based on the fact that I have agreed with Dr. Kranzbuehler that Dr. Kranzbuehler will treat the entire complex of naval warfare and U-boat warfare; although on this thing also as to Admiral Doenitz as supreme commander of the Navy, and Gross admiral Raeder, so far as they are concerned, Dr. Kranzbuehler, therefore, will take care of that interest, of the Grossadmiral and the Admiral, concerning this complex. I should like to point out that very important applications of Dr. Kranzbuehler concerning the question as to Admiral Nimitz, do not only concern Grossadmiral Doenitz but in particular Grossadmiral Raeder, and, furthermore, the organization of the general staff inasmuch as the Navy is concerned. May I speak about the documents now?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In regard to document No.1 on the war diaries of Seekriegsleitung, and the B.D.U., Dr. Kranzbuehler's assistant, Dr. Meckel, has gone to London to work on these at the Admiralty. With regard to No.2, Weyer's Navy Diaries, and the Article "Navy Year Book", there is no objection to Dr. Siemers having these.  We are indicating in the ordinary way what best he need to use. With regard to General Marshall's Report of 10 October 1945, I am convinced that I cannot see the relevancy of it at the moment, but if he will indicate which part he intends to, use, it can be discussed when he actually represents it to the Tribunal. Now the 4th, the British Admiralty documents, May 1939 to April 1940, which are wanted as to the preparations for landing in Scandinavia and Finland, although strictly what is relevant is what was known to the defendant Raeder, then, I shall make inquiries about these documents, and if the Tribunal will give me a short time I hope to be able to report to the Tribunal upon them. I want to make it clear that I cannot, of course, undertake to give details on Allied documents, but I hope to be able to consider the position and produce some documents which may be helpful to the Tribunal, and deal with them authoritatively.  I would rather not be pressed with details at the moment.
DR. SIEMERS: I agree with Sir David, and I hope that I will receive the books to No.2 -- No.2 and No.3 soon, because otherwise a delay may be caused.  The report of General Marshall of 10 October 1945, as much as I could see their excerpts so far is important, because General Marshall on various points has expressed different attitude than Justice Jackson. I believe that by confronting the Tribunal, and coming into here with a report of this kind, it would be very important in order to hear the reports by General Marshall. Concerning No.4, I think Sir David and I am expecting final decision of the prosecution. I have only one more thing to ask, and I ask to excuse me, that by error I have not listed this figure 5, which is the following: The prosecution has brought quotations frequently here from the book "Main Kampf" by Adolf Hitler, and that through their positions, each one of the defendants, all of whom were in a leading position in 1933, at or before 1933, had had to know before 1933 the basis of this book that Hitler intended to prepare and Wage a wretched war.  I have found that the quotation, in that document book, which was presented in November,are all based on the 
     edition of this book which appeared in 1933. The edition of 1933, however, in many points is different from the original edition. I regret that I am only in possession of the edition which was published after 1933.  In order to check these questions, that is to say, in order to see what anybody could have read out of this book, let's say in 1928, and not 1933, I ask the Prosecution to try to get a copy of this book in the first edition, and to submit it.  As much as I know about it, the first edition appeared in 1925, and the second in 1927, by the publishing firm of Franz Eher.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We shall try to get the earlier edition so that Dr. Siemers can compare with the other edition.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to deal with page 2 of this document? Sir David, you have not dealt with this, have you?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. I take it, your Lordship, that the record did not mention there what Dr. Siemers would, in due course, indicate as to the excerpts he was going to use, and it is then we should discuss when he presents them whether any objection which the Prosecution may make.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.  You intend, Dr. Siemers, I suppose to indicate the passages upon which you rely in your document book?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And that is question of tonnages built, and so on.  I said I am making inquiries with regard to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. My attention is drawn, Sir David, to paragraph 4B on page 2. Are you agreed to , or are you suggesting the Tribunal can supply him with the document on the German policy without any further reservation?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very sorry. It was an oversight. I take it that that was included already in the words at the top of the page; in addition I shall submit the documents and affidavits, and some of them are already in my possession, and some of them I shall procure myself without having the assistance of the Prosecution.  I take it that Dr. Siemers had such documents on the German policy, and will indicate what basis he is going to use them. I am very sorry I did not refer to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this part of the application mean that, with reference to all these documents, Dr. Siemers has them and doesn't wish any further action to be taken with reference to them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You have got them all?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Counsel for the Defendant von Schirach.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Sauter suggests it would be convenient if I indicate the view of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I ask the Tribunal to note that Dr. Sauter is asking for witnesses 1 to 8, except witness 5, as oral witnesses; that is, he is asking for 7 oral witnesses, and Nos. 5 and 9 to 13 by way of affidavit. The Prosecution suggests that, as far as oral witnesses are concerned, the Defendant might have No.1 or No.2, that is, Wieshofer of Hoepken, because these witnesses appear to cover the same ground; that he might have No.3, the witness Lauterbacher, who was chief of staff of the Reichsjugendfuehrung; and, also, that hemight have No.8, that is, Professor Heinrich Hoffmann, his father-in-law, and the note of whose evidence takes up nine pages of the application, so he is obviously a very important witness. Then the Prosecution suggests that there might be affidavits from No.5, Scharizer, who was the deputy gauleiter of Vienna: No. 11, who is Madame Vasseau; and No.12, Herr Schneeberger; and No.13, Field Marshal von Blomberg. The witnesses that the Prosecution find difficulty in perceiving the necessity for are, first of all, No.5, Frau Hoepken. There are no details given in this application, except that she was secretary to von Schirach;  and No.6, the witness Heinz Schmidt, who apparently repeats part of the evidence of the witness Lauterbacher word for word;  No.7, Dr. Schluender, who also repeats the witness Lauterbacher word for word;  and No.9, Dr. Klingspor, who passes a personal view on the Defendant, which, in the submission of the Prosecution, is not really helpful evidence;  and, finally, Dr. Roesen, No.10, 
     who speaks as to an isolated incident of kindness on the part of the Defendant to the family of musician Richard Strauss. This is the position which the Prosecution take up with regard to the witnesses. DR. SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant von Schirach):  Gentlemen, I also have the case of Baldur von Schirach. My list of proof in this case I have also made as small as possible.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: To call as witnesses before the Tribunal and to be questioned here I have requested the witnesses, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, and I really have to ask to approve these witnesses. The difficulty in the case of Schirach concerning matters of proof consists in that two definitely separate conflicts need to be proved;  first, the activity of the Defendant von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader, and, second, for the time from 1940 until 1945, for his activity in Vienna, in whichhe still had a certain function in youth leadership in addition to his main activity. Therefore, I need witnesses as well for the one as for the other activity of the Defendant von Schirach. In addition to this difficulty there is another one. The Defendant von Schirach was Reich Youth Leader, and that brought with it that practically without exception all his collaborators were relatively young people who, during the second world war, were for long times in the Army. Therefore, it is possible that for several years during the world war one witness might know nothing, because he did not work in the staff of the Defendant von Schirach during that time, and that, therefore, for that length of time another collaborator of Schirach would have to be questioned in order to provide information about his activity. At an earlier date, I have already in written applications requested further witnesses, but in this application I have omitted these further witnesses right from the start, in order to contribute to speed up the procedure as much as I can. But these six witnesses, whom I have asked to be called before the Tribunal, I really ask to have them approved, because I cannot forego any one of them, in order to get a clear picture about the activity of the Defendant. I may also point out that everyone of these six witnesses whom I have listed under the numbers which I have mentioned before, have already been approved by the Tribunal, so that a repeated approval would Just be repetition of the former decision by the Tribunal. The witness Wieshofer, who is listed under No.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: 1, was from 1940 till 1945 the adjutant of the Defendant von Schirach; that is to say, during the time in which, as we know, the Defendant was gauleiter in Vienna and Reich Governor. This collaborator, who met the defendant Schirach daily and who knew him very well, although he could give information about other things, I have called him particularly to prove that Schirach, as Gauleiter in Vienna followed an entirely different policy than his predecessor, the former Gauleiter Buerckel;  that contrary to Buerckel, he tried to establish a correct relationship to the Catholic Church and that in particular, in this sense, he also instructed his collaborators and subordinates successfully. I say successfully because these efforts by the defendant von Schirach to pacify the relationship to the Catholic Church has repeatedly been acknowledged by the Church as well as by the Catholic population of Vienna. The witness Wieshofer shall also affirm that the defendant von Schirach had nothing to do with the deportation of Jews from Vienna; that this thing about the Jews was
THE PRESIDENT: Do not numbers one and two, Wieshofer and Hoepken, really deal substantially with the same subject? Wouldn't it be sufficient if one were called as a witness and if the other one gave evidence by interrogatory?