dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: Marx in any way exceeded his professional duty. The Tribunal regards the matter as one of such importance in its bearing on the due administration of justice that they have asked the Control Council for Germany to investigate the facts and to report to the Tribunal. That is all. Sir David, the first application is for the Defendant Streicher . I call upon counsel for the Defendant Streicher.
DR. HANNS MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): Mr. President, the Defendant Streicher is indicted under two counts: Firstly, that he was active in the planning and in the conspiracy for preparation of aggressive war; and secondly, Crimes against Humanity. As far as the first point is concerned, the Defense does not think it necessary to offer any evidence because the Defendant Streicher, during the whole of this proceeding, was never mentioned in a single document; neither can it be proved that he took part in any of the intimate conferences with Hitler. In this respect I did not see fit to offer any proof. As to the second point, first of all I should like to call the wife of the Defendant Streicher, Frau Adele Streicher nee Tappe as witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if it would be convenient for me to indicate the views of the Prosecution on these witnesses; there are only six of them. Then perhaps Dr. Marx could make his comments on my suggestions.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal will see that there are six witnesses, and if it would take them in my order, I would indicate the point of view of the Prosecution. Number 3, Ernst Hiemer, was the editor in chief of Der Sturmer , and apparently the defendant's principal lieutenant. Number 4, Wurzbacher, was an SA brigade leader in Nuremberg, and is alleged to be able to give evidence as to the speeches of the defendant. Number 2, Herrwerth, was the defendant's chauffeur, and he is to speak on one point, namely, the defendant's annoyance at violence being used on the 10th of November 1938. And Number 6, Dr. Strobel, who is a lawyer, is to speak on the same point, the disapproval expressed by the defendant in December 1933 of the measures taken in November. Then there are two members of the defendant's family: Frau Streicher, who was his secretary from 1940 to 1945; and his son, Lothar Streicher. The Prosecution would have no objection to Herr Hiemer, as the defendant's principal lieutenant, speaking, as suggested by Dr. Marx, on what Dr. Marx calls the Defendant Streicher's basic attitude to the Jewish question. There are a number of matters on which he is said to be able to speak, to which the Prosecution would object as irrelevant. However, the time for so doing is later. Then, with regard to Herr Wurzbacher, he is said to have always been present at meetings where Streicher spoke, from the early days. To that also the Prosecution would not make objection, but they draw attention to the fact that in the earlier applications Herr Wurzbacher was said to be able to speak as to the boycott in 1933 and the events of November 1938. Therefore the Prosecution respectfully remind the Tribunal that he can speak on the events in 1938, and, in the view of the Prosecution, it is not necessary to have oral testimony to repeat that point. They therefore suggest that with regard to Herr Herrwerth, the defendant's chauffeur, who really speaks on one main point -- that the defendant showed anger with regard to the events of 1938 -- an affidavit would be sufficient.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: They suggest the same course with regard to Dr. Strobel, the attorney who is mentioned. With regard to Frau Streicher, Number 1, the Tribunal will see that it is said that Frau Streicher was the defendant's secretary during the period from May 1940 to May 1945. The gist of the case against this defendant refers, of course, to a much earlier period, both before and immediately after the rise to power. The Prosecution suggest that the evidence which is desired from Frau Streicher is really a description of the life of the defendant during the war years, and they suggest that that, again, be covered by an affidavit. That leaves Lieutenant Lothar Streicher, the eldest son of the defendant. If I may remind the Tribunal of how the matters mentioned in regard to him come into the case: In a report of the Goering commission on the question of corruption in regard to Aryanization, part of the report stated that this defendant paid a visit to three boys in prison, and that certain disgusting and cruel actions took place. The Prosecution, of course, submit that that is not really a matter relevant to the charges against the defendant, but they realize that it is a highly prejudicial matter; it has been read and a bad effect has resulted from that evidence. Therefore they feel it must be a matter for the Tribunal; and the Prosecution, having put in the report including that, ought not to take objection, except to point out that it is not strictly relevant. However, if the Tribunal feel that this defendant ought to have the advantage of his son's counteracting that account of very unpleasant matters, the Prosecution would not take any objection, although they are bound to point out that it is not strictly relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: In the view of the Prosecution, would an affidavit be suitable in that case?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, that is the line the Prosecution would suggest. Therefore, if I may summarize, what I am suggesting is that the Prosecution would make no objection to Herr Hiemer and Herr Wurzbacher giving oral evidence, and to affidavits from the other witnesses.
DR. MARX: I beg to differ in a few respects with Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. The Prosecution hold that the testimony to be given by Frau Adele Streicher would not be specially relevant. Opposing this I should like to state that this witness was for 5 years, that is from 1940 to 1945, close to the defendant, handled his entire correspondence, and knows what contacts Streicher had during the whole war. The Defense is particularly anxious to prove that Streicher had no connection with any of the leading men of the State or Party while he lived in isolation in Pleikershof. There was no exchange of letters or opinions with Hitler, Himmler, Kaltenbrunner , or Heydrich, or any other leading personalities, whatever their names might be. Streicher was completely isolated and played no political role whatsoever; neither had he any authority. In view of this, I, as his counsel, cannot waive the evidence of this witness, as otherwise the vital interests of the Defendant Streicher would be prejudiced. I therefore suggest that my application to call Frau Streicher as witness before the Tribunal be granted, so that the pertinent questions may be put to her. The same applies to the witness Herrwerth. It cannot be said that this witness can give information only on irrelevant matters or on an insignificant incident. On the contrary the incident in question is of decisive importance. This man Herrwerth was present on the night of 9 November 1938, when SA Group Leader Von Obernitz reported to the then Gauleiter Streicher that demonstrations against the Jewish population were being planned. He therefore knows from personal experience what passed between these two men, and that Streicher was opposed to this demonstration, because he considered such a demonstration to be entirely wrong. Thus, in opposition to the Fuehrer's will and order, Streicher kept himself aloof from this demonstration against the Jewish population. There can be no doubt that this incident is of particular importance.
DR. MARX: It is clear that the behavior of Streicher, who at the time was already in bed and received Obernitz in his bedroom, corroborated the stand taken by his defense. I therefore submit that Fritz Herrwerth be called as witness before the Tribunal, so that he can be examined by me and, if necessary, also by the Prosecution. As to the witness Hiemer, the Prosecution and I seem to be in agreement that he as well as Wurzbacher appear before the Tribunal. I may mention that Wurzbacher is now in the Altenstaedt Camp near Schongau, Camp Number 10. As to the witness Lothar Streicher, the Defendant Streicher attaches particular importance to having it confirmed by this witness that what the Goering report mentions about the Defendant Streicher's indecent words or acts, when visiting the prison, is untrue. If the Prosecution are prepared to state that they will drop this point and no longer use this report, then I would agree to refrain from calling this witness. Otherwise, I consider it my duty to insist on having this witness called before the Tribunal to vindicate my client's honor. An affidavit could not possibly meet this purpose, and I therefore ask that the application of the Defense be granted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that last point, My Lord, I have indicated from the Prosecution that that incident is not relevant to the charges against the Defendant Streicher. The Prosecution, of course, produced the report and I thought I had made it clear to the Tribunal that it is one of these collateral matters that do come in, and the Prosecution for that reason would not oppose an affidavit from Lothar Streicher. But the main case of the Prosecution against this defendant is on the stirring up of and consistent incitement to persecution of the Jews. I do not think I can put it further than that. But I had hoped I had made clear that the incident was not one that was relevant upon any other issue. Thee report under discussion was on the Aryanization of Jewish properties, and that was a passage in the report. The report itself is relevant to persecution.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that matter.
DR. MARX: Mr. President; may I make a few additional remarks? This matter which is to be proved by Lothar Streicher forms a part of the Goering report and cannot therefore be dealt with separated from its context. The defendant contends that this Goering report originates from a man who wanted to harm him, who, after having received many favors from him, became his enemy and used this Goering commission, which was originally meant for quite other purposes, to deal the defendant, whom he hated, a sudden blow. It is a rather serious matter to say of a man that he indulged in sadism in the presence of other persons in a disgusting manner. That is why the defendant is so anxious to have the falsity of this allegation exposed here publicly. I therefore request once more that Lothar Streicher be brought before this Tribunal. As to the last witness, Attorney Strobel, I would be very pleased to comply with Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe's wishes, but also in this case I am afraid I cannot do so. Attorney Strobel's testimony is offered as proof for the following: Sometime, approximately three weeks after the events on the night of 9 November 1938, Streicher addressed a meeting of the Association of Lawyers at Nuremberg. At that public meeting of lawyers, Streicher defined his attitude to the events of 9 November 1938 and made it clear that he had been against the demonstration and the firing of synagogues. Attorney Strobel, as he said, was very surprised at the time that Streicher so openly took a stand against Hitler's order and made no secret of what he had said to Obernitz, that he would not take part in the demonstration and that he considered the whole thing to be a mistake. Strobel's testimony may carry more weight than that of chauffeur Herrwerth, since in the case of the latter the Prosecution can hold against the Defense the fact that Herrwerth was an employee of the defendant and may therefore be inclined to take the defendant's side.
DR. MARX: This argument, however, does not apply to Attorney Strobel, as he, in a letter addressed to the Tribunal, wanted to express his aversion to the defendant and mentioned the meeting only incidentally. Consequently, Strobel must be regarded as an impartial witness, whereas one might say of Herrwerth that he is perhaps not wholly disinterested. I therefore submit that Attorney Strobel also be called before the Tribunal in order to enable the Defense and, if necessary, also the Prosecution to put direct questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your witnesses, does it not? Now you can turn to the documents. No documents? Very well, the Tribunal will consider your applications.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I have a word please? Up to now it has not been possible for me to collect all the documents we need. There are a number of newspaper articles which I should like to submit to the Tribunal, and I ask for leave to submit the list of documents later on. I shall get in touch with the Prosecution beforehand as to which documents should be discarded and which should be put in.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Marx, the Tribunal will have no objection to your getting in touch with the Prosecution with reference to documents later on, but you must understand that no delay can be permitted. I call upon the Counsel for the Defendant Funk .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Sauter would allow me, I should like to say that, with regard to these applications, there is so little between the applications and the views of the Prosecution that it might shorten matters if I were to indicate the views of the Prosecution, and then Dr. Sauter could add anything he has to say. I could be extremely short, but I do not want to forestall Dr. Sauter if he has any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that meet with your view, Dr. Sauter?
DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Funk): That I present my applications now and that the Prosecution then reply?
THE PRESIDENT: I think Sir David meant that he should first indicate any objections which he has, and then you could explain your view.
DR. SAUTER: I quite agree, My Lord.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal please, the witnesses fall into four groups. The first group is three witnesses from the Ministry of Economics, Numbers 1, 2, and 10 on the list. As I understand Dr. Sauter, he wishes to call Number 2, Herr Hayler, as an oral witness, and to have affidavits from the witnesses Landfried, Number 1, and Kallus, Number 10. The Prosecution have no objection to this course, except that with regard to the witness Landfried they may have some observation to make on the form of the interrogatories, which could no doubt be settled with Dr. Sauter, and then put to the Tribunal for their approval. Secondly, they want to reserve the right to apply for further cross-interrogatories. Apart from that, which I submit are really minor points, they agree with that suggestion. The second group is two witnesses from the Reichsbank, Number 5, Herr Puhl, and Number 7, Dr. August Schwedler. Again, as I understand Dr. Sauter, he wants an affidavit in the form of answers to questions. The Prosecution have no objection to that, only again they reserve the right to apply for cross-interrogatories, if necessary; if the answers take a certain form, they might have to apply to the Court that the witness be brought for cross-examination. They simply want to reserve that right, but, of course, they cannot take up their position until they have seen the form of the answers. Then, the third group consists of one witness, who is Dr. Lammers, who has been called by most of the defendants orally, and there is no objection to that, and the Prosecution suggest that Dr. Sauter will put his questions to Dr. Lammers when he is called by the other defendants. Then, the fourth group is a general one. There is Herr Oeser, who is an editor, Number 6; Herr Amann, Number 8; and Number 9, Herr Roesen; and lastly, Number 4, Frau Funk. As I understand it, with regard to all these witnesses, Dr. Sauter wished either an interrogatory or an affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Prosecution make no objection to that, with the same understanding that they reserve their rights to put cross-interrogatories or to ask the Tribunal to summon any of them as witnesses if any point emerges. Subject to the reservation of these points, there is nothing between us, because the result is, if I have understood it all correctly, that Dr. Sauter is asking for two oral witnesses and eight sets of interrogatories.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, don't you draw any distinction between an affidavit and interrogatories?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I do, certainly. But, My Lord, Dr. Sauter has shown in the case of most of the witnesses the interrogatories which he is putting -- apart from Dr. Lammers, who, of course, will be dealt with orally, because he is being produced as a witness. I understand that when Dr. Sauter says "affidavit" he means an affidavit in the form of answers to questions, such as those he has set out in the appendix.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, Sir David, so far as the Prosecution are concerned, they would take the line that you have suggested, meaning by an affidavit, interrogatories and, if necessary, cross-interrogatories?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is so.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Yes, Dr. Sauter?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I am in agreement with the suggestions of the Prosecution as to the individual applications. As to the wording of the individual interrogatories I shall come to an agreement with the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment. Dr. Sauter, perhaps you could tell us, dealing, for instance, with Number 6 -- you say there, "I have in hand an affirmation from this witness with a supplement thereto." Does that mean answers to interrogatories, or does that mean an affidavit, a statement? Have you got the passage?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, I have an affidavit from this witness, Albert Oeser, Number 6, and this affidavit will be submitted to the Tribunal, together with my document book. I am already in possession of this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, that is not quite the same as interrogatories. I do not know whether you have seen the affidavit. I mean, it may be that at a later stage you would want to cross-examine or to put cross-interrogatories to that witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, that would be so, Your Honor. I must reserve the right, until I have seen the affidavit, to do that. The ones that are attached to Dr. Sauter'sapplication are all in the interrogatory form, but where the document is in the form of a statement, the Prosecution would have to reserve these rights. Really, one cannot make any declaration until one has seen that.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, before I put in evidence this affidavit by the witness Oeser, Number 6, I shall, of course, pass it to the Prosecution so that they have ample time to decide as to whether they wish to cross-examine this witness. This goes without saying.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that particular witness? Where is he?
DR. SAUTER: He is witness Number 6, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but where is the man? Where is he at the present moment? Is he in Nuremberg or where?
DR. SAUTER: Witness Oeser is at Schramberg in the Black Forest, in Baden, near the Rhine. It is some distance from Nuremberg. Moreover, Mr. President, the points to which the witness is to testify are comparatively so insignificant that it would hardly be worth while to bring the witness himself to Nuremberg. I personally do not know the witness, but an acquaintance of mine mentioned him to me as a person who could give favorable information on the conduct of the Defendant Funk. Thus we got to know about witness Oeser and obtained from him an affidavit which I shall pass to the Prosecution in good time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to the documents, My Lord, the first one is a biography of the Defendant Funk. The extracts were submitted as part of the Prosecution's case. I ask that Dr. Sauter intimate what passages he desires to use, and then the Prosecution can make such objections or comments as may or may not be necessary. The second request is, I think, the same as we had yesterday, namely for the record of the Dachau trial and of the evidence of the witness Dr. Blaha. The American prosecutors will be pleased to show Dr. Sauter the report that they have of Dr. Blaha's evidence at that trial. With regard to the speeches of the Defendant Funk, there again, if Dr. Sauter will intimate what they are and what he intends to use, the Prosecution will consider them. Prima facie they would be a relevant matter. And with regard to Number 4, the copy of the newspaper with a report of the defendant's speech, that again would prima facie be relevant, and we shall look into it. It is very unlikely that there would be any objection, but we shall look into it; and; if necessary, deal with it when Dr. Sauter makes his presentation.
THE PRESIDENT: Has Dr. Sauter the newspaper?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the newspaper mentioned under Number 4, and also the speeches mentioned under Number 3, are now in my possession. I shall not use the entire text of the speeches in my brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you would be prepared to indicate to the Prosecution the passages in your Document 1 and the passages in 3 and 4, which you wanted to use, so that they can have them translated?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, My Lord. I shall include in the Document Book from the book mentioned under Number 1 only a few -- I think two or three pages and from the speeches and newspaper articles only those passages which I am going to use, and submit these to the Prosecution in time for translation. As to the record of the Dachau trial, this request is settled by what the Prosecution stated yesterday regarding the Defendant Frick . I believe the Dachau stenographic report is already available. I shall peruse it, so that this matter is settled.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then I call upon counsel for Dr. Schacht .
DR. DIX: I am very pleased to be able to tell the Tribunal that I believe I am in agreement with Sir David as to the compass of evidence to be submitted by me, especially as to those applications which I shall either withdraw or restrict. In order to facilitate matters, may I therefore first tell the Tribunal which applications on my list I withdraw and which ones I restrict, so that eventually those will be left which I maintain. I withdraw application Number 5 for the examination of Dr. Diels. I heard yesterday that Dr. Diels has been called for as witness in another application. Should the Tribunal grant yesterday's application and order Diets to appear, then I should dike to reserve the right to examine. I myself shall, however, not apply for him. Then I should like to call your attention to applications Number 6, Colonel Gronau; Number 7, Herr Von Scherpenberg; Number 8, State Secretary Carl Schmid; Number 9, Consul General Dr. Schniewind; Number 10, General Thomas of the armament staff; Number 11, Dr. Walter Asmus; Number 12, Dr. Franz Neuter; and Number 13, Dr. Berckemeyer. For all these witnesses I am willing to accept an affidavit. I quite realize that I have to pass affidavits to the Prosecution and that the latter have the right to apply for these witnesses to be summoned for cross-examination. The following witnesses, therefore, remain to be called before the Tribunal: Witness Number 1, Dr. Gisevius; witness Number 2, Frau Strunck; witness Number 3, the former Reichsbank Director, Vocke; and witness Number 4, the former Reichsbank Director, Ernst Huelse. In respect to these witnesses, I must insist on my application for their personal appearance. Schacht's defense cannot dispense with the oral examination of these witnesses. May I put forward my reasons in each case. The testimony of these witnesses is in no way cumulative. One witness knows things the other does not. Vocke and Huelse were Schacht's closest collaborators at the Reichsbank and at the International Bank at Basel. They know of events and developments which Schacht may not be able to recall in detail.