dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: I will deal with the supplementary applications for documents. The first application on this list was on behalf of the Defendant Von Neurath, and that has been dealt with. The second was on behalf of the Defendant Streicher. That was withdrawn. ' The third was on behalf of the Defendant Doenitz for an affidavit of former Fleet Judge Jackel. That application is granted. The next two, 4 and 5, were on behalf of the Defendant Von Neurath. Those have been withdrawn. The next three, 6, 7, and 8, on behalf of the Defendant Rosenberg, are denied. The next, on behalf of the Defendant Von Papen, have all been dealt with during the presentation of the defense on behalf of Von Papen. The next two, on behalf of the Defendant Bormann, are granted. The last three, 12, 13, and 14, on behalf of the Defendant Goering, are subject to the possibility of agreement being reached upon the question of whether affidavits are to be presented or witnesses called, and therefore that application is postponed. That is all.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, before the Tribunal goes on with the business of the day, I should like to inform the Tribunal of the results of my inquiries as to outstanding witnesses and perhaps these could be supplemented by any of the learned counsel who can. My Lord, as far as I can see, there are the witnesses whom Your Lordship has just mentioned of the Defendant Goering, dealing with the question of Katyn. My Lord the next witnesses that were outstanding were three that the Tribunal allowed to be called for cross-examination if desired in respect to the case of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. I have just had a word with Dr. Kauffmann, and he says that he will not require the witnesses Tiefenbacher, Steinbauer, and Strupp for cross-examination. As far as my information goes, the next is Admiral Bohm in the case of the Defendant Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you get to that, Sir David, on the list that I have there was a witness called Strupp for Kaltenbrunner.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, there are three, Tiefenbacher, Steinbauer, and Strupp. Dr. Kauffmann tells me he does not want these.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well Then you were speaking about the Defendant Raeder.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is the question of Admiral Bohm. Dr. Siemers was going to let the Prosecution see an affidavit, and I have not seen it yet; but, My Lord, I do not anticipate that the Prosecution will require that witness unless the affidavit is in very different form from what I expect. My Lord, the only other witnesses that I know about are the three for which application was made by Dr. Fritz yesterday in the present case. The Tribunal is considering that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that, as far as I can see, is the full extent of the outstanding witnesses, unless I have missed some.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there an application for witnesses from the Defendant Bormann on the 26th of June?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I asked Bergold this morning. He has only got one witness that he is calling, he told me, who unfortunately is not here today.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am told he has just now arrived. SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE My Lord, Your Lordship's information is later than mine.
THE PRESIDENT: It has only this moment come through. But so far as the others are concerned, there is only the one that Dr. Bergold wants to call now?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So Dr. Bergold informed me this morning.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Court, only one witness has arrived. But I have put in several more requests which have not been decided on, and I cannot say whether these witnesses will ever arrive or whether they can be found. The Bormann case is characterized by the fact that not only the defendant cannot be found but almost all the witnesses cannot be found either. In the course of today's proceedings on the Bormann case I should like to put a special application before the High Tribunal which I do not wish to do just now.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Will you tell us exactly which witnesses you are referring to? In your letter of the 29th of June you withdraw your application for Fraulein Christians.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Klopfer is the witness who just arrived in Nuremberg.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes. Then there are the witnesses Kupfer and Rattenhuber who are still not here and also the witness Christians.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Helmut Friedrich has not been located?
DR. BERGOLD: No, he has not-been found.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you wanting to call Fraulein Christians?
DR. BERGOLD: She has not yet arrived either. She was at Camp Oberursel. She received leave and while on leave disappeared-obviously she has fled.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got your application of 26 June or did you make an application of 26 June?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I did make an application.
THE PRESIDENT: Whom did you ask for then?
DR. BERGOLD: Just a minute, I have to consult my secretary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Fraulein Christians and Dr. Helmut Friedrich.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Klopfer and Friedrich.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, and Fraulein Christians, My Lord.
DR. BERGOLD: On 26 June I applied for the witnesses Falkenhorst, Rattenhuber, and Kempka. I could dispense with Falkenhorst if I might have Dr. Klopfer instead.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Klopfer is the only one who has arrived, as I understand it.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, the only one who has arrived, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What the Tribunal wants to know is how many you want to call now, and with reference to the others you had better withdraw them if you cannot find them.
DR. BERGOLD: Very well, Your Lordship, I wanted to put in an application for postponement. The witness Dr. Klopfer has only just arrived. Up to now I have not had a chance to talk to him and I consider it unjust for him to have to testify here for the first time. Moreover, he is not prepared, he does not know the documents which have been presented by the Prosecution, and I myself do not know whether he has any knowledge about the things on which I want to question him. Therefore, I should like to apply for the proceedings in the case of Bormann to be postponed until 10 o'clock on Monday to give me the opportunity to hear my one chief witness and to discuss the case with him. I do not even know whether I want to have the witness interrogated for he may possibly make statements that are quite irrelevant. It is not my fault that I have not heard him until now. I applied many months ago to have him brought here and I would not have found him even today if at the last moment I had not had the very kind assistance of the American Prosecution. I believe-I have also spoken to Sir Maxwell-Fyfe-a postponement until Monday at 10 o'clock would be quite proper for my case in order to give me at least time to prepare; if not-my defendant has not been here and my witnesses have not been here and I have not been able to prepare anything.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Bergold, you have had many months in which to prepare your case and the Tribunal has put the matter back for you already for a very long time and this witness is now here. You can see him immediately and the Tribunal thinks you ought to go on. You must have known that the case would come on, in the same way every other case has come on, in its proper place, subject to the license which has been allowed to you to have your case put back to the end and all your applications for witnesses and documents put back to the very latest possible moment; and the witness is here and we still have some time to deal with the witnesses for Fritzsche and documents. The Tribunal thinks in those-circumstances you ought to go on.
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, it is quite correct I have had months at my disposal; but if I can obtain no witnesses and no information-I ask the Tribunal to put themselves in my place. What is the use to me of waiting many months in vain, months during which I could do nothing. The witnesses were not here, nobody could tell me where the witness Klopfer could be found. He was only found at the very last moment. I cannot discuss the entire case with him in 15 minutes. I am just asking for a very short postponement until Monday morning. The Tribunal will lose only a very few hours through that. It is not my fault that I have been assigned such an unusual defendant, one who is not present.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, the only thing you propose to prove by this witness is the alleged fact that Bormann is dead and any evidence he can give about that. That is what the application says.
DR. BERGOLD: No, may it please the Court, that is a mistake. The witness Klopfer cannot testify as to that. He can only give his opinion as to the rest of the Indictment, namely whether Bormann is guilty or not. Only the witnesses Christians, Lueger, and Rattenhuber can give evidence as to the death of the Defendant Bormann. But the witness Klopfer can only testify concerning the Indictment itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the application for Klopfer? Where is your application?
DR. BERGOLD: It is my application of 26 May.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me see it. Have you got it there? Dr. Bergold, do you not have anything else at all in the way of documents or evidence that you can continue with without calling this witness Klopfer?,
DR. BERGOLD: My Lord, what I have is so small and meager that I myself do not know whether it is relevant until I have questioned the witness. Up to this point I have been dependent on pure supposition. I have not been able to receive or obtain any effective data. They are all legal constructions which can be made untenable by one word from the witness.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): Mr. President, I have an objection to any postponement for this case. As the Court has pointed out, counsel has had months and he had every co-operation from our office, both for his documents and for his seeking out of his witnesses; and if he would stop talking and go out and talk with his witness, who is here now, I think he might be prepared to go on with his case.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, the Tribunal will go on with the case against the Defendant Fritzsche now, and in the meantime, you will have an opportunity of seeing this witness Klopfer; and if after seeing him you wish to make further application, you may do so; but the Tribunal hopes that, if you can ascertain what the nature of his evidence is, that you will be able to go on with it. I now have your-I had it only in German before-but I now have in English your application for the witness Klopfer, and a summary of it is that he was head of Section III in the Party Chancellery and he can deal with questions relating to the drafting and elaboration of laws and that he is to testify that the activity of Bormann in the proclamation of laws and ordinances was an entirely subordinate one. That is the only reason why you allege that you want to call him in your application.
DR. BERGOLD: That is my supposition. There is the possibility that the witness, of course, really knows much more, for he was one of the chief collaborators. I drew up my applications very carefully, because as a lawyer I did not want to submit a fantasy to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have said what you can do with reference to Klopfer, and are you still asking to call a witness called Falkenhorst?
DR. BERGOLD: I can only decide on that after I have talked with the witness Klopfer. In all probability I shall forego the calling of this witness Falkenhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you heard what I said, Dr. Bergold. You can now see Dr. Klopfer.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I only wanted the Tribunal to know that that was the position as to witnesses; and when Your Lordship asked me, I said that the process of finishing off witnesses might take 2 days. My Lord, subject to the Katyn witnesses, it might take much shorter than that, as I am at present advised.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And when shall we be informed what the position is with reference to the Katyn witnesses, as to whether there is an agreement as to using affidavits or calling witnesses?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I Will make inquiries and try to let Your Lordship know at the end of the session.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it that we shall not be able to go into that this morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not think so. Apart from that, there are certain outstanding interrogatories which Counsel for the Defense may want to refer the Tribunal to; but that is the only other matter I know. From the point of view of the Prosecution, there may be a few documents which will be put in more or less to clarify points that have arisen during the case, rather than formal evidence and rebuttal. They will be quite small in number and will not take any time.
THE PRESIDENT: Were there any documents on behalf of the Defendant Von Neurath which have got to be dealt with?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My recollection is that there were one or two interrogatories, but apart from that I do not know of any others.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps those matters had better be gone into on Monday morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal hopes that counsel for the defendants understand that the Tribunal will expect them to be prepared to go on with their speeches on behalf of the defendants directly the evidence is finished.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is to try to give some indication of the time that I ventured to intervene this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understand it, the proposal is that Professor Jahrreiss will make his general speech first.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understand the professor is ready to do that and I thought it would be useful if it were known that that might occur even on Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then, now, Dr. Fritz, perhaps you will continue with your witness. [The witness Von Schirmeister resumed the stand.]
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I beg to be permitted to continue with the examination of the witness Von Schirmeister. Witness, yesterday, at the end of the session, we stopped at the point dealing with the anti-Semitism expressed by the Defendant Fritzsche in his radio speeches; in connection with that point, I have a further question. According to the statement made by Dr. Goebbels, to where were the Jews evacuated?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Up to the first year of the Russian campaign, Dr. Goebbels in the conferences over which he presided, repeatedly mentioned the Madagascar plan. Later he changed this and said that a new Jewish state was to be formed in the East, to which the Jews were to be taken.
DR. FRITZ: Do you know whether, in dealing with reports from abroad concerning alleged German atrocities, not only towards the Jews but towards other peoples as well, Fritzsche always had inquiries made at the RSHA or other authorities concerned?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Yes. Not only with regard to atrocity reports but all propaganda reports from abroad which were embarrassing to us. He made inquiries sometimes at the office of Muller, at the RSHA in Berlin, and sometimes he inquired of the authorities that were directly concerned in these matters.
DR. FRITZ: And what other agencies were concerned besides the RSHA where he might have made inquiries?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: For example, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the Armament Ministry, the OKW; it all depended.
DR. FRITZ: Do you know whether in reply to such inquiries a clear and completely plausible denial was given, or how was a matter of this sort handled?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: There were not always denials, not at all; very frequently we had quite precise answers. For example, if it was asserted that there had been a strike in Bohemia-Moravia, then the answer was: Yes, in such and such a factory a strike took place. But always and without exception, there was a very definite denial of concentration camp atrocities and so forth. That is precisely why these denials were so widely believed. I must emphasize that this was our only possibility of getting information. These pieces of information were not intended for the public, but for the minister, and again and again the answer came: "No, there is no word of truth in this." Even today I do not know by what other means we could have obtained information.
DR. FRITZ: Can you say anything about Fritzsche's attitude on church questions?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Herr Fritzsche adopted the views taken by the minister during the war. At the beginning of the war, the minister demanded complete cessation of the strife regarding this question, for anything which could have brought dissension among the German people would have had a disturbing influence. I do not know whether I should go into further details.
DR. FRITZ: No, I shall turn to another very important topic. Do you know what reasons Goebbels gave to his assistants for the various military actions of Germany?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: He gave no reasons of his own at all. He only added his comments to the announcements coming from the Fuehrer. '`
DR. FRITZ: To quote some examples, can you say briefly whether the Defendant Fritzsche knew in advance that a military attack was being planned on first, Poland; second, Belgium and Holland; third, Yugoslavia?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: In the case of Poland, we knew of course that the question of Danzig and the Corridor was awaiting a decision. But Dr. Goebbels himself repeatedly assured us, and he himself believed, that this question would not lead to war because, completely mistaken in his view of the attitude of the Western Powers, he was convinced that they were only bluffing and that Poland would not risk a war without the military support of the Western Powers.
DR. FRITZ: What about Belgium and Holland?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: On the day before the attack on Belgium and Holland events were overshadowed by the state visit of the Italian Minister Pavolini. In the evening there was a performance at the theater and afterwards a reception in the House of the Airmen. At night Dr. Goebbels went with me to the ministry where he occasionally spent the night. During the night I had to telephone to several gentlemen; and in the morning the minister, in my presence, presented to Herr Fritzsche the two announcements which were then broadcast, the first containing the military reasons and the second containing the secret service reasons. Herr Fritzsche did not even have time to look at these announcements, moreover, he had a sore throat and I had to read the second broadcast with the secret service reasons; I also had not seen these announcements beforehand.
DR. FRITZ: What about Yugoslavia?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: The same thing happened In the evening the minister had dismissed his adjutant, had given him leave. During the night I had to call the various gentlemen over the phone and ask them to assemble; and early in the morning the statement, which up to that time had been completely unknown to us, was read to us over the radio.
DR. FRITZ: And what happened in the case of the attack on the Soviet Union? ~
VON SCHIRMEISTER: That was even more preposterous. Before the attack on the Soviet Union, the minister, for purposes of camouflage, had lied to his own department chiefs. Around the beginning of May he selected 10 of his colleagues out of the 20 who ordinarily participated in the conferences, and he told them: "Gentlemen, I know that some of you think that we are going to fight Russia, but I must tell you today that we are going to fight England; the invasion is imminent. Please adapt your work accordingly. You, Dr. Glasmeier, will launch a new propaganda campaign against England..." These were impudent lies told to his own department chiefs for purposes of camouflage.
DR. FRITZ: Are you implying that no one in the Propaganda Ministry knew of the imminent campaign against Russia?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: No. The following gentlemen in the Propaganda Ministry knew about the Russian campaign-if I may presume, a letter to Dr. Goebbels from Lammers offered a clue for it, for in it Lammers told the minister in confidence that the Fuehrer intended to appoint Herr Rosenberg to be Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories; the letter also asked Dr. Goebbels to name a liaison man from our ministry to Herr Rosenberg personally, and that, of course, gave away the secret. The people who knew of this were the minister; Herr Hadamowsky, as his provisional personal representative; Dr. Tauber, the liaison man to be appointed; I, myself, because by accident I had read this letter; and the head of the foreign press department, Dr. Bohme. Dr. Bohme, and this is very important, told me on the day before his arrest in the presence of Prince Schaumburg-Lippe that he had received this information from Rosenberg's circle, that is-and I want to emphasize this-not from our ministry or from our minister. Otherwise, as heads of two parallel departments, both would, of course, have been informed. If Bohme did not know it from the minister, then Herr Fritzsche could not have known it either. As a result of a careless remark on this subject, Bohme was arrested on the following day and later killed in action.
DR. FRITZ: Now I want to summarize this part of my examination in the following general question: Did you ever notice that before important political or military actions of the Government or the NSDAP, Goebbels exchanged ideas about future plans with the Defendant Fritzsche?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: It is quite impossible that that occurred; it would have been in complete contradiction to the minister's principles. Not only did he not exchange ideas on future plans but. he did not even inform anyone.
DR. FRITZ: Now we shall turn to a different subject. The Prosecution charges the Defendant Fritzsche with having influenced the German people in the idea of the master race and thus with having incited hatred against other nations. Did Fritzsche ever receive instructions at all to conduct a propaganda campaign on behalf of the theory of the master race?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: No, under no circumstances. In this connection, one must know that Dr. Goebbels could not at all use this Party dogma and myth. These are not things which attract the masses. To him the Party was a large reservoir in which as many different sections of the German people as possible should be united; and particularly this idea of the master race, perhaps on account of his own physical disability, he ridiculed and rejected completely; it did not appeal to him. Shall I answer the question of hatred now? You also asked me about that.
DR. FRITZ: Yes.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: A propaganda of hatred against other nations was quite contrary to the propaganda line as set out by Dr. Goebbels, for he hoped, and to the end he clung to this hope like a fata morgana , that one day he could change from the policy of "against England" and "against America" to the policy of "with England" and "with America." And if one wants to do that one cannot foster hatred against a nation. He wanted to be in line with the nations, not against them.
DR. FRITZ: Against whom then was this propaganda in the press and on the radio directed?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Primarily, against systems; it was Dr. Goebbels who established the concept "plutocracy" in the sense in which the whole world knows it today, later the concept "Bolshevism" was added from the other side. Sometimes his propaganda was directed against some of the men in power; but he could not get the full co-operation of the German press on that point. That annoyed him; and in a conference he once said, "Gentlemen, if I could put 10 Jews in your place, I could get it done." But later he stopped these attacks on personalities such as Churchill; he was afraid that these men would become too popular as a result of his counterpropaganda. Apart from that he did not hate Churchill personally at all, secretly he actuary admired him; just as, for example, throughout the war he had a picture of the Duke of Windsor on his desk. Therefore the propaganda of hatred was directed temporarily against individual men but always against systems.