dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. EXNER: I should like, first of all, to speak regarding No. 3, Kipp. The Prosecution has its objections to this witness. We need him to provide information regarding the origin of the Fuehrerbefehl of the 18th of October 1942, that is, the Fuehrerbefehl regarding kommandos. This was a great affliction to Jodl and it is very important to hear exactly how this order came about, the order that airborne troops should be executed. The objection, so far as I understand it, that the Prosecution has to this witness and to this whole theme of evidence is that it appears as if this would be concerned with the events of Dieppe, which was the reason why this order was issued. But we are not concerned to examine the events of Dieppe or to portray them in all their details. He couldn't do that, because he was in the OKW and was not a witness to these occurrences. We are concerned with something else, to wit, the fact that certain reports were presented to the OKW which led to the issuing of this order. When these reports about the events at Dieppe reached the OKW, the Fuehrer became enraged and ordered strict measures to be taken against these commandos. Jodl refused to issue this order or to even draw it up as he was required to do by the Fuehrer. When he was pressed on this matter he said he did not know how he could provide any reason for that order. Because of the particular legal complication of this matter, Jodl submitted this question to Kipp, who is a professor of law and knew something of law, and asked him to give it his careful scrutiny. Moreover, in the Wehrmacht Fuehrungstab of Jodl an order was issued. A poll was taken of what opinions were held by the staff on this order. These opinions from the various divisions were different in each case. Since in the meantime ten days had passed, Hitler lost patience and he sat down and drew up the whole letter himself, and in a further order he gave his reasons for this order. In other words, Jodl did not draw up this order. He had scruples regarding it and had tried to prevent its being issued.
DR. EXNER: This history of how this order of 28 October 1942 came about, which was, as I said, a great affliction to Jodl, is of great significance, and Kipp shall bear witness to that fact. Further, it was said that as to witness No. 5, Buttlar, there is no objection to him. Regarding No. 4, I am agreeable to an affidavit or interrogatories, but I must make the provision that if the interrogatory is unclear then I may still call him as a witness. I hope that can be avoided. Regarding witness No.7, Buerkner, I should like to point out that he is the same Admiral Buerkner on whom there was debate this morning as a witness in the case of Raeder. Regarding No. 8, the interrogatory has already been sent out. I specifically reserve the right, if the interrogatory is unsatisfactory, to call him, nevertheless, as a direct witness. Otherwise I have nothing further to say on that which the Prosecution has made no objection. I just received a note saying "I had relied on the fact that Buechs would come as a witness."  I had not asked for him. This is apparently a note from Goering's counsel. I shall have to ask the Tribunal to make up its mind on this subject. I had not expected to call him personally.
THE PRESIDENT: Which witness were you talking about?
DR. EXNER: Witness No. 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you say you are asking for him as an oral witness?
DR. EXNER: Goering is also asking for him as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Has he been allowed to the Defendant Goering?
DR. EXNER: He had counted on my calling him as a witness, and then he could at that time put questions to him.  He is here in Nurnberg. Shall I go now to the documents?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. EXNER: Points 1 to 4 are not objected to by the Prosecution. I understand this in the sense that in my document book there is an extract that I intend to read.  I submit the entire document to the Tribunal without its being necessary to have a translation of the whole document, only that part which I am going to read.  If it is a question of a large document and I need only one paragraph of this document, then it is sufficient if I submit this entire original document to the Tribunal and in my document book 
     include only this particular paragraph and its translation.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right.
DR. EXNER: Regarding points 5 and 6, the Prosecution object and I withdraw these two documents. Regarding Document 7, there is a curious thing about it.  That is Document 532, submitted by the Prosecution.  At that time I raised a protest against it and this document was stricken from the record.  Now I myself apply that this document be submitted in evidence.  The document is the outline of an order that was submitted to Jodl.  Jodl did not approve it, crossed it out, and sent it back without signing it.  It was then submitted by the Prosecution and I protested against it, that it should here be submitted as if it were actually an order that Jodl had signed.  Jodl did not approve it.  I want to bring out that Jodl invalidated this law and did what he could to prevent the passing of an illegal law. Regarding points 8 to 15, the Prosecution has no objection. Regarding points 16 and 17 -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Points 16 and 17 are the subject of objection from the Prosecution.  Point 16 relates to the English Close Combat Regulations of the year 1942, and 17 is the English order for the Operation Dieppe of the same year.  with regard to the Close Combat Regulations, the only relevance they could seem to have would be to object to this form of training, and in the submission of the Prosecution it would be relevant on the question of the commando order. With regard to the question of shackling, I think the simplest way of dealing with it is to point that, as my friend Mr. Dodd pointed out, the Prosecution have not introduced that matter into the case, and therefore it would appear that the English order in question was not relevant. Apart from the general contrary objections, neither of these matters seem connected with points in the case. I might just indicate No.21, which is another objection.  That is on the same basis as the old document, which I think the Tribunal has had 
     before, the compilation of the German Foreign Office on breaches of international law, and it is sought for, as the Tribunal will see, as evidence of the reports that were made to the High Command of the Wehrmacht that gave occasion to take  reprisal measures. Then a similar ground of objection applies to No.21, a history of the White Russian Partisan War, which is sought for as evidence that the danger of bandit warfare gave cause for undertaking sweeping counter measures. These objections can be all grouped together.    They fall under the general objections to tu quoque evidence which the Prosecution has maintained throughout the trial.
DR. EXNER: May I say something regarding this?  As far as 16 and 17 are concerned, we simply wanted to have these documents on hand in order to lock at them, in order to judge whether or not we want to submit them in evidence. I have stated so at the foot of the page. As far as their relevance is concerned, we do not assert that these orders contain anything contrary to law, but, for instance, in the order regarding close combat, if English soldiers are instructed to behave in a way with which our soldiers are reproached, then there is a contradiction on hand that is indeed significant.  Then apparently the British Government would be standing on the point of view that on their part such actions are permissible, but if they are permissible to the British they are also permissible to us, because there cannot be two standards in these matters. In order to determine this, we wanted to be able to see these battle orders. That is Number 18. Number 19 is a similar case, but I can more readily understand if that was refused us, because it is perhaps a secret order.  Number 20, the White Book -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing)  Sir David didn't deal with 19, did he? He only dealt with 16, 17, 20 and 21.
DR. EXNER: Yes.  18 end 19 have not been objected to.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understood it, his objection to 16 and 17 was that there was no complaint against the German forces, either with reference to close combat or with reference to shackling, in the Indictment.
DR. EXNER: If, by any chance, in these close combat battle orders, there are pictures there, of if it is ordered that the prisoners should be shackled, then one would be obliged to state that the British Government does not have the point of view that this sort of behavior is illegal. If, then, such thingsare done on our side we cannot be reproached with them. But, as Isaid, it is difficult for me to say anything on the subject of why that is important to us, because I haven't seen these rules for conducting close combat warfare, If I had them in my hands I could then make an application. I would know whether I wanted to submit them in evidence or whether I did not need them. No objection has been raised to 18 and 19. 20 is the White Book that 
     has already been approved for Goering. Consequently, I need not ask for them myself. Regarding Point 21, I  am of the conviction that this cannot be settled with a charge of tu quoque. It is here a question of a Russian book, which describes the fight against the partisans. The author of this book is a Russian who himself was chief of staff or some such thing in partisan warfare for several years, and he writes from personal experience. We do not assert that he Russians would have done the same thing that we did, which would be a tu quoque argument; but I  should like to have this book for another reason. If one is to understand our regulations pertaining to partisans, then one must know these partisans. One must understand them, know how they worked, and one must be able to evaluate their danger. This Russian book describes all that, and is, consequently, important. The author was himself active in partisan warfare. In the Indictment it is said that the partisan warfare was simply an excuse that we used for the annihilation of Jews, Slavs, and so on. One will be able to see from this bock that this partisan warfare was a real war of vast extent and was not an excuse on our part.
DR. EXNER: The book is not to be obtained,  I ask permission to read a short report on it that was recently published in the "Stars and Steipes" regarding the contents of this book. It should be emphasized that the book was written by a Soviet Russian. It cannot be assumed that it is solely inimical to Russia. Therewith I  have concluded ay presentation.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know what your argument is with reference to 21.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was opposing it on the reason that it was given.  The book is asked for as evidence that the danger of bandit warfare gave rise for undertaking sweeping counter measures. Now, broadly, the case for the Prosecution is that the counter measures against partisans constituted atrocities, and evidence of that kind has been given.  It is, in my submission, no defense to the committing of atrocities of the kind given in evidence against partisans that their warfare was of a great extent or very fiercely or bravely waged.  This is just the tu quoque 
     argument in its nakedness, that because partisans fight you, therefore you can burn their villages, shoot their women, and kill their children. That is the argument which we say is irrelevant and is inadmissible. My Lord, I should like to say that I have no objection, if any of these documents can be obtained, to Dr. Exner looking at the documents, but I must on thatpoint to which the Prosecution attachedimportance, I thought it right -- and I know my colleagues desired it -- that I should make our position clear.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your address, Dr. Exner, does it?
DR. EXNER: May I say something regarding what Sir David just said? I am, of course, perfectly aware that those terrible cruelties, as they were here described, cannot be justified by the activities of the partisans, but the more violent the partisan measures became, the more sharply the Germans had to take counter measures.  For this reason there is a  connection.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider your argument. The Tribunal will new adjourn. (The Tribunal adjourned until 7 March 1946, at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Counsel for the Defendant von Papen. (Dr. Egon Kubuschok, Counsel for the Defendant von Papen, and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, came to the lectern.)
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal approves, I shall indicate the views of the Prosecution on the witnesses requested by Dr. Kubuschok.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The first witness is von Lersner, and there is no objection.  This witness ic alled to cover among other things the period of the coming into power of the Hitler Government, which is one of the material elements in the case against von Papen. If the Tribunal would consider the next three witnesses, there is a minor point:  The witness von Tschirschky was, as I understand it, von Papen's private secretary from 1933 to February, 1935.  That is, he covered the period of the rise to power of the Nazi Party,  And he also covers some of the period in Austria. The next witness, von Kageneck, is also a private secretary.  He does not cover theperiod of the rise to power, but covers the whole Austrian period. The next witness, Erbach, was the counsellor at the Embassy in Vienna, That is, he covers the period 1934 to 1938. The Prosecution has always been reluctant to oppose the calling of secretaries who could assist the memory of the Defendant, but it did seem to us that the witness Tschirschky was cumulative both on the period of the rise to power and Austria, and that it would be sufficient to have interrogatories in that case.  Therefore, the Prosecution, apart from that, would not object to von Kageneck and Erbach.
THE PRESIDENT: That is, interrogatories for 2 you suggest, and calling 3 and 4?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, interrogatories, and calling of 3 and 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And with regard to No. 5, the witness Kroll, the Prosecution submits that he is irrelevant. He is called as to the period when the Defendant was an ambassador in Turkey and he is alleged to be able to say that von Papen had no aggressive thoughts with regard to Russia. The Prosecution would submit that really von Papen is the person who can speak as to a matter like that, and the Prosecution have had no evidence as to any subversive activity of the Nazi Party in Turkey, which is the other point that this witness is said to speak to. Then the next five witnesses -- 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10:   The Tribunal granted interrogatories and so long as the matter is limited to interrogatories, the Prosecution will take no objection. And No, 11, the Baroness de Nothomb:  The Prosecution object to evidence as to acts of intercession on behalf of members of the Resistance Movement, and individual acts of that kind, in the submission of the Prosecution, are not really relevant to the matters before the Court. With regard to an archbishop, Groeber, if the Tribunal would mind looking at No, 12, at the application, in the submission of the Prosecution the matters raised by the questions are not relevant. The first is, "Were the Concordat negotiations between Germany and, the Holy See brought about by Defendant von Papen's own initiative?"   The second question is, in short, "Did von Papen make efforts with Hitler about the Concordat?"  Well, the Concordat was made, and what the Tribunal are really concerned with is the breaches of the Concordat, of which the Prosecution has given written evidence. No. 2. under this witness:  I am afraid that I don't understand that, and in its present form I submit  that it is irrelevant, in addition to being vague. "Were the activities of the Defendant directed by his positive religious attitude also after the conclusion of the Concordat?" Then the third question:  "Was the conclusion of the Concordat, welcomed by the German Episcopate?"   I don't think that really helps.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And 4:  "Did the Concordat give legal backing to the Church during the later religious struggles?"  And, "Could the Church fall back on the Concordat to the end?" The Concordat is there and speaks for itself, and as I say, the issue in this case is the breaches of the agreement, not its contents. So we object to No. 12. Number Thirteen, the witness von Beaulieu. That is very short, if the Tribunal would be good enough to look at it: "I shall submit an affidavit of the witness which deals with the intervention of the Defendant as President of the Union Club on behalf of Jews." The Prosecution submit that the intervention in a racing club on behalf of some Jewish members is not really a relevant matter, even on the Jewish issue. Fourteen:  The witness Josten. Dr. Kubuschok asks for the use of a statement which has been sent to the Tribunal. The Prosecution would prefer that to be in the form of an affidavit or interrogatory, if this is possible.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Fourteen, is it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Fourteen, My Lord, yes. Then Fifteen is His Majesty, the King of Sweden.  That is a new application and general in its scope.   It is difficult to judge how much King Gustav could contribute, and, therefore, the Prosecution do not object to interrogatories.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in Fourteen Dr. Kubuschok says that he requested the statement made by the witness to the legal department of the Military Government Headquarters, Dusseldorf, be furnished to him.  Are you objecting to that being furnished to him?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I thought that he had got it
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I got it this morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Kubuschok says that he received it today, this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you objecting to his offering it as evidence?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I only say that we should prefer it in the form of an affidavit or interrogatory, if that can be done.  I do not make any great objection.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness Number One, Baron von Lersner.  The Tribunal granted only an interrogatory at first.  The Prosecutor has today agreed to have the witness called before this Tribunal.  I also ask to have this witness questioned before thie Tribunal.  I also ask to have this witness 
     questioned before the Court. The witness was the President of the German peace Delegation at Versailles. He is a very well known German diplomat, who was since 1932 a very close collaborator of the Defendant von Papen. A man like Lersner had, of course, a particularly good understanding for every policy of aggression.  Therefore, it is very important to hear this collaborator of the Defendant von Papen and to let him tell us how he could observe the Defendant in his activities up to 1945.  It is particularly important that Lersner, upon the suggestion of von Papen -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, Sir David agreed, I think with reference to Number One.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, sir, if the Tribunal also agrees. The second witness, Tschirschky.  Tschirschky was the private secretary of the Defendant from 1933 to 1935, the first private secretary during the time that the Defendant was Vice Chancellor of Germany 
     and was himself a man who was persecuted by the Gestapo and had to go into exile in 1935, where he still is. He is a man who is informed thoroughly and can give thorough information about the external activity of the Defendant and his own attitude between 1933 and 1935. I believe that, especially about the time at the beginning of 1933 we do not get a thorough picture if we do not hear this most intimate collaborator of the Defendant personally.  The other witnesses concern mostly different times.  Only in some cases do they overlap with the activity of this witness. Number Five, Kroll -
THE PRESIDENT: Supposing that the Tribunal thought it right to grant you Number Two as an oral witness, would it not be possible to dispense with one of Three or Four and have interrogatories from one of them and call the other one?  They deal with somewhat the same period.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: We need Three for the following reasons:  Witness Number Three, Count Kageneck, was present when Hitler entrusted Papen with the Austrian mission. This is a very important point since the Prosecution alleges that, for the purposes with which he was accused, he was entrusted with this mission. The witness will say that Papen accepted the mission only after a clear guarantee concerning the purposes. Furthermore, Count Kageneck was in Vienna after 1935; that is to say,  from 1935 until the Anschluss, and about this time we would not have any other witness. Kageneck can also give reasons for an important point. That is, that he was entrusted to take diplomatic papers into Switzerland and bring them into security, because from these papers, the proof for' the activity of the Defendant in Vienna could be seen. Therefore, in my opinion, the witness Kageneck cannot be left out. If we can leave out a witness, that would be witness Number Four, for whom I would be asked to be permitted to use an interrogatory, because questions are asked which the other witnesses could not answer. Witness Number Five, Minister Kroll. Papen is accused of a conspiracy for aggressive war. The Prosecution has not limited the Indictment in time. The largest part of the time in question, 1938 to 1944, Papen was in a position in which for an activity to disturb the peace, he would have been very well qualified. Turkey was for a long time an important pillar in military, and therefore, political, considerations. It is, therefore, of the greatest interest whether Papen has used his position for any activity in the sense of the conspiracy. Moreover, I should like to bring proof for the fact that his activity was directed to preserving the peace and that he has objected to any extension of the war by military measures against Russia and against every political measure for the destruction of good relations with Turkey and between Turkey and the Allied Powers. The witness was, during the Turkish time, the first collaborator of the Defendant.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: He is, therefore, in a position to give us information about the entire time. Baroness do Nothomb. I have asked in this case to be permitted to use an affidavit or interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Which number are you dealing with?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Number Eleven.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not dealing with Six to Ten.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No, we are in agreement about Six to Ten.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Eleven.