dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. FLAECHSNER: Mr. President, I am now turning to the question of witnesses. I would like to make a general remark before I start. The testimony to be offered by the witnesses, which I have already offered in writing, is perhaps a little more comprehensive, especially since those witnesses who have the most comprehensive knowledge have been deleted, that is, the former chief of armaments, Lieutenant General Fromm, who for many years was the chief of the central office of the ministry of Speer. These names which I have included in my list are, in part, men who later were taken into the office. Witness Hupfauer, for instance, who is listed as No. 1, was not called in until the 1st of January, 1945, that is, barely four months' of active functions in this office, and that was as chief of the central office of the Speer ministry. He succeeded the previously mentioned Liebold. I know that if I mentioned several witnesses who were active in the ministry of Speer the appearance is created that these witnesses may be asked about the same points and may possibly be considered as cumulative, but, in reality, such is not the case. These witnesses were active in the ministry of Speer, but they were not in such a manner as a routine official. They did not function as purely routine officials. The ministry of Speer was a war measure and was of an entirely different structure from that which would be ordinarily found in a regular ministry. Much of its function was industrial. Many of the functions were handled by industrialists. Rohland was one of these. He is mentioned as witness No. 2, and he was called in for a steel concern. Then, witness No. 4 was called in in a similar capacity. Witness No. 6 was a manufacturer of a textile concern. He was the owner of this concern. Witness No. 9 was the director of a mining concern, and, in addition to this function, they had special functions in the ministry of Speer.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Therefore, we can see that they were concerned with just a very small segment, covering only those points with which they had been delegated by Speer, and I cannot agree with the objection of the Prosecution that only two of these gentlemenare to be selected by me. I do not knew just how far each of these gentlemen is informed about the matters upon which I would like to cross examine him. I am not in the fortunate position that the Prosecution is of being able to question my witnesses in advance and to find out just what knowledge they do have. I must 
     depend and rely on an interrogatory and can only surmise that the questions which I submit to them can be answered by them. If I follow the objection of the Prosecution and select only two or three of these gentlemen, it may very well happen that I would select the wrong people, those who do not know anything, and, therefore, it is impossible for me, utterly impossible for me to say that these witnesses will know about the essential proceedings against Speer and that we are concerned with these labor problems and that the witnesses should make statements in this regard. It is impossible for me to say that I may delete one of these witnesses. In this list of witnesses, I mention briefly the particulars about which these witnesses are to be heard, and I believe that it is unnecessary for me to make further clarifications or explanations in that regard at this time. I believe my explanations are self-explanatory. Now I am turning to the question of witness No. 7. This witness has already been granted me, and I do not believe that I need to clarify my attitude on this point further. As far as witness No. 9 is concerned, Malzacher, the Prosecution has assorted that this witness would be cumulative to witness No. 1, but I bog to disagree with that statement. The vital question which is to be put to this witness is the question as to how the distribution of manpower was made from the department office to the various industries.
DR. FLAECHSNER: The second question is just how and in what way the offices of Speer's ministry and industries had the opportunity to influence the distribution of manpower and workers, and this witness is essential in this regard. I have further questions to put to this witness, and I am supposed to put these questions in an interrogatory. These questions are supposed to be concerned with destruction. I wanted to make my list especially comprehensive, and therefore mentioned only the main points, and I therefore beg respectfully to be granted the summoning of this witness. I use interrogatories only when witnesses could make utterances or statements which are relevant and vital. On the return of an interrogatory to me, if I find that it does not contain essential material, I will, of course, not abuse the time and the energy of the high Tribunal in submitting a question or interrogatory of that sort. The Prosecution is of the opinion that witnesses 12 and 13 are cumulative, 
     but I do not agree with that point. As far as the facts upon which the witnesses are to testify, perhaps I uttered myself too briefly. The Prosecution produced only one document, 3568, which contained an interrogatory that covered the activity of Speer or his membership in the SS. This document did not, according to the Defendant Speer, originate from him, and, therefore, I would like to have the secretary swear witness to this fact that the document did not originate with Speer. Witness 13 is to testify on an entirely different matter. The Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler had the intention to make an SS man out of Speer and to bring him into his personal staff. Witness Wolff knows of the material which was given by Himmler to be forwarded to Speer, and Wolff should new testify that this document was never forwarded to Speer, and that the alleged SS membership of Speer cannot be discussed. Then, according to the objection of the prosecution, this seems to be a minor point, but I have to enter into it, since document 3568-PS was submitted by the Prosecution and used as evidence for their case.
DR. FLAECHSNER: I agree with the Prosecution that questioning of witness No. 22 is not necessary, and I do not insist on it. As far as the questioning of the other witnesses is concerned, I will use interrogatories as directed.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you what you have to say about 14?   Surely, the fact that the Defendant was ill in the Spring of 1944 -
DR. FLAESCHNER: Yes, Mr. President, I did not include this question in the interrogatory but I do not insist on witness fourteen and we may dispense with him.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it, do you think, Sir David, expedite or help the defendant's counsel if he were to be allowed to issue all these interrogatories and then were to consider them with you and see what was then cumulative?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I should be quite prepared to do that. They are all witnesses who are giving their evidence in writing so that I shall be quite prepared to -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that aspect of the matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal saw fit I should be very happy to cooperate.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you can now deal with the documents, Dr. Flaechsner, or Sir David will.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the documents one to eight deal with the defendant Speer being against the importation into Germany of foreign labor and they seem relevant, apart from number one, which seems rather a non sequitur;  that the amount used in the armament industry does not seem to have any connection, as we can see, with the prisoner-of-war convention in 1929.  And number six, as to the calling up of women in Germany, seems rather remote.  But perhaps these matters can be more conveniently dealt with when counsel seeks to introduce the documents. Numbers nine to thirteen shows the general attitude of the defendant Speer to the treatment of foreign workers and therefore appears relevant. Number fourteen deals with the point on which I think it is desired also to have evidence from the witness Milch. Numbers fifteen to eighteen are reports showing the hopelessness of the economic situation in Germany from June 1944 onwards.  The Prosecution makes no objection at the moment.  Of course, all these matters will have to be considered when the document is used and numbers nineteen to forty-one all deal with the efforts of the defendant Speer to prevent destruction of 
     bridges and railways and water transport undertakings and the like during the last few weeks of the war. They might be relevant on sentence and therefore the Prosecution make no objection. Perhaps learned counsel will set out the quotations which he wants admitted in that regard.  It is not a matter on which the Prosecution have called any contrary evidence and therefore if counsel will indicate what are the matters he wants submitted, it may be that we will be able to agree and shorten the presentation. With regard to documents thirty-eight to forty-one, these are said to be in the possession of the French delegation.  They are not in the possession of the French delegation at the moment but they have asked for them to be sent here. I think that covers our position as to documents.
DR. FLAECHSNER: I would like to comment, but briefly, on one factor. Document Number One is of value only if the high Tribunal will decide to call in a panel of experts or whether you intend that you should be allowed to designate the persons who would form that panel.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Mr. President, the selection of experts I wish to place in the hands of the Tribunal.  I myself would have no possibility of calling in a personality who would qualify in this regard.  I am fully cognizant of the fact that in the Department of Economic Warfare there were personalities who could qualify as experts and who have the qualifications and prerequisites and the prior knowledge to judge the questions involved.
THE PRESIDENT: Then supposing that the Tribunal were not to accept your contention as to appointing a panel of experts, there is nobody whom you wish to add to your list of interrogatories?
DR. FLAECHSNER: I believe not, Mr. President. I have one request.  This expert should voice an opinion whether the figures given by Mr. Deuss in his affidavit (2520-PS) whether they are actual figures and this expert should voice his opinion as to whether these statistic or figures, as given, would stand up under close examination. In this affidavit, Mr. Deuss stated and showed a mathematical basis as to just how many of the total workers employed in Germany were foreign 
     workers, how many were armament workers -- correction -- how much foreign labor was employed in armament work. The method of figuring used by Mr. Deuss is not entirely objective and I have my doubts about these figures. If the High Tribunal would not grant the use of an expert in this matter, I wish to ask for the privilege of submitting certain questions in the form of an interrogatory to Mr. Deuss, and  I ask forthis privilege that I may giveMr. Deuss the opportunity to again check his original figures. The affidavit as given by Mr. Deuss and the statements contained therein have already been considered relevant by the Prosecution at some prior time, and I assume that the objection which is made against the figures and statistics of Mr. Deuss are also such, and I humbly request that I may call Mr. Deuss' attention to those points which in my opinion are not true in an objective light.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I beg your pardon since I have not exchanged opinions on the subject with my colleagues and for that reason at the present time I am expressing only the viewpoint of the Soviet delegation on the subject of experts. I do not think that appointment of a board of experts would be a method of solving the question which is correct in principle.  We would object to the solving of the question of the defendant Speer by the experts.  We do not consider it right that such a  question as the orders issued with regard to the foreign workers by Speer or the confirmation of such orders by Sauckel or the distribution of the foreign workers by the local authorities should be determined by experts.  We do not consider it right that the question of the technical distribution needs experts.  I can say the same thing with regard to the other points. We are rather inclined to defend the point of view that all these questions can be solved by the Tribunal itself without the panel of experts. For that reason, the Soviet Prosecution objects to satisfying this request for the board of experts and requests that the Tribunal reject this request.
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the defendant von Neurath.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the witnesses of the defendant von Neurath, the Prosecution make no objection to No. 1, Dr. Koepke, who was the director of the Political Division in the Foreign Office. Then, No. 2, Dr. Gauss, is the witness who has already been granted for the defendant Ribbentrop. With regard to the third, Dr. Diekhoff, the Tribunal granted this witness on the 19th of December, but the Prosecution, having considered the basis of the present application, respectfully suggests that it might be covered by interrogatories. DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN (Counsel for defendant von Neurath):  Mr. President I agree, and I have already worked out an interrogatory which will be submitted to the General Secretary today, but I wish to reserve the right that if the interrogatory is returned to me, I may still ask for the personal testimony of this witness, but I am satisfied with an interrogatory at this point.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Much obliged. As the same view is taken by the Prosecution of No. 4, the witness Pruefer, again it seemed to be largely a historical matter and they suggested an interrogatory.  There is no objection to the evidence of the witness being brought before the Court.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: This interrogatory has already been submitted to the General Secretary.  I did this several weeks ago, and I assume that I will have it returned to me, fully answered, in a reasonable period of time,
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, No. 5 is Count Schwerin-Krosigk, who was Finance Minister for a long period of years in the government of the Reich. If the Tribunal would be good enough to look at the application with Dr. von Luedinghausen has put in, he says this witness is most accurately informed about the personality of the defendant, his political viewpoints, as well as the basic thoughts and aims of the policy of peace carried on by the defendant, and his avoidance of all use of force as well as his endeavors 
     for the maintenance of peace, even after being Foreign Minister, as well as his opinion of National Socialism and about the happenings in the Cabinet session of 30 January 1937. The Prosecution felt that these matters were really emphasizing points that the defendant would speak to, and it was difficult to see that Count Schwerin-Krosigk was being asked to speak as to any particular point that was initial.  Therefore, again they would suggest that an interrogatory would be sufficient for the purpose of the defense.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: I do not believe that an interrogatory will serve the same purpose that I wish to accomplish, for several activities of the defendant von Neurath are implicated and this would enable him to clear these matters for us. Von Neurath is indicted for Fifth Column activity of the Conservative Party, and the fact that this is not true can be asserted by Witness No. 5, Schwerin-Krosigk, and I put special stress on the fact of having this matter cleared up before the High Tribunal so that the High Tribunal may have an exact idea of the chain of events as they took place at that time. And a further question arises, and the other purpose of his testimony is to show in which way von Neurath, even though he was not Foreign Minister at the time, stepped in to bring about the conference at Munich in September 1938, and to show the extent of his activities, activities which were hailed by the German people. I put special stress on the summoning of this witness who is present in Nurnberg.  He will not have to be brought from another city, you see, but we will bring him as a witness before this High Tribunal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don't desire to say anything more on that point. Then, Field Marshal von Blomberg is, we understand, ill, and there will be an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Number seven, Dr. Giudo Schmidt, is the same witness as was dealt with this morning in the case of Seyss-Inquart. He is an Austrian ex-foreign minister.  I made no objection in the case of Seyss-Inquart and I make no objection now, of course. Lord Halifax has been the subject of interrogatories.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: This interrogatory has already been sent to Lord Halifax, as I have been told by the General Secretary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Mastny, who was the Czech ambassador in Berlin came into the case in that the prosecution put in a letter from him describing a visit of Dr. Mastny to the defendant von Neurath.  Of course, if there is any issue as to that report, its not being true, then there would be some reason for calling him as a witness; but if it is merely a question of clarifying it I should stress an interrogatory should be sufficient.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: I agree to an interrogatory in this case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then with regard to the next witness, Dr. Stroelin, if the Tribunal would consider that with number twelve, Dr. Wurm, I understand that the Tribunal granted number twelve on the 19th of December as an alternative to Stroelin, and giving the choice between the witness Stroelin and the witness Wurm.  Dr. Stroelin is Oberbuergemeister of Stuttgart. I don't know if Dr. Seidl could tell the Tribunal if it is the same Dr. Stroelin he desires in the case of Hess. *     *     *     *     *     * He indicates to me that he is, so the Tribunal might note that point that that witness will also be asked for by Dr. Seidl in the case of Hess, and therefore I should suggest that we might leave that in suspense for the moment. If the Tribunal grant it in the case of Hess of course Dr. von Luedinghausen will automatically have the advantage of this witness; and if he is not granted -- and I don't know whether Dr. Luedinghausen feels strongly about his personal presence -- I am not the court -- I don't feel very strongly on the point myself.  Do you want to be heard?
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree that I should make this decision at this point.  Perhaps after we settle the question of having assigned this witness to another defendant already, I would like to at-
THE PRESIDENT: One moment.  Which one?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number ten, Dr. Stroelin.
THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Stroelin were granted would you require Dr. Wurm at all, number twelve?
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, Dr. Wurm I would not insist on for a personal appearance at Nurnberg.  He has already told me that he would give me the information in the form of an affidavit, and I would only request the privilege of submitting these affidavits to the High Tribunal.  I do not insist on his personal appearance in the court.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is merely accumulative, number ten, but if it is felt that an affidavit would help--it will be along the same lines--I shall not press an objection. Now, number eleven.  The prosecution felt with regard to the witness Zimmermann that he was really speaking as to the contents of the defendant's mind.  If I might read the first five lines: "The witness is in a position to give information about the personality, the character, and the philosophy of the defendant, as well as about the fact that he entered the cabinet only at the express request of the Reich President von Hindenburg, and why he remained in the cabinet after the latter's death was that he was a convinced friend of peace and an opponent of any policy pointing toward force or war, and that because of this reason he turned in his resignation as Reich Foreign Minister soon after the 5th of November 1937, further because of what reasons and motives he declared himself ready to take over the office of Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia." It would appear that these are all matters which Sr.  Zimmermann has heard from the defendant.  I don't really think it helps the defendant's case any further.  The prosecution therefore felt that that witness was irrelevant.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: I request a personal appearance 
     of this witness for the reason that he has been an old friend of von Neurath for many, many years, and the defendant rather considered him as a fatherconfessor and told him many, many things, so that this witness has an impression of everything told by von Neurath. This witness is accurately informed about the incidents that took place in the summer of 1932, when von Neurath entered the newly-formed cabinet of von Papen upon the express desire of the then Reich President von Hindenburg. The witness is informed in detail and can testify that the defendant did not wish to accept the call, and that it took severe persuasion on the part of the Reich President von Hindenburg, concerning his patriotic and personal duty, and in that way that was the only way in which the defendant could be persuaded to assume this office. This witness also knows the motives upon which the Reich President considered him obligated to carry them out beyond his death and to remain in office, and in that way to fulfill the wishes of the former Reich President. He also knows the devastating offect that took place upon von Neurath when in 1937 Hitler, with marshal intent, came to the fore. Witness Zimmermann also knows in every detail the motives which made it possible for von Neurath to assume the office of Reich Protector; and the witness also knows in every detail of all these difficulties confronting the Reich Protector. He also knows the attitude the defendant took toward the problems confronting him in the Reich Protectorate. These comments, as aforementioned, are of decisive value so far as the defendant's case is concerned, and I do not believe that even the affidavit which has been worked out with the greatest care can create the same impression and the same weight as a personal appearance of this witness and for that reason I humbly suggest that this witness be granted me, this witness who has already given me his assurance that he will be glad to come to Nurnberg from Berlin.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: We will not have to find him; he is a practising lawyer in Berlin at present.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don't wish to add to that.  That leaves one point, My Lord. The two witnesses, thirteen and fourteen.  The first one, Dr. Voelkers, was the chief of the cabinet of defendant von Neurath in Prague.  He has not been located.  The second, von Holleben, was -
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: This witness is in an internment camp at Neuminster, and I indicated the exact address.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then I think the submission of the prosecution is that one of these witnesses is suitable, and that it would be unnecessary to call the second witness if Dr. Voelkers is available. That is my point.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree, but I would like to know whether the second, von Holleben, will be subject to an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: It is now a quarter to one; we will adjourn until two. (A recess was taken until 1400 hours.) Official Transcript of the International Military Tribunal in the Matter of The United States of Africa, the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics against Hermann Wilhelm Goering et al, Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 7 March 1946, 1400-1700, Lord Justice Lawrence presiding.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears probable that the Tribunal will finish the applications for witnesses and documents before the end of the sitting today, but they do not propose to go on with the case against the defendant Goering until tomorrow.  They will take that case at ten o'clock tomorrow morning.