dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SAUTER: I do not believe quite so, Mr. President, because the witness Hoepken, who is listed under number two, and who from 1938 was already a collaborator of the defendant von Schirach, especially with regard to the Reich Youth Leadership, and this witness could give information especially about the activity of the defendant von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader and in particular about his efforts to get in contact with the youth of other nations, that is for instance England and France, to come to an understanding and to friendship. I believe, gentlemen, with regard to the special importance of these witnesses and with regard to the list which the defendant von Schirach displays in naming witnesses, one should acknowledge that both witnesses, one and two, not by way of choice, but both of them should be granted. The addresses of both witnesses have been submitted to the Tribunal. They are in a camp and I believe, gentlemen, that in order to get a picture of everything, of the entire facts, it is necessary to call both.
THE PRESIDENT: I still do not follow what the essential difference is between the two.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have just pointed out that the witness Hoepken, number two, had a leading position in the Reich Youth Leadership also and that therefore the witness Hoepken, number two, would be in a position to give information officially about the activity of the defendant von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, you stated that Wieshofer, number one, was adjutant to Schirach in his capacity as Reich Leader of Education of Youth so that he was in just as close contact with the defendant on the question of the education of youth as Hoepken.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, but Hoepken, in his main function, was concerned with education of youth, while the activity of the defendant Wieshofer was limited mainly to the job of adjutant of the defendant von Schirach and mainly in his capacity as Gauleiter in Vienna.  That is the main difference. Those witnesses who could provide information about his activity in Vienna, those are mainly the witness Wieshofer and in a minor way also Hoepken.  But I need Hoepken, Mr. President, as I said for the clarification of the activity of Schirach in the Reich Youth Leadership. Mr. President, may I also point out for the defendant von Schirach, everything depends on this and from the point of view of the Court it should really not make much difference, and whichis so important to Schirach, whether one witness would be called or two. Gentlemen of the Tribunal, for this point I could have suggested four witnesses in the hope that then I would get approval for two.  If now, in the name of the defendant von Schirach, I am only asking for two witnesses right from the outset, I would not think it very just if you would grant only one of these two.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you have said.
DR. SAUTER: Furthermore, in the third place, I have the witness Hartmann-Lauterbacher.  I have asked to call him and if I understood correctly, the Prosecutionagrees.  Therefore, I can be very brief. The witness Lauterbacher, who was Chief of Staff of the Reich Youth Leadership, is expected especially to supply information about the fact that the defendant von Schirach has in no way prepared the youth psychologically or pedagogically for an aggressive war. And furthermore, that the statement by the Russian Prosecution, which was made in one of the sessions during February -- I believe on the 9th of February, 1946 -- the allegations which were taken from a Polish report, were definitely false, that is, the Hitler Youth had used spies and agents in Poland, instructed them, trained them as parachutists and such, that all that is false and the witness Lauterbacher will prove that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, Sir David said he would not object to numbe three being called as a witness but what he did object to was six and seven, whom you are also asking for as oral witnesses, because he said they repeated what Lauterbacher said -- number six and seven, that is Schmidt and Schluender.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, sir.  Mr. President, here there is also a difficulty. There are the difficulties which I pointed out before. From the report which was read by the Soviet Prosecution on the 9th of February, 1946, which was a report by the Polish Government, it cannot be seen during what time these things concerning the agents and spies of the Hitler Youth happened or should have happened. Now it can happen if I call only the one witness, that then it would be alleged that it happened during another time, perhaps during the time when this witness was in the army.  That is the reason why, in the interest of the complete clarification of these conditions, I have asked also to call the witness number six, that is to say the witness Schmidt, here before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you say that, does it not appear that with reference to Schluender, his collaboration with the defendant extended from 
     1933 to 1945 and therefore if he were called or were to give an affidavit or an interrogatory, and Lauterbacher, who extends from 1933 to 1940, you would cover the whole period and you could exclude Schmidt.
DR. SAUTER: If I understand you correctly, Mr. President, you are referring to an interrogatory in the case of Lauterbacher.
THE PRESIDENT: No, Lauterbacher, Sir David was prepared to have called a a witness.
DR. SAUTER: Lauterbacher as a witness and Schmidt an interrogatory?
THE PRESIDENT: That Schmidt and Schluender were cumulative.  You said they did not relate to the same period, as I understood you, and that might raise a difficulty.  So I pointed out to you that number seven relates to the whole period, that is to say from 1933, beyond the period dealt with by Lauterbacher, and goes to 1945 and therefore, if he were called, that would cover the whole period and if you called Lauterbacher and Schluender and left out Schmidt -
DR. SAUTER: So that from Schmidt I would get an interrogatory?  Yes, I would agree to that.
THE PRESIDENT: And the statements which you make with reference to Schmidt and to Schluender are practically identical.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, only they refer to different times as each of the two was in the army.  If one of them comes he cannot say anything about the time during which he served in the army, for instance, he cannot give any information as to whether during his time in the army agents would have been used.
THE PRESIDENT: But you have stated that there were collaborators with the defendant from 1938 to 1945 in the one case and from 1933 to 1945 in the other case, and therefore if that is correct they can't have been in the Army, they can't have taken an active part in the army.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should be quite prepared to agree to the suggestion that your Lordship put forward; that would then cover the whole period.  If both Lauterbacher and Schluender were called it would dispense with the necessity for Schmidt.
DR. SAUTER: May I also point out that in the case of Schluender, who has been arrested a few weeks ago, that I need Schluender in any case because he was a specialist with the Reich youth leadership for physical training, and therefore I expect especially through Dr. Schluender to prove that the education of the youth, such as defendant von Schirach was in charge of, was definitely nothing extraordinary nor militaristic.  The defendant von Schirach, during the entire trial so far, has always -
THE PRESIDENT: I think, really, there is a substantial agreement between you and Sir David that one and three certainly should be called and that seven might be called, but I don't know whether Sir David agrees whether an affidavit or interrogatories might be given by six.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to that, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: That is substantially what you want, Doctor?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; let us go on then.
DR. SAUTER: Yes. Then under number four I have mentioned an affidavit by a witness Maria Hoepken. Concerning this affidavit which is already in my possession, I will submit this to the Tribunal and to the prosecution at the same time when I submit my book of documents. Then I have also an affidavit, if I may mention that now, in my possession from two witnesses:  number nine, Dr. Klingspor, and number ten, Dr. Rosen, and here the same thing applies,--the Tribunal and the prosecution will receive these affidavits together with my document book. Concerning number eight, the witness Hoffmann, the prosecution, since this witness is here in Nurnberg, agree to having him called as a witness, therefore I believe that I do not have to make any detailed statements con 
     cerning this witness. The same applies to number twelve and number thirteen, both witnesses. Gauobmann Schneeberger from Vienna, will mainly inform us about the relations, the attitude, of the defendant concerning the question of foreign workers during the time of his activity as gauleiter in Vienna. And number thirteen, Field Marshal von Blomberg, shall inform us about the attitude of the defendant von Schirach to the question of the pre-military education of the youth, to the question of physican training, and the question of patriotic education of youth by the defendant von Schirach. The prosecution agrees that these witnesses should be questioned by way of interrogatories, which I have also suggested myself. Now, I come to the one figure on my list which is very important to my client and myself, that is number 11, the application to examine a French woman by the name of Ida Vasseau. From this witness, Ida Vasseau, we have heard of her in court for the first time when the Soviet prosecution submitted a report from a commission about the atrocities of the Fascist-German invaders in the area of Lemberg; Document USSR No. 6.
DR. SAUTER: In this document we can find a sentence which says that a French woman, Ida Vasseau, who was active in a children's home in Nurnberg, had reported that the Hitler yough had committed particularly atrocities in Nurnberg. It was alleged that from the ghetto small children had been sold; however, it was not told by whom and to whom these children were allegedly sold; and particularly, it is supposed to have been the Hitler Youth who used these small children as targets. Gentlemen, I am sure we can see that such events represent quite a particular atrocity, and I can tell you that of the entire prosecution, the presentations of the prosecution during the last three months, nothing has depressed the defendant Schirach more than this assertion. The defendant Schirach has always, also in his interrogation, has had the opinion and views that so far as the education and training of the German Youth are concerned, which was under his guidance, he will take full responsibility; and that he is also prepared here, as defendant, to explain to the Tribunal which were the principles which guided him, which aim he had, and which were the measures 
     of success which he had. He has never--
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, you are only applying for witnesses, aren't you now?  You see, you agree in your application to an affidavit -
DR. SAUTER: I did not understand, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What I was pointing out to you was that this is only an application with reference to witnesses, and in your application you say that however, in consideration of the far distance of thewitness from Nurnberg,  I agree at first that an affidavit should be drawn up.
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That an affidavit should be drawn up; so you are in agreement and I don't understand why we should be troubled with further application.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, to my application I have added something. I have written that a personal appearance of this witness before the Tribunal would be essential so that she could be questioned, because this information is important in order to judge the Hitler Youth as a whole.
THE PRESIDENT: You have reserved that right after the application having been sworn.  Well, you can prepare the affidavit and ten send it out to the witness and then you can see whether you want the witness for cross examination, and Sir David agrees to that course.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, for my client only one thing was important. that among eight million members just one such atrocious case of cruelty happened, and about such thirds he has never heard anything in his position, and I agree that an affidavit could be used; but only for this case I would like to reserve the calling of witness eventually if that affidavit should not be sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: That deals with the witnesses, and we'd better adjourn. (A recess was taken until 1400 hours). Official transcript of the International Military Tribunal in the matter of: The United States of America, the French Re public, The United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, against Hermann Wilhelm Goering, et al, Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 6 March 1946, 14-5-1700, Lord Justice Lawrence presiding. SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFE:  May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the documents for which Dr. Sauter asked, the Prosecution take the usual line that there is no general objection to extracts being used, but at this stage they reserve their right to challenge admissibility of the extracts on the grounds of relevance. They will have to look particularly closely at No. 9, the book entitled "Look, the Heart of Europe", and the commentary on it by the late Lloyd George but they can see that these are particularly matters which can be more conveniently dealt with when they have seen the document book and the extracts are before them. DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Schirach):  Mr. President, I can state my position regarding the documents very briefly.  In the main, it is a question of books, addresses, and essays, by the defendant von Schirach.  I have these literary works in my possession and I shall submit them to the Prosecution along with my document book.  In the document book I shall then outline the individual extracts from these books.  I shall submit them to the Prosecution and to the Tribunal so that both of them can refer to the individual excerpts. I believe that is all I have to say on that subject.
DR. SEIDL: (Counsel for the defendant Hess):  Mr. President, My Lord Justices, on the 20th of February I made an application for additional material for the defendant Hess.  I would be obliged to the Tribunal if the Tribunal would inform me whether it would like to hear the argument in regard to this application now or later, since I do not yet know whether the Court has a translation of my application in its hands.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not seen the application yet, so I thin you had better postpone making the argument until the Tribunal has seen the application 
     DR. SEIDL:  Very well, Mr. President. DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the defendant Sauckel):  For the defendant Sauckel I have suggested a number of witnesses and in my preliminary remarks to the list I have divided them into various groups. The special characteristics of this evidence are to be seen by the fact that smaller relationships must be clarified in this case.  The Prosecution, in its case against Sauckel, limited itself to general considerations that would inculpate him, and it also did not work out in detail the complicated matters of SS camps and matters that were carried out in the scope of the Arbeitseinsatz and so on. Sauckel's entire activity has not been clarified, or has been clarified but slightly.  I am consequently obliged to present his work staff, his collaborators, and dossiers of their activity.  It looks at first as if my list of witnesses were cumulative, but more previse examination of it shows that they represent different fields.  Some of them were experts in the East; some, experts in the West or in theSouth.  Then, there is the creation of the Arbeitseinsatz and the care and housing in the places of work that were occupied by the various groups.  Another group is the recruiting of the worker in foreign countries, on which also witnesses must be heard. The basic question regarding Sauckel is the question of the Arbeitseinsatz.  The question of the conspiracy is of secondary importance.  I believe I can rely in large measure on what is presented by the other defense counsel in their various cases.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the prosecution has endeavored to follow Dr. Servatius in considering the suggested witnesses under various heads. The first witness, Ambassador Abetz, falls into a class by himself. The defendant's counsel wishes to call this witness on the question of agreements between him and Laval. The prosecution submit that that cannot affect the position over, certainly, occupied France, and they suggest that this witness is really irrelevant to the main charges which have been made against this defendant. They are, however, willing--my French colleagues will, if Dr. Servatius desires it, let him know the effect of an interrogation of Ambassador Abetz with regard to this subject,  I don't want to comment on it at the moment, because it is obviously a matter which Dr. Servatius should consider before any comment is made in Court. However, if he will allow me to say so, I think it would be useful if he considered that point before any decision was come to. Then, the next group are the witnesses 2 to 8. They all come from the Reich Ministry of Labor, and they are called to speak generally as to the defendant's attitude, the limitations on him as regards recruiting, and his personal dealings with offenders. The prosecution suggest that it will be reasonable for Dr. Servatius to select the two best out of the eight for oral testimony, and two more to give affidavits. The next three, numbers 9, 10, and 11, were members of the defendant Sauckel's staff, who are sought to be called to give evidence as to his efforts for good conditions. Again, the prosecution suggest a selection, and put forward one witness and one affidavit. Number 12, the witness Hoffman, is called for the purpose of saying that the DAF, the Deutsche Arbeiter Front, looked after the welfare of foreign workers by agreement with the late Dr. Ley. The prosecution submit that that witness would be cumulative, and object to him, as that subject is already covered.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then there are a series of witnesses, numbers 13 to 18, who deal with the relations and liaison between the defendant Sauckel and the DAF. These are substantially still on the same point, and the prosecution 
     suggest that one witness and one affidavit out of that group would be sufficient. The next witness, number 19, Karl Goetz, bank director, deals with the question of wages, and also of the transmission of money to their homes, by foreign workers. The prosecution suggest that that is the sort of material which might conveniently be dealt with by an affidavit or an interrogatory, according to Dr. Servatius' wishes. Number 20, Beckurtz, deals with the special conditions of foreign workers at Gustloff. That subject has been thoroughly covered: in general by previous witnesses, and the prosecution suggest that this particular witness is cumulative. With regard to Franz Seldte, from the Reich Ministry for Labor, he deals with the division of authority between Sauckel and Ley, and that Sauckel had nothing to do with labor from concentration camps. Again, the prosecution suggest that an affidavit would show how far the witness Seldte is speaking merely of routine matters,  such as orders and the like, and how far he is dealing with individual or personal matters. If he does in fact deal with individual and personal matters and interviews, then I suggest that Dr. Servatius could resume application on that point. The witness Darre, who was the former Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture, is sought in order to speak as to the defendant's efforts to get higher food rations for foreign workers, especially in eastern areas. The prosecution suggest that this witness also is cumulative, and they will indicate a number of other witnesses and documents which deal with this point. As to number 23, Reinecke, there is no objection. Number 24, Colonel Frantz, is sought for to say that French prisoners of war were exchanged against voluntary workers. The prosecution object on the ground of irrelevance. As to number 25, there is no objection to Dr.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Lammers, who is being called by, I think, every defendant, or practically every defendant. The next, 26, the witness Peukert, again deals with the administrative position and apparatus of Sauckel, which has already been treated by witnesses at considerable length, and the prosecution object to this as cumulative. Number 27, Governor Fischer, Chief of Labor in the Government General, is called to say that Sauckel had made dealings with the SS in regard to resettlement. Again, if he is speaking as to rules and orders that were laid down, we suggest an affidavit. As I understand it, the next witness, Dr. Wilhelm Jaeger, is asked for for cross examination on his affidavit. That is United States Document 202, and the references in the transcript are 1322 to 1327 and 3057. No request was made at the time, and I leave it to Dr. Servatius to explain his position before dealing with this point. The next two, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharman, deal with the public health aspect of foreign workers. They deal with different districts. The prosecution submit that that question could be dealt with by one affidavit. The next three witnesses, 31, 32, and 33--I think the position is that Dr. Servatius wants one of the three to dispute certain evidence given by M. Dubost on the 28th of January that the defendant authorized the evacuation of Buchenwald. I have looked at pages 3466 to 3492 of the transcript, but I cannot find the evidence which Dr. Servatius has in mind, and perhaps he would be good enough to indicate it to the Tribunal. With regard to 34, Skorzeny, who is called to prove that the defendant, as Gauleiter, had nothing to do with concentration camps, we make no objection. With regard to Schwarz, to prove that the chart of the Party produced before the Tribunal was incorrect in one respect, we suggest that that be allowed. With regard to Frau Sauckel, whom it is desired to speak as to the defendant's charitable disposition irrespective of the Party, the prosecution suggest that that is irrelevant to the issues before the Tribunal.