dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the documents applied for by the defendant von Neurath, paragraph 1 requires no comment. Paragraph 2 refers to documents which Dr. Luedinghausen has in his possession.  If they are treated in the usual way and extracts are made, I have nothing further to say. Then we come to documents that are not yet in his possession.  Number 1 and number 4 are minutes of the Disarmament Conference in 1932 and in May 1933 respectively.  I am afraid I don't know what the difficulty has been in obtaining those documents, and if there is any way in which the prosecution can help, they will.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: Concerning document number 1, I was able to find in the meantime, in one of the documents which referred to the Disarmament Conference, a copy of that which is important for me.  That is to say, the resolution about the equality of Germany.  If the document which I have asked for is not here in time, I am in a position to produce an excerpt of the text from that German book. However, that does not apply to point 4, and I would like to be able to get that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 2 is a request for the interrogation of Karl Hermann Frank. The ruling of the Tribunal was that only the portions of interrogations of defendants used by the prosecution would be liable to production.  If any portions of this interrogation were used by the Soviet prosecution, and I confess- THE PRESIDENT (Interposing):  One moment, please.  Sir David, as I understood you, you didn't state our ruling quite accurately.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I think our ruling was that if the prosecution put in any part of an interrogation of a defendant, then the defendants would have the opportunity of using any other part of the interrogation, treating the interrogation as one document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very grateful to Your Lordship.  That was the rule so far as defendants are 
     concerned, but Karl Hermann Frank is not a defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And any portion that has been used would have appeared in the ordinary way in the document book of whichever delegation had used it.  The general interrogation was taken, of course, not only for the purpose of the Czech Government in the trial of Karl Hermann Frank. Therefore, what I suggest is that Dr. Luedinghausen put interrogatories to Karl Hermann Frank on whatever points he wants to raise.  The prosecution would have no objection to that.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I say the following? These four minutes of the interrogations of Karl Hermann Frank are contained in the document USSR-60, which contains the accusations by the Czech Government; they are mentioned and they are contained in there. I cannot judge how far these interrogations are important concerning my client von Neurath as Reich Protector, or whether they have to do with a later period.  For that reason I have asked to see these protocols. It is known to me that Karl Hermann Frank has also been questioned about the document concerning a meeting in Prague, about a policy of Germanization of Czechoslovakia; and in connection with this document which has been presented--that is to say, which is contained in the report by General Friederitschie---these protocols are also mentioned. Now, I know that Frank has made a report to the Reich Protector in which he mentioned all the opinions and proposals which were then developed, and considered them impossible.  Therefore, it is important for me to know just what is said in these protocols, which the Czech prosecution has presented. If there is nothing in there, then, of course, I will forego the presentation, but I would have to examine it myself. It is, therefore, important to me, at least, to see these protocols, and then to take from these protocols whatever is important for me.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, would you have any objection to counsel for von Neurath seeing these interrogatories?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have to consult the Czech Government before I could agree, because, frankly, I haven't gone through the parts which we were not concerned with in this case, and I don't know on what subjects the interrogation was based.
THE PRESIDENT: But treating the matter as a matter of principle, if a certain document or a part of a document is used, ought it not to be open to the defendants to use the rest of the document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought it a matter of principle, My Lord, only if there were connected parts.  I think that is the general rule that is applied, say, to interrogatories in the English Courts.  For example, supposing that one day Karl Hermann Frank was examined about the early days of the protectorate, and then another day he was examined on a specific point at the end of the protectorate.  Then I shouldn't have thought that the two things were sufficiently closely connected. My Lord, I am reminded that there is another point, which Mr. Barrington has just brought to may attention. These interrogatories were the basis of the Czech Government Report.  They are not introduced as interrogatories butso I am told -- as part of the report by the person who drew it.  It is not material that we are in a position to introduce as interrogatories.  They come in as a Government Report from the Czech Government. THE TRIBUNAL (MR. Biddle):  If it should develop later that it is relevant to the occasion, could the Prosecution object to that material being introduce
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. If he can get the material, but the material is the property of the Czech Government.
MR. BIDDLE: Then your position is really that it is not in your hands, but for the Czech Government to determine it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly.
MR. BIDDLE: I see
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The only other document is the Treaty between France and the Soviet Union, in 1935.  This document was authorized by the General Secretary on the 29th of January, and if there is any difficulty in getting a copy, I will try to do anything I can to help, subject to the reservation as to objecting to its relevance when I know what use is going to be made of it.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: May I say a few more words?  During the very last few days I have received some various inside information -- or intimations -which seem important to my defense; but I have not had any opportunity of che*---* ing such information, to find out whether it is really of importance to the conduct of the Defense.  May I therefore ask, if this should be the cased and if there should be one or two other witnesses or documents which I could find later  that I should be permitted to make an application supplementary to the list of witnesses and documents I have given today.
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon Counsel for the Defendant Fritzsche. (Dr. Heinz Fritz came to the lectern.)
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, there are only two witnesses applied for in this case. The first of then is von Schirmeister, who was an official of the late Dr. Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry. The Prosecution have no objection that witness. With regard to the second witness, Dr. Otto Kriegk, the applications says that he received his information and instructions from the Defendant Fritzsche and he can speak as to the directive issued to journalists.  On the assumption that these were more or less official directives that he gave in the course of duty, again I don't think there can be any objection from the Prosecution.  But I don't know what Dr. Fritz would think about interrogatories, or whether he has any strong views about calling Dr. Kriegk on that point.  As I understand it, it would be more or less of a synopsis of the directives given, but in view of the very modest proportions of the applications in this case, I don't want to be unreasonable, if there is any special reason for calling Dr. Kriegk.
DR. FRITZ: I have presented a very small list of proof and I would be grateful if the personal appearance of the second witness, Dr. Kriegk were granted, and that for the following reasons:  First, the witness von Schirmeister has been named because he can give us information about the internal task which the Defendant Fritzsche had in the Ministry for Propaganda, especially about his relations to Dr. Goebbels.  Concerning the daily press conferences which the Defendant Fritzsche held, this first witness, von Schirmeister did not take part in them.  However, if is important which directives the Defendant Fritzsche has given to the journalists, specifically the most important German journalists who were assembled daily at the press conferences. As further reason for my request, that the personal appearance of this witness be granted, I should like to point out that out of the list of documents, One and Two of my list are not yet available to me, so that there are various points which I would like to have covered with quotations from these documents -- which can be done by questioning these two witnesses, the only one I have named.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don't press the point of an affidavit.  I leave it to the Tribunal. With regard to the documents, No. 1 is the broadcasts of the Defendant Fritzsche, and there is obviously no objection from the Prosecution to that. No. 2 is the archives of the section, "German Express Service."  And again we make no objection at this stage.  We will perhaps have to consider the reports when we get them. There is a little trouble about the third group, sworn testimony or letters which contain objective observations of the composers about the acts of the Defendant Fritzsche.  If these are official reports or anything or that kind, of course there would be no objection if they were contemporaneous, but the course which the Prosecution respectfully suggests to the Tribunal is that we wait and see these in the document book and then we can consider them and take proper exception when they come up.
DR. FRITZ: I completely and heartily agree to the documents under Point One and point 2.  I have nothing important to say, after the statement Sir David has made.
THE PRESIDENT: It would be convenient to deal with them now. SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE:  Perhaps Your Lordship will allow me the indulgence of conferring with my colleagues as we deal with each one, as we go along, in case they have any further views to express.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. I think there are some supplementary applications by Dr. Seidl. DR. ALFRED SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Hess):  Mr. President and Your Honors:  On the 28th of February, 1946, I submitted to the Tribunal a supplementary application for the Defendant Rudolf Hess.  The application became necessary for the following reasons:  In my first application I mentioned the witness Boehle for a number of subjects, among others for the activity of the German Ausland Institute and for the activity of the VDA.  Then I made that application to question the witness Boehle I had not had any opportunity to speak to the witness.  After the approval by the Tribunal, however, I did so, and I found out that the witness Boehle, although he can make very concrete statements about the Ausland organization, did not have any immediate first-hand information about the activity of the German Ausland Institute and the activity of the VDA. I therefore ask to approve as further witnesses, first, Dr. Karl Stroelin, former Lord Mayor of Stuttgard, last President of the German Auslandsinstitut. The witness is here in Nurnberg in prison, and it is the same witness who has also been named by the defendant Von Neurath in his case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Perhaps it would be convenient, My Lord, if Dr. Seidl would indicate what the final position of these witnesses is. As I understand it, he no longer wants Herr Bohle.  Is that right?  I am not clear whether this witness is in addition to or in substitution for Herr Bohle.
DR. SEIDL: With regard to the witness Dr. Stroelin, that should be an additional witness.  The witness Bohle will still be needed as a witness, but only concerning the matter of the activity of the Ausland Organization, the Organization in Foreign Countries.  The witness Stroelin, besides the witness Bohle, who has no first hand information about the Auslandeinstitut, should speak about this latter point.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If I understand it, that would mean that Dr. Seidl is now asking for Herr Bohle, Herr Stroelin, Dr. Haushofer, and an affidavit, I think it is, from Alfred Hess. I am not sure that this is not rather an accumulation of witnesses on what is, perhaps, a narrower point than Dr. Seidl realizes, from the point of view of the Prosecution.  The Prosecution said that the Foreign Organization was used for promoting fifth column activities, but it was only put in this way:  That by using the Foreign Organization there was, first of all, complete record and organization of Party memebers abroad; secondly, the intelligence service of that organization, through the organization, reported on all German officials of every section of the government who came abroad and kept check on them In their work, in addition to German subjects, and by reason of providing that intelligence service, they were ready for use, and in fact were used when there was a question of invasion of the country. It was not suggested that there were direct orders, for example, to blow up bridges or commit acts of sabotage given direct to the organization, which is a matter of inference from the functioning of the organization that I have 
     described. I only do that because it should be helpful to Dr. Seidl to know the case he has to meet.  The Prosecution has never proved direct orders for sabotage in this regard.
DR. SEIDL: The Trail Brief has accused Rudolf Hess of the fact that under his leadership, organizations of the National Socialist Party, as well as the Auslandsinstitut and the Volksbund had an activity which was equal to that of a fifth column.  It is correct that on the occasion of the presentation of the Prosecution against the Defendant Hess, there were no details showing wherein the Prosecution followed this activity by Hess with relation to the activities of these organizations. As long, however, as these organizations and the Auslandsinstitut and the Volksbund are accused of any connection with the activities of a fifth column, the Defendant Hess has a reasonable interest to see that first, it is shown what kind of activity these organizations had, second, which orders or directives he had given to these organizations. The witness Bohle is in a position to make very concrete statements regarding these organizations.  The same is necessary about the Auslandsinstitut, where Dr. Stroelin, who is here in Nurnberg at the present time, can make authentic statements, and with regard to the Volksbund fuer das Deutschtum in Ausland, the witness Dr. Haushofer. I agree, however, with regard to the physical condition of the witness Dr. Haushofer, that only an interrogatory be sent to this witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to interrogatories as far as Dr. Haushofer is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one more you want?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, sir, a third one.  Before I come to the third witness, whom I wish to name as an additional witness, I would like to inform the Tribunal that I do not insist on the personal hearing of the witness Ingeborg Sperr, who has already been approved by the Court.  Instead of that, I shall submit a short affidavit, which is already in the document book and which I have given to the General Secretary for translation. In the place of the witness Sperr, I should like to name the witness Alfred Leitgen.  Leitgen was for many years, until the flight of Rudolf Hess to England, his adjutant. I could not apply for this witness any sooner because I found out only now where this witness is. I believe that the examination of this witness--that is, the personal examination of this witness--is so important that one can not forego it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The two points on which Dr. Seidl specifies, both seem to be relevant points, and in view of the fact that he is prepared to drop the calling of the secretary, the Prosecution will not take objection to that witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any more applications?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if Your Lordship will allow me to say one thing.  Dr. Servatius has already had certain conversations with a member of my staff.  I think they will prove profitable and  helpful on the lines that Your Lordship suggested, and if the Tribunal will be good enough to safeguard Dr. Servatius' rights for a day or two, we hope to have something practical and useful to put before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean with reference to the organizations?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, with reference to the Defendant Sauckel.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will remember that you allowed the matter to stand over.  We have been working along the lines that Your Lordship suggested, but I am afraid that I have not had time to go into it myself and see the final result.
THE PRESIDENT: I See. DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel):  In discussing the witnesses I have to make a limiting suggesting, which I will make later. Concerning the documents, I have also made an agreement as to how they should be handled. There are, however, two principal applications which I should like to submit and which have not been mentioned so far, so that a decision may be taken by the Tribunal. The applications are documents 80 and 81. In document 80 a photostat of an occupation order is presented which 
     had been given in the town of Oels by the local commander, whereby the native population had to report to be deported, and it can be seen from this order that it is deportation for the purpose of labor. I would like to submit this to show that the agreement of the Hague concerning land warfare has been considered obsolete by the Soviet authorities. I should like to apply that the Tribunal should make use of Article 17-A of the Charter and try to get the decision by a local judge as to how far this deportation took place and at the same time I should like to clarify that it is not only the town  Oels, but that it was done in a large measure in East Prussia likewise. The population in a large number was deported or transported away to work and, if the information which I have received is correct, part of the population of Koenigsburg is today still in the Ural Mountains. I am not in a position to submit documents about all these things, because of the difficulties of mailing, difficulties to receive information, to receive news, but the Tribunal should be in a position by asking the mayors and other officials to find out that what I have just said is correct. Under Document 81 I submit an affidavit concerning the town of Saaz in Czechoslovakia. There 10,000 inhabitants were put into a camp and until Christmas, 1945, they have worked without pay. I believe that also is proof for the fact that the regulations of the Hague concerning land warfare is considered to be obsolete. Furthermore, Documents 90 and 91.
THE PRESIDENT: These are two small books with affidavits as a substitute for a long case. It would be irrelevant if I would produce one or two of these affirmations concerning conditions in the labor camps. One could object to that as being irrelevant because, with regard to the large number, there is little proof that they are affirmations of that kind. Those mass incidents of mass conditions have to be considered in a juridical sense. Therefore, the Charter admits government reports. I am not in a position to ask the government for reports. Therefore I have to try to counteract this by collecting affidavits and by grouping them in a sensible form to submit them to the Tribunal. Therefore, I apply for a presentation of proof which may be new but the same objections are in order 
     here that one could have against an investigation. An investigation has great weaknesses, especially if it was conducted in a one-sided manner without participation of the other side. In the case of my affirmation and affidavits this danger is greatly reduced because it is hard to find somebody who would sign these affidavits except if he has very serious reasons to do so. I therefore ask the Tribunal to decide about my application concerning these two documents. That is all I wanted to say at this time and which I shall discuss with the Prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I have already intimated the grounds on which the Prosecution object to Documents 80 and 81. To test their admissibility the easiest way is to assume that Dr. Servatius has proved the facts alleged and, if that is done, they would not in my submission come within miles of proving that Article 52 had become obsolete, and it is illustrative of the danger which I ventured to point out to the Tribunal on these two arguments on that vague and hypothetical suggestion that it might be some evidence that Article 52 had become obsolete. It is suggested that the Tribunal should try the conducts of the Soviet Union with regard to labor condition and, as I understand send a commission to collect evidence on that point, and I do nut want to repeat the arguments, but the Prosecution most strenuously object to the suggestion aid say that nothing has been indicated which provides any basis for it. With regard to 90 and 91, I really feel that the best method would be Soviet ambulando (?).  Let us see the affidavits and get some idea of their contents and the means of knowledge disclosed and then the Prosecution can make submission upon them.  At this state I don't want to do anything to exclude them and they will receive the most careful attention by my colleagues and myself when they are brought forward.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told that there are other supplementary applications for the defendant Schacht and for the defendant Keitel.  I think there may be some mistake about that. Is the defendant Hermann's counsel here? DR. BERGOLD (Counsel for Defendant Bormann):  Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to deal with anything yet?
DR. BERGOLD: No.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal made an order that your applications would extend over for some application within the next three weeks.  So you are not ready yet?  I am told your documents are all here.  Is that so?
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, my documents are here, as far as I knew. However, since I could only construct my information and get it from books myself, I cannot tell the Tribunal whether these will be all my documents.  I have asked to speak to the Secretary Mundally (?), and only then I will not the final information.  Bormann cannot be found.  Therefore, for practical reasons, I should like to present everything at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.  Then the Tribunal will now -- I am told that there are application from the defendant Keitel, Rosenberg-
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, defense counsel for Keitel and Rosenberg are not present at this time.  They probably did not expect that their applications could be presented today.  Maybe that could be done tomorrow before the beginning of the case Goering.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will now adjourn. (The Tribunal adjourned until 8 March 1946 at 1000 hours.)