dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. DIX: This is the witness Huelse. He was granted to me as a witness. In order to shorten and simplify the proceedings, I have decided to forfeit the right to hear the witness because there was an affidavit. I have received the affidavit. While my application to dispense with the witness was pending, however, the witness arrived in Nuremberg. He is here now, and I think therefore, that it will be best for him to stay and for me to be allowed to examine him by confronting him with his own affidavit, asking him to confirm it, and then put some additional questions to him. I think that would be much more practical than having the witness here to no purpose, sending him back again and retaining only the affidavit. My purpose, in any case, was partly to avoid the complications connected with getting him here.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you withdraw the application to have the affidavit...
THE PRESIDENT: Is the witness Huelse a prisoner or not, or an intemee?
DR. DIX: He is a free witness. He is not in detention and he is free to move about Nuremberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Can he remain here until the Defendant Schacht's case comes on?
DR. DIX: I hope so. He has told me that he can stay and that he is willing to do so.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we have no objection. The Tribunal has already granted him as a witness. If Dr. Dix wants him as a witness, of course we have no objection to it. The next one is an application on behalf of the Defendant Streicher , for an affidavit from a Dr. Herold. To put it quite shortly, the Prosecution suggest that it should be interrogatories rather than an affidavit and on that basis we would make no objection. My Lord, there is only one thing I have to say. I had a most useful discussion with Dr. Dix last night, following out the Tribunal's suggestion of going through the documents. Dr. Dix was most helpful in explaining the purpose of his documents and what they were. I do suggest that if any of the Defense Counsel when they are explaining the documents would also care to explain the purport of their witnesses -- I do not want to embarrass them in any way -- but if they would voluntarily explain the purport of witnesses, either to Mr. Dodd or myself, we might be able to save them a great deal of time, by indicating whether the evidence of that witness would be agreed to or might be the subject of objection. I only throw it out now, as we are going to meet over the documents, and if they would extend it to witnesses, I am sure we could achieve a most profitable co-operation.
THE PRESIDENT: You are suggesting, Sir David, are you, that they should explain to you the nature of the evidence which the witness was going to give?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And if the Prosecution were not going to dispute it, that it might be incorporated in an affidavit?
SIR DAVID M1A.XVTELL-FYFE: Yes, that we could probably dispense with the witness, and probably incorporate that in an affidavit. Of course, I have been told the general purport of the witness, because I attended on the application, but if they could elaborate on it a little more as it often happens when they see the witness and let me know what the scope of the witness' testimony would be, I could probably concede, either in whole or in part, and save them a lot of work and the Tribunal a lot of time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the Tribunal would like to know whether the defendants' counsel think that is a possible course, whether it might lead to some shortening of the defense. Could Dr. Dix possibly tell us whether he thinks it would be possible?
DR. DIX: Of course, I cannot make any statement on the views of my colleagues, since I cannot read their minds. All I can say at the moment is that I will recommend to my colleagues, as unusually helpful and practical, the kind of conversation which I had the honor of having with Sir David yesterday. Personally, I think that my colleagues too will agree to this procedure unless there is any particular objection to it, which is, of course, always possible. I cannot say any more at the moment.
THE PRESIDENT: You understand what Sir David was suggesting, that such a conversation should apply not only to documents but also to witnesses and if you could indicate rather more fully than you do in your applications what the subject of their evidence was going to be, possibly the Prosecution might be able to say in those circumstances that upon those matters they should not propose to dispute the evidence and therefore it might be incorporated in an affidavit?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, if Your Lordship allows me to interject, if they care to bring a statement on a particular witness' testimony, the Prosecution would, I am sure, in many particulars be prepared to say, "Well, you produce that statement on that point and we will admit it, without any formality."
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps, Dr. Dix, you and the other counsel, for the defendants could consider that matter.
DR. DIX: I have understood it to be exactly as Your Lordship has just stated it. I discussed both the witnesses and the documents with Sir David and that was very helpful; and in that sense I will ...
THE PRESIDENT: If that is all we need do at the moment, then ...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the Tribunal will adjourn. [The Tribunal adjourned until 8 April 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks the cross-examination is perfectly proper. Of course if Dr. Nelte does call General  Westhoff as a witness, he will be able to get from him any corrections which General Westhoff thinks are necessary which he makes to the affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: Yes, My Lord. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: Q Now, what I want to know is:  Did you give orders to General von Graevenitz and General Westhoff that were to be published in the camps as what measures had been taken with regard to those officers? A Yes, but several days later; not on the some pay as these officers were present. Q How long later? A I believe three or four days later, but I cannot tell you exactly, in any event, when I found out that shootings had taken place. Q Well, three or four days later would be just when the shootings were beginning, but what was published? what did you say was to be published as to the measures that had been taken? A In the camp there was to be a warning published. In my opinion, we were not to talk about shootings but a warning that those the were caught in flight would not be returned to the camp, but I do not remember the exact wording. It was traceable back to an order which I had received from the Fuehrer regarding the matter of shootings. Q Well, is this a fair way to put your recollection of the order, that at was probable, according to your recollection, that those who attempted to escape would be handed over to the SD and, Certainly, that very severs measures would be taken? Is that a fair way of putting your recollection of the order? A My recollection is that a warning, that is a threat, was to be published to the effect that those  who attempted to escape would not be returned to the camp, and that was the contents of this publication, according to my recollection which I transmitted later, but the verbatim I did not determine; the Luftwaffe was to be notified. Q How, General Westhoff was not content with on oral order and came back to you with a draft order in writing, did he not? A  I do not believe that he came to me. I believe he sent me this. Q I8m sorry, but when I said "come back to you", I was talking generally; you're quite right that he passed on for your consideration a draft order in writing for you to approve; that's right, isn't it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: A I do not believe that it was an order; as far as I remember at all, it was just a note, but it was not an order. However, I must add that in the course of the interrogation by Colonel  Williams, I was reminded of this matter. Q Well, what General Westhoff says is: "Contrary to Fieldmarshal Keitel's order, I pretended that I hadn't understood properly. I worked the thing out on paper. I said to Oberstleutnant Kr ft, 'I want to have the word "shoot" included so that Keitel can see it in writing. He may adopt a different attitude then'" Now, this is a bit later: " hen I got the thing back, he had written the following in the margin; 'I didn't definitely say "shoot"; I said "hand them over to the police and hand them over to the Gestapo." Then adds General Westhoff: "So that was a partial climb down," Now, did you put a note on it: "I didn't definitely say 'shoot'; I said 'hand them over to the police and hand them over to the Gestapo'"; did you? A I cannot give you the exact wording of the note, and neither can General Westhoff. I did make a notation in the margin in that sense. Q You see the point that I'm putting to you, defendant? I want you th have it perfectly clear. Rightly or wrongly, General Westhoff believed that you had inserted the word "shoot" and General Westhoff, to protect himself, put it back to you, and then you say, "Ididn't definitely say 'shoot'"; I said 'Hand them over to the SD or the Gestapo." A No, I did not say that, but Colonel Williams said that I had written "shoot"; I did not say that. That was what Colonel Williams told me, and that is a matter of official record of my interrogation. Q Well, now, what I want to know, and it's perfectly clear, is, no you deny that that in substance represents what you put in the document: "I didn't 
     definately say 'shoot'; I said, 'Hand them over to the police or hand them over to the Gestapo"'? Did you put words to that effect on the document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: A It is probable that I said something similar to that and put it crown for I wanted to make it clear what I had said to those two officers. It was nothing new, but it was a clarification of what I had said. Q Now, the next point that I want to direct your attention to: Had you an officer on your staff called Oberst von Reuermund, on your PW staff, Kriegagefangenen Wesen? A No, he was never connected with that organization. Q What was his position in the OK? A I believe there was a Colonel Raymond. He was chief of the department, but he was not concerned with the prisoner of war system; he was the department chief in the general Wehrmacht Amt. Q In your office? A In the office of the Allgemeines Wehrmacht Amt under General Reinecke,yes. Q Do you know that on the 27th of March, that is on a Monday, there was a meeting which Colonel von Reuermund took the chair, attended by Gruppenfuehrer Mueller from the Gestapo, Gruppenfuehrer Nebe, and Colonel Wilde from the air Ministry, from their PW inspector of 17; do you know that? A No, I never heard anything about this matter. It is entirely unknown to me and has remained unknown to me. Q Are you telling  the Tribunal that you had this Colonel in your office, a colonel from the Air Ministry, two extremely important officials from the police, and they have a meeting to discuss this matter two days after you had your first meeting, one day after you had seen von Graevenitz and Westhoff, and you didn't know a word about it? A     No, I did not know a thing about it. Q Now, most of us are very familiar with the working of service departments. I do ask you in fairness to yourself to consider this. Are you telling this Tribunal that no report was ever made to you of that joint meeting between the representative of the OKW, high police officials and the Air Ministry, and it never came up to you? Now, really think before you answer. A I cannot remember it at all, no matter how hard I try. I was surprised when I was confronted with the details of this conference, but I do not recall it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: Q Do you know that--I put it in Colonel Felder's statement when I was cross-examing the defendant Goering--he said that at that conference it was announced that those officers were to be shot and that many of them had been shot? Did no report come to you that those officers were being shot and were to be shot? A No, not on the 27th. We've talked about it previously, when I received the first report. At that time I know nothing about it, on that day, or even a day subsequent, regarding this conference. Q You agreed, though, that you got to learn, as I understand you, that they were being shot on the 29th; that would be a Thursday? A I do not recall the exact day, but I do remember, I believe it was even later than that. I believe it was several days later. Q Well, let us, defendant, make every point in your favor. Let's take it that it was, say the 31st, or even Monday, the 2nd of April. By Monday, the 2nd of April, that's nine days after the escape, you know then that these officers were being shot? A In those days, perhaps around the 31st, I received and of this on the occasion when I again came to the Berghof for a situation briefing, and I learned it through the adjutant of the Fuehrer, but at that time I was not told that all of these officers had been shot; but I was told that some of them had been shot in flight, and that was told to me before the beginning of the situation brief. Q     They weren't all shot until the 13th of April, which was nearly another fortnight. were you told of the matter, in which they got out of the cars to relieve themselves and then shot in the back of the head by someone with a revolver? Were you told of that? A No, I found out only through the adjutants that a report had been given to the Fuehrer that shootings had taken place in the escape. Q Now, I want you to come to one other point, later on:  you remember that my colleague, Mr. Eden, on behalf of the British Government, made a statement in the House of Commons later on, toward the end of June. Remember that? A Yes, I do recall that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: Q And is it correct, as G eneral Westhof said that you had told your officers not to make contact with the Foreign Office or the Gestapo, to leave the matter alone and not try and find out anything about it, is that right? A I told them that, as far as the hue and cry was concerned, the Wehrmacht was not involved in any of those means, that the officers of the prisoner-of-war system could not give any information, since they had not been participating and did not know what had gone before. Q Then the answer is, yes, that you did tell your office to leave the matter alone and not to get in touch with the Foreign Office or the police? A No, that is not correct;  that is not correct that way. The chief of the Amt Ausland was connected with the Foreign Office and I was concerned only and said that the officers should not give any information about this case and about matters concerned with it, since they were not participating and had only hearsay and rumors to go on. Q I should have thought that my previous question--you just repeated the effect of my previous question;  I won't argue with you. I will come to the next point. You had an officer on your staff named Admiral Buerckner, didn't you? A Yes, he was chief of the department Ausland. Q He was liaison between your office and the Foreign Office? A Yes. Q     Now, did you give him orders to prepare an answer to England, an answer to Mr. Eden's statement? A That I consider entirely possible, that I told him something to that effect, even though he was not to have any evidence or documents at his disposal; that is, he could not have that material from the Wehrmacht. Q I don't want to read it again;  I read the reply a day or two ago. But eventually the reply was drawn up, I think by the Foreign Office in conjunction with Oberstleutnant Kraft of your office, wasn't it? A No, at that time I gave instructions that the answer-- Q Don't you remember Kraft- A     -- was to be dealt with in connection with the RSHA but not with the prisoner-of-war system.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: I did not give any instructions to the Oberstleutnant concerned. Q But didn't he go to Berchtesgaden to assist the representative of the Foreign Office and Hitler in drawing up a reply? A That I do not know, and I do not recall--I did not speak with him and did not see him. Q You know that when they saw the reply, according to General Westhof, all your officers touched their heads and said, "And". You have seen that statement, haven't you, "When we read this not to England in the newspaper we were all absolutely taken aback; we all clutched our heads-- 'Mad'-we could do nothing about the affair."  All your officers and you yourself knew the reply was an utter and confounded lie;  wasn't it a complete and utter lie? You all knew it. A I too learned of the reply and was definite that this reply was not based on the truth. Q So that it comes to this, Defendant, doesn't it:  That you will go as far as this:  You were present at the meeting with Hitler and Himmler. That is what you say. At that meeting Hitler said that the prisoners who were caught by the police were to remain in the hands of the police. You had a strong probability that these prisoners would be shot and with that you used this incident as a deterrent to try and prevent other prisoners of war escaping. All that you admit, as I understand your answers this morning don't you? Q     Yes, I do admit, but I have not been interrogated on this matter as to just what my position was, as for as Hitler was concerned, and I have not testified as to that, and that I did not give this warning, but that this warning was on the instruction of Hitler and that was the cause for now conflict between Hitler and me;  that is when the first report of shootings reached me. Q I  won't go through the details again. One other point:  When did you learn of the use of cremation and the sending of cremation urns to this camp? A That I never received word of, and I do not recall ever having heard of it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: The matter was later on purely a matter of the Luftwaffe, in which I was called in, through my presence, later;  but I do not know whether I heard or saw anything about this at all. Q But you will agree with me, Defendant, that anyone in the world who has had to deal with prisoner-of-war problems would be horrified at the thought of bodies of shot officers being cremated;  it is simply asking for trouble, isn't it, from the Protecting Powers and everyone else, to put it at its lowest? You will agree with that;  I am sure you have had a good deal more to do with prisoners of war than I. Don't you agree it would horrify anyone who has to deal with prisoners of war that bodies should be cremated, that the Protectin Power at once would be put on suspicion? A I am entirely of the same opinion, that it is horrible. Q And if any service finds that its camps are receiving fifty urns of ashes of cremated bodies of escaped prisoners of war, that would be a most serious matter which would be taken to the highest ranks of any service, isn't that so? A    Yes, even though I had no connection with the prisoner of war camps of the Lutwaffe. Purely the inspectional powers. Q I won't ask you further about the Luftwaffe. Now I think we can deal quite shortly with the question of the lynching of Allied airmen (handing a sheaf of documents to witness, and also to the Tribunal). Now, Defendant, I would like to remind you that there was a report of a co ference on the 6th of June -- Document 735 PS -- which has been put in against the Defendant Ribbentrop; it is a report of General Warlimont, GB-151, with regard to the criteria to be adopted for deciding what were terror fliers. Von must remember the document, because you yourself dealt on February with the note A Yes. Q    -- against legal procedure, which you already dealt with. A Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: Q Now, you said during your evidence -- you remember you told us why you didn't want legal procedure, because it was a difficult problem for courts martial to decide and also it meant a three months delay in reporting the death sentence to the Protecting Powers. A Yes, I did make those statements. Q And then you said that you had a discussion with Goering, who said that lynching should be turned down. Do you remember saying that on Friday? A Yes. Q Now, that wasn't accurate, was it ? Because I want to just show you what did happen. That document which you annoted was the 6th of June. And on the 14th of June - A Yes. Q    -- it is Document D-774, which will be GB-307, initialed Warlimont. Your office sent a draft letter to the Foreign Office for the attention of Ritter sending on this formulation of what were terror fliers. And if you look it over that says that it is necessary to formulate unambigously the concept of the facts which are to constitute a criminal act. And then the draft letter D-775, GB-308 to the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, for the attention of Colonel von Brau chitsch, which says that "on the basis of the preliminary talks and in agreement with the Reich Foreign Secretary and the head of the Security Police and SD, the 
     Defendant Kaltenbrunner, the following facts are to be considered terroristic acts, which are to be taken into consideration when publishing a lynch law, or justify the handing of airmen from the Air Force reception camp of Oberursel to the SD for special treatment." And then you set out what was agreed and you say, "Please obtain the consent of the Reich Matshal to this formulation of the fact and if necessary give the command of the Air Force reception camp of Oberursel verbal instructions to act accordingly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFFE: It is further requested that you obtain the Reich Marshal's consent also to the procedure intended for the handling of public announcements."  And then if you look at D-776, GB-309, that is a letter from you to the Foreign Office -- a draft letter -- for the attention of Ritter, dated the 15th of June, to the same effect. You ask him to confirm by the 18th. And then D-777, GB-310, is a similar draft letter to Goering, marked for the attention of Colonel von Brauchitsch and asking him to reply by the 18th. Then D-778, GB-311, records a telephone call from Ritter saying that the Foreign Office will have to delay a couple of days in giving their view. D-779, GB-321 gives the first note from the Defendant Goering. It says, 19 June, "The Reich Marshal has male the following note with re- gard to the above letter:  The population's reaxtion is, in any case, not in our hands, but, if possible, the population must be prevented from acting against other enemy fliers."  I ask you to note the word "others" -- that is, enemy fliers that do not come within the category of enemy terror fliers, "to other enemy fliers to when the above state of affairs does not apply. In my opinion, a state of affairs as above can also," and I ask you to note the word "also", "at any time be tried by a court, as it is here a question of murders which the enemy has forbidden his fliers to commit." Then, in D/780, GB 313, there is another copy of the memorandum from the Foreign Office which I read in some detail when I was presenting the case agai against the defendant Ribbentrop, and it is interspersed with comments of your Officer General Warlimont, in general agreement with the memorandum. I do not want to go through that again.