THE PRESIDENT: You mean that you want Dr. Hoettl in person, not by way of interrogatories?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, if I may ask for that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness No. 10, Police General von Eberstein, is named to prove that the statement of another witness of the name of Gerdes is untrue. The Tribunal will probably remember that the Prosecution submitted an affidavit by a man named Gerdes who played an important role in Munich. He was a confidential friend of the former Gauleiter of Munich, and Gerdes says in that affidavit that Kaltenbrunner had given the order to bomb Dachau by airplanes and destroy it. Kaltenbrunner definitely denies that.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which could be clearly dealt with by interrogatories, whether or not Kaltenbrunner did give an order to destroy a concentration camp, or an order to evacuate Dachau. Surely those are matters which admit of proof.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I agree, your Honor.
by interrogatories.
Concerning the next witness, No. 11, the witness who has already been heard, Hoellriegel, there is the same problem, that is, whether I will be given the opportunity to speak to this witness before examining him. Kaltenbrunner denies that he has ever seen gas chambers.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, isn't No.11 really cumulative to No. 6, whom you particularly wanted to call?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, Mr. President, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Anyhow, the Tribunal will consider the question whether you ought to be given the right merely to cross-examine or to recall as your own witness, with reference to 11 and 12.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, sir.
May I say one more thing concerning the witness; No. 12? Eichmann, as is well know, is the man who directed the acts of extermination against the Jews and this action has been brought in connection with the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. Kaltenbrunner denies that. Therefore I consider Wisliceny a very relevant witness.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes that group. What about the latter ones, Sir David? Are they in the same category?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Not quite, but I think it might be convenient if I deal with them.
Dr. Mildner, No. 13, is sought to testify that Kaltenbrunner did not authorize the chief of the Gestapo to sign orders for protective custody of internment, and I should reply that in view of the previous evidence, of Scheidler and No. 4, Neubacher, Dr. Meldner's evidence was cumulative and that interrogatories would suffice.
As to Schellenberg, No. 14, I have already said that the Prosecution make no objection to his recall for cross-examination.
Finally, Dr. Rainer. We do object to that request, because the object of his testimony, that Kaltenbrunner recommended to the Gauleiters of Austria not to oppose the advancing troops of the Western Powers and not to organize "werewolf" movements, is in our submission, irrelevant to the issues before this Tribunal.
DR. KAUFFMANN: The witness, Dr. Mildner, No. 13, is here in Nurnberg,
THE COURT: Yes. Dr. Kauffmann? in custody. For that reason I have asked to call this witness, because the witness has submitted an affidavit in which he charged Kaltenbrunner with certain things, and Kaltenbrunner denies them. And I do not believe that within these difficulties can be overcome within an interrogatory.
Now, I come to No. 14-
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mildner had submitted an affidavit?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean -
DR. KAUFFMANN: In the Prosecution there is reference made to an affidavit by Dr. Mildner. I believe it was on the 3rd of January. The name of this witness was mentioned in connection with the accusations against Kaltenbrunner. That name is mentioned as one or the other of two affidavits -
THE PRESIDENT: But if the affidavit hasn't been produced to the Court, what have we got to do with it? We haven't seen it, at least in my recollection.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, sir.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I haven't been able to trace this affidavit of Dr. Mildner's. I don't remember it, but I will willingly check the reference that Dr. Kauffmann has given.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if the Prosecution can use the affidavit, then you would have no objection to the witness being called for crossexamination?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: Well, in general, no. The reason why I am rather surprised is what usually that point has been taken when it is sought to use the affidavit. The Defense Counsel involved has asked for the production of the witness, but I will have it looked into, this particular point; but ingeneral the Tribunal may take it that unless we put forward a special point, where an affidavit has been given and where we have not argued to the Court previously, it is a very good case for the THE PRESIDENT:
I didn't understand that Dr. Kauffmann was saying that witness being brought here, if it is convenient.
the affidavit had actually been put in by the Prosecution but there was some reference made to it. Is that right, Dr. Kauffmann?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, in about ten seconds I can find out about it. I have the file here.
(here Dr. Kauffmann went through a file of papers.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, perhaps we will give you an opportunity of looking that up. We will adjourn now for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
DR. KAUFFMANN: In the record of 2 January, the name of Mildner appeared, but not in the form of an affidavit; in the form of a letter which a third person had written, and this letter is named and the name of Mildner appears in this letter, not in an affidavit. I would, therefore, request that Mildner be interrogated in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: Fourteen.
DR. KAUFFMANN: We have already dealt with Number 14.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, you have already dealt with that? Very well, then, Fifteen.
DR. KAUFFMANN: That is the witness Rainer, who was a former gauleiter. In this case, I should request to hear this witness, who is in Nurnberg. The contents of this testimony seems important to me. In the Indictment there was nothing contrariwise mentioned toward Kaltenbrunner, but when we mention breaches of the peace, it seems important and relevant to me if a defendant tries to clear himself, and we should hear his witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Would an interrogatory satisfy you for that witness?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR: KAUFFMANN: I have not submitted any documents, Mr. President. It is possible that in the course of time I will present affidavits which have not been presented by me because I have not been able to present them up to this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands, Dr. Kauffmann, that you wish to reserve to yourself the right to apply to put in documents at a later stage.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I request that permission.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that and let you know when they make the order.
Yes, Dr. Thoma?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Thoma suggests that we deal with the document list.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On the first six documents, which are quotations from various books on philosophy the Prosecution submit that they are irrelevant to the question of the ideology propounded by the defendant Rosenberg, which the Prosecution make part of the case against him.
Of course, if the purpose is merely that Dr. Thoma would quote from such books in making his speech and if he would let us know the passages he wants to quote so they can be dealt with mechanically, we don't make any anticipatory objection. on philosophy. The Prosecution view with some dismay all these books being put in evidence and the Prosecutors having to read them.
I think I have made the position quite clear that if Dr. Thoma wishes to use them to illustrate the argument, and if he lets us know the passage, we make no general objection, but we object to them being put in as evidence, as not being relevant to the matters before the Court.
DR. THOMA (Counsel for the Defendant Rosenberg): I believe that only in an exhibition of the ideology before Rosenberg is brought in an impression of the spiritual need of the German people after the first world war, which had been lost, can be gained, and that only through the spiritual need of the people can we see how and why Rosenberg was of the opinion that his ideas would be or might be of help. Rosenberg's opinions and ideas are a phase of the ideological conceptions of the then current times; that is, that a number of philosophers of Germany and of the foreign countries preceded him, and I am especially concerned that I anticipate the objection that the ideology of Rosenberg was a degenerate and -- I must use the word -- dirty ideology, and I must refer to the gentlemen of the Prosecution, especially Mr. de Menthon, who was especially concerned with the ideology of National Socialism and dealt with the many ramifications of this ideology. I believe in such a way the French Revolution of 1789 is considered in the same light as something unpardonable.
It is considered as such by the neighboring countries and neighboring peoples. believe that Nazi ideology was by him mentioned as a special phase, and I believe that we should have the opportunity that his ideology was presented to the other countries at that time, and I would request that contemporary philosophers of that time should be heard, and I am especially interested in showing what other philosophers have said about Rosenberg, what they had to say about Living Space, and how these other philosophers felt on the same subject. These ideas are based on rational facts, and they should-not be considered as anti-scientific, even though they are considered as antihumanistic and disturbing to humanism. were treated by rational and empirical science, and it seems important to me that, in fact, in the political sphere of other countries, they were put into practice and used, and I would like to point to the United States and their immigration laws, which also discriminate against certain races and favor others.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understand Dr. Thoma, he wants to use the teachings of other philosophers as illustrations and argument. If he is going to quote from them, then all that the Prosecution asks is that he tell us which passages he is going to quote, but we suggest that it is not relevant for us to go into an examination of, say, M. Bergson's book as a matter of evidence.
It is a perfectly clear distinction, and I suggest that Dr. Thoma will be well able to develop the point which he has just put with the limitation which I have just suggested.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal would like to know what it is that you actually propose. Are you proposing to put in evidence certain passages from certain books and that the Tribunal should read them or are you simply asking for the production of books so that you may consult them, read them and then incorporate in your argument certain ideas which you may gather from the books?
DR. THOMA: I would request that the Tribunal take official notice of the contents of the books which I will cite. I will not read all these quotations, but I would ask the Tribunal to take official notice in a large scope and I would beg that the Tribunal would receive the quotations so that they would be able to get a clear idea of the ideological ideas especially the spiritual situation of the German people, as shown in these quotations.
THE PRESIDENT: But the books are not books of any legal authority. you can only cite, surely, to a court of international law books that are authorities on international law. You can, of course, collect ideas from other books which you can incorporate in your argument. You cannot cite them as authorities.
DR. THOMA: Through the fact that I submit the quotations by known philosophers who had similar ideas to Rosenberg's, I would like to prove that this ideology is to be considered in a serious vein, and I would also like to prove that those things which are considered detrimental in the ideology of Rosenberg, which are considered degenerate, are ramifications of this ideology, and in my opinion, it seems very important for the Tribunal to know the history of the philosophy, and that even in the best ideas -- and I point to the ideas of the French Revolution -- that a certain degeneracy, so to speak, may creep in, and this historical parallel I would like to co-relate with National Socialism and with the ideology of Rosenberg I also need these books to bring the following proof:
That Rosenberg was only concerned with the spiritual combat of ideology and religion, and that he was not in a position to prevent the brutal application in National Socialism of his ideology but his scientific basis was given a free rein and his theological opponents the Gestapo, was never called in his aid. He assumed that his popular ideas were not to be carried through or applied by force, but that every people should keep its own national character and identity and that only a mixture with allied races was permissible. He believed that this ideology was in the interest of the German people and of humanity and was to be consider as such, and I believe that the Tribunal should have the plastic background of the rise of National Socialism, and should take into consideration the spiritual condition of the time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the argument you have addressed to it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: with regard to the document number 7, that is excerpts from certain books, the first five are from Rosenberg's own works, and the last is a book by another author on Hitler.
Again I submit that if Dr. Thoma wants to support the theses contained in the first half of his note -- that "the defendant Rosenberg does not see individual and race, individual and community in contrast but represent the new romantical conception that the personality finds its perfection and its inner freedom by having the community or the racial spirit developed and represented within itself."
If Dr. Thoma will give any of the distracts from Rosenberg's works on which he bases that argument, then he can present them at whatever part of his case is convenient, and similarly, with regard to the specific points set out in the second part of his note, there again, if he will give the relevant extracts, they can be considered and their relevancy for the purpose of this Court dealt with when he introduces them in his presentation.
But again I take general objection to the fact that either the Court or the Prosecution should read all these works and treat them as evidence. I developed that in the previous document.
DR. THOMA: My Lord, when I quote Rosenberg's works and ask the Tribunal take official notice, I am in the fortunate position to prove just how the philosophy and ideology of Rosenberg is basicly different from the off-shoots which his ideology had to suffer and which he contradicted. I am in a position to show that it is definitely clear from his works that Rosenberg wanted the Fuehrer principle to be limited through a special counsel which was to have an advisory function. I am also able to show that the Myth of the Twentieth Century was a special personal work of Rosenberg's and was not accepted by Hitler personally. I am also able to show and prove that Rosenberg, according to his works, was not interested in a physical destruction of the Jews and, also on the basis of his works, he was not interested in a preparation for war and, also on the basis of his works, wanted to work toward a peaceful arbitration, especially among the four great powers of Europe. And I ask the Tribunal for the opportunity to show the real and true quotations from his works as material of probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal will consider the whole question of the Prosecution and the citation from these books.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 8, My Lord, falls in a rather different field. The first eleven documents seem to be books and writings containing Jewish views of an anti-national basis. The Prosecution reminds the Tribunal that the questions at issue are: Did the defendants as co-conspirat* embark in a policy of persecution of the Jews; secondly, did the defendants participate in the later manifestations of that policy, the deliberate extermination of the Jews? Within the submission of the Prosecution, it is remote and irrelevant to these important and terrible accusations that certain Jewish writings, spread over a period of years, contained matters which were not very palatable to christians.
DR. THOMA: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I would like to reply to this point. I am not interested in showing that the precedence of Nazism against the Jews was not that it was justified.
I am interested in showing the psychological reasons for anti-Semiticism in Germany. And I believe that I am justified in requesting that you kindly listen to certain newspaper quotations about the nature of the national and Christian feeling. I am interested even in this case to go a little deeper and to show the High Tribunal why, as far as the history of religion is concerned, the so-called Jewish problem, and why the tragic contradiction between Jewry and the rest of the world is present, and to this point I would like to quote Jewish literature as well as theologic literature.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the question.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I think the Tribunal can take the remaining documents, 9 to 14, together. They seem to deal with specific and, if I may say so without the least intention of offense, more practical matters, in that they deal with the government of the eastern territories for which this defendant was responsible, and the Prosecution has no objection to my friend using these documents in such a way as it seems fit to him.
DR. THOMA: I would like to add the following: Tribunal, but I have not been able to submit them because I have not received them personally, but I would like to have the Tribunal to take notice of a letter of Rosenberg to Hitler with the contents of the request for Rosenberg not to be considered as a candidate for the Reichstag in the year of 1924.
Point 2: A letter of Rosenberg's to Hitler regarding his dismissal as the editor of the Voelkischer Beobachter in the year 1931. tremendous stir among the German people and at that time Rosenberg asked that his work be considered a purely personal work, something which in reality it was, and if his work was in any way to the detriment of the Party, he asks to be released as the editor of the Voelkischer Beobachter. in June of 1943, in which Rosenberg was directed to limit himself to matters of principle. dated in the year 1925.
THE PRESIDENT: And the fourth one? Will you state the fourth one, the fourth document?
DR. THOMA: Not yet. I am coming to that part, Your Honor.
Point 4: The letter of Hitler to Rosenberg in the year 1925, in which Hitler showed the reasons why basicly and on principle he was not interested in participating in the Reichstag elections. Rosenberg at that time took the attitude that the party should come into the Reichstag and in practice work with the other Parties and cooperate withthem. I have just known that this letter by Hitler is dated 1923.
Gentlemen, this is something of significance and deciding value. Rosen* wanted from the beginning that the NSDAP work together and cooperate with the other Parties and that, of course, would be the antithesis of a conspiracy. May I please present a copy of what I have just stated?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, these seem to be individual documents whose relevancy can be finally dealt with when Dr. Thoma shows their purpose in his exposition. I do not stress that the Tribunal need not make any final decision on them at the present time.
DR. THOMA: I would like to refer to the point that I have already requested the general secretary to please admit these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, have you the documents in your possession?
DR. THOMA: Yes, My Lord. The only documents that I lack are the four I mentioned. They are in the hands of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: They are in the hands of the Prosecution, are they?
DR. THOMA: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not appreciated that if Dr. Thoma wants the documents we will do our best to find them.
The first time I have heard of then, of course, is when Dr. Thoma started speaking a few minutes ago. If the Prosecution has them or can find them, they will let Dr. Thoma have them or have copies of them.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, Dr. Thoma, why it is that you have not put in a written application for these four?
DR. THOMA: I have already made that request, My Lord. That is, I made that request approximately a week ago. I made the first request already in November.
THE PRESIDENT: For these four documents?
DR. THOMA: The first two documents were supposed to be issued to me since November or at the latest December, 1945, but I have not as yet received them.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will consider that.
Well, that finishes your documents, does it not?
DR. THOMA: Yes, My Lord.
SIR DAVIS MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, with regard to the witnesses, it might be convenient if I indicated the view of the Prosecution on the say, first six. The Prosecution has no objection to the first witness, Riecke, the State Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, or to Dr. Lammers, who is being summoned for a number of the defendants, or to Ministerialrat Beil, who is the Deputy Chief of the main Department of Labor and social policy in the east ministry. With regard to the next one, number 4, Dr. Stellbrecht, the Prosecution suggests that that is a very general matter which does not seem very relevant and they say that Dr. Stelbrecht should be cut out or at the most that that point be dealt with by a short interrogatory. We also object to 5 and 6, General Dankers and Professor Astrouski. General Dankers is sought to say that certain theatres and museums of art in Latvia remained untouched and that hundreds of thousands of Latvians begged to be able to come into the Reich.
There are letters about certain laws. The Prosecution submits that that evidence does not really touch the matters that are alleged against the defendant Rosenberg and again they make objection. Central Council and whose whereabouts are still unknown, who was last in Berlin.
is desired to be called to prove that the General Commissioner in Minsk exerted all efforts in order to save White Ruthenian cultural goods. There again the Prosecution says that that is a very general and indefinite allegation and, if the defendant and certain of his officials are called to give evidence as to his policy and administration, it is suggested that the witnesses 5 and 6 are really unnecessary.
I might also deal with No. 7 because the first seven witnesses are the subject of a note by Dr. Thoma. No. 7 is Dr. Hailing, who is the Chief of the Institute for German Ethnology, and it is sought to call him in order to prove that in the Baltic cultural institutions are advanced and new ones founded by Rosenberg. That witness, the Prosecution submits, falls into the same category as Dankers and Astronski. But, with regard to him, if there is any general point, they say that he could be dealt with by interrogatories but certainly should not be called.
It is relevant for the Tribunal to read, the note under the No. 8 dealing with these witnesses. Dr. Thoma says:
"The witnesses present evidence for the reputation of the Soviet accusation that Rosenberg did not participate in a planning of a world ideology for the extermination of the Slavs and for the persecution of all dissenters." coupled with the interrogatories if necessary, in the case of Stellbrecht and Haiding, should cover these points amply.
DR. THOMA: I agree with Sir David that as far as Dr. Haiding as well as Dr. Stellbrecht are concerned an interrogatory will be sufficient. Regarding the other witnesses, Nos. 5 and 6, I was especially interested to bring in people as witnesses who actually lived in the country, who could give their personal impressions of the cultural activities of Rosenberg, and I request that these witnesses be heard.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Court will consider that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The witness Scheidt comes into the story of the defendent Rosenberg's connection with Quisling, and this has been dealt with by the interrogatories by the defense and certain interrogatories by the Prosectuion. This is obviously an important part of the case and I suggest that the Tribunal does not decide as to the personal summoning of Scheidt until the answers to the interrogatories are before the Tribunal.
No. 10 is Robert Scholtz, the Deputy Chief in the Special Staff of "Creative Art", and roughly the evidence is to show that the defendant did not take the works of art for his personal benefit. The Tribunal has ordered the slating of this witness on the 14th of January, but on the 24th of January the application of this witness was withdrawn and it now reviewed by Dr. Thoma. If the Tribunal will look at the way in which it is put in Dr. Thoma's application, which is limited and guided to certain specific acts to which Mr. Scholtz can speak, the Prosecution suggests that the Tribunal might think the most convenient way was again to get a set of interrogatories on Mr. Scholtz and see how he can deal with the many individual points put to him.
DR. THOMA: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, as far as the witness Robert Scholtz is concerned, the Norwegian question is dealt with and this witness is the decisive witness concerning the reports that Quisling made by himself without any instigation to the foreign office of the Reich. He made only these reports by himself on his own authority and I believe that the personal questioning of this man in court is especially important because he can give certain points of evidence which wall be decisive as far as the question is concerned as to whether Hitler made aggressive war against Norway. the Prosecution, and I have been in conversation with them. This witness has not made an affidavit as yet and I would like to show the Tribunal that as far as the affidavit is concerned, I personally should be present and should have the permission, together with the Prosecution, to put questions to the witness myself, and I would like to repeat my request to have him present as a witness in court.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, if the witness was granted to you as a witness to give evidence in court, it would not be necessary for you to have any representative of the Prosecution when you saw the witness wherever he might be. The advance of a witness would entitled you to see him yourself and to obtain proof of his evidence. Is that clear?
DR. THOMA: So far I have only been granted an affidavit but I have not received him as a witness as yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I only wanted to make clear to you the difference between interrogatories and being allowed to call a witness to give all the evidence. Of course, if you are submitting written interrogatories, you would see the witness, but if, on the other hand, you were going to callthe witness as a witness or to present an affidavit from him, you would then be at liberty to see the witness before he made his affidavit or before he drew up his proof.
DR. THOMA: Then, I would like to put the request that we bring Wilhelm Scheidt as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Court will consider that.
DR. THOMA: So far as Robert Scholtz is concerned, I beg permission to point out that Scholtz was an A*tsleiter, who was entrusted with the practical execution for the securing of art works and objects of art, and I would like to point but to the High Tribunal that, as far as this Special Staff or Sonderstab is concerned, many experts and other German authorities were connected with this staff who in a most conscientious manner put these works of art in a safe place, restored them, and took care of them in every way to save them for the coming generations.
As far as Robert Scholtz is concerned, I beg your permission to point out just how this Sonderstab worked. It is important to many people. Robert Scholtz is familiar with all the particulars; just how, what methods were used, and he can say in particular that Rosenberg did not take one piece of the many works of art that were in his hands. Those pieces that went to Hitler or Goering, -he kept a meticulous system of bookkeeping. This man also knows that all these works of art remained in the countries where they were, especially in the East, and were only brought back to the Reich when there was a danger of war; and I beg the Tribunal to call in this very important witness.
THE COURT: Dr. Thoma, can you explain why the application was withdrawn on the 24th of January?
DR. THOMA: Yes, I con do that. At that time I believe by agreement with the British or American prosecution, we decided that we would not come bacj to this special matter, but the French prosecution mentioned these lootings in France and this witness was then activated once more.
THE COURT: That concludes your witnesses, I think?
DR. THOMA: I have another request, My Lord. I have another request for the summoning of witnesses, and I have already made a request with the General Secretary for State Secretary, Rauedigam. Rauedigam was ministerial director in the Ministry of the East, and he is to be called as a witness to prove that Rosenberg, as Minister of the East, did not instigate or activate any persecution of churches, but gave an edict of toleration, and through that guananteed religious freedom for all denominations. Further, that Rosenberg himself was opposed toward the use of force and worked along those lines, and the Rosenberg was always furthering cultural matters and was interested in strength ening the building up of such things. And it seems to be of very great importance that so far as the Ministry of the East is concerned there were many letters of thanks from the clergy in the Soviet Union. These letters came to Rosenberg to thank him for his good work. Gentlemen, if Dankers and Astrouski are not granted as witnesses then I request to use Rauedigam as a witness.
And then I have another witness; I would like to show how Rosenberg opposed his scientific opponents. I am thinking of the university professor, Dr. Guenne, who wrote a decisive book contrary to the myth of the 20th Century, and I request that we summon him as a witness.
He wanted to show that the ideological opponents of Rosenberg were not afraid of the Gestapo and had nothing to fear from the Gestapo.
THE COURT: Yes. Sir David, did you want to review those last two?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, in my submission these last two witnesses are not really relevant to the charges against this defendant which have been developed by the prosecution. They are general witnesses, and if I may put it -- I hope the Tribunal will not think it flippant to put it this way -- they are really witnesses who say that the defendant Rosenberg wouldn't hurt a fly; we have often seen him doing it, -- not hurting flies. It really puts it quite short as to what this class of evidence comes down to, and I respectfully submit in behalf of my colleagues that that should not be the subject of oral evidence, and it should either be disallowed, or if there is any special point raised should be dealt with by on affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Indictment allege that he instigated the persecution of churches?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Indictment says that he took part in antireligious teaching. I am speaking from memory. That is one of the matters. And I think there was certain correspondence between him and the defendant Bormann which was directed towards his anti-religious views. I don't remember at the moment that there was any evidence that he had personally participated in physical destruction of churches ******* That is my recollection. that he authorized, directed, and participated in the war crimes and crimes against humanity, including a wide variety of crimes against persons and property.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; those matters will be considered.
DR. SEIDL:(Counsel for defendant Frank): The first witness that I ask be summoned is Dr. Hans Buehler, state secretary and chief of the General Government. This witness is here in Nurnberg and he is the most important man for Frank.
He can show he was always named in the government of Frank. He was present from the first day until the end.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, have you got any objection to Dr. Buehler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No I haven't, My Lord. The only point that I want to make clear is that the defendant Frank calls an enormous number of witnesses from his own officials; he calls something like fifteen. And I am not going to object to Dr. Buehler; I am going to ask the Tribunal to cut down substantially the witnesses who were officials of the general government. And it might help Dr. Seidl if I told him before the adjournment that my suggestion would be that the Tribunal would consider allowing Dr. Buehler, an affidavit from Dr. von Burgsdorff, and that they might consider allowing Fraulein Helene Draffzcyk, the defendant's secretary, and Dr. Bilfinger, and Dr. Stepp, but not the succession of officials from the Government General.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you say your suggestion is to allow Dr. Buehler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Buehler.
THE PRESIDENT: And affidavits from -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Affidavits from Burgsdorff, allow Dr. Lanners -he is in the general list -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Allow the private secretary, Fraulein Kraffzcyk, number seven, and allow numbers nine and ten.
THE PRESIDENT: What are the names?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Bilfinger and Dr. Stepp.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And if these are allowed I should suggest that numbers thirteen to twenty, who are various officials from the office of the Government General, should not be allowed. If I may say, with the submission of the prosecution, that the height of irrelevancy will be number eighteen, Dr. Eisfeldt, who is chief of the Forestry Department.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I thought it might be convenient for Dr. Seidl to know what the views of the prosecution were. Of course, if he has any suggestions of any alternatives we should be pleased to consider them.
