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.
THE PRESIDENT: We will continue with that after the adjournment, Dr. Seidl. Tribunal willarise this afternoon at three-thirty.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
Military Tribunal, in the matter of: The
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, your Honors, if I have understood correctly, then Sir David has no objection to the calling of the witnesses, Dr. Hans Buehler, Dr. Bilfinger, and Miss Kraffzcyk.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The second witness, Dr. von Burgsdorff, the last Governor of Cracow, is at present in the internment camp, Moosburg. That is close to Nurnberg, 100 kilometers from here.
Dr. von Burgsdorff is the only one of nine governors whom I have named to the Court as witnesses. With regard to the importance of the position of the governors in the General Government and considering the great difficulties whic these governors had to overcome, I believe that the witness Dr. von Burgsdorff should appear here before the Court personally to be examined, and it should no be done by an interrogatory. evidence that I expect from this witness?
THE PRESIDENT: We have got it in writing, and we understand that while Sir David suggests an affidavit you want to insist upon him coming personally.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, sir, especially with regard to the fact that the Court already before has approved the calling of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Reichsminister and Chief of the Reichs Chancellory, Dr. Lammers. This witness was already approved for the Defentant Keitel, so that there are no more discussions about that necessary.
The fourth witness is State Minister Dr. Meissner. With regard to the fact that this witness is mentioned for evidence for which also Dr. Lammers was named, should like to ask the Tribunal to permit in this case an interrogator except if this witness should be called for another defendant and would have to appear then personally.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I did check that point as far as I could from my records, and I could not find that he was being called for any other witness, for any other defendant. And as Dr. Seidl very fairly says in his first sentence, Dr. Meissner is named for the same evidence naterial as the witness Dr. Lammers. That is my point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is Dr. Max Meidinger, last Chief of the Chancellory of the General Government, and he is also, like Dr. von Burgsdorff, in Moosburg. You can see from my written motion that this witness had a very important position. He had worked for all correspondents, and he knows in particular the contents of the proposals and of the objections which the Defendant Dr. Frank has directed against the central authorities in Berlin.
He is also informed about the proposals which the Defendant Dr. Frank has repeatedly made to the Fuehrer in person. that with regard to the large knowledge of this witness -- he was for several years active in the General Government -- that a personal hearing before this Court would be advisable.
THE PRESIDENT: You say he was approved. Was he not approved as one out of a group of which Frank was to choose three? There was a large group of witnesses.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, sir. From this group he was selected, von Burgsdorff and Dr. Max Miedinger. Those are the two witnesses whom I have selected from a group of 13 witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Which was the other one?
DR. SEIDL: The other one was the witness number two, Dr. von Burgsdorff. personally, is the wtiness Hans Gassner. He was last press chief in the General Government, and he is also in the internment camp of Moosburg. He is called, among other things, for the evidence that the Defendant Dr. Frank, as late as 1944, received information about the existence and the conditions in the camp at Majdanek; and through information from this witness about publications in the foreign press.
when Dr. Frank made the statement to a press reporter that the forests of Poland would not be sufficiently large to publish the death warrants. The witness will also be able to explain in detail how this interview was kept, how the Defendant Dr. Frank made this statement, and how he wanted it to be understood and what the reasons were for him to make that statement. earlier date. list of evidence will show quite generally the direction in which I would want to list witnesses, and that I have definitely disregarded to formulate the questions in detail which I intend to put to the wtinesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, will you express your view about Number 6?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, it seemed to the Prosecution that the second matter which Herr Gassner was desired to speak as to, that the Defendant Frank only learned from him in 1944 about Majdanek, is really a matter about which no witness can be as satisfactory as the defendant himself. All the witness can say is that "I told the Defendant Frank about Majdanek, and it appeared to me that he didn't know anything about it." Well, that is not, in the view of the Prosecution, satisfactory evidence has been cross examined on that point. If it is desired that that interview should be before the Court, the Prosecution submits that it could be adequately dealt with by an affidavit or an interrogatory. Apart from that, the grounds are entirely general and again could be covered by a written statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, the next one Sir David has already expressed his views on.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, sir.
If I have understood correctly, there are no objections from the side of the Prosecution.
Witness Number 8 is General von Epp, last governor of Bavaria. He is at present in the internment camp at Oberrursel. What this witness is supposed to prove concerns particularly the position of the Defendant, Dr. Frank, the attitude of the Defendant Frank to the question of concentration camps in the year 1933.
I should consider it satisfactory if the Court would permit the use of an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Sir David.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Your Lordship will see that General Ritter von Epp seems to cover the same, incident as Dr. Stepp. I said that I wouldn't object to Dr. Stepp, but if Dr. Seidl wishes an interrogatory on some specific points from General Ritter von Epp, I shouldn't make any objections.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness, Witness Number 9, is Dr. Rudolf Bilfinger, last Oberregierungsrat and SS Obersturmbannfuehrer in the RSHA. He is at present in Nurnberg, and the Prosecution apparently has no objection against the calling of this witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: (Interposing) My Lord, I would just like to say one word about Dr. Bilfinger. I want the Tribunal to understand what the Prosecution has in mind. The general plan of those witnesses is to show from both ends the relationship between the Defendant Frank and the central agencies. The Prosecution thought that it was right that the Defendant should be allowed to call two or three members of his own staff and a member from Headquarters, who was in the position of Dr. Bilfinger, to give the other side of the picture. I just wanted the Tribunal to understand the plan on which we were working.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: Number 10 is Dr. Walter Stepp, last oberlandergerieth's president in Munich, at present in the Interment Camp at Ludwigsburg. If I have understood Sir David correctly, then he has no objection against the calling of this witness. I have already received, and which will prove the veracity of these points. The reading of this affidavit would only take a few minutes, and if the Court would permit me to call another witness in exchange or the Prosecution would have no objection to my calling another witness -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have to ask for some notice as to who the other witness is. I was stating that I had no objection to Dr. Stepp because he speaks as to the Defendant Frank's position in relation with other people in Bavaria in earlier years. Of course I can't speak on behalf of my colleagues and accept just another witness blindly until I know who the witness is and what he is going to say.
DR. SEIDL: The witness Dr. Max Meidinger would be the one.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to be as reasonable as possible. The reason that I had objected to Dr. Meidinger was because, as the Tribunal will see under Number 7, it is stated that Frauelein Kraffzcyk is called for positive facts for which the witness Dr. Meidinger has already been named. It seemed to me that the private secretary is probably the most useful witness, but I am afraid that I can't help Dr. Seidl any further. I have put my view, but I shall not say anything further against him. I am afraid that is as far as I can go on that point.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is number 11, the witness von dem BachZelewski, SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen SS, who has already before this Tribunal been examined as a witness of the Prosecution. I have already received approval at an earlier date for an interrogatory with that witness. In the meantime I have spoken to the witness, and the witness has made an affidavit, which I would be prepared to submit instead of calling him personally.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought that it was most convenient if the witness von dem Bach-Zelewski came back and then Dr. Seidl could put any affidavit to him if he wanted. We might want to re-examine on the point. I don't knew what is in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Was he cross examined by Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: When the witness was heard here I had no opportunity to cross examine the witness, and for that reason -
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you have no opportunity to cross examine him?
DR. SEIDL: Because I did not know before that he would be called by the Prosecution as witness, and because I had no opportunity to speak to the Defendant Frank about the questions which I could possibly have asked the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will consider whether the witness ought to be recalled for cross examination or whether you will be allowed to call him yourself. The affidavit which you say he has made, has that been submitted to the Prosecution?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I haven't seen it, my Lord.
DR. SEIDL: No, sir. My opinion at this point is the following.
THE PRESIDENT: When you saw Von Dem Bach-Zelewski did you see him with a representative of the Prosecution?
DR. SEIDL: No, sir. It was approved, apparently by the General Secretary that I could speak to the witness, and that was at a time after the Court had already approved the use of an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: But when the witness was called by the Prosecution and you had the opportunity of cross examination, if you weren't ready to cross examine you ought to have asked to cross examine him at a later date. I mean if you weren't able to cross examine at that time because you hadn't had any communication with the Defendant Frank on the subject, you ought to have asked to cross examine at a later date.
DR. SEIDL: This application to the Court I could only have made, in my opinion, if I could have countered with the possibility to put questions to this witness. I didn't know at that time that the witness could know something with regard to Frank which would be important, and that I found out later.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider the matter.
DR SEIDL: May I add something to this point? The difficulty of the cross examination for the defense counsel consists of just this, in that we do not know in advance when the prosecution intends to call a witness. We only found out when the witnesses were brought into the courtroom, and only then we knew about the subject when the prosecution started to examine the witness. It would have been much easier for us to cross examine, to conduct the cross examination if we would have known in advance about the witness and the evidence concerned; that is, so far in advance as the prosecution knows it now about the witnesses of the defense.
The next witness is witness No. 12, von Palezieux. He was the last art expert in the General Government and concerning this witness, I should like to suggest that here also the use of an interrogatory would be approved.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFE: If Dr. Seidl asks for an interrogatory I have no objection. I just want to be clear that that is a written interrogatory. I don't want Dr. Seidl to be under a misapprehension.
THE PRESIDENT: You meant a written interrogatory, didn't you, Dr. Seidl?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, sir. I believe that in those cases where a written interrogatory is admitted or that an affidavit is admitted by the Court, the purpose is to avoid that witnesses be brought here and only in order to gain time.
The next witness is witness No. 13, Dr. Boepple. He was the last Secretary of State in the General Government and is now in the internment camp at Ludwigsburg, near Stuttgart. This witness seems to be one of the most important and for that reason, that he was in the General Government and there he has answered a few questions concerning the Government, in which the accusation against the Defendant Frank plays an important part. I may refer in detail to my list of evidence and I want to add, first of all, that this witness may give us detailed information as to whether, during the five years of existence of the General Government, industrial equipment of that area was exploited ot taken away, or if it was rather so, that in 1943 and 1944, as a result of transfers from the Reich, the General Government had much more industry that at the beginnine.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFE: The prosecution submits that, as is stated in the first sentence, "***Dr. Boepple is called for a number of facts of evidence, for which Dr. Buehler has been already generally mentioned," part of the evidence stated is the relationship which the General Government agencies and the remainder as to the happenings in the General Government, can be dealt with by the witnesses already agreed to by the prosecution.
DR. SEIDL: It is correct that some of what Dr. Boepple is concerned with can also be told by Buehler but, in my opinion, it cannot be doubted that the subject of evidence, for which I have named this witness, is so important that one witness might not be sufficient to inform the Court.
I would like to point out the following point of view. The witness Buehler was chief of the government in the General Government. He was repeatedly interrogated, also by the Polish Delegation, and there is some danger that also against this witness, on account of the importance of his position which he has held there would be a trial started against him. It is evident that under these circumstances, each defense counsel has to take into account that possibly this witness will try to defend himself in answering certain questions, and with regard to the importance of the facts, it seems that on account of the difficulty of this case, this situation, the Defendant Frank should be granted further witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in your suggestion, did you include any of the other witnesses who were cumulative to Buehler?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I suggested an affidavit from Boepple and only Fraulein Kraffzcyk on the generalwork of the General Government. The others, I think, are on the different points of the relationship with the central agencies.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.
DR. SEIDL: The next witness is witness No. 14, President Struve, who was chief of the Main Labor Department in theGeneral Government; that is to say, he was the labor minister in the General Government. With regard to the fact that is has been said by the prosecution of the United States against the Defendant Dr. Frank and also by the Soviet Union, especially about the deportation of workers, heavy accusations have been made against Dr. Frank. With regard to that, it seems to me that for this part of theevidence, at least one witness -- and that is the official -- should be heard in order to give information as to which were the directives which he received from the General Governor concerning these points.
We have found out the location where this witness is right now. He is in a camp near Paderborn.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should suggest, my Lord, with great deference, that if Dr. Seidl would run through the other witnesses and show those to which he attaches special importance, it would be convenient for the Tribunal and if Dr. Seidl would be good enough to say wuite bluntly whether he attaches importance to any of the others; if he does, then it might be possible for the prosecution to reconsider the elimination of all these witnesses but the position at the moment is that there are requests for all sections, all departments of the Government General and the prosecution failed to see how those are necessary, as if Dr. Seidl would indicate any special purpose that he attaches to any of them, then one might come back and consider President Sturve again; but the position at the moment is that the prosecution do not see how it really helps the case of the Defendant Frank, that each one of the departmental chiefs should be called.