DR. SEIDL: It is not so that all officers or chiefs of these departments will be called as witnesses. There would be quite a number of others which I could have named and I have already mentioned that, for instance, of nine generally, of which every one was in charge of three and a half million people, I have mentioned only one; that is, the witness von Burgsdorff. that is the various military commanders. If, however, the prosecution should like to know which witnesses I consider of special importance, I will name the numbers of these witnesses. It is, besides Dr. Buehler, witness No. 2. von Burgdorff. Lammers was already approved.
The witness Dr. Max Meidinger.
The witness Gassner, No. 6.
The witness No. 7, Helene Kraffzcyk.
The witness No. 9, Bilfinger. He was not a member of the Government General.
The members of the Government. No. 13, No. 14, No. 15, and No. 19. That should not mean, however, that voluntarily I would forage all the witnesses which I have not mentioned. Witness No. 15, President Dr. Naumann, is an important witness because he was the chief of the Main Department for Nutrition and Agriculture and could give us detailed information about which the policy of the Defendant Frank was with regard to the nutrition of the Polish and Ukrainian people and how he has tried in particular, with the highest authorities of the Reich, to achieve a reduction of the demands of the Reich. Until now, the address of this witness was not known but as I have found out, his present location is supposedly known to Prosecutor Dr. Sawicki of the Polish Prosecution.
The next witness is witness No. 16, President Ohlenbusch, who is especially called for the culture policy of the Defendant Frank in the Government General, who should give us some information on this point. There is a witness which does not count among the most important ones and I should think, there here an affidavit would be sufficient.
Witness No. 17. The same thing applies to Witness No. 17.
Witness No. 18 is Dr. Eisfeldt of the Main Department Forestry, and who could make statements about the forestry policy of the defendant, and that seems to me to be a point -- information about the fact that the trouble with the resistance became so strong that it was not in the interest of the Polish and Ukrainian people and that strong measures had to be taken.
Witness No. 19 is President Lesacker, last president of the Main Department Internal Administration, and also in this case, we have found out only recently where he is.
Witness No. 20 is Professor Dr. Teitge, who, as can be seem from my list could give information about the attempts of the Defendant Dr. Frank concerning the health policies.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I now had the advantage of hearing everything that Dr. Seidl had to say and it seems to me that so far as the witnesses from the Government General itself are concerned, the position is that Dr. Boepple, No. 13, doesn't add greatly to the general position which would be explained by Dr. Buehler and Dr. Burgsdorff and Fraulein Kraffzcyk; that the witness No. 5, Dr. Meidinger, seems to deal with very much the same problems as President Struve, witness No. 14, and the witness Naumann, No. 15, and that on reconsideration, I think the prosecution would be prepared to agree that one of these witnesses, either Dr. Meidinger, or Dr. Struve, or Dr. Naumann, might well be called.
With regard to all the others, Dr. Ohlenbusch, and Dr. Senkawskz, and Dr. Eisfeldt, seen to speak about points that are really removed from the issues in this case, and Dr. Lesacker speaks on the general attitude of the defendant towards Poles and Ukrainians, which is covered by Dr. Buehler and von Burgsdorff, and Meidinger, if he is granted; and the last witness, Teitge, seems again to speak as to a really departmental point which is not a serious issue in the case and, therefore, in trying to apply our own principle of recommending any witness where there is a real relevancy, the prosecution would be prepared to go as far as I said in their recommendation, that in addition to the witnesses that I have mentioned, they would suggest that either Dr. Meidinger or one of the witnesses, Struve or Naumann, should be called.
COLONEL POKROWSKY: May I have permission to make a few additional statements, to add something to which my respected colleague, Sir David, has said?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COLONEL POKROWSKY: After I had heard Dr. Seidl, I came to the conclusion that we shall ask you to consider our negative attitude to the question about the repeated calling of the witness von dem Bach-Zelewski. The Soviet Delegation is afraid that if the Tribunal finds it possible to grant the application which, according to me, is absolutely unfounded and without any basis, then a very dangerous precedent would be created for actually denying or rejecting the decision in principle which has already been accepted and already made by the Tribunal in regard to this respect. As I said, the Tribunal is of the opinion that every witness can be and should be called only once and with certain exceptions.
In response to your questions, Dr. Seidl confirms that when cross examination was taking place here in this hall by my colleague, Colonel Taylor and me, Dr. Seidl was present here. He saw and he heard how cross examination was being done. His reference to the fact that he didn't have time enough to prepare himself to participate in this cross examination, seems to me that this reference is not worth paying any attention to. He was in the same position as the rest of us were. The Tribunal will remember that a whole series of defense counsel participated in cross examination, seems to me that this reference is not worth paying any attention to. He was in the same position as the rest of us were. The Tribunal will remember that a whole series of defense counsel participated in cross examination of the witness von dem Bach-Zelewski and I see no basis or foundation why, for the sake of Dr. Seidl, there should be created some different attitude and I don't see any reason or foundation, and it is purely incomprehensivle to me, on the part of Dr. Seidl, that there should, be any change made in regard to the decision and principles of the Tribunal, which deals with the fact that the witness is called only once. That is what I wanted to add to the words of my respected colleague, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I do not believe that the application to call an important witness, that the demand to hear him again is so incomprehensible if the cross examination is difficult, for reasons which we cannot influence. In the first place, I have not made that application to call the witness here but I have only asked the Court for permission to obtain an affidavit from that witness and to submit this to the Tribunal. If, now, the affidavit is such -
THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing with No. 20?
DR. SEIDL: No, sir. I speak about the witness von dem Bach-Zelewski.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you said about it.
DR. SEIDL: May I now begin with the list of documents, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the documents, Dr. Seidl asks for the correspondence between the Governor General and the Reichschancellory. I have just verified that we have not got the other part of the correspondence. Of course, if any come into our possession, we will be only too pleased to give them to Dr. Seidl. We haven't got them and we haven't also got the personal files of the Defendant Frank, in the Reich Security Office. The same applies to that, that if we do get possession we will let Dr. Seidl know at once.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the prosecution any objection to the other documents which are asked for?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that is all. The others are the diary. Dr. Seidl can comment on and call evidence as he desires as to the diary.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Now counsel for the defendant Frick.
DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER: I am Dr. Pannenbecker, counsel for the defendant Frick. The first witness I have to call in is Dr. Lammers. He is also called for the defendant Keitel, so I do not have to say anything further about him. in the Department of the Interior, Dr. Stuckert, one of the State Secretaries in the Department of the Interior, and he is in custody in Nurnberg. He was also chief of the Zentralstelle.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Stuckart being asked for by the defendant Keitel?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think the explanation is that it was certainly thought that on the 9th February this witness was to be so called by the defendant Keitel, and on that basis he was approved in connection with the defendant Frick. That is not directly my request to write it on the defendant Keitel's final list.
THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection to him?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to him, Your Lordship.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Mr. President, No.3, I have mentioned Daluege, who was formerly a General of the Police Force, and who is now in custody in Nurnberg. He is informed especially about the position and the attitude of defendant Frick in regard to the anti-Jewish demonstration 9th November 1938, and he also has information about the relations between Frick and Himmler.
Witness No.4, I have mentioned Dr. Diehls, who is now in the internment camp at Hanover. The witness became in 1933 -- in 1934 Chief of the Gestapo of Prussia. He is informed about the measures which the defendant Frick, as Minister of the Interior, has taken about the various countries; decreed restrictive rules about the concentration camps, and also he is informed about the special measures concerning the conditions of these camps.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I submit that this witness' evidence should be taken in writing. With regard to the early part, the Tribunal will have the advantages of the defendant Goering who was concerned with especially that of the practices of the police in Prussia in 1933 and 1934, and with regard to the other points, as to the measures of the defendant Frick, and of course, these are either by laws or orders, or administrative measures, which could be included in the submission by the prosecution as being dealt with by written testimony, supplemented by testimony of the defendant Frick himself.
DR. PANNENBECKER: If I may say something. I believe that it would be more practical to hear the witness here before the Court, because then by previous conference with the witness it could be satisfied about the point he is informed, whereas in interrogatories that could not be well discussed in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Then I may go to No.5, the former Police Commissioner, Gillhuber. Gillhuber had accompanied Frick in all of his travels as his bodyguard, and he also knows which travels Frick had made, and therefore is in a position to say that Frick never made a trip to the Concentration Camp Dachau, which is contrary to the statement made here by the witness Blaha.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection, of course, to the defendant Frick dealing with that point. The only difficulty as to a witness of this sort is, I will say, unfamiliarity with all of his travels, because if he is or was a bodyguard, he is almost certain to have periods of leave, and periods of interruption which would occur. I should have thought that this could have been dealt with by affidavits, or an interrogation, if necessary. When they are seen the matter could be reconsidered. But I would suggest at first stage the interrogations, indicating in the witness own account how often he was with the defendant Frick, and what interruptions would be the most frequent in that period; therefore, it is for the Court.
DR. PANNENBECKER: I agree with that, Mr. President.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now dealing with the next point, I have a suggestion to make in regard to the witness -- the next witness Denson.
The point, as I understand it there, is that the witness Blaha said before the Tribunal that Frick had visited Dachau; that it was, in his evidence on the Dachau trial, he never made a trip to Dachau. I should say the most satisfactory way in dealing with that is to get the shorthand notes of the witness Blaha's evidence at the Blaha Trial, and put in a certified copy.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Agreed. I believe also that this notation -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Actually we have a certified copy of the shorthand notes of Blaha's evidence here, and I also say in fairness to the witness that it does show he did say that at Dachau Frick visited the concentration camp, and I'll show it to Dr. Pannenbecker whenever he likes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: No. 7, I have mentioned Dr. Messersmith, but an affidavit has been read here by the prosecution already, and his interrogation was approved, and we have not as yet received an answer. I would ask anyway to see whether a further affidavit would be necessary. Dr. Gisevius.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should submit that Dr. Gisevius' evidence might also be reasonably dealt with directly in an affidavit in answer to interrogatories.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is this in the exhibit?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Visevius, in the supplement.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He was consultant of the Reichsminister of the Interior, and that the defendant Frick did first refer to Switzerland after 20 July 1944; that he has the exact knowledge of the responsibility and actual authority of the defendant Frick to issue orders in police matters. I should think that such matters might be answered, or conveniently dealt with in an affidavit.
MR. PRESIDENT: What do you say, Dr. Pannenbecker?
DR. PANNENBECKER: I would like to say that Dr. Visevius is also called, or is needed by the defendant Schacht as his witness, as much as I know, about the incident of 20th of July.
I believe that this witness should be here for the defendant Schacht also. It would be better also if the witness could appear personally for the defendant Frick. Of course, if this cannot be done, an affidavit would have to be sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: You asked earlier for the return of Ratke. I think that you were told you could have Stuckart for him. Will you now leave out of your application to have him because you have Stuckart.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Now it was like this with regard to the incident of Blaha. I had named three witnesses, Ratke, Dr. Stuckart, and we dropped Ratka when I got Gillhuber.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Now characterizing the personality of the defendant Frick, the defendant Frick, I think, requested to be permitted to fetch two books; one small one of the Reich in which a speech by Frick is contained therein. I only intend to quote short excerpts from these books in my brief. Concerning the other book "Inside Europe" by John Gunther, I also only want to quote a short excerpt. question that Frick was opposed against the arbitrary measure in connection with the protective custody in connection with the internment in concentration camps, and that he has issued decrees against them. I refer to a document which the prosecution has originally submitted but not read in court. These documents I have listed under No. 2A and 82C in detail. the Ministry of the Interior, where were also decrees, and the incident of the defendant Frick can be found. which I have received by the former Deputy Dr. Wulle. I have mentioned it under No. 3.
The prosecution has submitted an affidavit by Dr. Seger, in whichhe declared that Frick as in December 1932 as Chairman of the Foreign Committee of the Reichstag, in the first committee that he had made statements about the political opponents, putting the political opponents into concentration camps.
In No. 4 I have asked for the records of the prosecution of the Foreign Office, the notes of which show that such a statement has not been made, and has not been recorded.
at Dachau, it has already been covered.
No. 6 concerns the affidavit on the witness Dr. Stuckart, which he signed for the American prosecution on November 21, 1945, and, I also could ask this witness about these questions when he would be called, and an examination would be shortened when I could read this affidavit, which was made for the American prosecution. Bohemia and Moravia, I would like to submit document No. 1368 on "To the Bitter end." I found out about this book from an excerpt which appeared on 26 February 1946 in the "Sueddeutehe Zeitung" and have been interested in the details of, that was about 30 June 1934. This excerpt shows that there is a remark shown that for the incidents of 30 Jund 1934, the responsibility was taken from Frick, and sent to Goering and Himmler. The book will bring also other details out concerning these points, because Gisevius at the time was an expert on matters of police for the Reichsminister of the Interior. I would like to therefore present the book at this time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I might say, I don't think that there is much between Dr. Pannenbecker and the prosecution. I might run through the documents asked for. In the book "We Build Up", if Dr. Pannenbecker will indicate the excerpts he is going to use, the prosecution will have no objection to his quoting from them, and the same with regard to the quotations from Mr. Gunther's book "Inside Europe". In paragraph 2 of the document 779 PS, the excerpt from a newspaper, the document 775-PS, to these there are no objections. The files of the police division are not in the hands of the prosecution. If we do get any of them, then we shall let Dr. Pannenbecker know. So far as the letter from the former Deputy Wulle is concerned, there is no objection to that. I have not seen any letter as yet, but there is no objection to it in principle. With regard to No. 4, I think there is some misunderstanding there. That is, document L-83. The affidavit of Seger is before the Tribunal as US Exhibit No. 234, and the statement with regard to the defendant Seger was that the defendant Frick said to him: "Don't worry, when we are in power, we shall put all of you guys into concentration camps." This was alleged in the affidavit as said by Frick to Seger during the course of a conversation.
It is not alleged to have been said in a conference of Foreign Committee. Then No. 5, I say I have got the shorthand notes, and it will be shown to Dr. Pannenbecker. As to No. 6, I understand that Dr. Stuckart is going to be called. Of course, the affidavit can be put as to him, and we can verify its truth. The document 1336-PS will be put at the disposal of the defense and they can make such use of it as they desire. I think that covers the documents. So far as this Dr. Gisevius book, I understand that Dr. Pannenbecker has not a copy of that. Perhaps the Tribunal will see that a copy can be obtained for him. I do not know whether we have a copy. The prosecutor will see what we can do and to see that a copy is available.
DR. PANNENBECKER: May I say as to No. 4, Dr. Seger. As to that document may I make a short remark. Maybe it could be clarified by an interrogatory whether Frick has made this statement in his capacity as Chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee, or not. That is, to say, whether that statement is in the stenographic minutes or not.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understand that it was not in the minutes. I would not be in the minutes because Dr. Seger alleges that it was made during the course of a conversation, and not in that committee.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will continue tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, if possible, with the further applications for witnesses and coeuments, which the Tribunal understands have been lodged on Friday evening.
(*--* Tribunal adjourned until 5 March 1946 at 1000 hours.)
Military Tribunal in the matter of: The
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make.
The attention of the Tribunal has been drawn by Dr. Hans Marx, one of the German counsel appearing in this case for the defense, to an article which was published in the newspaper Berliner Zeitung for February 2, under the heading of "A Defense Counsel". The article, which I do not propose to read, criticizes Dr. Marx in the severest terms for an error of his cross examination of a witness, when he deputized for Dr. Babel on behalf of the SS. The article suggested that in asking the question he did, he was behaving most improperly, that he was expressing private and personal views under the guise of acting as counsel, and that his proper course was to remain silent in view of the character of the evidence. on to threaten Dr. Marx with complete ostracism in the future and does so in language both violent and intimidating. cannot be tolerated. The right of any accused person to be represented by counsel is one of the most important elements in the administration of justice. Counsel is an officer of the Court and he must be permitted freely to make his defense without fear from threats or intimidations. In conformity with the express provisions of the charter, the Tribunal was at great pains to see that all the individual defendants and the named organizations should have the advantage of being represented by counsel, and the defense counsel have already shown the great service they are rendering in this trial, and their conduct in this regard should certainly not leave them open to reproach of any kind from any quarter. court and will be zealous to insure that the highest standard of professional conduct is maintained. Counsel, in discharge of their duties under the Charter, may count upon the fullest protection which it is in the power of the Tribunal to afford.
In the present instance the Tribunal does not think that Dr. Marx in any way exceeded his professional duty. bearing on the die administration of justice that they have asked the Control Council for Germany to investigate the facts and to report to the Tribunal. I call upon counsel for the Defendant Streicher.
DR. MARX (Counsel for defendant Streicher): Mr. President, the defendant Stricher is indicted on two points: Point 1, that he was active in the planning and conspiracy of aggressive war; and 2, crimes against humanity. that we do not have to bring proof because Streicher, during the whole of this proceeding, was never mentioned in a single document, and as to participation, so far as conferences with Hitler were concerned, he was not present and it cannot be proved that he was. With this line of thought I did not see fit to bring any proof. to call the wife of the defendant Streicher, Mrs. Adele Streicher; I would like to call her as a witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I wonder if it would be convenient for me to indicate the views of the prosecution on these witnesses; there are only six of them. Then perhaps Dr. Marx could make his comments on my remarks.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The Tribunal will see that there are six witnesses, and if it would take them, in my order, it would indicate the point of the prosecution. and apparently the defendant's principal lieutenant. and is alleged to be able to give evidence as to the speeches of the defendant.
Number 2, Herrwerth, was the defendant's chauffeur, and he speaks as to one point, really, namely, the defendant's annoyance at violence being used on the 10th of November, 1938.
And number 6, Dr. Strobel, who is a lawyer, speaks as to the same point, the disapproval expressed by the defendant in December 1938 as to the measures taken in November.
Then there are two members of the defendant's family: Frau Stricher, who was his secretary from 1940 to 1945; and his son, Lothar Streicher.
the defendant's principal lieutenant, and on the suggestion made by Dr. Marx, that he can speak as to whatDr. Marx calls the defendant Stricher's basic attitude on the Jewish question. There are a number of matters on which he is said to be able to speak, to which the prosecution would object as irrelevant. However, the time for so doing is later. been present at meetings where Stricher spoke, from the early days. To that also, the prosecution would not make objection, but they draw attention that in the early applications Herr Wurzbacher was said to be able to speak to the boycott in 1933 and the events of November 1938. Therefore, the prosecution respectfully remind the Tribunal that he can speak as to the events in 1938 and, in the view of the prosecution, it is not necessary to have oral testimony to repeat that point. They therefore suggest that with regard to Herr Herrwerth, the defendant's chauffeur, who really speaks as to one main point--that the defendant showed anger with regard to the events of 1938--an affidavit would be sufficient. They suggest the same course with regard to Dr. Strobel, who is the attorney who is mentioned. that it is said that Frau Stricher was the defendant's secretary during the period from May 1940 to May 1945. The gist of the case against this defendant is, of course, at a much earlier period, both before and immediately after the rise to power. from Frau Streicher is really a description of the life of the defendant during the war years, and they suggest that that, again, be covered by an affidavit. of the defendant. If I may remind the Tribunal of how the matters mentioned in regard to him come into the case: In a report of the Goering Commission into the matters of aryanization, the question of corruption in regard to that, part of the report stated that this 5-*ar-M-MC-2-1 defendant paid a visit to three boys in prison and that certain disgusting and cruel actions took place.
The prosecution, of course, submit that that is not really a matter of relevance to the charges against the defendant, but they realize that it is a highly prejudicial matter; it has been road and the bad effect has gone out of that evidence. Therefore, they feel that it must be a matter for the Tribunal, and the prosecution, having put in the report including that, ought not to take an objection, except to point out that it is not strictly relevant. However, if the Tribunal feel that this defendant ought to have the advantage of his son to counteract that account of very unpleasant matters, the prosecution would not take any objection, although they are bound to point out that it is not strictly relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: In the view of the prosecution, would an affidavit be suitable in that case?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, that is the line the prosecution would suggest. tion would make no objection to Herr Hiemer and Herr Wurzbacher giving oral evidence, and to affidavits from the other witnesses.
DR. MARX: I beg to differ in a few respects from Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. The prosecution seems to be of the opinion that the testimony to be given by Mrs. Adele Streicher could not be of a special relevance. But I would like to state the opposite view, that this witness, who for five years--that is, from 1940 to 1945--was in the direct proximity of the defendant, handled the entire correspondence of the defendant and knows especially and particularly what relations Streicher had during the entire period of the war. Streicher had no connection or relation to any of the important figures of the State or of the Party while he was interned on his estate. There was no exchange of letters nor an exchange of ideas with Hitler, nor with Himmler or or Kaltenbrunner, Heidrich, or whatever the names of the other important personalities may be. role whatsoever; he had no authority whatsoever.
and stress the presence of this witness, because otherwise the most important interests of my client would be damaged. I, therefore, humbly suggest that Mrs. Streicher's presence before the Tribunal be granted, so that important questions may be put.
The same also applies to the witness Herrwerth. We cannot say that this witness can speak about unimportant matters or about insignificant incidents. On the other hand, we are concerned with proceedings or incidents of a significant nature. This man Herrwerth was present on the night of the 9th to the 10th of November, when the SA Group Leader von Obernitz reported to the then Gauleiter Streicher that demonstrations against the Jewish population were being planned. He knows, therefore, on the basis of his personal experience, what took place between these two men, what their conversation was, and he knows that Streicher was opposed to this demonstration.
of order. Streicher took a definite stand against the will and the directive of the Fuehrer, as far as this demonstration against the Jewish population was concerned. There can be no doubt that we are concerned with an incident of great importance and significance. It is clear that if at that time Streicher who was bedridden at the time was visited in his room, Streicher if he took the stand that he did at that time, was without doubt as we have shown him to be, and I respectfully submit that Fritz Herrwerth be called as a witness before the Tribunal, so that he can be cross-examined by me and also by the Prosecution. to be in agreement. And as far as Wurzbacher is concerned, also. Wurzbacher is at present -- as I would like to remark at this point -- in the camp at Moosburg, and that is Camp No. 10. Streicher puts a special bearing on the point that this witness can show that a statement or claim made in the Goering Report is not true and that the Defendant Streicher at that time did not make any immoral gestures at that visit in the jail. this point and that this report will not be used as the theme of the speech, then I could agree to the point not to call this witness. If the opposite is the case, however, I consider it my duty to save the honor of my client and to insist on having this witness called before the Tribunal. suggest that my request be granted.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On that last point, My Lord, I have indicated from the Prosecution that that incident is not relevant to the charges against the Defendant Streicher. The Prosecution, of course, produced the report and I thought 1 had made it clear to the Tribunal that it is one of these collateral matters that do come in and the Prosecution for that reason would not oppose an affidavit from Lothar Streicher. But the main case of the Prosecution against this Defendant is on the stirring up and consistent incitement of the persecution of the Jews.