THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SIEMERS: Witness Number Four, Grand Admiral Albrecht, was one of the closest collaborators with Grand Admiral Raeder. From 1926 to 1928 he was Raeder's Chief of Staff in Kiel, from 1928 to 1930, Chief of the Navy Personnel Office of the OKM. From then on he was Commanding Admiral in Kiel, and finally Navy Commander East from 1939. was also commander in chief in charge of organization. Consequently, his testimony appears important to me. General Admiral Albrecht has also written to the Tribunal in this connection. familiar with Raeder's main notions. He knows Raeder's train of thought, has known it since 1928. That is to say, from that point on when the accusations against Raeder of the Prosecution begin.
directed against RAeder during a period of 15 years. I cannot refute all the accusations with just one or two witnesses.
The number of points taken up by these various witnesses are so various that we cannot speak of them as cumulative. by the Tribunal and by the Prosecution, particularly Schulte-Moenting, the Tribunal has not yet informed me in this connection where Schulte-Moenting is. I presume that he is in a prisoner of war camp in England, but I do not know whether he is really at my disposal and whether I can get in touch with him in time.
THE PRESIDENT: You were dealing with Grand Admiral Konrad Albrecht, were you not? You are dealing with Number Four?
DR. SIEMERS: Regarding Albrecht, we know that he is in Hamburg. I simply pointed out that it would not be cumulative if both Albrecht and Schulte-Moenting are heard by the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, what Sir David is suggesting was an interrogatory in the case of Admiral Albrecht and an affidavit in the case of Admiral Schulte-Moenting.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will agree to Admiral Schulte-Moenting being called orally.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. I was mixing the numbers. Yes, that is right, to call the one and have interrogatories, from the others. Have you any objection to that?
DR. SIEMERS: I request that I be able to call both as witnesses. Schulte-Moenting will testify regarding a later period, Albrecht of the period immediately subsequent to the Versailles Treaty. Their testimony is very different. has not yet informed me whether I can with absolute certainty count on Schulte-Moenting, in other words, whether he has been found, whether it is known where he is.
THE PRESIDENT: Our information is that he is not located, SchulteMoenting.
DR. SIEMERS: I have no information.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not sure thatis right. Yes, he has been located in a prisoner of war camp in the United Kingdom. At least, I think so. a prisoner of war camp in the United Kingdom.
DR. SIEMERS: I thank you. I had not known that, and under these circumstances I am prepared, in regard to General Admiral Albrecht, to satisfy myself with an affidavit or an interrogatory on the proposition that Schule-Moenting really turns up.
Number Seven, Dr. Suechting. I shall be satisfied with an affidavit in this case to speed up the trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Under the one condition that this matter will be clarified between me and the British Prosecution, as stated first in connection with Admiral Lohmann. I believe that Sir David is agreeable to this.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know how you suggest that these questions of shipbuilding in connection with the German-English Naval Agreements of 1935 and 1937 are relevant to any charge made here.
DR. SIEMERS: The Defendant Raeder is accused of having broken the Treaty of Versailles and the Naval Agreements. In the violation of such treaties, it is usually a question of shipbuilding. Consequently, I must prove what was permissible according to the Treaty of Versailles and the Naval Agreements and what was actually built, and what basic principles guided the naval policy. As I said, I would be satisfied to submit an affidavit in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider the arguments on that.
DR. SIEMERS: No.8, Fieldmarshal von Blomberg. The Prosuection suggests an affidavit or an interrogatory in consideration of von Blomberg's state of health. I am agreeable to this for the sake of simplicity and I suggest an affidavit since I have no very complicated questions to put to him.
No. 9, Ambassador von Weizsaecker. I made the application on Februar 6th. So far I have not received an answer from the Tribunal. In the case of the ship "Athenia", at that time Weizsaecker was State Secretary in the Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs. At that time, in September 1939, Weizsaecker communited with the American Ambassador on the subject of the Athenia. Weizsaecker spoke with Hitler and with Raeder. He knows the details and must heard on these details. I do not believe that an affidavit would suffice. Let me remark in passing that I do not now know where Weizsaecker is, but aside from that, the accusation against Raeder in the case of the Athenia is of some criminality from an ethical point of view that the evidence here could not be of a restricting factual nature and this moral point must be given considerable contention. particularly and made insulting attacks on the defendant in this matter. In view of the irreproachable life of my client, I feel obliged to clarify this case utterly.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, as far as the application, there is nothing to show beyond the position of the suggested witness that he knew anything about it at all, and under those circumstances would not interrogatories be the most appropriate course? You did not show whether he did know anything about it at all. You say in your application that he was State Secretary in the Reich Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
DR. SIEMERS: Let me point out that in my application I stated that the witness is informed regarding the events connected with the case Athenia.
THE PRESIDENT: You say on the basis of his position as State Secretary that he must know.
DR. SIEMERS: The American Ambassador immediately after the Athenia case got in touch with Weizsaecker in order to clarify that case. Thereupon Weizsaecker spoke with Raeder, after he had already, however, told the American Ambassador that no German submarines had anything to do with that case. The classification of the Athenia case in which a German submarine was involved occurred only later. Previous to that Raeder had not known of it. The return of the U-boat took place on the 27th of September. The sinking took place on the 3rd of September.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you state those facts about the conversations between the American Ambassador and the Ambassador Weizsaecker in a previous application?
DR. SIEMERS: No, but on the 6th of February I did make an application, but also mentioned in general terms as regards the Athenia case. Let me add, Weizsaecker knows also the subsequent occurrences.
He knows very well that the Navy and particularly the defendant Raeder had nothing to do with the article which the propaganda ministry had published in the newspapers. Weizsaecker was just as outraged by this article as the defendant Raeder was, but it precisely this of which the Prosecution accuses Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider what you say.
DR. SIEMERS: Let me add that I made a mistake. I just heard that Weizsaecker is still with the Vatican in Rome; in other words, it is known where he is.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: No. 14, Colonel Soltmann. So far as I know, Colonel Soltmann is also to be called as a witness by the defendant Jodl. He has already been sent an affidavit or an interrogatory. I am consequently agreed with Sir David that such will suffice in the case of Soltmann, depending on the agreement of defense counsel for Jodl.
THE PRESIDENT: He does not appear to be located yet.
DR. SIEMERS: The witness Soltmann is not located? I have his address.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you?
DR. SIEMERS: I gave it to you in my application. It is Falkenberg near Moosach in Upper Bavaria.
No. 16, General Admiral Schultze. Schultze is in Hamburg. The Prosecuti has accused the defendant Raeder of participating in the National Socialist policy of conquest. This occusation is unfounded. Raeder in Norway, as well as in France, worked industriously to bring about peace; in other words, to carry out no definitive conquest of any country. Raeder was in strong opposition to Hitler andit was only after much urging that Raeder succeeded in speaking to Darlan in Paris regarding peace negotiations. I believe that such a positive attitude in favor of a rapid conclusion of the war is important enough to be testified to by a witness in a trial so important as this one. I cannot understand how Sir David, in view of his accusation, can say that this point is irrelevant. The Prosecution has repeatedly declared that the defendant Raeder was -
THE PRESIDENT: I do not believe that Sir David said it was irrelevant.
He suggested interrogatories.
DR. SIEMERS: I made a rate here that Sir David said that the witness was irrelevant, but he would be agreeable to an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT. I was wrong.
DR. SIEMERS: I simply wanted to take the position on the question as to whether or not this witness is irrelevant. I believe I have done so.
THE PRESIDENT: You want the witness? You would not agree to an affidavit or an interrogatory? I s that right?
DR. SIEMERS: I ask the Tribunal to call Schultze as a witness here in Nurnberg because he can give testimony on a definitive point in my case, to wit, Raeder's attitude toward the war as a whole, and can do so from firsthand observation rather than from hearsay.
I come now to the witnesses as to whom Sir David had objection.
Witness Number 11, Vice Admirable Buerkner. I asked for him on the 31st of January. So far I have received no answer. I asked to be allowed to speak to the witness, Buerkner, so that I could acquaint myself with the details. This was rejected.
I object to Sir David's objection until I can speak to this witness. I ask, first of all, that he be approved so that I can speak with him. Only then can I take a decisive attitude toward whether I want him as a witness. If it then turns out as Sir David is of the opinion, that his evidence is cumulative, then I am willing to forego him. I presume that Sir David is agreeable to this.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal doesn't quite understand why counsel shouldn't have seen this officer who is in prison in Nurnberg, subject of course to security.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have no objection to counsel seeing Admiral Buerkner. I think up to now the Prosecution have always taken the view that what Dr. Siemers was wanting to see him about was not relevant. I don't think the Tribunal has ruled on that.
THE PRESIDENT: The view of the Tribunal is that counsel for the Defense ought to be in touch with the witnesses before in order to see whether they are able to give relevant evidence or not. They can't give the evidence or the relevancy of it unless they know what the witness is going to say.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No objection will be made, and Dr. Siemers can make arrangement, as far as the Prosecution is concerned, to see Admiral Buerkner at the earliest date he likes.
DR. SIEMERS: I thank the Tribunal for clarifying this point. This point has made greatly more difficult the work of the Defense Counsel. I have been waiting for more than a month to be able to speak to Buerkner. For four weeks I was not able to speak to Admiral Wagner. There are others to whom I should like to speak who are in the court house prison, but so far in all these cases permission has been refused me. I believe that now the point is clarified.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Siemers.
DR. SIEMERS: There is the poss bility that after speaking with these witnesses I shall not want to call them, particularly since I hear today that Schulte-Moenting can be called, and on the supposition that Boehm, will be approved.
THE PRESIDENT: That who will be approved?
DR. SIEMERS: Boehm, Number 10.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. That was Sir David's only objection to Number 11, wasn't it, that it was cumulative to 5 and 10?
DR. SIEMERS: Number 12, Schrieber. Sir David pointed out correctly-I agree with Sir David in this--that if actually Schulte-Moenting and the witness Boehm can be called Schrieber is, in point of fact, not necessary.
Number 13, the witness Lackorn in Leipzig. Before the occupation of Norway, Lackorn was on business in Oslo. He has nothing to do with the military. It is purely by accident that he found out in the Hotel Bristol in Oslo that the landing of the English troops was immediately imminent. This point is important for this reason, because here we can find out the attitude of the defendant in the matter of Norway and can judge it only if we know the entire situation in Norway at that time. The entire situation in Norway, however, means the relations between Norway and Germany, England, Sweden, and all the other neighboring countries. It will not do on so important a point simply to declare that it is only a question of a small sector.
I understand that the witness cannot be heard here. Since I expected this attitude on the part of the Prosecution, I have written to this witness for an affidavit and am agreeable if simply an affidavit is submitted here. He does not have to come personally as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you didn't deal with that aspect of the matter, if there was an affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, my Lord, I am afraid the view of the Prosecution is that the story, which apparently started in the bar of a hotel in Oslo, is not evidence which is really admissible, relevant or of any weight in a matter of this kind.
That is the view we have taken throughout.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, it appears from the application which is before us that you originally made a request for this witness on the 19th of January 1946, which appears to have been in perfectly general terms, and that the Tribunal ordered on the 14th of February that you should furnish supplementary details of the evidence which you wanted to call through this witness. Thereupon, on the 21st of February, you withdrew your application. at all, simply saying that the witness had been in Oslo on business and received information there of the imminent landing of Allied forces in Norway. Well, that is a perfectly general statement, just as general as the original statement. It doesn't seem to comply with the orders of the Tribunal at all.
DR. SIEMERS: On the 21st of February, I withdrew my application in view of the basic point of view that I have told the Court about. I pointed out that in my opinion it cannot be asked of the Defense that they provide each individual detail, after we were consulted for over three months on no single witness called by the Prosecution. Nor did we have the slightest word to say in the conduct of the Prosecution. We were not given any opportunity by the Prosecution to take an attitude on the relevancy of their witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I have already pointed out on several occasions that the reason why Defendants' counsel have to submit applications for their witnesses is because they are unable to get their witnesses themselves and because they are applying to the Tribunal to get their witnesses for them and their documents for them.
It is a work of very considerable magnitude to find and to bring witnesses to Nurnberg. trying new to get an affidavit from him.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. At any rate, I have made the effort. Whether I shall receive an answer in time from Leipzig I do not know. In the meantime, to make the matter easier and to avoid delay, I wrote to the witness Lackorn.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: I hope that an affidavit will be available in time. If so, I am perfectly prepared to renounce hearing him here in person.
THE PRESIDENT: If you get the affidavit you will be able to give the Tribunal particulars of the evidence which the witness would give, and also show it to the Prosecution, who would then be able to say whether they wished to have the witnesses brought here for cross-examination.
DR. SIEMERS: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider this application.
DR. SIEMERS: Witness, Number 15, Alf Whist, former Secretary of Commerce. On the order of the Court of the 14th of February he was rejected as irrelevant. throughout the occupation was very good, and that their behavior was very good. The Norwegians objected solely to the civil administration and not to the German Navy. in no single illegal or criminal measure during the occupation. the occupation -- of course this is a question that must be sharply distinguished from the question of the occupation and the attack on Norway. I am speaking now only of the time after the occupation had begun.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The point of the Prosecution is this: That whatever the facts were, assuming for the moment that the facts were that the German Navy, had behaved with meticulous correctness on every point, the view of Mr. Alf Whist, who was Secretary of Commerce in the Quisling Cabinet of Ministry in Norway, as to how the German Navy behaved would not have the slightest interest or relevance or weight with anyone.
That is the view of the Prosecution.
DR. SIEMERS: I had hoped that Sir David would take a position towards the question whether accusations can be directed toward the Navy in this regard. I should like to ask you to observe that the entire administration of Norway lay with Terboven and that the German Navy had nothing to do with this administration. If I have named a single witness where I might have called hundreds, I did this only to give the Tribunal a picture of how Admiral Boehm and Raeder behaved in this regard.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider it, Dr. Siemers.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you have got 17, the interpreter.
DR. SIEMERS: Regarding Lt. Colonel Goldenberg, it is Sir David's point of view that he is unnecessary; if Schultze is approved an affidavit is enough from Goldenberg. A short affidavit appears to be important to me, because Goldenberg as an impartial interpreter was also present at every conference between Darlan and Raeder. An affidavit would suffice.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you can pass now to your documents. I ought to call your attention to an observation at the end of your application, which is that you intend to summon one or more witnesses. Who are they? You say you intend to summon one or more witnesses.
DR. SIEMERS: There would be a witness. The high Tribunal has declared that the details about a witness are submitted a long time before the case actually comes up because the Tribunal must produce the witness. If it is a question of a witness who comes on his own initiative to Nurnberg, then it can be decided on this point in connection with my whole case whether the witness will be admitted by the Court of not.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, I have stated one of the reasons why, one of the prinicpal reasons why Defense Counsel have to make applications, and another prinicpal reasons is a necessity for expedition in this trial; expedition and security. I am reminded of the question of security; and therefore, we must insist on being told who the witnesses are that you wish to call. Dr. Siemers, you will not be able to call them.
DR. SIEMERS: Am I thn obliged, if the witness is here in the building, to name him?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, because, as I have told you, there are twenty or twenty-one defendants in the dock and we have to try and make this trial expeditious and we, therefore, can't allow them to call as many witnesses as they choose to call; but if it is a question of your not having the names of the witnesses in your mind at the moment, you can certainly specify them after a short delay or tomorrow.
DR. SIEMERS: I shall shortly make a statement on this matter. I haven't spoken of the witness. I shall give further information regarding this point shortly, as I'd like to speak to the witness in question first.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal has no objection to your replying in respect of other witnesses, provided that you do so by tomorrow.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well, I know that at the moment the witness in question is not in Nurnberg. At the moment I cannot ask him. I consequently ask the Tribunal to pardon me for being too careful. The Tribunal knows that witnesses are taken into custody. I cannot be responsible for making it difficult for anyone, because of my calling him as a witness, and that is the reason that I should tell you immediately, as soon as the witness is in Nurnberg and I can speak to him, that will be within twnety-four hours.
It is here a question of testimony which would take at the most ten minutes of the Court's time. I do not believe that this could be considered burdensome to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SIEMERS: Then I should only like to add that in the case of Severing, I can give his address. I received it yesterday by telegraph. Here is No. 3; and the prosecution is agreeable to his being heard. I can give you this address in writing. It is in Bielefeld.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Provided you give it to the prosecution and provided you give it to the General Secretary, that is all that is required; and now would probably be a convenient time to break off for ten minutes.
MR. DODD: Just a minute, your Honor. It is a matter of Admiral Buerkner now. So far as we know, Dr. Siemers has made one request about Admiral Buerkner sometime ago and at a time when he was told, as I understand it, that Admiral Buerkner was intended to be called or that the prosecution intended to call him as a witness and that, therefore, we do not think it is proper for him to talk to Admiral Buerkner until after we had called him as a witness. mind calling Admiral Buerkner. I think some reference was made about him, as a matter of fact, before the Tribunal, with reference to the witness Lahousen and it was for that reason that we told Dr. Siemers that we didn't think he should talk to the witness until after he had testified or a decision had been made with reference to his testimony; but we have at all times tried to cooperated with the defense and make available those people who are here in custody so that they may talk with them.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken)
DR. SIEMERS: Regarding the witness, may I say one more thing concerning witness No.1, Marinedekan, that I won't call him as a witness, I agree to use an affidavit. Concerning the witness Buerkner, I would like to mention that the information received from Mr. Dodd is based on an error. I was not permitted to speak to the witness, because the witness had not been granted to me as my witness. No other reason was given. Furthermore-
THE PRESIDENT: We don't think any further discussion is necessary about this witness. I have already stated what the members of the Tribunal will act upon.
DR. SIEMERS: I only don't understand whether Mr. Dodd agrees now that I may speak to the witness Buerkner.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he said so. He said the prosecution closed their case, and that now they have no longer any objection to your seeing the witness.
DR. SIEMERS: Then as the last remark the Tribunal will have noticed that I have not called any witness concerning naval warfare and U-boat warfare, and this is based on the fact that I have agreed with Dr. Kranzbuehler that Dr. Kranzbuehler will treat the entire complex of naval warfare and U-boat warfare; although on this thing also as to Admiral Doenitz as supreme commander of the Navy, and Gross admiral Raeder, so far as they are concerned, Dr. Kranzbuehler, therefore, will take care of that interest, of the Grossadmiral and the Admiral, concerning this complex. Dr. Kranzbuehler concerning the question as to Admiral Nimitz, do not only concern Grossadmiral Doenitz but in particular Grossadmiral Raeder, and, furthermore, the organization of the general staff inasmuch as the Navy is concerned.
May I speak about the documents now?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In regard to document No.1 on the war diaries of Seekriegsleitung, and the B.D.U., Dr. Kranzbuehler's assistant, Dr. Meckel, has gone to London to work on these at the Admiralty.
With regard to No.2, Weyer's Navy Diaries, and the Article "Navy Year Book", there is no objection to Dr. Siemers having these. We are indicating in the ordinary way what best he need to use.
With regard to General Marshall's Report of 10 October 1945, I am convinced that I cannot see the relevancy of it at the moment, but if he will indicate which part he intends to, use, it can be discussed when he actually represents it to the Tribunal. which are wanted as to the preparations for landing in Scandinavia and Finland, although strictly what is relevant is what was known to the defendant Raeder, then, I shall make inquiries about these documents, and if the Tribunal will give me a short time I hope to be able to report to the Tribunal upon them. details on Allied documents, but I hope to be able to consider the position and produce some documents which may be helpful to the Tribunal, and deal with them authoritatively. I would rather not be pressed with details at the moment.
DR. SIEMERS: I agree with Sir David, and I hope that I will receive the books to No.2 -- No.2 and No.3 soon, because otherwise a delay may be caused. The report of General Marshall of 10 October 1945, as much as I could see their excerpts so far is important, because General Marshall on various points has expressed different attitude than Justice Jackson. I believe that by confronting the Tribunal, and coming into here with a report of this kind, it would be very important in order to hear the reports by General Marshall.
Concerning No.4, I think Sir David and I am expecting final decision of the prosecution. by error I have not listed this figure 5, which is the following: The prosecution has brought quotations frequently here from the book "Main Kampf" by Adolf Hitler, and that through their positions, each one of the defendants, all of whom were in a leading position in 1933, at or before 1933, had had to know before 1933 the basis of this book that Hitler intended to prepare and Wage a wretched war. I have found that the quotation, in that document book, which was presented in November,are all based on the edition of this book which appeared in 1933.
The edition of 1933, however, in many points is different from the original edition. I regret that I am only in possession of the edition which was published after 1933. In order to check these questions, that is to say, in order to see what anybody could have read out of this book, let's say in 1928, and not 1933, I ask the Prosecution to try to get a copy of this book in the first edition, and to submit it. As much as I know about it, the first edition appeared in 1925, and the second in 1927, by the publishing firm of Franz Eher.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We shall try to get the earlier edition so that Dr. Siemers can compare with the other edition.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to deal with page 2 of this document? Sir David, you have not dealt with this, have you?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. I take it, your Lordship, that the record did not mention there what Dr. Siemers would, in due course, indicate as to the excerpts he was going to use, and it is then we should discuss when he presents them whether any objection which the Prosecution may make.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You intend, Dr. Siemers, I suppose to indicate the passages upon which you rely in your document book?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And that is question of tonnages built, and so on. I said I am making inquiries with regard to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. My attention is drawn, Sir David, to paragraph 4B on page 2. Are you agreed to , or are you suggesting the Tribunal can supply him with the document on the German policy without any further reservation?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very sorry. It was an oversight. I take it that that was included already in the words at the top of the page; in addition I shall submit the documents and affidavits, and some of them are already in my possession, and some of them I shall procure myself without having the assistance of the Prosecution. I take it that Dr. Siemers had such documents on the German policy, and will indicate what basis he is going to use them. I am very sorry I did not refer to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this part of the application mean that, with reference to all these documents, Dr. Siemers has them and doesn't wish any further action to be taken with reference to them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You have got them all?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Counsel for the Defendant von Schirach.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Sauter suggests it would be convenient if I indicate the view of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I ask the Tribunal to note that Dr. Sauter is asking for witnesses 1 to 8, except witness 5, as oral witnesses; that is, he is asking for 7 oral witnesses, and Nos. 5 and 9 to 13 by way of affidavit. the Defendant might have No.1 or No.2, that is, Wieshofer of Hoepken, because these witnesses appear to cover the same ground; that he might have No.3, the witness Lauterbacher, who was chief of staff of the Reichsjugendfuehrung; and, also, that hemight have No.8, that is, Professor Heinrich Hoffmann, his father-in-law, and the note of whose evidence takes up nine pages of the application, so he is obviously a very important witness.
Then the Prosecution suggests that there might be affidavits from No.5, Scharizer, who was the deputy gauleiter of Vienna: No. 11, who is Madame Vasseau; and No.12, Herr Schneeberger; and No.13, Field Marshal von Blomberg. necessity for are, first of all, No.5, Frau Hoepken. There are no details given in this application, except that she was secretary to von Schirach; and No.6, the witness Heinz Schmidt, who apparently repeats part of the evidence of the witness Lauterbacher word for word; No.7, Dr. Schluender, who also repeats the witness Lauterbacher word for word; and No.9, Dr. Klingspor, who passes a personal view on the Defendant, which, in the submission of the Prosecution, is not really helpful evidence; and, finally, Dr. Roesen, No.10, who speaks as to an isolated incident of kindness on the part of the Defendant to the family of musician Richard Strauss.
the witnesses.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant von Schirach): Gentlemen, I also have the case of Baldur von Schirach. My list of proof in this case I have also made as small as possible. To call as witnesses before the Tribunal and to be questioned here I have requested the witnesses, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, and I really have to ask to approve these witnesses.
consists in that two definitely separate conflicts need to be proved; first, the activity of the Defendant von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader, and, second, for the time from 1940 until 1945, for his activity in Vienna, in whichhe still had a certain function in youth leadership in addition to his main activity. Therefore, I need witnesses as well for the one as for the other activity of the Defendant von Schirach.
In addition to this difficulty there is another one. The Defendant von Schirach was Reich Youth Leader, and that brought with it that practically without exception all his collaborators were relatively young people who, during the second world war, were for long times in the Army. Therefore, it is possible that for several years during the world war one witness might know nothing, because he did not work in the staff of the Defendant von Schirach during that time, and that, therefore, for that length of time another collaborator of Schirach would have to be questioned in order to provide information about his activity. further witnesses, but in this application I have omitted these further witnesses right from the start, in order to contribute to speed up the procedure as much as I can. But these six witnesses, whom I have asked to be called before the Tribunal, I really ask to have them approved, because I cannot forego any one of them, in order to get a clear picture about the activity of the Defendant. I may also point out that everyone of these six witnesses whom I have listed under the numbers which I have mentioned before, have already been approved by the Tribunal, so that a repeated approval would Just be repetition of the former decision by the Tribunal.
The witness Wieshofer, who is listed under No. 1, was from 1940 till 1945 the adjutant of the Defendant von Schirach; that is to say, during the time in which, as we know, the Defendant was gauleiter in Vienna and Reich Governor.