DR. EXNER: May I say something regarding this? As far as 16 and 17 are concerned, we simply wanted to have these documents on hand in order to lock at them, in order to judge whether or not we want to submit them in evidence.
I have stated so at the foot of the page. orders contain anything contrary to law, but, for instance, in the order regarding close combat, if English soldiers are instructed to behave in a way with which our soldiers are reproached, then there is a contradiction on hand that is indeed significant. Then apparently the British Government would be standing on the point of view that on their part such actions are permissible, but if they are permissible to the British they are also permissible to us, because there cannot be two standards in these matters. In order to determine this, we wanted to be able to see these battle orders. That is Number 18. was refused us, because it is perhaps a secret order. Number 20, the White Book -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Sir David didn't deal with 19, did he? He only dealt with 16, 17, 20 and 21.
DR. EXNER: Yes. 18 end 19 have not been objected to.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understood it, his objection to 16 and 17 was that there was no complaint against the German forces, either with reference to close combat or with reference to shackling, in the Indictment.
DR. EXNER: If, by any chance, in these close combat battle orders, there are pictures there, of if it is ordered that the prisoners should be shackled, then one would be obliged to state that the British Government does not have the point of view that this sort of behavior is illegal. If, then, such thingsare done on our side we cannot be reproached with them. But, as Isaid, it is difficult for me to say anything on the subject of why that is important to us, because I haven't seen these rules for conducting close combat warfare, If I had them in my hands I could then make an application. I would know whether I wanted to submit them in evidence or whether I did not need them.
No objection has been raised to 18 and 19. 20 is the White Book that has already been approved for Goering.
Consequently, I need not ask for them myself.
with a charge of tu quoque. It is here a question of a Russian book, which describes the fight against the partisans. The author of this book is a Russian who himself was chief of staff or some such thing in partisan warfare for several years, and he writes from personal experience. did, which would be a tu quoque argument; but I should like to have this book for another reason. If one is to understand our regulations pertaining to partisans, then one must know these partisans. One must understand them, know how they worked, and one must be able to evaluate their danger. This Russian book describes all that, and is, consequently, important. The author was himself active in partisan warfare. excuse that we used for the annihilation of Jews, Slavs, and so on. One will be able to see from this bock that this partisan warfare was a real war of vast extent and was not an excuse on our part. on it that was recently published in the "Stars and Steipes" regarding the contents of this book. It should be emphasized that the book was written by a Soviet Russian. It cannot be assumed that it is solely inimical to Russia.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know what your argument is with reference to 21.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was opposing it on the reason that it was given. The book is asked for as evidence that the danger of bandit warfare gave rise for undertaking sweeping counter measures. against partisans constituted atrocities, and evidence of that kind has been given. It is, in my submission, no defense to the committing of atrocities of the kind given in evidence against partisans that their warfare was of a great extent or very fiercely or bravely waged. This is just the tu quoque argument in its nakedness, that because partisans fight you, therefore you can burn their villages, shoot their women, and kill their children.
That is the argument which we say is irrelevant and is inadmissible. these documents can be obtained, to Dr. Exner looking at the documents, but I must on thatpoint to which the Prosecution attachedimportance, I thought it right -- and I know my colleagues desired it -- that I should make our position clear.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes your address, Dr. Exner, does it?
DR. EXNER: May I say something regarding what Sir David just said? I am, of course, perfectly aware that those terrible cruelties, as they were here described, cannot be justified by the activities of the partisans, but the more violent the partisan measures became, the more sharply the Germans had to take counter measures. For this reason there is a connection.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider your argument.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 7 March 1946, at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Counsel for the Defendant von Papen.
(Dr. Egon Kubuschok, Counsel for the Defendant von Papen, and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, came to the lectern.)
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal approves, I shall indicate the views of the Prosecution on the witnesses requested by Dr. Kubuschok.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The first witness is von Lersner, and there is no objection. This witness ic alled to cover among other things the period of the coming into power of the Hitler Government, which is one of the material elements in the case against von Papen. point: The witness von Tschirschky was, as I understand it, von Papen's private secretary from 1933 to February, 1935. That is, he covered the period of the rise to power of the Nazi Party, And he also covers some of the period in Austria.
The next witness, von Kageneck, is also a private secretary. He does not cover theperiod of the rise to power, but covers the whole Austrian period. That is, he covers the period 1934 to 1938. secretaries who could assist the memory of the Defendant, but it did seem to us that the witness Tschirschky was cumulative both on the period of the rise to power and Austria, and that it would be sufficient to have interrogatories in that case. Therefore, the Prosecution, apart from that, would not object to von Kageneck and Erbach.
THE PRESIDENT: That is, interrogatories for 2 you suggest, and calling 3 and 4?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, interrogatories, and calling of 3 and 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And with regard to No. 5, the witness Kroll, the Prosecution submits that he is irrelevant.
He is called as to the period when the Defendant was an ambassador in Turkey and he is alleged to be able to say that von Papen had no aggressive thoughts with regard to Russia. The Prosecution would submit that really von Papen is the person who can speak as to a matter like that, and the Prosecution have had no evidence as to any subversive activity of the Nazi Party in Turkey, which is the other point that this witness is said to speak to.
Then the next five witnesses -- 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10: The Tribunal granted interrogatories and so long as the matter is limited to interrogatories, the Prosecution will take no objection.
And No, 11, the Baroness de Nothomb: The Prosecution object to evidence as to acts of intercession on behalf of members of the Resistance Movement, and individual acts of that kind, in the submission of the Prosecution, are not really relevant to the matters before the Court. at No, 12, at the application, in the submission of the Prosecution the matters raised by the questions are not relevant. The first is, "Were the Concordat negotiations between Germany and, the Holy See brought about by Defendant von Papen's own initiative?" The second question is, in short, "Did von Papen make efforts with Hitler about the Concordat?" Well, the Concordat was made, and what the Tribunal are really concerned with is the breaches of the Concordat, of which the Prosecution has given written evidence.
No. 2. under this witness: I am afraid that I don't understand that, and in its present form I submit that it is irrelevant, in addition to being vague. "Were the activities of the Defendant directed by his positive religious attitude also after the conclusion of the Concordat?"
Then the third question: "Was the conclusion of the Concordat, welcomed by the German Episcopate?" I don't think that really helps.
And 4: "Did the Concordat give legal backing to the Church during the later religious struggles?" And, "Could the Church fall back on the Concordat to the end?" in this case is the breaches of the agreement, not its contents. So we object to No. 12.
Number Thirteen, the witness von Beaulieu. That is very short, if the Tribunal would be good enough to look at it:
"I shall submit an affidavit of the witness which deals with the intervention of the Defendant as President of the Union Club on behalf of Jews." of some Jewish members is not really a relevant matter, even on the Jewish issue.
Fourteen: The witness Josten. Dr. Kubuschok asks for the use of a statement which has been sent to the Tribunal. The Prosecution would prefer that to be in the form of an affidavit or interrogatory, if this is possible.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Fourteen, is it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Fourteen, My Lord, yes.
Then Fifteen is His Majesty, the King of Sweden. That is a new application and general in its scope. It is difficult to judge how much King Gustav could contribute, and, therefore, the Prosecution do not object to interrogatories.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in Fourteen Dr. Kubuschok says that he requested the statement made by the witness to the legal department of the Military Government Headquarters, Dusseldorf, be furnished to him. Are you objecting to that being furnished to him?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I thought that he had got it
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I got it this morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Kubuschok says that he received it today, this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you objecting to his offering it as evidence?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I only say that we should prefer it in the form of an affidavit or interrogatory, if that can be done. I do not make any great objection.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness Number One, Baron von Lersner. The Tribunal granted only an interrogatory at first. The Prosecutor has today agreed to have the witness called before this Tribunal. I also ask to have this witness questioned before thie Tribunal. I also ask to have this witness questioned before the Court.
The witness was the President of the German peace Delegation at Versailles. He is a very well known German diplomat, who was since 1932 a very close collaborator of the Defendant von Papen. A man like Lersner had, of course, a particularly good understanding for every policy of aggression. Therefore, it is very important to hear this collaborator of the Defendant von Papen and to let him tell us how he could observe the Defendant in his activities up to 1945. It is particularly important that Lersner, upon the suggestion of von Papen -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, Sir David agreed, I think with reference to Number One.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, sir, if the Tribunal also agrees.
The second witness, Tschirschky. Tschirschky was the private secretary of the Defendant from 1933 to 1935, the first private secretary during the time that the Defendant was Vice Chancellor of Germany and was himself a man who was persecuted by the Gestapo and had to go into exile in 1935, where he still is.
He is a man who is informed thoroughly and can give thorough information about the external activity of the Defendant and his own attitude between 1933 and 1935. we do not get a thorough picture if we do not hear this most intimate collaborator of the Defendant personally. The other witnesses concern mostly different times. Only in some cases do they overlap with the activity of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Supposing that the Tribunal thought it right to grant you Number Two as an oral witness, would it not be possible to dispense with one of Three or Four and have interrogatories from one of them and call the other one? They deal with somewhat the same period.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: We need Three for the following reasons: Witness Number Three, Count Kageneck, was present when Hitler entrusted Papen with the Austrian mission. This is a very important point since the Prosecution alleges that, for the purposes with which he was accused, he was entrusted with this mission. The witness will say that Papen accepted the mission only after a clear guarantee concerning the purposes.
Furthermore, Count Kageneck was in Vienna after 1935; that is to say, from 1935 until the Anschluss, and about this time we would not have any other witness.
Kageneck can also give reasons for an important point. That is, that he was entrusted to take diplomatic papers into Switzerland and bring them into security, because from these papers, the proof for' the activity of the Defendant in Vienna could be seen. for whom I would be asked to be permitted to use an interrogatory, because questions are asked which the other witnesses could not answer.
Witness Number Five, Minister Kroll. Papen is accused of a conspiracy for aggressive war. The Prosecution has not limited the Indictment in time.
The largest part of the time in question, 1938 to 1944, Papen was in a position in which for an activity to disturb the peace, he would have been very well qualified. Turkey was for a long time an important pillar in military, and therefore, political, considerations. It is, therefore, of the greatest interest whether Papen has used his position for any activity in the sense of the conspiracy. was directed to preserving the peace and that he has objected to any extension of the war by military measures against Russia and against every political measure for the destruction of good relations with Turkey and between Turkey and the Allied Powers. of the Defendant. He is, therefore, in a position to give us information about the entire time.
Baroness do Nothomb. I have asked in this case to be permitted to use an affidavit or interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Which number are you dealing with?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Number Eleven.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not dealing with Six to Ten.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No, we are in agreement about Six to Ten.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Eleven.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Number Eleven, Baroness de Nothomb.
In this case I will ask for an interrogatory or for approval to submit an affidavit.
The subject of the evidence is: The subject of the evidence is: The defendant has curing the years 1940 to 1944 continuously intervened for people who in their turn intervened for members of the resistance movement. I want to prove that the defendant von Papen shows again in this case that he was greatly interested to assist in pacifying the German-French relations, and that during the war he had in mind the time after the war to take the poison out of the relations. The intervention of the defendant was done on behalf of the condemned people, which information for the judging of the defendant is important.
No. 12, Archbishop Dr. Groeber. The Prosecution asserts that the defendant von Papen had used his position as a prominent German Catholic for a dirty maneuver of deceoption and that the conclusion of the Concordat as such was effected in the course of a policy directed against the church; that is, the conclusion of the Concordat was not taken seriously as could be seen by later violations of the Concordat. Archbishop Dr. Groeber wag at the time of negotiations concerning the Concordat with the Holy See. He was present during all the negotiating, He knows that the initiative to start negotiations came from von Papen, who got approval from Hitler only later. He knows that the first draft which had been made by von Papen for the Concordat was disapproved by Hitler, and that only after long struggles, Papen could get approval for this draft. The witness knows the defendant von Papen very well. He also knows from which inner attitude to the Catholic question the defendant has approached the matter of the Concordat. He is in aposition also to describe the consequences of the Concordat being a hiding material of the church in Germany. He is in a position to judge that the contents of the Concordat at a later time would have been protection for church interests from the knowledge of the personal conditions of the defendant and the entire conditions of the church in Germany. He was in a position to give us information as to whether the defendant agreed or had anything to do with the violations against the Concordat.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, does witness No. 2 deal with the same subject? Where you say in your discussion of the subject of the evidence, does that witness No. 2 accompany the defendant to Rome to conclude the Concordat, and can he testify that against Hitler's strong opposition he succeeded at the last minute in concluding the Concordat?
At that time the witness was present at all the speeches.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness Tschirschky was introduced into the negotiations about the Concordat by the defendat. It is very important in my opinion also to examine a witness who was present at the negotiations from the other side. In particular, this witness, Archbishop Dr. Groeber, could also tell something about the later consequences. He can describe the entire situation from the point of the church better than the private Secretary Tschirschky. He was also in a position to get a much better impression about the religious personality of the defendant von Papen, which in this case was closely connected with his political activities. I have been very modest in my requests so far, but I should like to ask in this case to grant an interrogatory or an affidavit by Archbishop Dr. Groeber because it should be clear that the accusation that a prominent German-Catholic wouldhave used his position for the dirty maneuvers is a very serious one, and my client is greatly interested to have this question clarified.
Witness No. 13, concerning an affidavit of von Bealieu, which shall show that the defendant in his position in a large and prominent German organization intervened until very late for non-Arian members in the sense of the terminology at that time. Everything which for the judgment indicates Papen is important is to be found on a rather subjective sphere. We will see very fewactions in the case of Papen. The accusations mostly say that he was present. It is, therefore, considerably difficult to bring proof, and this evidence must be rather subjective. To judge a persons' character in its entirety, it is not unimportant how, for instance, in 1938 his attitude was in the question of the Jews, because if Papen here had definitely separated himself from the general line followed by Hitler and the Nazis, we should be able to draw a conclusion as to whether he was really the faithful follower of Hitler which the accusations try to picture him.
Witness No. 14. I have received the statement today. I did not have time to look it through, I shall either submit the statement or an affidavit which-I will try to get.
No. 15, a questioning of His Majesty King Gustav of Sweden. In whatever way it may be done, this is a very important question. It will touch a major point of the defense; that is to say, how far it was possible for anybody who was not engulfed in the ideas of Nazism, how far could he collaborate to such an extent; how far could he hope that by his personal activity things could be changed or at least modified? If, on the basis of the subject evidence, we are trying to prove that Papen hadnot only within Germany exhausted his means to serve these purposes, but if, moreover, he has used his foreign political connections for this purpose, then I believe this will supplement the picture in an important way about the character of the defendant. This is such a strong activity in the interest of peace that, in my opinion, from such endeavors alone the absolute falsehood of the accusations could be found that the defendant at any time served the purposes and aims of an active policy for conspiracy and aggression.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the documents, Numbers 1 to 8, the Prosecution asks Dr. Kubuschok to submit the extracts, and then we can consider the relevancy at that time. I think that Dr. Kubuschok has Number 9.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I have only the photostat in my possession, which I have received from the Prosecution.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry. I should have said he had a photostatic copy, but the Prosecution have served the photostat. The original is not obtainable at present. If it comes into our possession we will let Dr. Kubuschok see it.
The third point is that Dr. Kubuschok says that he may have to make a supplementary application after Herr Von Papen, Jr., returns. That is of course a matter for him and the Tribunal. The prosecution make no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to 1 to 8, has Dr. Kubuschok got the books?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then he will be prepared to specify what parts of them -
DR. KUBUSCHOK: (Interposing) Yes, sir, yes, indeed.
I would like to supplement the list by one point. Yesterday I received from the Prosecution a further report by von Papen to Hitler during his activity in Vienna, similar to Number 9, also a report to Hitler. I have also received it in the form of a photostat. I shall also submit that report.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on counsel for the Defendant Seyss-Inquart.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May we state our position? tion as to the first four witnesses is that they deal with the Austrian part of the case. On the 2nd of December the Tribunal allowed to this defendant a choice of four out of nine. He has chosen Glaise-Horstenau, who was a minister in the Austrian Government; Guido Schmidt, who was the foreign minister at the time of the Schuschnigg-Hitler-Ribbentrop interview; Skubl, who was the police president and State Secretary for Security in Vienna; and Reiner, who is a well known Nazi, who was afterwards Gauleiter of Carinthia.
no objection to Wimmer and Schwebel, but they do object to Bolle being called as an oral witness. The position is that he was refused by the Tribunal on the 26th of January. After the refusal, interrogatories were submitted, but these seem to be almost entirely covered by the interrogatories as administered to the witness Von Der Wense, who is the second under the heading of affidavits. I think out of the 20 questions suggested for Bolle, there are only two that are not covered by Von Der Wense, which are Numbers 17 and 18, and two others which seem to deal with very obvious points. submit that he would really be cumulative and is unnecessary. administration, art treasures and forced labor. and destruction of factories. With regard to the affidavits there is no objection--or rather they should be interrogatories. They were all granted by the Tribunal on the 26th of January, and in these circumstances the Prosecution make no objection to them.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Steinbauer.
DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for Seyss-Inquart): Mr. President, your Honors, my client, Dr. Seyss-Inquart, had at first asked for a large number of witnesses and then at my advice, and according to the desire of the Tribunal, reduced this number considerably. jection made by the Prosecution, that this is a cumulative witness, is not quite correct. Bolle was before the occupation director of the Port of Hamburg, and then during all the years of the occupation he was director of the transportation department in Holland.
and shipping strike in October, 1944. This chapter of the history of the occupation is extraordinarily important, because but of this strike a halting of traffic resulted which led to an embargo.
The Prosecution asserts, moreover, that part of the cause of, as we may call it, the catastrophe of famine in Holland can be based on measures which the Defendant Seyss-Inquart took in October 1944. Just by the examination of this witness Bolle, we shall see that the defendant endeavored to counteract measures by the Wehrmacht, the Army, which of course tried to use the means of transportation for their purposes, that Seyss-Inquart endeavored to remedy this situation or modify it as much as he could. exhaustively. tion of the administration of a kingdom of nine million and a time of five years. If we read the report submitted by the Dutch delegation, we see alone in the financial consequences that it is alleged a damage, which had been brought about by the administration and by the fact of war and occupation of Holland by Germany, a figure of 25,725,000 Dutch guides was reqched. And considering the difference of price between 1938 and now, We have to add a margin of 175 percent. financial and economic measures during a period of five years. I believe that this request, the request of the defendant to admit this witness, is quite justified. applications which have not yet been granted. You will find this on the last page, a very short affidavit by the witness Baron Lindhorst-Horman. He was Kommissar of the Province of Groningen, and is expected to be examined about one point. That is the treatment of the so-called hostages and the fact that none of these hostages was actually shot. official proclamations, proclamations by the Higher Police and SS Leader Hauter, about the executions to prove who had done these things. That is, that the point of view of the Defendant is that these regrettable incidents were executed by the police and not by the civil administration.
I also intend to submit two affidavits which are already in my possession.
One of them is an affidavit by a judge, a German Judge, Kammergerichtsrat Rudolf Fritsch. He was in the administration of SeyssInquart in Holland. He was the expert for applications for currency. He is able to tell us how Seyss-Inquart handled this important chapter of jurisdiction. Walter Stricker. It is here mentioned as Document Number 30. Dr. Walter Stricker was a lawyer in Vienna, and then in 1938 he emigrated to Australia. He served in the Australian Army, and without my asking he sent me an affidavit, notarized affidavit by an Australian Notary Public, in which he testifies about conditions in Vienna in the critical days of October and November of 1938. I ask you to approve also this affidavit.
As to the documents, and as I have toldSir David -
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, before you deal with that! Sir David said that with reference to the affidavits, which are mentioned on page 2, that these ought to be called "interrogatories." I don't know whether you wish to ask particularly for affidavits which are apropos to interrogatories.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You want affidavits?
DR. STEINBAUER: Interrogatories, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Would there be any objection to the affidavit from the lawyer in Australia being shown to the prosecution, so that they may see whether they wish to put cross-interrogatories to that witness. Australia is too far away from here for him to be brought here for cross-examination.
DR. STEINBAUER: Agreed.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have just been handed that affidavit from the witness Stricker and also No. 6, on the Dutch questions, from Judge Fritsch, (?) and if the same course could be taken with regard to that from Baron Lindhorshormer (?), I shall be grateful, then, to consider that, too.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regards to the rest of the documents in the usual course, I ask that the defense will make extracts and show them to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is one point I call attention to the Tribunal. It may be helpful that No. 28, 3571, that is already in as U.S. Exhibit 112. I don't know if the defense really wants No. 3. I shan't deal with it now but the prosecution will submit that. It is really unnecessary and irrelevant but I think that is a matter that we can more conveniently discuss when it comes up.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; then with reference to No. 2, under the heading concerning the Dutch question, will it be satisfactory if that is in the form of an affidavit and is submitted to you, so that you can put cross-interrogatories if you want to?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, have you got the affidavit mentioned
SIR DAVID MAXWELL- FYFE: That would be very satisfactory. in paragraph 2 of the last heading?
DR. STEINBAUER: No, sir. I did not receive them yet. I have just made the application that the Tribunal, that I ask -
THE PRESIDENT: Could the interrogatories be in a more convenient form?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we needn't trouble you further about the documents
DR. STEINBAUER: I have only one request, if possible, about the two books which are not in my possession. That is document No. 8, "Guido Zernatto: The Truth about Austria;" and No. 9, the book "A Pact with Hitle "The Austrian Drama," by Martin Fochs."(?) To get these books, I was told by Austrian people that these books contain an important clarification of the incidents, of the events in 1936 and 1938. Both books were, of course, prohibited in Austria during the Nazi regime and, therefore, I cannot get them. prosecution, and from there I know that the book appeared in the edition in the publishing firm of Plon in Paris. Maybe it is possible, with the aid and assistance of the prosecution, for us to get these books in time. I have all other documents in my possession.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say No. 2. You said 8 and 9 but did you also say No. 2?
DR. STEINBAUER: No. 2, "3 Times Austria", by Schuschnigg.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you mentioned the third book. You said you haven't got No.8 and 9 and I thought you went on to mention a third one.
DR. STEINBAUER: No, sir; only these two books.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then, no doubt, the prosecution will help to get you them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will make inquiries, my Lord, and we will communicate with them.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I call on counsel for the Defendant Speer.
SIR DAVID MAXWELI-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendant Speer has asked for 22 witnesses, who are all to answer in writing. There are no oral witnesses. And he has asked for 41 documents. He also asked that the Court should appoint a panel of experts to interrogate a number of witnesse on what are termed "economic questions." Now, I think it would be general if I summarize in four sentences the points of defense that appear on pages 26 and the following pares of the application, because if the Tribunal have these shortly in mind it will make the consideration of the witnesses more easy.
There are four points. No.1 is to show the responsibility of Speer. The Defendant Speer says that he was not responsible for the mobilization, allocation or treatment of labor. and not political. labor and the treatment of concentration camp labor in the armament factories, which were his concern. tion in Germany and so to benefit the Allies and Germany after the war.
Now, on the witnesses, the following are from his own ministry, Nos.1 to 6, 8, 10 and 12. The prosecution submit that nine is rather a large number dealing with the position of the ministry. They are cumulative on many points and we should suggest that if counsel would pick three, that that would cover that part of the case.
Now, the following witnesses, Nos.15 to 21, are designed to show the attitude of the defendant at the end of the war.
There are a number of documents on this point, and again the prosecution submit that that number of witnesses could be cut down to two or three.
Now, dealing with the remaining witnesses, No.7, Field Marshal Milch, has already been allowed to defendant Goering, so that point doesn't arise. And No.9, Dr. Malzacher, although not a member of the defendant's ministry, who was in charge of the armaments in the Southeast, would appear to be cumulative as to the members of the ministry.
No.11 is the liaison officer between the ministry and the OKW, and also appears cumulative unless counsel could indicate any special point that escaped the prosecution.
No.13 is really cumulative No. 12, speaking as to a point on which Frau Kempf can speak.
No.14 is the defendant's doctor, to speak as to a period of illness. Again, unless there is some point that the prosecution hasn't appreciated, they would have thought that the defendant and his secretary could speak as to a period of illness.
Finally, No.22, Berner, shortly is designed to inform the Tribunal of Hitler's general views on the situation at the end of April 1945, and would appear to be irrelevant. I think the only point that is made is to show that this had some effect on the radio speech which this defendant wanted to make. These are the views of the prosecution as to the witnesses with regard to the panel of experts and the prosecution respectfully say that these matters of supply and labor and armaments are matters which are very generally familiar now and on which a great deal of evidence has been given and that they are essentially matters which can be dealt with by the Tribunal which will decide other questions of fact. They are not really sufficiently specialist matters to merit the Tribunal setting up a special panel to deal with them. These are the views of the prosecution on the question of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Flaeschner.