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.
DR. FLAESCHNER: May I start, Mr. President, with the last point which the prosecutor has mentioned? That is the question whether the case of the Defendant Speer could give reason to have his activity and the area of his activity interpreted by anexpert. The prosecutor is of the opinion that the evidence presented so far is sufficient to inform the Tribunal about the manner of his work, his authority in question which came within the competence of the Defendant Speer or in connection with it. I have to say, however, I regret to say that the description which the prosecution has given about the activities of the Defendant Speer is not correct, that is to say, not complete.
It is very difficult to recognize all the activities of the ministry, which has its base in the administration of the Government or State.
In all States at war are the ministries of armament and production which have been created during the war. The fear of task in these ministries has been in order from time to time, and that also applies to the ministry of which the defendant Speer has led. that question, which the prosecution has brought to the notice of the Tribunal, but other authoritieswithin the administration, and confidence within the authorities, overlapped, and sometimes you could not even limit the confidence, so that the solution had to be sound. to how far one ought to make accusations as made by the prosecution, partly concerning the occupation and the work of foreign labor. We have to add that originally in this discomfort, it is only a question that there are points by the defendant Ley, who was there in charge of the labor front, that is, the taking care of labor and the workers, and Ley is not present any more. of foreign labor, it is one of the pain accusations concerning one man, as in theaccusations of the prosecution against Speer, which is to be set back and which is to recognized further; that, therefore, I have contended it is purely a technical question, the utilization of foreign labor, which should be testified to by an expert. so far as persons are concerned. I had suggested that one of the gentlemen who work in the Economic Branch in Washington could be examined on the question, and should be called as an expert before this Tribunal. As I was told this office does not exist any more, and the persons of whom the defendant Speer had, in turn, the impression of appearing in his interrogations, as well informed, these people are no more here. But there should exist the Allied authorities here who are concerned with the economic questions, and maybe it would be possible to select some one within the circle of gentlemen who are working there; of one certain person who could cooperate in these questions, and will assist the Tribunal in clarifying them.
I shall proceed direct on the question of witnesses. I have to correct the wrong impression which may have been formed by the prosecution in this stage of the witnesses 1 to 5 -- no, 1 to 6, 8 and 10 and 12.
THE PRESIDENT: If you are departing now from the question of the panel of experts, this could be a convenient time to break off for recess.
(A recess was taken).
DR. FLAECHSNER: Mr. President, I am now turning to the question of witnesses.
I would like to make a general remark before I start. offered in writing, is perhaps a little more comprehensive, especially since those witnesses who have the most comprehensive knowledge have been deleted, that is, the former chief of armaments, Lieutenant General Fromm, who for many years was the chief of the central office of the ministry of Speer. These names which I have included in my list are, in part, men who later were taken into the office. Witness Hupfauer, for instance, who is listed as No. 1, was not called in until the 1st of January, 1945, that is, barely four months' of active functions in this office, and that was as chief of the central office of the Speer ministry. He succeeded the previously mentioned Liebold. ministry of Speer the appearance is created that these witnesses may be asked about the same points and may possibly be considered as cumulative, but, in reality, such is not the case. These witnesses were active in the ministry of Speer, but they were not in such a manner as a routine official. They did not function as purely routine officials. structure from that which would be ordinarily found in a regular ministry. Much of its function was industrial. Many of the functions were handled by industrialists. Rohland was one of these. He is mentioned as witness No. 2, and he was called in for a steel concern. Then, witness No. 4 was called in in a similar capacity. Witness No. 6 was a manufacturer of a textile concern. He was the owner of this concern. Witness No. 9 was the director of a mining concern, and, in addition to this function, they had special functions in the ministry of Speer. Therefore, we can see that they were concerned with just a very small segment, covering only those points with which they had been delegated by Speer, and I cannot agree with the objection of the Prosecution that only two of these gentlemenare to be selected by me. matters upon which I would like to cross examine him. I am not in the fortunate position that the Prosecution is of being able to question my witnesses in advance and to find out just what knowledge they do have. I must depend and rely on an interrogatory and can only surmise that the questions which I submit to them can be answered by them.
If I follow the objection of the Prosecution and select only two or three of these gentlemen, it may very well happen that I would select the wrong people, those who do not know anything, and, therefore, it is impossible for me, utterly impossible for me to say that these witnesses will know about the essential proceedings against Speer and that we are concerned with these labor problems and that the witnesses should make statements in this regard. It is impossible for me to say that I may delete one of these witnesses. these witnesses are to be heard, and I believe that it is unnecessary for me to make further clarifications or explanations in that regard at this time. I believe my explanations are self-explanatory.
Now I am turning to the question of witness No. 7. This witness has already been granted me, and I do not believe that I need to clarify my attitude on this point further.
As far as witness No. 9 is concerned, Malzacher, the Prosecution has assorted that this witness would be cumulative to witness No. 1, but I bog to disagree with that statement. The vital question which is to be put to this witness is the question as to how the distribution of manpower was made from the department office to the various industries. The second question is just how and in what way the offices of Speer's ministry and industries had the opportunity to influence the distribution of manpower and workers, and this witness is essential in this regard. I have further questions to put to this witness, and I am supposed to put these questions in an interrogatory. These questions are supposed to be concerned with destruction. only the main points, and I therefore beg respectfully to be granted the summoning of this witness. I use interrogatories only when witnesses could make utterances or statements which are relevant and vital. On the return of an interrogatory to me, if I find that it does not contain essential material, I will, of course, not abuse the time and the energy of the high Tribunal in submitting a question or interrogatory of that sort.
but I do not agree with that point. As far as the facts upon which the witnesses are to testify, perhaps I uttered myself too briefly.
interrogatory that covered the activity of Speer or his membership in the SS. This document did not, according to the Defendant Speer, originate from him, and, therefore, I would like to have the secretary swear witness to this fact that the document did not originate with Speer.
Witness 13 is to testify on an entirely different matter. The Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler had the intention to make an SS man out of Speer and to bring him into his personal staff. Witness Wolff knows of the material which was given by Himmler to be forwarded to Speer, and Wolff should new testify that this document was never forwarded to Speer, and that the alleged SS membership of Speer cannot be discussed. minor point, but I have to enter into it, since document 3568-PS was submitted by the Prosecution and used as evidence for their case.
I agree with the Prosecution that questioning of witness No. 22 is not necessary, and I do not insist on it. interrogatories as directed.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you what you have to say about 14? Surely, the fact that the Defendant was ill in the Spring of 1944 -
DR. FLAESCHNER: Yes, Mr. President, I did not include this question in the interrogatory but I do not insist on witness fourteen and we may dispense with him.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it, do you think, Sir David, expedite or help the defendant's counsel if he were to be allowed to issue all these interrogatories and then were to consider them with you and see what was then cumulative?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I should be quite prepared to do that. They are all witnesses who are giving their evidence in writing so that I shall be quite prepared to -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that aspect of the matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If the Tribunal saw fit I should be very happy to cooperate.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you can now deal with the documents, Dr. Flaechsner, or Sir David will.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the documents one to eight deal with the defendant Speer being against the importation into Germany of foreign labor and they seem relevant, apart from number one, which seems rather a non sequitur; that the amount used in the armament industry does not seem to have any connection, as we can see, with the prisoner-of-war convention in 1929. And number six, as to the calling up of women in Germany, seems rather remote. But perhaps these matters can be more conveniently dealt with when counsel seeks to introduce the documents. Speer to the treatment of foreign workers and therefore appears relevant. Number fourteen deals with the point on which I think it is desired also to have evidence from the witness Milch. of the economic situation in Germany from June 1944 onwards. The Prosecution makes no objection at the moment. Of course, all these matters will have to be considered when the document is used and numbers nineteen to forty-one all deal with the efforts of the defendant Speer to prevent destruction of bridges and railways and water transport undertakings and the like during the last few weeks of the war.
They might be relevant on sentence and therefore the Prosecution make no objection. admitted in that regard. It is not a matter on which the Prosecution have called any contrary evidence and therefore if counsel will indicate what are the matters he wants submitted, it may be that we will be able to agree and shorten the presentation. be in the possession of the French delegation. They are not in the possession of the French delegation at the moment but they have asked for them to be sent here.
DR. FLAECHSNER: I would like to comment, but briefly, on one factor. Document Number One is of value only if the high Tribunal will decide to call in a panel of experts or whether you intend that you should be allowed to designate the persons who would form that panel.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Mr. President, the selection of experts I wish to place in the hands of the Tribunal. I myself would have no possibility of calling in a personality who would qualify in this regard. I am fully cognizant of the fact that in the Department of Economic Warfare there were personalities who could qualify as experts and who have the qualifications and prerequisites and the prior knowledge to judge the questions involved.
THE PRESIDENT: Then supposing that the Tribunal were not to accept your contention as to appointing a panel of experts, there is nobody whom you wish to add to your list of interrogatories?
DR. FLAECHSNER: I believe not, Mr. President.
I have one request. This expert should voice an opinion whether the figures given by Mr. Deuss in his affidavit (2520-PS) whether they are actual figures and this expert should voice his opinion as to whether these statistic or figures, as given, would stand up under close examination.
In this affidavit, Mr. Deuss stated and showed a mathematical basis as to just how many of the total workers employed in Germany were foreign workers, how many were armament workers -- correction -- how much foreign labor was employed in armament work.
The method of figuring used by Mr. Deuss is not entirely objective and I have my doubts about these figures. If the High Tribunal would not grant the use of an expert in this matter, I wish to ask for the privilege of submitting certain questions in the form of an interrogatory to Mr. Deuss, and I ask forthis privilege that I may giveMr. Deuss the opportunity to again check his original figures.
The affidavit as given by Mr. Deuss and the statements contained therein have already been considered relevant by the Prosecution at some prior time, and I assume that the objection which is made against the figures and statistics of Mr. Deuss are also such, and I humbly request that I may call Mr. Deuss' attention to those points which in my opinion are not true in an objective light.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
COLONEL POKROVSKY: I beg your pardon since I have not exchanged opinions on the subject with my colleagues and for that reason at the present time I am expressing only the viewpoint of the Soviet delegation on the subject of experts. of solving the question which is correct in principle. We would object to the solving of the question of the defendant Speer by the experts. We do not consider it right that such a question as the orders issued with regard to the foreign workers by Speer or the confirmation of such orders by Sauckel or the distribution of the foreign workers by the local authorities should be determined by experts. We do not consider it right that the question of the technical distribution needs experts. I can say the same thing with regard to the other points. questions can be solved by the Tribunal itself without the panel of experts. For that reason, the Soviet Prosecution objects to satisfying this request for the board of experts and requests that the Tribunal reject this request.