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.
THE PRESIDENT: I call upon counsel for the defendant von Neurath.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the witnesses of the defendant von Neurath, the Prosecution make no objection to No. 1, Dr. Koepke, who was the director of the Political Division in the Foreign Office.
Then, No. 2, Dr. Gauss, is the witness who has already been granted for the defendant Ribbentrop.
With regard to the third, Dr. Diekhoff, the Tribunal granted this witness on the 19th of December, but the Prosecution, having considered the basis of the present application, respectfully suggests that it might be covered by interrogatories.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN (Counsel for defendant von Neurath): Mr. President I agree, and I have already worked out an interrogatory which will be submitted to the General Secretary today, but I wish to reserve the right that if the interrogatory is returned to me, I may still ask for the personal testimony of this witness, but I am satisfied with an interrogatory at this point.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Much obliged.
As the same view is taken by the Prosecution of No. 4, the witness Pruefer, again it seemed to be largely a historical matter and they suggested an interrogatory. There is no objection to the evidence of the witness being brought before the Court.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: This interrogatory has already been submitted to the General Secretary. I did this several weeks ago, and I assume that I will have it returned to me, fully answered, in a reasonable period of time,
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then, No. 5 is Count Schwerin-Krosigk, who was Finance Minister for a long period of years in the government of the Reich. If the Tribunal would be good enough to look at the application with Dr. von Luedinghausen has put in, he says this witness is most accurately informed about the personality of the defendant, his political viewpoints, as well as the basic thoughts and aims of the policy of peace carried on by the defendant, and his avoidance of all use of force as well as his endeavors for the maintenance of peace, even after being Foreign Minister, as well as his opinion of National Socialism and about the happenings in the Cabinet session of 30 January 1937.
that the defendant would speak to, and it was difficult to see that Count Schwerin-Krosigk was being asked to speak as to any particular point that was initial. Therefore, again they would suggest that an interrogatory would be sufficient for the purpose of the defense.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: I do not believe that an interrogatory will serve the same purpose that I wish to accomplish, for several activities of the defendant von Neurath are implicated and this would enable him to clear these matters for us. Party, and the fact that this is not true can be asserted by Witness No. 5, Schwerin-Krosigk, and I put special stress on the fact of having this matter cleared up before the High Tribunal so that the High Tribunal may have an exact idea of the chain of events as they took place at that time. is to show in which way von Neurath, even though he was not Foreign Minister at the time, stepped in to bring about the conference at Munich in September 1938, and to show the extent of his activities, activities which were hailed by the German people. in Nurnberg. He will not have to be brought from another city, you see, but we will bring him as a witness before this High Tribunal.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don't desire to say anything more on that point. will be an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Number seven, Dr. Giudo Schmidt, is the same witness as was dealt with this morning in the case of Seyss-Inquart.
He is an Austrian ex-foreign minister. I made no objection in the case of Seyss-Inquart and I make no objection now, of course.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: This interrogatory has already been sent to Lord Halifax, as I have been told by the General Secretary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Mastny, who was the Czech ambassador in Berlin came into the case in that the prosecution put in a letter from him describing a visit of Dr. Mastny to the defendant von Neurath. Of course, if there is any issue as to that report, its not being true, then there would be some reason for calling him as a witness; but if it is merely a question of clarifying it I should stress an interrogatory should be sufficient.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: I agree to an interrogatory in this case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then with regard to the next witness, Dr. Stroelin, if the Tribunal would consider that with number twelve, Dr. Wurm, I understand that the Tribunal granted number twelve on the 19th of December as an alternative to Stroelin, and giving the choice between the witness Stroelin and the witness Wurm. Dr. Stroelin is Oberbuergemeister of Stuttgart. I don't know if Dr. Seidl could tell the Tribunal if it is the same Dr. Stroelin he desires in the case of Hess.
* * * * * * that that witness will also be asked for by Dr. Seidl in the case of Hess, and therefore I should suggest that we might leave that in suspense for the moment. If the Tribunal grant it in the case of Hess of course Dr. von Luedinghausen will automatically have the advantage of this witness; and if he is not granted -- and I don't know whether Dr. Luedinghausen feels strongly about his personal presence -- I am not the court -- I don't feel very strongly on the point myself. Do you want to be heard?
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree that I should make this decision at this point. Perhaps after we settle the question of having assigned this witness to another defendant already, I would like to at-
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Which one?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number ten, Dr. Stroelin.
THE PRESIDENT: If Dr. Stroelin were granted would you require Dr. Wurm at all, number twelve?
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, Dr. Wurm I would not insist on for a personal appearance at Nurnberg. He has already told me that he would give me the information in the form of an affidavit, and I would only request the privilege of submitting these affidavits to the High Tribunal. I do not insist on his personal appearance in the court.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is merely accumulative, number ten, but if it is felt that an affidavit would help--it will be along the same lines--I shall not press an objection.
Now, number eleven. The prosecution felt with regard to the witness Zimmermann that he was really speaking as to the contents of the defendant's mind. If I might read the first five lines:
"The witness is in a position to give information about the personality, the character, and the philosophy of the defendant, as well as about the fact that he entered the cabinet only at the express request of the Reich President von Hindenburg, and why he remained in the cabinet after the latter's death was that he was a convinced friend of peace and an opponent of any policy pointing toward force or war, and that because of this reason he turned in his resignation as Reich Foreign Minister soon after the 5th of November 1937, further because of what reasons and motives he declared himself ready to take over the office of Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia."
It would appear that these are all matters which Sr. Zimmermann has heard from the defendant. I don't really think it helps the defendant's case any further. The prosecution therefore felt that that witness was irrelevant.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: I request a personal appearance of this witness for the reason that he has been an old friend of von Neurath for many, many years, and the defendant rather considered him as a fatherconfessor and told him many, many things, so that this witness has an impression of everything told by von Neurath.
This witness is accurately informed about the incidents that took place in the summer of 1932, when von Neurath entered the newly-formed cabinet of von Papen upon the express desire of the then Reich President von Hindenburg. The witness is informed in detail and can testify that the defendant did not wish to accept the call, and that it took severe persuasion on the part of the Reich President von Hindenburg, concerning his patriotic and personal duty, and in that way that was the only way in which the defendant could be persuaded to assume this office. This witness also knows the motives upon which the Reich President considered him obligated to carry them out beyond his death and to remain in office, and in that way to fulfill the wishes of the former Reich President. when in 1937 Hitler, with marshal intent, came to the fore. Witness Zimmermann also knows in every detail the motives which made it possible for von Neurath to assume the office of Reich Protector; and the witness also knows in every detail of all these difficulties confronting the Reich Protector. He also knows the attitude the defendant took toward the problems confronting him in the Reich Protectorate. These comments, as aforementioned, are of decisive value so far as the defendant's case is concerned, and I do not believe that even the affidavit which has been worked out with the greatest care can create the same impression and the same weight as a personal appearance of this witness and for that reason I humbly suggest that this witness be granted me, this witness who has already given me his assurance that he will be glad to come to Nurnberg from Berlin. We will not have to find him; he is a practising lawyer in Berlin at present.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I don't wish to add to that. That leaves one point, My Lord. The two witnesses, thirteen and fourteen. The first one, Dr. Voelkers, was the chief of the cabinet of defendant von Neurath in Prague. He has not been located. The second, von Holleben, was -
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: This witness is in an internment camp at Neuminster, and I indicated the exact address.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then I think the submission of the prosecution is that one of these witnesses is suitable, and that it would be unnecessary to call the second witness if Dr. Voelkers is available.
That is my point.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: I quite agree, but I would like to know whether the second, von Holleben, will be subject to an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: It is now a quarter to one; we will adjourn until two.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
Official Transcript of the International
THE PRESIDENT: It appears probable that the Tribunal will finish the applications for witnesses and documents before the end of the sitting today, but they do not propose to go on with the case against the defendant Goering until tomorrow. They will take that case at ten o'clock tomorrow morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the documents applied for by the defendant von Neurath, paragraph 1 requires no comment.
Paragraph 2 refers to documents which Dr. Luedinghausen has in his possession. If they are treated in the usual way and extracts are made, I have nothing further to say.
Then we come to documents that are not yet in his possession. Number 1 and number 4 are minutes of the Disarmament Conference in 1932 and in May 1933 respectively. I am afraid I don't know what the difficulty has been in obtaining those documents, and if there is any way in which the prosecution can help, they will.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: Concerning document number 1, I was able to find in the meantime, in one of the documents which referred to the Disarmament Conference, a copy of that which is important for me. That is to say, the resolution about the equality of Germany. If the document which I have asked for is not here in time, I am in a position to produce an excerpt of the text from that German book. get that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 2 is a request for the interrogation of Karl Hermann Frank. defendants used by the prosecution would be liable to production. If any portions of this interrogation were used by the Soviet prosecution, and I confess-
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): One moment, please. Sir David, as I understood you, you didn't state our ruling quite accurately.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sorry, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: I think our ruling was that if the prosecution put in any part of an interrogation of a defendant, then the defendants would have the opportunity of using any other part of the interrogation, treating the interrogation as one document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very grateful to Your Lordship. That was the rule so far as defendants are concerned, but Karl Hermann Frank is not a defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And any portion that has been used would have appeared in the ordinary way in the document book of whichever delegation had used it. The general interrogation was taken, of course, not only for the purpose of the Czech Government in the trial of Karl Hermann Frank. Therefore, what I suggest is that Dr. Luedinghausen put interrogatories to Karl Hermann Frank on whatever points he wants to raise. The prosecution would have no objection to that.
DR. LUEDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I say the following? These four minutes of the interrogations of Karl Hermann Frank are contained in the document USSR-60, which contains the accusations by the Czech Government; they are mentioned and they are contained in there. client von Neurath as Reich Protector, or whether they have to do with a later period. For that reason I have asked to see these protocols. the document concerning a meeting in Prague, about a policy of Germanization of Czechoslovakia; and in connection with this document which has been presented--that is to say, which is contained in the report by General Friederitschie---these protocols are also mentioned. he mentioned all the opinions and proposals which were then developed, and considered them impossible. Therefore, it is important for me to know just what is said in these protocols, which the Czech prosecution has presented. If there is nothing in there, then, of course, I will forego the presentation, but I would have to examine it myself. then to take from these protocols whatever is important for me.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, would you have any objection to counsel for von Neurath seeing these interrogatories?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have to consult the Czech Government before I could agree, because, frankly, I haven't gone through the parts which we were not concerned with in this case, and I don't know on what subjects the interrogation was based.
THE PRESIDENT: But treating the matter as a matter of principle, if a certain document or a part of a document is used, ought it not to be open to the defendants to use the rest of the document?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should have thought it a matter of principle, My Lord, only if there were connected parts. I think that is the general rule that is applied, say, to interrogatories in the English Courts. For example, supposing that one day Karl Hermann Frank was examined about the early days of the protectorate, and then another day he was examined on a specific point at the end of the protectorate. Then I shouldn't have thought that the two things were sufficiently closely connected.