It is a work of very considerable magnitude to find and to bring witnesses to Nurnberg. trying new to get an affidavit from him.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. At any rate, I have made the effort. Whether I shall receive an answer in time from Leipzig I do not know. In the meantime, to make the matter easier and to avoid delay, I wrote to the witness Lackorn.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: I hope that an affidavit will be available in time. If so, I am perfectly prepared to renounce hearing him here in person.
THE PRESIDENT: If you get the affidavit you will be able to give the Tribunal particulars of the evidence which the witness would give, and also show it to the Prosecution, who would then be able to say whether they wished to have the witnesses brought here for cross-examination.
DR. SIEMERS: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider this application.
DR. SIEMERS: Witness, Number 15, Alf Whist, former Secretary of Commerce. On the order of the Court of the 14th of February he was rejected as irrelevant. throughout the occupation was very good, and that their behavior was very good. The Norwegians objected solely to the civil administration and not to the German Navy. in no single illegal or criminal measure during the occupation. the occupation -- of course this is a question that must be sharply distinguished from the question of the occupation and the attack on Norway. I am speaking now only of the time after the occupation had begun.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The point of the Prosecution is this: That whatever the facts were, assuming for the moment that the facts were that the German Navy, had behaved with meticulous correctness on every point, the view of Mr. Alf Whist, who was Secretary of Commerce in the Quisling Cabinet of Ministry in Norway, as to how the German Navy behaved would not have the slightest interest or relevance or weight with anyone.
That is the view of the Prosecution.
DR. SIEMERS: I had hoped that Sir David would take a position towards the question whether accusations can be directed toward the Navy in this regard. I should like to ask you to observe that the entire administration of Norway lay with Terboven and that the German Navy had nothing to do with this administration. If I have named a single witness where I might have called hundreds, I did this only to give the Tribunal a picture of how Admiral Boehm and Raeder behaved in this regard.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider it, Dr. Siemers.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Then you have got 17, the interpreter.
DR. SIEMERS: Regarding Lt. Colonel Goldenberg, it is Sir David's point of view that he is unnecessary; if Schultze is approved an affidavit is enough from Goldenberg. A short affidavit appears to be important to me, because Goldenberg as an impartial interpreter was also present at every conference between Darlan and Raeder. An affidavit would suffice.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you can pass now to your documents. I ought to call your attention to an observation at the end of your application, which is that you intend to summon one or more witnesses. Who are they? You say you intend to summon one or more witnesses.
DR. SIEMERS: There would be a witness. The high Tribunal has declared that the details about a witness are submitted a long time before the case actually comes up because the Tribunal must produce the witness. If it is a question of a witness who comes on his own initiative to Nurnberg, then it can be decided on this point in connection with my whole case whether the witness will be admitted by the Court of not.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, I have stated one of the reasons why, one of the prinicpal reasons why Defense Counsel have to make applications, and another prinicpal reasons is a necessity for expedition in this trial; expedition and security. I am reminded of the question of security; and therefore, we must insist on being told who the witnesses are that you wish to call. Dr. Siemers, you will not be able to call them.
DR. SIEMERS: Am I thn obliged, if the witness is here in the building, to name him?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, because, as I have told you, there are twenty or twenty-one defendants in the dock and we have to try and make this trial expeditious and we, therefore, can't allow them to call as many witnesses as they choose to call; but if it is a question of your not having the names of the witnesses in your mind at the moment, you can certainly specify them after a short delay or tomorrow.
DR. SIEMERS: I shall shortly make a statement on this matter. I haven't spoken of the witness. I shall give further information regarding this point shortly, as I'd like to speak to the witness in question first.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, the Tribunal has no objection to your replying in respect of other witnesses, provided that you do so by tomorrow.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well, I know that at the moment the witness in question is not in Nurnberg. At the moment I cannot ask him. I consequently ask the Tribunal to pardon me for being too careful. The Tribunal knows that witnesses are taken into custody. I cannot be responsible for making it difficult for anyone, because of my calling him as a witness, and that is the reason that I should tell you immediately, as soon as the witness is in Nurnberg and I can speak to him, that will be within twnety-four hours.
It is here a question of testimony which would take at the most ten minutes of the Court's time. I do not believe that this could be considered burdensome to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SIEMERS: Then I should only like to add that in the case of Severing, I can give his address. I received it yesterday by telegraph. Here is No. 3; and the prosecution is agreeable to his being heard. I can give you this address in writing. It is in Bielefeld.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Provided you give it to the prosecution and provided you give it to the General Secretary, that is all that is required; and now would probably be a convenient time to break off for ten minutes.
MR. DODD: Just a minute, your Honor. It is a matter of Admiral Buerkner now. So far as we know, Dr. Siemers has made one request about Admiral Buerkner sometime ago and at a time when he was told, as I understand it, that Admiral Buerkner was intended to be called or that the prosecution intended to call him as a witness and that, therefore, we do not think it is proper for him to talk to Admiral Buerkner until after we had called him as a witness. mind calling Admiral Buerkner. I think some reference was made about him, as a matter of fact, before the Tribunal, with reference to the witness Lahousen and it was for that reason that we told Dr. Siemers that we didn't think he should talk to the witness until after he had testified or a decision had been made with reference to his testimony; but we have at all times tried to cooperated with the defense and make available those people who are here in custody so that they may talk with them.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken)
DR. SIEMERS: Regarding the witness, may I say one more thing concerning witness No.1, Marinedekan, that I won't call him as a witness, I agree to use an affidavit. Concerning the witness Buerkner, I would like to mention that the information received from Mr. Dodd is based on an error. I was not permitted to speak to the witness, because the witness had not been granted to me as my witness. No other reason was given. Furthermore-
THE PRESIDENT: We don't think any further discussion is necessary about this witness. I have already stated what the members of the Tribunal will act upon.
DR. SIEMERS: I only don't understand whether Mr. Dodd agrees now that I may speak to the witness Buerkner.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he said so. He said the prosecution closed their case, and that now they have no longer any objection to your seeing the witness.
DR. SIEMERS: Then as the last remark the Tribunal will have noticed that I have not called any witness concerning naval warfare and U-boat warfare, and this is based on the fact that I have agreed with Dr. Kranzbuehler that Dr. Kranzbuehler will treat the entire complex of naval warfare and U-boat warfare; although on this thing also as to Admiral Doenitz as supreme commander of the Navy, and Gross admiral Raeder, so far as they are concerned, Dr. Kranzbuehler, therefore, will take care of that interest, of the Grossadmiral and the Admiral, concerning this complex. Dr. Kranzbuehler concerning the question as to Admiral Nimitz, do not only concern Grossadmiral Doenitz but in particular Grossadmiral Raeder, and, furthermore, the organization of the general staff inasmuch as the Navy is concerned.
May I speak about the documents now?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: In regard to document No.1 on the war diaries of Seekriegsleitung, and the B.D.U., Dr. Kranzbuehler's assistant, Dr. Meckel, has gone to London to work on these at the Admiralty.
With regard to No.2, Weyer's Navy Diaries, and the Article "Navy Year Book", there is no objection to Dr. Siemers having these. We are indicating in the ordinary way what best he need to use.
With regard to General Marshall's Report of 10 October 1945, I am convinced that I cannot see the relevancy of it at the moment, but if he will indicate which part he intends to, use, it can be discussed when he actually represents it to the Tribunal. which are wanted as to the preparations for landing in Scandinavia and Finland, although strictly what is relevant is what was known to the defendant Raeder, then, I shall make inquiries about these documents, and if the Tribunal will give me a short time I hope to be able to report to the Tribunal upon them. details on Allied documents, but I hope to be able to consider the position and produce some documents which may be helpful to the Tribunal, and deal with them authoritatively. I would rather not be pressed with details at the moment.
DR. SIEMERS: I agree with Sir David, and I hope that I will receive the books to No.2 -- No.2 and No.3 soon, because otherwise a delay may be caused. The report of General Marshall of 10 October 1945, as much as I could see their excerpts so far is important, because General Marshall on various points has expressed different attitude than Justice Jackson. I believe that by confronting the Tribunal, and coming into here with a report of this kind, it would be very important in order to hear the reports by General Marshall.
Concerning No.4, I think Sir David and I am expecting final decision of the prosecution. by error I have not listed this figure 5, which is the following: The prosecution has brought quotations frequently here from the book "Main Kampf" by Adolf Hitler, and that through their positions, each one of the defendants, all of whom were in a leading position in 1933, at or before 1933, had had to know before 1933 the basis of this book that Hitler intended to prepare and Wage a wretched war. I have found that the quotation, in that document book, which was presented in November,are all based on the edition of this book which appeared in 1933.
The edition of 1933, however, in many points is different from the original edition. I regret that I am only in possession of the edition which was published after 1933. In order to check these questions, that is to say, in order to see what anybody could have read out of this book, let's say in 1928, and not 1933, I ask the Prosecution to try to get a copy of this book in the first edition, and to submit it. As much as I know about it, the first edition appeared in 1925, and the second in 1927, by the publishing firm of Franz Eher.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We shall try to get the earlier edition so that Dr. Siemers can compare with the other edition.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to deal with page 2 of this document? Sir David, you have not dealt with this, have you?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No. I take it, your Lordship, that the record did not mention there what Dr. Siemers would, in due course, indicate as to the excerpts he was going to use, and it is then we should discuss when he presents them whether any objection which the Prosecution may make.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You intend, Dr. Siemers, I suppose to indicate the passages upon which you rely in your document book?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And that is question of tonnages built, and so on. I said I am making inquiries with regard to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. My attention is drawn, Sir David, to paragraph 4B on page 2. Are you agreed to , or are you suggesting the Tribunal can supply him with the document on the German policy without any further reservation?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am very sorry. It was an oversight. I take it that that was included already in the words at the top of the page; in addition I shall submit the documents and affidavits, and some of them are already in my possession, and some of them I shall procure myself without having the assistance of the Prosecution. I take it that Dr. Siemers had such documents on the German policy, and will indicate what basis he is going to use them. I am very sorry I did not refer to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this part of the application mean that, with reference to all these documents, Dr. Siemers has them and doesn't wish any further action to be taken with reference to them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You have got them all?
DR. SIEMERS: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I call on Counsel for the Defendant von Schirach.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Sauter suggests it would be convenient if I indicate the view of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May I ask the Tribunal to note that Dr. Sauter is asking for witnesses 1 to 8, except witness 5, as oral witnesses; that is, he is asking for 7 oral witnesses, and Nos. 5 and 9 to 13 by way of affidavit. the Defendant might have No.1 or No.2, that is, Wieshofer of Hoepken, because these witnesses appear to cover the same ground; that he might have No.3, the witness Lauterbacher, who was chief of staff of the Reichsjugendfuehrung; and, also, that hemight have No.8, that is, Professor Heinrich Hoffmann, his father-in-law, and the note of whose evidence takes up nine pages of the application, so he is obviously a very important witness.
Then the Prosecution suggests that there might be affidavits from No.5, Scharizer, who was the deputy gauleiter of Vienna: No. 11, who is Madame Vasseau; and No.12, Herr Schneeberger; and No.13, Field Marshal von Blomberg. necessity for are, first of all, No.5, Frau Hoepken. There are no details given in this application, except that she was secretary to von Schirach; and No.6, the witness Heinz Schmidt, who apparently repeats part of the evidence of the witness Lauterbacher word for word; No.7, Dr. Schluender, who also repeats the witness Lauterbacher word for word; and No.9, Dr. Klingspor, who passes a personal view on the Defendant, which, in the submission of the Prosecution, is not really helpful evidence; and, finally, Dr. Roesen, No.10, who speaks as to an isolated incident of kindness on the part of the Defendant to the family of musician Richard Strauss.
the witnesses.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant von Schirach): Gentlemen, I also have the case of Baldur von Schirach. My list of proof in this case I have also made as small as possible. To call as witnesses before the Tribunal and to be questioned here I have requested the witnesses, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, and I really have to ask to approve these witnesses.
consists in that two definitely separate conflicts need to be proved; first, the activity of the Defendant von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader, and, second, for the time from 1940 until 1945, for his activity in Vienna, in whichhe still had a certain function in youth leadership in addition to his main activity. Therefore, I need witnesses as well for the one as for the other activity of the Defendant von Schirach.
In addition to this difficulty there is another one. The Defendant von Schirach was Reich Youth Leader, and that brought with it that practically without exception all his collaborators were relatively young people who, during the second world war, were for long times in the Army. Therefore, it is possible that for several years during the world war one witness might know nothing, because he did not work in the staff of the Defendant von Schirach during that time, and that, therefore, for that length of time another collaborator of Schirach would have to be questioned in order to provide information about his activity. further witnesses, but in this application I have omitted these further witnesses right from the start, in order to contribute to speed up the procedure as much as I can. But these six witnesses, whom I have asked to be called before the Tribunal, I really ask to have them approved, because I cannot forego any one of them, in order to get a clear picture about the activity of the Defendant. I may also point out that everyone of these six witnesses whom I have listed under the numbers which I have mentioned before, have already been approved by the Tribunal, so that a repeated approval would Just be repetition of the former decision by the Tribunal.
The witness Wieshofer, who is listed under No. 1, was from 1940 till 1945 the adjutant of the Defendant von Schirach; that is to say, during the time in which, as we know, the Defendant was gauleiter in Vienna and Reich Governor.
him very well, although he could give information about other things, I have called him particularly to prove that Schirach, as Gauleiter in Vienna followed an entirely different policy than his predecessor, the former Gauleiter Buerckel; that contrary to Buerckel, he tried to establish a correct relationship to the Catholic Church and that in particular, in this sense, he also instructed his collaborators and subordinates successfully. I say successfully because these efforts by the defendant von Schirach to pacify the relationship to the Catholic Church has repeatedly been acknowledged by the Church as well as by the Catholic population of Vienna. Schirach had nothing to do with the deportation of Jews from Vienna; that this thing about the Jews was
THE PRESIDENT: Do not numbers one and two, Wieshofer and Hoepken, really deal substantially with the same subject? Wouldn't it be sufficient if one were called as a witness and if the other one gave evidence by interrogatory?
DR. SAUTER: I do not believe quite so, Mr. President, because the witness Hoepken, who is listed under number two, and who from 1938 was already a collaborator of the defendant von Schirach, especially with regard to the Reich Youth Leadership, and this witness could give information especially about the activity of the defendant von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader and in particular about his efforts to get in contact with the youth of other nations, that is for instance England and France, to come to an understanding and to friendship. witnesses and with regard to the list which the defendant von Schirach displays in naming witnesses, one should acknowledge that both witnesses, one and two, not by way of choice, but both of them should be granted. The addresses of both witnesses have been submitted to the Tribunal. They are in a camp and I believe, gentlemen, that in order to get a picture of everything, of the entire facts, it is necessary to call both.
THE PRESIDENT: I still do not follow what the essential difference is between the two.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have just pointed out that the witness Hoepken, number two, had a leading position in the Reich Youth Leadership also and that therefore the witness Hoepken, number two, would be in a position to give information officially about the activity of the defendant von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, you stated that Wieshofer, number one, was adjutant to Schirach in his capacity as Reich Leader of Education of Youth so that he was in just as close contact with the defendant on the question of the education of youth as Hoepken.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, but Hoepken, in his main function, was concerned with education of youth, while the activity of the defendant Wieshofer was limited mainly to the job of adjutant of the defendant von Schirach and mainly in his capacity as Gauleiter in Vienna. That is the main difference. Vienna, those are mainly the witness Wieshofer and in a minor way also Hoepken. But I need Hoepken, Mr. President, as I said for the clarification of the activity of Schirach in the Reich Youth Leadership.
Mr. President, may I also point out for the defendant von Schirach, everything depends on this and from the point of view of the Court it should really not make much difference, and whichis so important to Schirach, whether one witness would be called or two. witnesses in the hope that then I would get approval for two. If now, in the name of the defendant von Schirach, I am only asking for two witnesses right from the outset, I would not think it very just if you would grant only one of these two.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you have said.
DR. SAUTER: Furthermore, in the third place, I have the witness Hartmann-Lauterbacher. I have asked to call him and if I understood correctly, the Prosecutionagrees. Therefore, I can be very brief.
Leadership, is expected especially to supply information about the fact that the defendant von Schirach has in no way prepared the youth psychologically or pedagogically for an aggressive war. And furthermore, that the statement by the Russian Prosecution, which was made in one of the sessions during February -- I believe on the 9th of February, 1946 -- the allegations which were taken from a Polish report, were definitely false, that is, the Hitler Youth had used spies and agents in Poland, instructed them, trained them as parachutists and such, that all that is false and the witness Lauterbacher will prove that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, Sir David said he would not object to numbe three being called as a witness but what he did object to was six and seven, whom you are also asking for as oral witnesses, because he said they repeated what Lauterbacher said -- number six and seven, that is Schmidt and Schluender.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, sir. Mr. President, here there is also a difficulty. There are the difficulties which I pointed out before. of February, 1946, which was a report by the Polish Government, it cannot be seen during what time these things concerning the agents and spies of the Hitler Youth happened or should have happened. be alleged that it happened during another time, perhaps during the time when this witness was in the army. That is the reason why, in the interest of the complete clarification of these conditions, I have asked also to call the witness number six, that is to say the witness Schmidt, here before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you say that, does it not appear that with reference to Schluender, his collaboration with the defendant extended from 1933 to 1945 and therefore if he were called or were to give an affidavit or an interrogatory, and Lauterbacher, who extends from 1933 to 1940, you would cover the whole period and you could exclude Schmidt.
DR. SAUTER: If I understand you correctly, Mr. President, you are referring to an interrogatory in the case of Lauterbacher.
THE PRESIDENT: No, Lauterbacher, Sir David was prepared to have called a a witness.
DR. SAUTER: Lauterbacher as a witness and Schmidt an interrogatory?
THE PRESIDENT: That Schmidt and Schluender were cumulative. You said they did not relate to the same period, as I understood you, and that might raise a difficulty. So I pointed out to you that number seven relates to the whole period, that is to say from 1933, beyond the period dealt with by Lauterbacher, and goes to 1945 and therefore, if he were called, that would cover the whole period and if you called Lauterbacher and Schluender and left out Schmidt -
DR. SAUTER: So that from Schmidt I would get an interrogatory? Yes, I would agree to that.
THE PRESIDENT: And the statements which you make with reference to Schmidt and to Schluender are practically identical.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, only they refer to different times as each of the two was in the army. If one of them comes he cannot say anything about the time during which he served in the army, for instance, he cannot give any information as to whether during his time in the army agents would have been used.
THE PRESIDENT: But you have stated that there were collaborators with the defendant from 1938 to 1945 in the one case and from 1933 to 1945 in the other case, and therefore if that is correct they can't have been in the Army, they can't have taken an active part in the army.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should be quite prepared to agree to the suggestion that your Lordship put forward; that would then cover the whole period. If both Lauterbacher and Schluender were called it would dispense with the necessity for Schmidt.
DR. SAUTER: May I also point out that in the case of Schluender, who has been arrested a few weeks ago, that I need Schluender in any case because he was a specialist with the Reich youth leadership for physical training, and therefore I expect especially through Dr. Schluender to prove that the education of the youth, such as defendant von Schirach was in charge of, was definitely nothing extraordinary nor militaristic. The defendant von Schirach, during the entire trial so far, has always -
THE PRESIDENT: I think, really, there is a substantial agreement between you and Sir David that one and three certainly should be called and that seven might be called, but I don't know whether Sir David agrees whether an affidavit or interrogatories might be given by six.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to that, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: That is substantially what you want, Doctor?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; let us go on then.
DR. SAUTER: Yes. Then under number four I have mentioned an affidavit by a witness Maria Hoepken. Concerning this affidavit which is already in my possession, I will submit this to the Tribunal and to the prosecution at the same time when I submit my book of documents. from two witnesses: number nine, Dr. Klingspor, and number ten, Dr. Rosen, and here the same thing applies,--the Tribunal and the prosecution will receive these affidavits together with my document book. this witness is here in Nurnberg, agree to having him called as a witness, therefore I believe that I do not have to make any detailed statements con cerning this witness.
Gauobmann Schneeberger from Vienna, will mainly inform us about the relations, the attitude, of the defendant concerning the question of foreign workers during the time of his activity as gauleiter in Vienna. And number thirteen, Field Marshal von Blomberg, shall inform us about the attitude of the defendant von Schirach to the question of the pre-military education of the youth, to the question of physican training, and the question of patriotic education of youth by the defendant von Schirach. The prosecution agrees that these witnesses should be questioned by way of interrogatories, which I have also suggested myself. client and myself, that is number 11, the application to examine a French woman by the name of Ida Vasseau. From this witness, Ida Vasseau, we have heard of her in court for the first time when the Soviet prosecution submitted a report from a commission about the atrocities of the Fascist-German invaders in the area of Lemberg; Document USSR No. 6. Ida Vasseau, who was active in a children's home in Nurnberg, had reported that the Hitler yough had committed particularly atrocities in Nurnberg. It was alleged that from the ghetto small children had been sold; however, it was not told by whom and to whom these children were allegedly sold; and particularly, it is supposed to have been the Hitler Youth who used these small children as targets. particular atrocity, and I can tell you that of the entire prosecution, the presentations of the prosecution during the last three months, nothing has depressed the defendant Schirach more than this assertion. The defendant Schirach has always, also in his interrogation, has had the opinion and views that so far as the education and training of the German Youth are concerned, which was under his guidance, he will take full responsibility; and that he is also prepared here, as defendant, to explain to the Tribunal which were the principles which guided him, which aim he had, and which were the measures of success which he had.
He has never--
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, you are only applying for witnesses, aren't you now? You see, you agree in your application to an affidavit -
DR. SAUTER: I did not understand, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What I was pointing out to you was that this is only an application with reference to witnesses, and in your application you say that however, in consideration of the far distance of thewitness from Nurnberg, I agree at first that an affidavit should be drawn up.
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That an affidavit should be drawn up; so you are in agreement and I don't understand why we should be troubled with further application.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, to my application I have added something. I have written that a personal appearance of this witness before the Tribunal would be essential so that she could be questioned, because this information is important in order to judge the Hitler Youth as a whole.
THE PRESIDENT: You have reserved that right after the application having been sworn. Well, you can prepare the affidavit and ten send it out to the witness and then you can see whether you want the witness for cross examination, and Sir David agrees to that course.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, for my client only one thing was important. that among eight million members just one such atrocious case of cruelty happened, and about such thirds he has never heard anything in his position, and I agree that an affidavit could be used; but only for this case I would like to reserve the calling of witness eventually if that affidavit should not be sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: That deals with the witnesses, and we'd better adjourn.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours).
Military Tribunal in the matter of: The
SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the documents for which Dr. Sauter asked, the Prosecution take the usual line that there is no general objection to extracts being used, but at this stage they reserve their right to challenge admissibility of the extracts on the grounds of relevance.
They will have to look particularly closely at No. 9, the book entitled "Look, the Heart of Europe", and the commentary on it by the late Lloyd George but they can see that these are particularly matters which can be more conveniently dealt with when they have seen the document book and the extracts are before them.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Schirach): Mr. President, I can state my position regarding the documents very briefly. In the main, it is a question of books, addresses, and essays, by the defendant von Schirach. I have these literary works in my possession and I shall submit them to the Prosecution along with my document book. In the document book I shall then outline the individual extracts from these books. I shall submit them to the Prosecution and to the Tribunal so that both of them can refer to the individual excerpts.
DR. SEIDL: (Counsel for the defendant Hess): Mr. President, My Lord Justices, on the 20th of February I made an application for additional material for the defendant Hess. I would be obliged to the Tribunal if the Tribunal would inform me whether it would like to hear the argument in regard to this application now or later, since I do not yet know whether the Court has a translation of my application in its hands.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not seen the application yet, so I thin you had better postpone making the argument until the Tribunal has seen the application
DR. SEIDL: Very well, Mr. President.
DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the defendant Sauckel): For the defendant Sauckel I have suggested a number of witnesses and in my preliminary remarks to the list I have divided them into various groups. that smaller relationships must be clarified in this case. The Prosecution, in its case against Sauckel, limited itself to general considerations that would inculpate him, and it also did not work out in detail the complicated matters of SS camps and matters that were carried out in the scope of the Arbeitseinsatz and so on.
Sauckel's entire activity has not been clarified, or has been clarified but slightly. I am consequently obliged to present his work staff, his collaborators, and dossiers of their activity. It looks at first as if my list of witnesses were cumulative, but more previse examination of it shows that they represent different fields. Some of them were experts in the East; some, experts in the West or in theSouth. Then, there is the creation of the Arbeitseinsatz and the care and housing in the places of work that were occupied by the various groups. Another group is the recruiting of the worker in foreign countries, on which also witnesses must be heard. seinsatz. The question of the conspiracy is of secondary importance. I believe I can rely in large measure on what is presented by the other defense counsel in their various cases.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the prosecution has endeavored to follow Dr. Servatius in considering the suggested witnesses under various heads.
The defendant's counsel wishes to call this witness on the question of agreements between him and Laval. The prosecution submit that that cannot affect the position over, certainly, occupied France, and they suggest that this witness is really irrelevant to the main charges which have been made against this defendant. They are, however, willing--my French colleagues will, if Dr. Servatius desires it, let him know the effect of an interrogation of Ambassador Abetz with regard to this subject, I don't want to comment on it at the moment, because it is obviously a matter which Dr. Servatius should consider before any comment is made in Court. However, if he will allow me to say so, I think it would be useful if he considered that point before any decision was come to.
Then, the next group are the witnesses 2 to 8. They all come from the Reich Ministry of Labor, and they are called to speak generally as to the defendant's attitude, the limitations on him as regards recruiting, and his personal dealings with offenders. The prosecution suggest that it will be reasonable for Dr. Servatius to select the two best out of the eight for oral testimony, and two more to give affidavits. dant Sauckel's staff, who are sought to be called to give evidence as to his efforts for good conditions. Again, the prosecution suggest a selection, and put forward one witness and one affidavit. that the DAF, the Deutsche Arbeiter Front, looked after the welfare of foreign workers by agreement with the late Dr. Ley. The prosecution submit that that witness would be cumulative, and object to him, as that subject is already covered. with the relations and liaison between the defendant Sauckel and the DAF. These are substantially still on the same point, and the prosecution suggest that one witness and one affidavit out of that group would be sufficient.