Transcript for IMT: Trial of Major War Criminals

DR. STAHMER: I asked your decision; therefore, it has been refused.

THE PRESIDENT: Of the trial brief?

DR. STAHMER: Of the trial brief, page 34, yes, figure 12. With respect to the question of whether one could blame the defendant of having had confidence in Hitler and followed him, it is important to know Churchill's attitude, expressed in his book, "Step by Step," and I am quoting two passages, Document Book Number 2, Page 46. It says -

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: This is in 1937, before the events with which we have mainly been dealing here. I do not think it is very important. Mr. Churchill's speeches are well known, but I do think that we waste time going into Mr. Churchill's opinions back in 1937, before the event, when he is doubtless of the same position as Dahlerus, the witness, with reference to his knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes.

THE PRESIDENT: In as much as we have already received this book and some passages from it, you may state this.

DR. STAHMER: I may state it? very well, Page 187, in an article, "Frienship with Germany" of 17 September 1937:

One can condemn Herr Hitler's system and still marvel at its patriotic achievement. Should our country be defeated I could only desire that we would find an equally indomitable champion who would give us our courage again.

THE PRESIDENT: I only said that you could read it because you had read from this book of Mr. Churchill's but at the same time it seems to be absolutely irrelevant.

a description of Hitler's personality. I consider it of importance because I contribute considerable weight to Churchill's judgment. It says -

THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Stahmer, don't you think we have heard sufficient about Hitler's personality?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, but not from that source.

THE PRESIDENT: Presumably the Defendant Goering knows more about Hitler than Mr. Churchill.

DR. STAHMER: If the Tribunal does not wish to have me read it, then of course, I will fulfil that wish.

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is cumulative.

DR. STAHMER: In that case I have finished. May I just make one reservation with regard to the arguments which I haven't been able to raise. As I said this morning, I had a certain amount of evidence which I haven't been able to submit because I haven 't received it yet.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Would this be a convenient time, if your Honor please, to make the record concerning the documents which I was to offer formally for the record?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't quite follow? What documents are you referring to?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The ones used on cross examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: -- which your Honor spoke to me about.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I understand they have been handed to the Secretary and they have been marked.

The affidavit of Halder is US 779. It is offered.

Document No. 3700-PS is offered as US Exhibit 780.

Document No. EC-317 is offered as US Exhibit 786.

Document No. 1742-PS is offered as US Exhibit 789,

M. CHAMPETIER DE RIBES: Mr. President, Dr. Stahmer in his speech did not speak of document No.26, which is a note from the German Government to the French Government concerning the treatment of German prisoners in France in 1940. The reasons which made us reject the White Book from the discussion make it necessary to reject this document too, and I gather that Dr. Stahmer must have understood that for the same reasons and, therefore, did not mention it. I would like to know whether he understood it this way and have this confirmation.

DR. STAHMER: I haven't mentioned the document.

THE PRESIDENT: I call on Counsel for the Defendant Hess.

DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the Defendant Rudolf Hess): Mr. President and your Honors: before entering into collecting evidence, upon request from the Defendant Hess I have to make the following remarks. it is to be applied, as far as other crimes than war crimes are established the subject of the trial, but he expressly assumes full responsibility for all acts or laws which he has signed. Furthermore, he assumes responsibility for all decrees and directives which he, in his capacity of Deputy of the Fuehrer and Minister of the Reich, has issued. For those reasons he does not desire to be defended in any matters which refer to sovereign matters of German affairs. For that reason, that applies to matters of the state and similar affairs. clarify -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the interpreter finds it difficult to hear you. Perhaps you are speaking a little bit too far from the microphone.

DR. SEIDL: This applies, for instance, to the tasks and activities of the foreign organization, of the NSDAP -- the Party.

Over and above that, evidence will only be submitted to the Tribunal where it is necessary to ascertain historical truths. This applies, among other things, to the causes which made Rudolf Hess undertake his flight to Britain and to the intentions which he was pursuing at the time. Considering the acceleration desired by the Tribunal, I shall forego the first volume altogether. Any documents from that I will not read, and I will therefore ask the Tribunal to take cognizance of those parts of that book which have been marked in red. I shall only read the affidavit which is at the end of the document book. It is the affidavit of the former secretary of the Defendant Rudolf Hess, Hildegard Fath, and I shall read furthermore-

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, if you are passing from your opening remarks and going to deal with the documents, I think it is right to point out to you that there can be no challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court, here. Article 3 provides that the Tribunal shall not be challenged by the Prosecution or by the Defendants or their Counsel, and the Tribunal cannot hear any argument upon that subject. Now you can go on with your documents.

DR. SEIDL: Very good. I shall furthermore read from Volume II the record of a conversation between the Defendant Rudolf Hess and Lord Simon, which took place on the 10th of June, 1941, in England. only read the affidavit of the witness Hildegard Fath, page 144 of the document book.

This affidavit informed of the consequences of an incorrect affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that right, Dr. Seidl, 144. In our colume 2, it seems to be part of the conversation.

DR. SEIDL: It is 164.

THE PRESIDENT: I beg your pardon. Yes, go on.

"Having been instructed on the consequences of a false sworn statement, I declare the following under oath, to be submitted to the International Military Tribunal in Nurnberg."

Then comes the "Personal Data;" and I am quoting literally from Hildegard Paths:

"I was employed as private secretary of the Fuehrer's deputy, Rudolph Hess, in Munich, from 17 October 1933, until his flight to England in May 1941.

"Beginning in the summer of 1940 -- I cannot remember the exact time -by order of Mess I had to procure secret weather reports about climatic conditions over the British Isles and over the North Sea, and to forward them to Hess. I received the reports from a Captain Busch. I also received reports partly from Miss Sperr, the secretary of Hess, with his liaison staff in Berlin.

"Hess left a letter behind on his departure by air for England, which was handed to the Fuehrer ata time when Hess had already landed in England. I read a copy of the letter. The letter began with the words like this: 'My Fuehrer, when you receive this letter, I shall be in England.' I do not remember the exact wording of the letter. Mainly, Hess occupied himself in the letter with the proposals which he wanted to present in England in order to achieve peace. I do not remember the details of the proposed settlement. I can however state with all certainty that no word was mentioned about the Soviet Union or about the fact that a peace treaty was to be concluded with England in order to have the back free for another front. If this would have been mentioned in the letter, then I most certainly would have remembered that. I had to gain the absolute impression from the contents of the letter that Hess undertook this extraordinary flight in order to prevent further bloodshed, and in order to create favorable prerequisites for the conclusion of a peace.

"In my capacity as secretary of Rudolph Hess, for a period of years, I have had an opportunity of learning his attitude towards certain questions.

If it is now told to me that in a letter of the Reich Minister of Justice to the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellory, Lammers, of 17 April 1941, it is mentioned that the Fuehrer's deputy has presented the introduction of corporal punishment against Poles in the annexed Polish territories for consideration, then I cannot believe that this attitude of that department headed by Hess was due to a personal decision of his. Such a proposal would be totally contradictory to the attitude which the Fuehrer's deputy has shown on similar questions on other occasions." 166 of the document book. From the first two columes of the document book I shall, as I have already said, only read parts from a discussion between Hess and Lord Simon. So as to prevent the report of that discussion to be split, may I beg permission of the Tribunal to read this document on Monday, next?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. You mean not to go on any more now?

DR. SEIDL: With the permission of the Tribunal, I would then finish now?

THE PRESIDENT: Have you no other document you wish to produce?

DR. SEIDL: I beg your pardon. There are certain passages in parts of the document books which I propose to read byt I should prefer to refer to those documents coherently during my presentation to the Tribunal later on.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Seidl, if you wish it, we will adjourn now.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 23 March 1946 at 1000 hours.)

THE PRESIDENT: Have you consulted the Defense Counsel as to the order in which they wish to take these supplemental applications?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have the order which the Tribunal has, beginning with Streicher.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps that would be the most convenient then. Is Streicher's counsel ready? Dr. Marx?

DR. MARX: Your Honors, Mrs. President, for the defendant Julius Streicher I have applied that Fritz Herrwerth be called as a witness before the Tribunal. This witness is a man who has been in the immediate vicinity of the defendant Streicher for years and who, because of that, is in a position to speak about all political events and give information on them which would be decisive for the decision and judgment in the case of Streicher in a number of directions. In particular, I have applied for this witness because he was present during the nights of November 9 and 10 when the defendant Streicher had a conference with the SA leader von Obernitz, in the course of which von Obernitz informed Streicher that he, Obernitz, had received an order to carry out anti-Jewish demonstrations during that night.

DR. MARX: Streicher wishes to establish the fact that he told von Obernitz that he, Streicher, wished to keep distant from the whole matter and that he considered these demonstrations a mistake and that he refused to have any part in them. Subsequently he had received that order from Berlin and had to carry it out.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you object to this alteration of our previous order?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, we didn't see any change in the situation from when the Tribunal decided it, but we don't want to press against this witness being called orally, except that we must point out that there isn't any change.

All these matters were gone into by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal feels that it would be better that the witness should be called orally, then the Prosecution will not take any objection.

THE PRESIDENT: Have these interrogatories been drawn up?

DR. MARX: No, they have not yet been completed. I beg your pardon, Mr. President, is that question put with reference to the witness Herrwerth?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. MARX: Yes, the questions have been completed--the questions which the Defense wishes to put.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, we will reconsider that. You have got something else haven't you, Dr. Marx. You want some document; you have got a document you are asking for, have you not, or don't you ask for that?

DR. MARX: May I talk, Mr. President? Mr. President, in fact I should like to ask that the two documents which I have referred to be placed at my disposal. That is the matter of the trial against Karl Holz in the year 1931 and the files of the disciplinary court-martial against Julius Streicher, and in that connection I have unfortunately not been able to give you the year, but I think it was psobably the year 1931.

THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Marx, did we not, with the agreement of the Prosecution, strike out a passage from a document which was critical of the Defendant Streicher? Does that not render this evidence entirely irrelevant?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was about the witness Lothar Streicher, the son, about an interview that took place in prison at which there were certain allegations, and these were struck out by the consent of the Prosecution. I confess I don't know whether the disciplinary proceedings in the matter of Streicher-

DR. MARX: I beg your pardon. Mr. President, if I may speak, the matter in which Lothar Streicher is playing a part is an affair from the Goering report concerning the visit and the conversations of Streicher had with three youthful criminals, during which Streicher was supposed to have taken an improper attitude. Lothar Streicher had been applied for as a witness by me to testify that at that time no such event occurred. That, in other words, is with reference to the report of the Goering commission, whereas the other matter is concerned with a disciplinary action, and those proceedings were completed in 1931.

They were heard by the disciplinary court at Munich.

THE PRESIDENT: Wasn't it all in connection with the same alleged offense by Streicher?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have the details now, if I might read them. I think it makes them clear. The first application in relation to the proceedings against Karl Holz: The document requested herein will be used to prove the following facts:

During these proceedings Dr. Erich Bischof, an authority on the Talmud, from Leipzig, gave evidence under oath that there was, in the Jewish religious book "Sohar", a law allowing ritual murder.

THE PRESIDENT: But, Sir David, there are two different applications, aren't there? There is this application with reference to thie Jewish religious book and then there is the other application with reference to the trial of Karl Holz.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understood it, My Lord, this application is headed "files in the trial in the matter of Karl Holz," and one of the pieces of evidence in the trial of Karl Holz, according to Dr. Marx's application, was the evidence of Dr. Erich Bischof as to the Talmud; and the application goes on to say that "those facts are relevant to my defense for the following reasons:

"The accused wishes to prove with these court records -- that is, the record from the trial of Holz -- "that the 'Stuermer' did not deal with the question of ritual murder contrary to his better knowledge." That is, as I understand it, that the "Stuermer" dealt with ritual murder according to the knowledge of Dr. Bischof, as expressed at that trial.

That, in my respectful submission, would be irrelevant,

THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of this religious book? It was written in the Middle Ages, wasn't it?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think so, My Lord, and it was produced on the 30th of October and 4th of November, 1931, by Dr. Bischof. ship will have it in mind -- is the files of the disciplinary proceedings in the matter of Streicher at the disciplinary court at Munich. "The documents requested herein will be used to prove the following facts: that he was not dismissed from his profession because of indecent assault but on political grounds and granted a part of his salary."

I myself don't see the relevance of it, but perhaps Dr. Marx can inform the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it charged against him in the Indictment?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is nothing about his criminal record other than anti-Jewish grounds.

THE PRESIDENT: In that connection the Prosecution agreed to strike out any reference to that indictment, didn't it?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not sure that it is the same incident, but the Prosecution did agree to strike out the only reference to it that appeared in the record, to my knowledge -- to any reference to a matter of that kind. That was as to the treatment of certain boys in prison.

DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I, so as to clarify the matter, make a statement. The Defense of the Defendant Streicher applied to have this file brought up for the following reasons: missed from his position because of indecent behavior or crimes. That makes it necessary to have that file at hand, because that file will prove that Streicher was not dismissed because of indecent or immoral conduct from his position in a school but because of his political attitude. That is one point. And quite apart from that we have that affair for which Lothar Streicher was supposed to be a witness.

That was the matter mentioned in the report of the Goering commission.

It referred to those three delinquents who were visited by Streicher and on which occasion he was supposed to have carried out indecent manipulations or gestures.

I am now coming to the question relating to Dr. Bischof. Mr. President, this matter is the following: Streicher is being accused that he, with reference to quotations from the Talmud or quotations referring to the ritual murder, either consulted incorrect translations or that he did not ascertain facts and acted negligently.

THE PRESIDENT: When you say, Dr. Marx, that he is being reproved with that, there is no such charge in the Indictment. There has no such charge been made in the course of the case of the Prosecution. The charge against him is that he provoked the German people to excesses against the Jews but not by misquoting some Jewish book but by referring to Jewish books of the Middle Ages.

DR. MARX: May I permit myself to draw your attention to the fact that the Prosecutor Sir Griffith Jones, when he brought the case of Streicher before the Tribunal, referred to that point explicity and accused Streicher that here, against better knowledge, he had quoted passages from the Talmud; consequently, it is important that this file against Holz is consulted, since the witness Dr. Bischof states how these quotations came into existence and this Dr. Bischof is a recognized expert, but, Mr. President, the whole matter could probably be abbreviated if the prosecution would make a statement today that this whole matter regarding the ritual murder will not be made a subject of the prosecution and indict ment.

This would elimintate a momentum from the trial, which would only delay the proceedings in any case and which could not play an important part against the defendant and which has nothing to do with the actual indictment.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I want to make that position perfectly clear. The important point in the case for the prosecution is the use of the suggestion against the Jews, that they committed ritual murder. If someone takes out of a book in the Middle Ages and reproduces it so that it will be understood by the ordinary reader as being a practice of Jews or a reason for disliking Jews, then the prosecution say that that is an evil method of stirring up hatred against the Jews. Whether anyone can find in the Jewish book in the Middle Ages some remark about ritual murders is really inmaterial. The gravemen of the case for the prosecution is using the ritual murder accusation as a method for stirring up hatred against the Jews today. That is the case which the defendant has to meet.

DR. MARX: I beg your pardon.

THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the application.

DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, but perhaps, may I consider it necessary -may I be allowed to refer very quickly to a statement made by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe? The position is that that special edition of "Die Stuermer" is referring to a trial which took place in 1899 at Piseck, in Moravia or Bohemia, and during which this question played an important part. It isn't that the Defendant Streicher had referred to medieval superstitions, therefore, but that he dealt with material coming from modern legal history, using material which, of course, the genuineness of which I cannot establish but which I cannot simply disregard as being incorrect and which, I think, the Tribunal would have to investigate.

That is the reason why I an saying that this entire matter ought not to be touched at all, since we are here concerned merely with the question whether Streicher was acting to the best of his knowledge or not and if he can say trials of that kind have taken place and the judges were not unanimous, then you cannot say he acted against his better knowledge. T hat, I think, is the vital part of this matter; in other words, I personally would prefer to have the whole matter eliminated and that the prosecution would be prepared to drop this whole complex matter fromtheir part of the prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: We will consider the application.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next one on the list that I have, my Lord, is an application by the Defendant Goering for a Major Buechs, spelled "B-U-E-X". I asked Dr. Stahmer and he was good enough to tell me that that was the same gentleman who was asked for as a witness by the Defendant Jodl. Under the spelling of "B-U-E-C-H-S." I understand the Tribunal have granted him as a witness to the Defendant Jodl and Dr. Stahmer will have the opportunity of asking him the questions then.

DR. STAHMER: Yes, I agree.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next is an application by the Defendant von Ribbentrop. He requests Herr Hilger as a witness. The grounds of the application are that Dr. Horn and the Defendant Ribbentrop, if I may just explain, the grounds of the application were that Dr. Horn and the Defendant Ribbentrop found that the witness Gauss, for whom he had asked, was not able to give as much assistance as had been expected and that they desired this witness Hilger in addition. The view of the prosecution is that the defendant should have either Hilger or Gauss as a witness and an interrogatory to the other one, and we have no objection to the witness Hilger being brought to Nurnberg for consultation.

DR. SIEMERS: Dr. Siemers, at this moment deputizing for Dr. Horn, the defense cousnel for the Defendant Ribbentrop. Actually, I was going to ask Sir David to put this matter back for a minute since Dr. Horn asked him to come here himself. We, the defense counsel, have not been informed which applications were going to be dealt with this morning, which is the reason why Dr. Horn isn't present at this moment but I think that, with the permission of the Tribunal, the matter can be dealt with now, as far as I know, but I have to speak without prejudice.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not know what you mean about not being informed about these applications. I made the statement yesterday that all supplementary applications for witnesses and documents would be taken this morning. I don't understand your saying you didn't know what would be done. The Tribunal has no objection to it being taken later when Dr. Horn is here, if he comes in time.

DR. SIEMERS: Yes, but does that mean that if Dr. Horn does not come soon enough--I am willing to settle the matter on his behalf as far as I have the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Defendant von Papen was the next one.

DR. MARX: Yes. May I apologize, Mr. President, but may I please make one very brief statement? Streicher just informs me that he wishes us to state that he longer wishes the witness Lothar Streicher to be called. If, therefore, the calling of that witness is to be considered, then I herewith state that the defense no longer wishes to have him called -- Lothar Streicher, I am referring to.

THE PRESIDENT: Hasn't that been allowed -- Lothar Streicher?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: He was the witness who was not to be allowed on condition that the prosecution applied to strike out the passage and we agreed to that.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing with von Papen ?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: The next is an application for the Defendant von Papen.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Sir David. Has that letter about withdrawing the statment about the witness Lothar Streicher been read into the record?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I don't know if it has been read into the record. It has been sent to the Court.

THE PRESIDENT: It better be put in as a document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship pleases. My Lord, the next is the application for the Defendant von Papen, who requests that the witness Josten, who has been approved by the Tribunal as a witness, be changed to an affidavit, which counsel already has, and Dr. Kubuschok requests that Krell be allowed as a witness. My lord, the position with regard to Kroll was that the prosecution submitted that he was not relevant but the Tribunal allowed interrogatories for Kroll and, therefore, the prosecution accept the decision of the Tribunal that he is therefore relevant, and on that basis, as Dr. Kubuschok is dropping one witness, we feel that we can't object to his being brought as an oral witness, as the Tribunal has decided that his testimony is relevant.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and as to Josten, has the affidavit been submitted to you?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, I have just received it back with a signature affixed to it. The witness has just appeared and he just signed the affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: All I am thinking of is that the prosecution won't hereafter want to have him called for cross examination.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: We haven't seen the affidavit yet, my Lard, I am sorry. I will look into that.

THE PRESIDENT: The result of that would be that both witnesses would have to be here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I appreciate that, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: I was taking it that Dr. Kubuschok meant an affidavit and not an interrogatory.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, an affidavit.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Perhaps, my Lord, the Tribunal would postpone a decision on this point until I have had a chance of considering the affidavit and then I will communicate with Dr. Kubuschok and with the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: May I, Mr. President, bring up yet another case. Originally the witness von Tschirschky had been granted by the Tribunal, who is at present in England. The witness has written to the Tribunal, stating that it is difficult for him to be absent or leave England for the moment and has requested that his evidence is to be collected in writing. I am agreeable to this and I have drafted an interrogatory which is now being offered to the Tribunal. This, again, would make another witness superflous, Tschirschky, as well as Josten, so that I should be very grate ful if the witness Kroll could be granted as an oral witness, since we have now savid a considerable amount of time.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, you have no objection to that?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, I have no objection to that. I may have to consider certain cross interrogatories as to the witness but that won't affect the position of Dr. Tschirschky. Hitler's letter to Rosenberg dated 1924. This document is in regard to Rosenberg's anti-semitic attitude. As far as I know, the Prosecution does not have any of these documents but Dr. Thoma can explain what he wants. I have no objection to the presentation of these documents if they have them or if they can be found.

DR. THOMA (Counsel for the Defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President, may I first draw your attention to the fact that my evidence -- my offer of evidence regarding a letter of Rosenberg to Hitler in which Rosenberg is asking that he is not to be made a member of the Reichstag; this letter has since been handed to me. With that, this application has been settled. Secondly . . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment Dr. Thoma. Do you withdraw that application because you have that letter, do you not? You said "With that the application has been settled." Do you mean that you withdraw that application?

DR. THOMA: Yes. No, no, Mr. President. The Tribunal has already permitted me to offer that document if it could be found. That letter has since been found. Furthermore, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the document in which Rosenberg is writing to Hitler asking him to be relieved from the position of editor-in-chief of the Voelkischer Beobachter has not yet been received. Thirdly, may I ask the Tribunal that two further documents are granted me. Two documents, which, during interrogation, have already been shown to Rosenberg, the first of which is a decree from Hitler to Rosenberg dated June, 1943, in which Hitler is instructing Rosenberg to confine himself on principle matters regarding Eastern . . . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, you are dealing now with applications which are not in writing?

DR. THOMA: Oh yes, they are in writing. I have submitted them in writing

THE PRESIDENT: I have only got two applications here as far as I can see.

One with reference to Hitler's letter to Rosenberg dated 1924, and the other with reference to three books about Jews. These are the only two applications I have got.

DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I have made these applications during the open sessions, and as far as I know so far as they were made formally they have been submitted in writing to you. To two of them I have received a reply, but for two more, the reply is still outstanding. May I request the Tribunal, therefore, that I may repeat these two applications again.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you will be allowed to if you will make them clear. You ask for two further documents, the first only I understood you to say, was a decree dated June, 1943. Is that right?

DR. THOMA: That is correct, sir, and the next document is a letter from Hitler to Rosenberg in which Hitler informs Rosenberg of the reasons why he does not wish to work in the Reichstag and why he does not wish to cooperate in the elections. But I do recall that I have submitted that application in writing and may I repeat it now?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the application will be considered. Are you referring to the document of 1924, the letter from Hitler to Rosenberg dated 1924?

DR. THOMA: Yes, 1923 or 1924. And then, Gentlemen, I have to make one principle application regarding the question of anti-Semitism. I have asked, in that connection, to have a certain amount of literature on historical questions concerned with the question of why the Jewish problem has existed in Germany since the 8th century, and why the persecution of the Jews persisted in Germany throughout the centuries. I want to establish that in connection with that evidence, we are concerned with some tragedy which we cannot rationally understand. By producing evidence from both Jewish literature and Christian theological literature, I want to prove that we are not concerned with the face that the German people have been reared and led on to exterminate the Jews, an that the influence of the National Socialist Party was such that the German people were made to hate the Jews, but that we are here facing irrational matter and both the Jewish and the Christian literature recognize that fact.

between Jewry and the German race did exist, but purely on an intellectual level, and I am referring to Moritz Goldstein, who said, in 1911, that the Jewish population in Germany are administering the intellectual process of the German people. We are concerned with the problem of which part the role of Jewry has been placed, and I want to establish why such a controversy has existed. I intend only to quote literature in this connection, but I believe that my statement would not be sufficiently credible in my final address if I could not quite recognized articles in that connection and that is my problem. That is what I am concerned with.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, your applications will be considered.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: The next application is on behalf of the defendant Speer who requests a number of documents dealing with the Central Planning Committee. I have not actually had the opportunity of checking these with the exhibits, but I believe that they are the same ones which were put by Mr. Justice Jackson to the Defendant Goering in cross-examination, and if they are then they are all exhibits and they are documents which the prosecution have. These documents also relate to the Defendant Speer. If he does not have them, then we should do our best to give them copies.

THE PRESIDENT: You said they had been put to the Defendant Goering in cross-excamination? If they have been put to the Defendant Goering, then they should be exhibits . . . .

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, your Lordship, they should be exhibits. I have not had the opportunity of checking them, but if they have been presented in Court they must be exhibits.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Sir David. All right, go on.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The next one is on behalf of the Defendant SeyssInquart for interrogatories to be submitted to the Tribunal. This regards Dr. Veberreiter who, if the Tribunal will remember, was Gauleiter of one of the outstanding Austrian Gaus, and a collaborator in the National Socialist Movement in Austria. I have no objection to this interrogation being submitted.