The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-19/tgmwc-19-185.02


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-19/tgmwc-19-185.02
Last-Modified: 2000/10/14

THE PRESIDENT: The two names Karl and Heinz are Christian
names, I suppose?

MR. DODD: Yes, so I have understood, Mr. President.

I am not clear, Mr. President, whether or not you wish me to
deal with the Reich Cabinet. Shall I make known our attitude
toward the one witness?

THE PRESIDENT: I think so. Certainly, you may deal with them
now if they are ready. Dr. Kubuschok -

MR. DODD: In any event, he has only asked for one witness,
Mr. President, and we have no objection. The witness
Schlegelberger.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Dodd. Unless counsel for the
SD, Gestapo and the Reich Cabinet want to say anything, the
Tribunal does not think it is necessary to hear them.

Then we will hear counsel for the High Command, Dr.
Laternser.

Yes, Dr. Laternser.

DR. LATERNSER (counsel for the High Command): Mr. President,
in view of the accusations raised against the military
leaders, I am convinced that the application for six
witnesses is justified. In order to be able to decide the
question whether the military leaders were criminal or not,
the Tribunal must first obtain a personal picture and a
personal impression of some of these military leaders. If
only a few of the 129 persons affected by the Indictment
against the organization I defend are heard here, can one
assume that the High Tribunal will have gained a true
picture? My answer is "No".

THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell me how many of the 129 we have
already heard before the Tribunal?

                                                  [Page 294]

DR. LATERNSER: Before this Tribunal, Mr. President; before
the Commission, seven members of the group were heard, two
are still outstanding.

THE PRESIDENT: I did not say before the Commission; I said
before the Tribunal.

DR. LATERNSER: I put questions to about five or six persons
of this group, when they appeared here.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Go on.

DR. LATERNSER: In estimating the number of witnesses to be
heard here, I ask that the following also be taken into
consideration:

In the defence of the organization and the calling of
witnesses who might be in a position to refute statements
made by witnesses produced by the prosecution, according to
the resolution of the High tribunal, any possibilities along
these lines are very limited, for these witnesses have to be
heard before the Commissions first, even though in any other
legal proceedings there would be extensive examinations of
witnesses on many points. The circle of witnesses is thus
restricted from the beginning and dependent upon the scope
of the Commission's activities.

I consider it necessary, Mr. President, to be in a position
to convey to the Tribunal a personal picture of the group
indicated, and I should therefore like to make the following
suggestion, which I believe to be practicable:

May I suggest that for the group which I represent ... only
for my group, since I am not entitled to make a similar
application on behalf of the other organizations ... that
for my group the Tribunal should fix a certain time within
which I may examine my witnesses before the Tribunal, and
that the actual distribution of the time allotted should be
left to the defence, Then I should be able to question the
six witnesses for whom I asked. I would even be prepared to
use only two-thirds of the time to be allotted by the
Tribunal, and to put one third of it at the disposal of the
prosecution for cross-examination. In this way, Mr.
President, I merely want to accomplish one thing - in my
opinion the most important point - I want the Tribunal to
gain a personal impression of the persons coming under the
Indictment.

I assume that the Tribunal will not object to this. I would
also like to suggest for the consideration of the Tribunal
that the case against the organizations -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, let me make certain that I
understand the suggestion. You are suggesting that the
Tribunal should allot a certain time for the witnesses for
the High Command, and that you, as counsel examining the
witnesses, should take up two-thirds of the time, and that
the prosecution, in cross-examination, should take up one-
third of the time. Is that correct?

DR. LATERNSER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: How much time are you contemplating?

DR. LATERNSER: That is rather difficult for me to answer
....

THE PRESIDENT: It is your suggestion. The Tribunal would
like to know how much time you are suggesting.

DR. LATERNSER: One and a half to two days in all. I should
like to make two more suggestions, which have some
significance in this connection. All the witnesses appearing
here have already been heard by the Commission and the
transcripts of the interrogations are in the hands of the
Tribunal if the same questions are put again, the evidence
would certainly be cumulative. How then is the examination
of the witnesses to be carried through without
interruptions?

Looked at from this angle, the suggestion I have just made
becomes even more important, and also seems to remove the
difficulties which I have described: If this is taken into
consideration I believe the Tribunal will be able to follow
my

                                                  [Page 295]

suggestion. Finally, I should like to suggest that the
Tribunal make a decision with regard to the handling of the
final words on behalf of the accused organizations. That is
all.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to hear you with
reference to Dr. Laternser's suggestions, Mr. Dodd.

MR. DODD: Very well, Mr. President. We have, in so far as we
recall, made a list of the names of the people who have
appeared before the Commission as members of the
organizations, or of the groups, and of those who have
appeared before the Tribunal. I stated a few minutes ago
that all of those who have not appeared, such as von
Brauchitsch - who was to appear and who may have appeared
yesterday, I am not informed - will appear in a day or so.

With reference to the suggestion of Dr. Laternser that he be
allowed a specific time and may use as many witnesses in
that time as he sees fit, we find two difficulties. First of
all, we do not feel that he is being generous enough in
allotting us one-third of the time. Possibly we may require
more time for such a number of witnesses. In any event, we
do not want to have a restriction placed on us to the effect
that we have only one-third of the time that he has. If we
are to examine witnesses on the time standpoint, we feel
that much of the time would be taken up before the Tribunal
on matters that have already been thoroughly dealt with
before the Commission. All the witnesses have been heard
before the Commission, and Dr. Laternser has had a full
opportunity to examine and cross-examine before the
Commission, and it seems unnecessary to burden the Tribunal
with a great number of witnesses here.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know whether it
would make any difference to the arguments just presented to
us if the prosecution were allotted the same amount of time
as Dr. Laternser?

MR. DODD: Well, it would make a little difference. Frankly,
I did not consider that too important a point.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps there's one other thing which bears
upon it. The Tribunal would like to know how you think the
difficulty is to be met that it seems unnecessary for the
witnesses who are called before us here to give the whole of
the evidence before the Commission, or even to enter upon
the subjects which have been entered upon before the
Commission.

MR. DODD: We have been thinking about this very problem and
we had assumed that the witnesses who have appeared before
the Commission and who have been examined there would not go
over the same grounds before the Tribunal, otherwise the
proceedings of the Commission would be rather senseless, and
we might just as well get up and read the record of what was
said before the Commission. We had understood that the
witnesses would have something new to add to what they have
already said before the Commission. That is our
understanding.

THE PRESIDENT: Of course, I think Dr. Laternser has said on
various occasions that he attached importance to the actual
presence of the witnesses so that the Tribunal could see
them and form their own opinion of the witnesses'
credibility.

MR. DODD: Yes, that is what I understood to be one of the
reasons, but three members -

THE PRESIDENT: In addition to our seeing the witnesses and
forming an opinion of their credibility, we would be able to
summarize the evidence given.

MR. DODD: Yes, I assume that would be so. Of course, about
four of these members of the groups we have no knowledge,
and two of the members of the Naval Command, von Brauchitsch
and Milch - and a number of others.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

                                                  [Page 296]

MR. DODD: With respect to the time suggestion which I made,
I repeat I do not think that is too important. I know we can
confine ourselves in cross-examination to the important
matters, but I think it is the experience of the Tribunal
that we seldom stayed within the limits which were
established.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think it is necessary to hear
further argument. We will consider your suggestion, and
further arguments, Dr. Laternser, are unnecessary unless
there is anything particularly new that you wish to say. The
Tribunal will consider your suggestion. We will now deal
with the political leaders.

LT.-COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: The leadership group has asked for
seven witnesses, two of them are Gauleiter, and are
witnesses Kauffmann and Wahl; one Kreisleiter Mayor van der
Borch; one Ortsgruppenleiter Wegscheider; Blockleiter
Hauffe, and two experts on the staff of the Hoheitstrager,
namely a farming expert who was also a political leader, and
Haupfbauer who was a political leader in the DAF. The
prosecution has no objection to any of these witnesses, but
we feel that the grounds could not be adequately and
properly covered. And it may be of help to the Tribunal if I
suggested the witnesses most important and those which might
be dispensed with.

THE PRESIDENT: Probably defence counsel would wish to make
their own selection.

LT.-COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: My Lord, I fully appreciate that. I
was only trying to assist the Tribunal if I could.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, in indicating which appeared to you to
be the most important.

LT.-COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, perhaps you could do that.

I.T.-COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: The Blockleiter Hott, I
respectfully submit, ought to be called, as he is the only
Blockleiter represented. The witness Haupfbauer ought to be
called because he represents the experts on these staffs.
There is a certain amount of dispute about them. And also,
he represents a number of political Leiter who were in the
DAF itself. Of the Gauleiter, Kauffmann and Wahl are
experienced. Kauffmann comes from an industrial district and
Wahl from an agricultural district, and I understand, if
there were to be any preference, that Dr. Servatius prefers
Kauffmann.

There are also, representing the agricultural districts, in
addition to the Gauleiter Wahl, the Ortsgruppenleiter
Wegscheider and the farmer Moor. My Lord, I would
respectfully suggest that certainly three of those witnesses
are unnecessary. They really cover very much the same
grounds as each other and the prosecution, quite frankly,
would have preferred the witness Wahl. I simply put that
forward to explain that they are all from agricultural areas
and perhaps one, or certainly two, would be sufficient.
Mayor van der Borch is an experienced Kreisleiter from an
industrial district, and does, to a great extent, cover the
same ground as the Gauleiter Kauffmann, so that the Tribunal
might consider having one or the other if they felt that the
present number was excessive.

Now, I do not think I can assist the Tribunal further than
that.

DR. SERVATIUS (counsel for the political leaders): Mr.
President, I named two Gauleiter; one from the industrial
area, that is the witness Kauffmann, and the witness Wahl
from a rural area in the vicinity of Augsburg. I believe it
would be important to get an impression of these two types
of Gauleiter; one of these men was active in the Party for
twenty years, and the other for seventeen years, and both
were political leaders. Before being able to judge the
activities of the political leaders over such a wide area
and throughout such a long period of time

                                                  [Page 297]

it is necessary to hear two people from the top level. I
should therefore like to ask that, if possible, both
witnesses be allowed. I should like the witness

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, two things I should like to
ask you about these Gauleiter. Did not these two, Kauffmann
and Wahl, deal with exactly the same topics before the
Commission?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, but I want to divide the topics and ask
Kauffmann about the connections with the top, with the Reich
Government, and Wahl about the connections with the lower
echelons, with the Kreis and Ortsgruppen. Of course, I could
limit myself to one witness, but then the topics would not
be independently dealt with and would be more involved.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean you have not asked them about it
before the Commission?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, but in the same way, separately.

THE PRESIDENT: There is one other thing: How many Gauleiter
have we heard already before the Tribunal?

DR. SERVATIUS: I should think three or four, I do not know
the exact figure; but they were not questioned about this
topic because it would have disturbed the taking of evidence
at the time, if we had gone into such detail.

THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead and deal with the other matters.

DR. SERVATIUS: The next witnesses are for Kreis, Ortsgruppen
and Block, and I think that from each level there should be
one witness who can speak of the conditions in his field.
Their testimony will, of course, overlap, but it can be
shortened, so that the actual examination will be quite
brief and not lead us too far afield; but it is, I think,
important to have one witness from each level.

THE PRESIDENT: Could you give the Tribunal any estimate of
the time you think it would take to deal with these seven
witnesses?

DR. SERVATIUS: I am sure I can do it in one day, it depends
upon how the evidence is to be taken. I assume we shall have
a brief summary and clarify only a few questions at greater
length.

Then there are two more witnesses, Haupfbauer and Moor. One
is from the DAF, the German Labour Front, from an industrial
region; and the other is from the Reich Food Estate, and can
speak about rural conditions. Both witnesses can speak about
the position of the specialist offices which were not
political directing offices, and can thus differentiate
between the non-political and the political leaders.

That is all I have to say.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

(A recess was taken.)


Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.