The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-01/tgmwc-01-10.05

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-01/tgmwc-01-10.05
Last-Modified: 1999/09/06

DR. DIX: He suffered the same death as Canaris and Oster.
For the information of the Court, I should like to add that
I asked this question because I named Struenck as a witness,
and the Court has admitted him as such. I wish to take this
opportunity ... but if you do not know him I will not
continue questioning you.

LAHOUSEN: As to the question whether he is still alive, I
seem to recall that this man, in connection with others whom
I knew, very well might have been killed, but I cannot be
more definite on this point.

                                                  [Page 324]

DR. FRITZ (counsel for the defendant Fritzsche): I would
like to ask the witness a few questions.


Q. Witness, do you know that the defendant Fritzsche, after
May, 1942, was transferred to the Sixth Army as a soldier,
and that there he heard for the first time of the existence
of an order for execution and that he recommended to the
Supreme Commander of the Sixth Army, Paulus, to have this
order suspended within the jurisdiction of his army and to
have this decision made known by leaflets to be dropped over
the Russian front.

THE PRESIDENT: Be careful only to ask one question at a
time. You have just asked three or four questions at once.

Q. (continuing.) Yes, Sir. Is it known to you that Fritzsche
gave Paulus the advice to rescind the order for his army

A. That order had already been given to his army. Will you
kindly give me the approximate date?

Q. That was during the Russian campaign, as I mentioned
yesterday. Most of these things occurred in May, 1942.

A. No. In connection with the person of Fritzsche, this is
not known to me. In connection with the name Reichenau,
which was mentioned before, I do remember a conversation
between Reichenau and Canaris. That for me was very
impressive, and Reichenau's concept and judgement of things
in this conversation, in this circle, where there were
several other gentlemen present, showed him to be entirely
different from what I expected him to be, and the way I
thought of him. I don't know anything about this particular

Q. Also nothing concerning the fact that Paulus had then
already rescinded the order within the boundaries of his

A. No, not in connection with the name Paulus, but in
general I believe, as I also mentioned yesterday, that
several army commanders, whose names are no longer in my
memory to-day, all those names have been recorded, and I
have already informed you about them.


Q. Do you know Kaltenbrunner?

A. Kaltenbrunner? I met Kaltenbrunner once in my life, on a
date that will always be in my memory. It was also the first
meeting between Canaris and Kaltenbrunner. It took place in
Munich in the Regina Hotel, and it was on that day when two
young people, a student and his sister, were arrested and
executed. They had distributed leaflets from the auditorium
of the University of Munich. I read the contents of the
leaflets, and I remember, amongst other things, that they
contained an appeal to the Wehrmacht.

I can easily reconstruct that day. It was the first and last
time that I saw Kaltenbrunner, with whose name I was
familiar. Of course, Kaltenbrunner mentioned this subject to
Canaris, in the presence of witnesses, and everybody got a
terrible impression of what had happened, and Kaltenbrunner
spoke about it to Canaris in a manner of which cynicism
would be a very mild description. This is all that I can say
to this question.

Q. Kaltenbrunner claims that Himmler retained full executive
powers for himself, while he was only in charge of
information. Is this in accord with the conversation that
you just mentioned?

A.  I would like you to know what connection this has with
the matter Kaltenbrunner and Himmler-the power politics
which took place, in the S.S.I have merely given this very
plain description of this event - I can give you the names
and the people present, who were very much impressed.


Q. You were asked yesterday, whether the orders as to the
treatment of Soviet prisoners of war were known to the
leaders of the S.A. and other organisations,

                                                  [Page 325]

and your answer was, that these orders must have been known
to them, and I would now like to ask you who these leaders
were at the time and what were their names.

A. Who they were and what their names were, I do not know. I
have also stated explicitly yesterday why I said so. These
orders should have been known both to them and to a large
circle, through the execution thereof and, of course,
through the return of the wounded. The German people would
have learned of it.

Q. In other words, it was only an opinion of yours but in no
way a fact based on information?

A. No, it was not based on information. I have never spoken
to any S.A. leader about it. I never had anything to do with
them, and I do not think any one of them knew me well.

Q. Could you make a statement on this, that is, that the
orders which were named yesterday were given to the
formations of the S.A., emphasising S.A.?

A. Would you kindly formulate that question again?

Q. Could you make another statement, whether it was known to
you whether the contents of these orders, which were talked
about yesterday, were sent to formations of the S.A. through

A. No, not through channels, no, but in the way I have
previously indicated in other words, members of the S.A. who
were also in the Wehrmacht would see outside actually what
happened, and when they came back or came in contact with
them they talked about the Jews as anyone else would. It was
only in this connection

Q. Is it known to you whether members of the S.A. had
anything to do, at all, with the management of the prisoners
of war?

A. Within the frame of the employment of S.A. in the
Wehrmacht, yes.

Q. Have you any personal information on that?

A. No, I never said that. I said I had already talked about
the S.A.

Q. I have asked you what leaders of the S.A. formations have
known about it, and you yourself answered that they should
have known it.

A. I said the leaders of these organisations, in this way,
have known about it.

Q. And to-day I ask you whether the specific formations of
the S.A. had received these orders.

A. I can only repeat what I said yesterday, and I think I
was very clear on the subject, in other words, how these
orders, that I did not read myself, but I know the effects
anyway -

Q. I can imagine myself how this happened, but I have asked
you whether you know anything about having these orders
actually given to the S.A.?

A. No.

Q. You do not know? Is anything known to you to show that
members of the S.A. were employed for the supervision of
prisoners of war, according to your personal information?

A. Yes, because I, myself, on a trip to the Army Group
North, once got hold of an S.A. man, who kicked a Russian
prisoner of war, and I told him off, accordingly. Surely
somewhere I have this in my records, and also an episode
about an Arbeitsdienst Mann.

Q. Did you report any of these incidents to any superior

A. I did report them to my superior officers, and also made
reports about these trips, either orally or in written
shape, and on many of these occasions discussions took

Q. Have you got anything in your records?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you kindly present these?

(Discussion between counsel and witness in German, not

A. I am looking it up. This is about the Arbeitsdienst Mann,
this document.

                                                  [Page 326]

Q. It is not about the S.A.?

A. I have not got it here. I would have to look it up.

Q. Is there any possibility that you might find some

A. I would have to obtain the entire material which the
American authorities have, and I would have to look through
it thoroughly for this one possibility.

DR. GEORG BOEHM (counsel for S.A.): I will ask the Court to
have it made possible at some time.

Q. (continuing): I would also like to ask you if you have
any other information
That S.A. members, who you previously said were employed in
supervisory capacities, were made to execute these orders,
according to statements about Russian prisoners of war.

A. No, not personally.

Q. Thank you.

DR. STAHMER (counsel for Goering): I would like to ask the
Court for a fundamental ruling, whether the defendant also
has the right to personally ask the witness questions.
According to the German Charter, Paragraph 16, I believe
this is permissible without a doubt.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the point you have
raised and will let you know later.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The United States prosecution would
desire to be heard, I am sure, if there were any probability
of that view being taken by the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better hear you now then, Mr.
Justice Jackson.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I think it is very clear that
these provisions are mutually exclusive. Each has the right
to conduct his own defence or to have the assistance of
counsel. Certainly this would become a performance rather
than a trial if, we go into that sort of thing. In framing
this Charter, we anticipated the possibility that some of
these defendants, being lawyers themselves, might conduct
their own defence. If they do so, of course, they have all
the privileges of counsel. If they avail themselves of the
privileges of counsel, they are not, we submit, entitled to
be heard in person.

DR. STAHMER: I would like to point out once more that
paragraph 16 (e), according to my opinion, speaks very
clearly in support of my point of view, and says that the
defendant has the right, either personally or through his
attorney, to present evidence, and according to the German
text it is clear that the defendant has the right to cross-
examine each witness called by the prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Does any other German counsel, defendant's
counsel, wish to cross-examine the witness?

DR. SERVATIUS (counsel for defendant Sauckel): I would only
like to point out that in the written forms that have been
given to us by the Court, the defendant as well as his
lawyer can propose a motion. There is room for two
signatures on the questionnaire. I request, therefore, that
the defendant himself have the right to speak on the floor.

THE PRESIDENT: What I asked was whether any other
defendant's counsel wished to cross-examine the witness.

(Dr. Boehm approached the lectern.)

THE PRESIDENT: What is it? Would you put the earphones on,
please, unless you understand English?

What is it you want to ask now? You have already cross-
examined the witness.

DR. BOEHM: Yes, I have cross-examined him, but I have heard
from him that he has written statements, that he has made a
report, according to something he has witnessed. I cannot
dismiss the witness as yet.

I would like to make a motion that it be made possible for
the witness for the prosecution to look through all the
reports and all the records, and for us to go through all
the materials.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you must conclude your cross-
examination now.

DR. BOEHM: Surely.

                                                  [Page 327]

THE PRESIDENT: The Court thinks it would be better, if you
want to make any further application with reference to this
witness, that you should make it in writing later.


THE PRESIDENT: Then, as no other defendant's counsel wishes
to cross-examine the witness, the Tribunal will now retire
for the purpose of considering the question raised by Dr.
Stahmer: whether a defendant has the right to cross-examine
as well as his own counsel.

(A recess was taken.)

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has carefully considered the
question raised by Dr. Stahmer, and it holds that defendants
who are represented by counsel have not the right to cross-
examine witnesses. They have the right to be called as
witnesses themselves and to make a statement at the end of
the trial.

Do the prosecutors wish to ask any questions of this witness
in re-examination?

COLONEL AMEN: just one question, your Lordship.

THE PRESIDENT: Let the witness come back here.

THE MARSHAL OF THE COURT: He was taken away.

THE PRESIDENT: Taken away?

THE MARSHAL: That's right. He was taken away by some Captain
who brought him here for the trial. They have sent after him
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know how far he has been taken away?

THE MARSHAL: No, Sir, I do not. I will find out immediately.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Amen, are the questions that you wish
to ask of sufficient importance for the Tribunal to wait for
this witness, or can he be recalled on Monday?

COLONEL AMEN: I do not think they are so important, your

THE PRESIDENT: Very well then. The Tribunal will adjourn,
and it will be understood that in future no witness will be
removed, whilst he is under examination, from the precincts
of this Court, except on the orders of the Tribunal.

COLONEL AMEN: I do not know how that happened, your
Lordship, I understood he was still here.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 10.00 hours on 3rd December, 1945)

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.