The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08/tgmwc-08-76.05

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08/tgmwc-08-76.05
Last-Modified: 1999/11/27

(Dr. Heinz Fritz came to the lectern.)

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, there
are only two witnesses applied for in this case.

The first of them is von Schirmeister, who was an official
of the late Dr. Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry. The
prosecution have no objection to that witness.

With regard to the second witness, Dr. Otto Kriegk, the
application says that he received his information and
instructions from the defendant Fritzsche and he can speak
as to the directive issued to journalists. On the assumption
that these were more or less official directives that he
gave in the course of his duty, again, I do not think there
can be any objection from the prosecution. But I do not know
what Dr. Fritz would think about interrogatories, or whether
he has any strong views about calling Dr. Kriegk on that
point. As I understand it, it would be more or less a
synopsis of the directives given, but in view of the very
modest proportions of the applications in this case, I do
not want to be unreasonable, if there is any special reason
for calling Dr. Kriegk.

DR. FRITZ (counsel for defendant Fritzsche): Your Honours, I
have presented a very restricted list of witnesses and I
should be grateful if the personal appearance of the second
witness, Dr. Kriegk, were granted, for the following
reasons: First, the witness von Schirmeister has been named
because he is to give us information about the internal
tasks which the defendant Fritzsche had in the Ministry of
Propaganda, especially about his relations to Dr. Goebbels.
As far as the daily Press conferences which the defendant
Fritzsche held are concerned, this first witness, von
Schirmeister, did not take part in them. From the subjective
angle, especially, it is important to know what directives
the defendant Fritzsche gave the journalists, specifically
the most important German journalists who assembled daily at
his Press conferences.

As a further reason for my request, that the personal
appearance of this witness be granted, I point out that, of
the collection of documents or rather of the two document
collections, I and 2 of my list are not yet available to me,
so that

                                                  [Page 221]
there are various points which I had wanted to prove by
presenting documents or quotations therefrom, which I now
hope to prove by questioning these two witnesses.SIR DAVID
MAXWELL FYFE: I do not press the point of an affidavit. I
leave it to the Tribunal.

With regard to the documents, No. 1 is the broadcasts of the
defendant Fritzsche, and there is obviously no objection
from the prosecution to that.

No. 2 is the archives of the section "German Express
Service." And again we make no objection at this stage. We
will perhaps have to consider the reports when we get them.

There is a little trouble about the third group; sworn
testimony or letters which contain objective observations on
the part of the writers about the acts of the defendant
Fritzsche. If these are official reports or anything of that
kind, of course, there would be no objection, if they were
contemporaneous, but the course which the prosecution
respectfully suggests to the Tribunal is that we wait and
see these in the document book and then we can consider them
and make any objection when they come up.

DR. FRITZ: I agree to this procedure. I believe I need say
nothing more about Documents 1 and 2 after the statement Sir
David has just made.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, some of the defence counsel want
to put in supplementary applications. It would be convenient
to deal with them now.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Perhaps your Lordship will allow me
to confer with my colleagues, as we deal with each one as we
go along, in case they have any further views to express.


I think there are some supplementary applications by Dr.

DR. ALFRED SEIDL (counsel for defendant Hess): Mr. President
and your Honours, on 28th of February, 1946, I submitted to
the Tribunal a supplementary application for the defendant
Rudolf Hess. The application was necessary for the following
reasons: In my first application I mentioned the witness
Bohle, the former Gauleiter of the Foreign Organization of
the NSDAP, for a number of subjects, among others in
reference to the German Foreign Institute and the activity
of the People's League for Germanism Abroad. When I made
that application to question the witness Bohle, I had not
yet had any opportunity to speak to the witness. After
approval by the Tribunal, however, I did so, and I found out
that the witness Bohle, although he can make very concrete
statements about the Foreign Organization, does not have any
immediate first-hand information about the activity of the
German Foreign Institute and the activity of the People's
League for Germanism Abroad.

I therefore ask that the following be approved as further
witnesses: First, Dr. Karl Stroelin, former
Oberbuergermeister of Stuttgart and finally President of the
German Foreign Institute. The witness is here in Nuremberg
as a prisoner, awaiting trial, and it is the same witness
who has also been requested by the defendant von Neurath in
his case.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Perhaps it would be convenient, my
Lord, if Dr. Seidl would indicate what the final position of
these witnesses is. As I understand it, he no longer wants
Herr Bohle. Is that right? I am not clear whether this
witness is in addition to or in substitution for Herr Bohle.

DR. SEIDL: With regard to the witness Dr. Stroelin, this is
an additional witness. The witness Bohle will still be
needed as a witness, but only concerning the matter of the
activity of the Foreign Organization. The witness Stroelin,
since the witness Bohle has not first-hand information about
the Foreign Institute, should speak about this latter point.

                                                  [Page 222]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If I understand it, that would mean
that Dr. Seidl is now asking for Herr Bohle, Herr Stroelin,
Dr. Haushofer, and an affidavit, I think it is, from Alfred

I am not sure that this is not rather an accumulation of
witnesses on what is, perhaps, a narrower point than Dr.
Seidl realizes, from the point of view of the prosecution.
The prosecution said that the Foreign Organization was used
for promoting fifth column activities, but it was only put
in this way: That by using the Foreign Organization there
was, first of all, a complete record and organization of
Party members abroad; secondly, the intelligence service of
that organization, through the organization, reported on all
German officials of every section of the government who went
abroad, and kept check on them in their work, in addition to
German subjects; and because of this intelligence service,
these Germans were ready for use, and in fact were used,
when there was a question of invasion of the country.

It was not suggested that there were direct orders, for
example, to blow up bridges or commit acts of sabotage,
given directly to the organization, which is a matter of
inference from the functioning of the organization that I
have described.

I say that, only because it should be helpful to Dr. Seidl
to know the case he has to meet. The prosecution has never
proved direct orders for sabotage in this regard.

DR. SEIDL: The Trial Brief on his case has accused Rudolf
Hess of the fact that, under his leadership, the Foreign
Organization of the NSDAP, as well as the Foreign Institute
and the People's League for Germanism Abroad, had developed
an activity which was almost equivalent to that of a fifth
column. It is correct that in the original Indictment of the
defendant Hess, personally, there were no details given by
means of which the Indictment meant to show this activity
and above all Hess's guilt in regard to the activities of
these organizations.

As long, however, as the Foreign Organization and the
Foreign Institute and the People's League for Germanism
Abroad are accused of any connection with the activities of
a fifth column, the defendant Hess has a reasonable interest
in seeing explained, first, what kind of activity these
organizations sponsored and, second, which orders or
directives he had given to these organizations.

The witness Bohle is in a position to make very concrete
statements regarding the Foreign Organization. The same is
necessary for the German Foreign Institute about which Dr.
Stroelin, who is here in Nuremberg, can make authentic
statements, and for the People's League for Germanism
Abroad, about which the witness, Dr. Haushofer, can speak.

I agree, however, with regard to the physical condition of
the witness, Dr. Haushofer, that only an interrogatory be
used for this witness.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have no objection to interrogation
as far as Dr. Haushofer is concerned.

THE PRESIDENT: There is one more you want?

DR. SEIDL: Yes, Sir, a third one. Before I come to the third
witness, whom I wish to name as an additional witness, I
should like to inform the Tribunal that I do not insist on a
personal hearing of the witness Ingeborg Sperr, who has
already been approved by the Tribunal. Instead of that, I
shall submit a short affidavit, which is in the document
book which I have already given to the General Secretary.

In the place of the witness Sperr I request, however, that
the witness Alfred Leitgen be called. Leitgen was for many
years, until the flight of Rudolf Hess to England, his

I could not apply for this witness any sooner because I have
found out only now where this witness is. I believe that a
personal hearing of this witness is so important that one
should not dispense with it.

                                                  [Page 223]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: The two points which Dr. Seidl
specifies both seem to be relevant points, and in view of
the fact that he is prepared to drop the calling of the
secretary, the prosecution will not take objection to that

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any more applications?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I wonder if your Lordship will allow
me to say one thing. Dr. Servatius has already had certain
conversations with a member of my staff. I think they will
prove profitable and helpful on the lines that your Lordship
suggested, and if the Tribunal will be good enough to
safeguard Dr. Servatius's rights for a day or two, we hope
to have something practical and useful to put before the

THE PRESIDENT: You mean with reference to the organizations?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: No, with reference to the defendant


SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Your Lordship will remember that you
allowed the matter to stand over. We have been working along
the lines that your Lordship suggested, but I am afraid that
I have not had time to go into it myself and see the final


DR. SERVATIUS (counsel for defendant Sauckel): In discussing
the witnesses I proposed a restriction which is being
presented to the Tribunal in writing. Concerning the
documents, I have also practically come to an agreement as
to how they should be handled. There are, however, two
principal applications which I should like to submit and
which have not been mentioned so far. But I believe that a
decision will have to be made by the Tribunal in respect to
principle. The applications are Documents 80 and 81.

Document 80 is a photostat of a deportation order which had
been issued in the city of Oels by the Soviet local
commander, whereby the native male population had to report
for deportation, and it can be seen from this order that it
is deportation for the purpose of labour. I want to submit
this to show that the Hague Agreement concerning Land
Warfare has been considered obsolete by the Soviet Army. I
have only this one deportation order. I should therefore
like to suggest that the Tribunal make use of Article 17-E
of the Charter and have a local judge determine on the spot
to what extent this deportation took place, and I should
like thereby to have it shown that it is not only the town
Oels, but that it was done similarly in a large measure in
the cities of East Prussia and Upper Silesia. The
population, to a large extent, was deported for purposes of
work and, if the information which I have received is
correct, part of the population of Koenigsberg is today
still in the Ural Mountains. I am not in a position to
submit documents about all these things, because of the
difficulties of mailing, and the difficulties of receiving
news from the East at all. But the Tribunal should be in a
position, by asking the mayors and other officials, to find
out that what I have just said is correct.

Under Document 81 I submit an affidavit concerning the city
of Saaz in Czechoslovakia. There 10,000 inhabitants of the
city of Saaz were put into a camp, and until Christmas 1945,
they worked there without pay. I believe also that this is
proof of the fact that the Hague Agreement concerning Land
Warfare is considered to be obsolete and outmoded in regard
to labour employment.

Furthermore, Documents 91 and 91. These are two books with
affidavits meant as a substitute for an investigation. It
would be irrelevant if I were to produce one or two
affidavits concerning conditions in the labour camps. One
could object to that as being irrelevant because, in view of
the large number of factories and camps which exist, little
proof would be afforded by these affidavits. These mass
conditions have somehow to be considered juridically.
Therefore, the Charter has admitted government reports. I am
not in a position to ask a government to help me in this
matter. Therefore I have to find a substitute by

                                                  [Page 224]

collecting affidavits and grouping them in logical form in a
notebook in order to submit them to the Tribunal. This is
the purpose of my proposal to introduce a presentation of
proof which is an innovation and is difficult for me; but
thereby the same objections are justified, which one might
make to an investigation. An investigation has great
weaknesses, especially if it is conducted in a one-sided
manner without participation of those involved on the other
side. In the case of my affidavits this danger is greatly
reduced because it is hard to find anybody who would make
these affidavits unless he has very serious reason for doing
so. I therefore ask the Tribunal to decide about my
application concerning these Documents 90 and 91. That is
the matter I wanted to submit here; the rest I shall discuss
with the prosecution.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, I have
already intimated the grounds on which the prosecution
object to Documents 88 and 81. To test their admissibility
the easiest way is to assume that Dr. Servatius has proved
the facts alleged; and if that is done, they would not, in
my opinion, come within miles of proving that Article 52 had
become obsolete; and it is illustrative of the danger which
I ventured to point out to the Tribunal in regard to these
two arguments - that vague and hypothetical suggestion that
there might be some evidence that Article 52 had become
obsolete. It is suggested that the Tribunal should try the
conduct of the Soviet Union with regard to labour conditions
and, as I understand, send a commission to collect evidence
on that point, and I do not want to repeat the arguments,
but the prosecution most strenuously object to the
suggestion, and say that nothing has been indicated which
provides any basis for it.

With regard to 90 and 91, I really feel that the best method
would be by solvitur ambulando. Let us see the affidavits
and get some idea of their contents and the source of
knowledge disclosed, and then the prosecution can make a
decision regarding them. At this stage I do not want to do
anything to exclude them, and they will receive the most
careful attention by my colleagues and myself when they are
brought forward.

THE PRESIDENT: I am told that there are other supplementary
applications for the defendant Schacht and for the defendant
Keitel. I think there may be some mistake about that.

Is the defendant Bormann's counsel here?

DR. BERGOLD (counsel for defendant Bormann): Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to deal with anything yet?


THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal made an order that your
applications would stand over for some application within
the next three weeks. So you are not ready yet? I am told
your documents are all here. Is that so?

DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, my documents are here, as far as
I know. However, since I have to collect my own information
from the books, I cannot tell the Tribunal whether these
will all be my documents. I therefore have asked permission
to speak to Secretary Wunderlich, and to another secretary.
Only from these two shall we get satisfactory information.
Bormann I cannot reach. Therefore, for practical reasons, I
ask permission to present everything at a later date.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then the Tribunal will now - I am
told that there are applications from the defendants Keitel,
Rosenberg . . .

DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, defence counsel for Keitel and
Rosenberg are not present at this time. They probably did
not expect that their applications could be presented today.
Perhaps that could be done tomorrow before the beginning of
the Goering case.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 8th March, 1946, at 1000 hours.)

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.