The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-07/tgmwc-07-66.07

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-07/tgmwc-07-66.07
Last-Modified: 1999/11/20

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, my objection is not to the
further cross-examination; that is a matter, of course,
which is entirely for the Court once a witness is in its
hands. But my recollection is that Dr. Merkel and Dr
Kauffmann also wanted to cross-examine the witness further,
and therefore I submit that, both generally and on this
particular occasion, it would be very undesirable for any
counsel who is going to cross-examine to have a private
conversation with the witness before he cross-examines. That
is the matter to which I object.

THE PRESIDENT : Yes, but if the defendants' counsel finally
decide that they are not going to cross-examine the witness,
I suppose then they would be able to examine him in chief if
they wanted to do so - to call him.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Well, I have never heard, my Lord,
of that procedure being adopted. If a witness is called by
one side, then the other side must, in my respectful
submission, do what they can by way of cross-examination.
The witness is before the Court and, as the prosecution have
called the witness, then I submit that the defence should
deal with the witness by way of cross-examination. They have
the additional rights which cross-examination gives,

                                                  [Page 266]

and that is a compensation for the other rights which they
would have if he were their own witness.

DR. SEIDL: Perhaps we might agree that I renounce the right
to cross-examination, and that if the witness could actually
say something pertinent, I could let him give me an
affidavit. I do not believe that the prosecution would
object to that.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, as there are no technical rules of
evidence applicable to this trial, would you say it was
objectionable if the defence were permitted to see
Schellenberg in the presence of a representative of the
prosecution, if that is satisfactory to them?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I am sure the prosecution all desire
that only the interests of justice should be furthered, and
if the Tribunal consider that that would be a suitable
method of dealing with it, the prosecution would raise no

THE PRESIDENT: Unless you wish to say something further
about Schellenberg, the Tribunal will consider your

DR. SEIDL: Very well.

THE PRESIDENT : Have you any other witnesses to whom you
wish to refer?

DR. SEIDL: For the time being, no. However, according to the
ruling of 18 February, every defence counsel has the right,
until the conclusion of the trial, to ask permission to call
further witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: I think now is the time for you to apply; in
accordance with the order of the Tribunal to which you are
referring, this is the time at which you are to apply for
any witnesses you want. The Tribunal always has the
discretion, which it would exercise, if you prefer to make
any further applications. If later you want to ask for
further witnesses, the Tribunal will always consider your

DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President.

As to the question of whether the "Foreign Organisation,"
the "National League for Germanism in Foreign Countries" and
the "League of Germans in the East " had anything to do with
Fifth Column activities, a further witness who might be
called is the brother of the defendant Rudolf Hess, Alfred
Hess, who was formerly a deputy Gauleiter of the "Foreign
Organisation of the N.S.D.A.P.", and is at present in
Mergentheim in an internment camp.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have not your application in front
of us with reference to that. If you want to make any
further application you may do so.

DR. SEIDL: I have made the application.

THE PRESIDENT: You say you want to make it now?

DR. SEIDL: If it is possible I should like to make the
application now. I am, of course, prepared to submit that
application in writing later.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear you now, then, upon
this application, and you can put the application in writing
afterwards as a matter of record.

DR. SEIDL: Very well.

THE PRESIDENT: What was the name ?

DR. SEIDL: Hess, Alfred. His last official position was
Deputy Gauleiter of the "Foreign Organisation of the
N.S.D.A.P.". At present he is in the internment camp in

THE PRESIDENT: For what purpose do you wish to call him? You
said because he was going to speak as to Fifth Column
activities; was that it?

DR. SEIDL: Regarding the Fifth Column and the question of
whether the "Foreign Organisation of the N.S.D.A.P.", and
the "National League for Germanism in Foreign Countries" and
the "League of Germans in the East" have anything to do with
a Fifth Column or not.


SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I have already conceded
that this

                                                  [Page 267]

is a relevant issue, and therefore the only question is
cumulation. The defendant Hess will himself be able to speak
on this point, and the witness further if the Tribunal
allows it.

The Tribunal might well consider, in my submission, that an
affidavit or interrogatories from a third witness on the
point would be sufficient at the moment, unless any further
issue is disclosed, in which case Dr. Seidl could summon the

THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, you can pass on to your documents.

DR. SEIDL: Very well. It is my intention first to read
further passages from individual documents in Rudolf Hess's
document book which was submitted by the prosecution in
order to establish the connection. A further justification
of the relevancy of these documents would be superfluous,
since it is entirely a question of documents submitted by
the prosecution which have already been accepted in evidence
by the Tribunal.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, the application is in this

  "I intend to read pages from the following books: 'Rudolf
  Hess's Speeches'; 'Directives by the Deputy of the
  Fuehrer'. The relevancy of these documents can be
  inferred simply from the fact that both have already been
  introduced in evidence by the prosecution."

In so far as the documents are documents already before the
Tribunal, of course, Dr. Seidl may, within the usual limits,
comment on them as much as he likes. If he intends to put in
other speeches and directives, documents of the same class,
then the prosecution asks that he indicates which speeches
and which directives he is going to put in.

DR. SEIDL: What Sir David Maxwell Fyfe just read was the
second point of my application. It is true that I also
intend to read certain passages from the books containing
Rudolf Hess's speeches, and also from the book "Orders of
the Deputy of the Fuehrer". But since the prosecution has
already submitted passages from both these books, which were
likewise already accepted as evidence, I believe I may say
that there are at least passages in these books that are
most certainly relevant. Whether those passages that I
intend to read are relevant or not can only be decided when
I submit these documents, and this is exactly what I meant
at the beginning of my submission, that it is only possible
to decide on the relevancy of a document when one has that
document before oneself and knows its precise contents.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I hope Dr. Seidl will realise that
this is largely a matter of mechanics. If he is going to
introduce new speeches and new directives, they have got to
be translated into English, Russian and French; and
therefore it will be necessary, for the general progress of
the trial, that he should indicate which passages he is
going to put in so that they can be translated as well as

I am sure that Dr. Seidl will only desire to use relevant
passages. Naturally, every politician makes many speeches on
many subjects, and some of Hess's speeches may well not be

I suggest that it is not unreasonable: we are only trying to
help along the general progress of the trial by the request
that I have made.

DR. SEIDL: Of course, Mr. President, I shall read only those
passages from the speeches, and few of them at that, which
are relevant. I have no intention of having whole sections
of the book translated if it is not necessary.

I solemnly declare to the Tribunal that neither as counsel
for the defendant Hess nor as counsel for the defendant
Frank shall I submit one single document that could not be
considered as relevant.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what Sir David was saying was that
for the mechanics of the Trial, owing to the unfortunate
fact that we do not all understand German, it is necessary
that these documents which are in German should be

                                                  [Page 268]

translated. Therefore, it is necessary for you to specify
which speech and which part of the speech you propose to
rely upon, and then it will be translated.

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I shall, in good time, submit to
the Court and to the prosecution every passage from a speech
that I intend to read, in a document book. It is not the
task of the prosecution, nor of the General Secretary, to do
work which, of course, I shall attend to.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is quite all right.
That is exactly the point that I was seeking to make.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now you are coming to paragraph 3.

DR. SEIDL: Yes. Thirdly, I shall read passages from the
report of the conference between the defendant Rudolf Hess
and Lord Byron, who at that time, as I recall, was Lord
Privy Seal, and which took place on 9th June, 1941. In this
way the motives and aims which caused the defendant Hess's
flight to England are to be clarified. The relevancy can be
seen from the fact that the prosecution has submitted a
report of Mr. Kirkpatrick concerning this conference.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If Dr. Seidl thinks that that
conversation adds anything to the conversations with the
Duke of Hamilton and Mr. Kirkpatrick, I shall not object to
him reading the report.

THE PRESIDENT: Where is the document?

DR. SEIDL: It is in my possession.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the nature of the document? I mean,
what authenticity has it? Who made it? Who wrote it?

DR. SEIDL: The document was found among the papers of the
defendant Hess which were given to him when he was brought
back to Germany from England. It is a copy of the original,
that is to say a carbon copy, and a series of official
stamps prove beyond doubt that it is the carbon copy of an

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the document.

DR. SEIDL: Very well.

THE PRESIDENT: If you would let us have the document, we
will consider it.

DR. SEIDL: Very well.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished your presentation?


THE PRESIDENT : Then there is a letter, is there not? There
are two other documents referred to, but you are not asking
us for those? A document or a letter to Hitler or the Reich
Cabinet, dated 10 May, 1941

DR. SEIDL: This application appears to have been made by my
predecessor, Dr. Rohrscheidt. I should like to have an
opportunity of examining the relevancy of this point.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you wish to say anything, Sir
David, about them?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: We have not got that document. The
prosecution have not got the letter that the defendant Hess
sent to Hitler, and we just simply cannot help on that

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. If that document can be located,
it shall be submitted to you.

DR. SEIDL: Very well.


DR. HORN (Counsel for the defendant Ribbentrop): I intend to
call as the first witness for the defendant Ribbentrop the
former Ambassador Friederich Gaus, at present in a camp at
Minden near Hannover. Ambassador Gaus was for more than
three decades the Head of the Legal Department of the German
Foreign Office. I believe that this witness is necessary in
view of that capacity alone.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYPE: If Dr. Horn would carry out the same
procedure as Dr. Stahmer and pause for a moment when he has
introduced the

                                                  [Page 269]

witness, I shall then be able to indicate in the same way
whether there is any objection.

DR. HORN: Certainly.

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.