The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08//tgmwc-08-73.06

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08/tgmwc-08-73.06
Last-Modified: 1999/11/25

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Your Lordship will see that General
Ritter von Epp seems to cover the same incident as Dr.
Stepp. I said that I would not object to Dr. Stepp, but if
Dr. Seidl wishes an interrogatory on some specific points
from General Ritter von Epp, I should not make any

DR. SEIDL: The next witness, No. 9, is Dr. Rudolf Bilfinger,
late Oberregierungsrat and SS Obersturmbannfuehrer in the
RSHA. This witness is already here in Nuremberg. The
prosecution apparently has no objection to the hearing of
this witness.

The next witness, No. 10...

                                                  [Page 149]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE (interposing): My Lord, I would just
like to say one word about Dr. Bilfinger. I want the
Tribunal to understand what the prosecution has in mind. The
general plan for these witnesses is to show from both sides
the relationship between the defendant Frank and the central
agencies. The prosecution thought that it was right that the
defendant should be allowed to call two or three members of
his own staff and a member from Headquarters, who was in the
position of Dr. Bilfinger, to give the other side of the
picture. I just wanted the Tribunal to understand the plan
on which we were working.


DR. SEIDL: No. 10 is Dr. Walter Stepp, late Chief Judge of
the highest regional Court of Appeal in Munich. He is at
present in the internment camp at Ludwigsburg. If I
understand Sir David correctly, he has no objection to the
calling of this witness.

I should be glad if in this case I could submit to the
Tribunal an affidavit which is in my possession, and which
will prove the veracity of these points. The reading of this
affidavit would only take a few minutes, if the Tribunal
would permit me to call another witness instead or if it
would withdraw its objection to my calling another witness

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have to ask for some notice as to
who the other witness is. I was stating that I had no
objection to Dr. Stepp because he speaks as to the defendant
Frank's position in relation with other people in Bavaria in
earlier years. Of course I cannot speak on behalf of my
colleagues and accept just another witness blindly, until I
know who the witness is and what he is going to say.

DR. SEIDL: The witness is Dr. Max Meidinger.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I want to be as reasonable as
possible. The reason that I had objected to Dr. Meidinger
was because, as the Tribunal will see under No. 7, it is
stated that Fraulein Kraffzcyk is called for positive facts
for which the witness Dr. Meidinger has already been named.
It seemed to me that the private secretary is probably the
most useful witness, but I am afraid that I cannot help Dr.
Seidl any further. I have put my view, but I shall not say
anything further against him. I am afraid that is as far as
I can go on that point.

DR. SEIDL: The next witness, No. 11, is von dem Bach-
Zelewski, SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen
SS, who has already been heard by this Tribunal as a witness
for the prosecution. The Tribunal has already at an earlier
date granted permission for an interrogatory. In the
meantime I have spoken to the witness. He has made an
affidavit, which I shall submit instead
of calling him in person.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I should have thought that it would
be most convenient if the witness von dem Bach-Zelewski came
back and then Dr. Seidl could put any affidavit to him if he
wanted. We might want to re-examine on the point. I do not
know what is in the affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: Was he cross-examined by Dr. Seidl?

DR. SEIDL: When the witness was heard here I had no
opportunity to cross-examine him, and for that reason . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Why did you have no opportunity to cross-
examine him?

DR. SEIDL: Because I did not know beforehand that he would
be called by the prosecution as a witness, and had no
opportunity to speak to the defendant Frank about the
questions which might have been put to this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will consider whether the witness
ought to be recalled for cross-examination or whether you
will be allowed to call him yourself. The affidavit which
you say he has made, has that been submitted to the

                                                  [Page 150]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have not seen it, my Lord.

DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, opinion on this point is the
following . . .

THE PRESIDENT: When you saw von dem Bach-Zelewski, did you
see him with a representative of the prosecution?

DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, the General Secretary himself
granted me permission to speak to the witness, and that was
after the Tribunal had already approved the use of an

THE PRESIDENT: But when the witness was called by the
prosecution and you had the opportunity of cross-
examination, if you were not ready to cross-examine, you
ought to have asked to cross-examine him at a later date. I
mean if you were not able to cross-examine at that time,
because you had not had any communication with the defendant
Frank on the subject, you ought to have asked to cross-
examine at a later date.

DR. SEIDL: I could have made this application to the
Tribunal if I had thought that there was any reason for
questioning the witness. I did not find out until later that
the witness possessed any vital information relevant to
Frank's case.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider the matter.

DR. SEIDL: May I perhaps add something to this point? The
difficulty of a cross-examination is just this, in that we
do not learn of the intended calling of a witness by the
prosecution until the witness is led into the courtroom; and
we do not know the subject of the evidence until the
prosecution starts to examine the witness. It would have
been much easier for us to cross-examine, if we had received
information about the witnesses and the subject of evidence
as far in advance as the prosecution; that is, as the
prosecution is informed about the witnesses for the defence.

The next witness is witness No. 12, von Palezieux. His last
appointment was that of art expert in the Government
General. In regard to this witness I should like to suggest
that an interrogatory might be granted in this case too.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If Dr. Seidl asks for an
interrogatory I have no objection. I just want to be clear
that that is a written interrogatory. I do not want Dr.
Seidl to be under a misapprehension.

THE PRESIDENT: You meant a written interrogatory, did you
not, Dr. Seidl?

DR. SEIDL: Yes, I assume that in cases where a written
interrogatory is admitted the submission of an affidavit is
also admitted by the Tribunal. The purpose is obviously to
avoid bringing witnesses here and thus to save time.

The next witness is No. 13, Dr. Boepple. His last
appointment was that of State Secretary in the
administration of the Government General. He is now in the
internment camp at Ludwigsburg near Stuttgart. This witness
seems to me to be one of the most important because, in the
administration of the Government General, he answered a
number of questions which play an important part in the case
against the defendant Frank. I may refer to the details in
my list of evidence and should like to add, above all, that
this witness can give detailed information as to whether,
during the five years of the Government General's existence,
the industrial equipment of the area was exploited; or
whether in 1943 and 1944, as a result of transfers from the
Reich, the Government General did not possess much more
industry than before.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: The prosecution submits that, as is
stated in the first sentence, Dr. Boepple is called for a
number of facts of evidence, for which Dr. Buehler has been
already generally mentioned. Part of the evidence stated is
the relationship with the Government General agencies, and
the remainder, as .to the happenings in the Government
General, can be dealt with by the witness already agreed to
by the prosecution.

                                                  [Page 151]

DR. SEIDL: It is correct that some of the things which Dr.
Boepple is to confirm are also to be testified to by
Buehler. But in my opinion it cannot be denied that the
subject of evidence, for which I have named this witness, is
so important that one witness might not be sufficient to
convince the Tribunal. I should like, furthermore, to point
out the following. The witness Buehler was chief of the
administration of the Government General. He has already
been interrogated many times by the Polish Delegation, As
well. There is also the danger that proceedings may be
instituted against this witness, on account of the
importance of the position he held. It is self-evident that
under these circumstances every conscientious defence
Counsel should take into account the fact that the witness
may try to shield himself when he answers certain questions;
and considering the importance of the evidence, it seems
proper that, in these difficult circumstances, the defendant
Frank be granted additional witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, in your suggestion, did you
include any of the other witnesses who were cumulative to

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I suggested an affidavit from
Boepple and only Fraulein Kraffzcyk on the general work of
the Government General. The others, I think, are on the
different points of the relationship with the central


DR. SEIDL : The next witness is No. 14, President Struve,
whose last appointment was that of chief of the Main Labour
Department in the Government General. In other words, he was
Minister for Labour in the Government General. Since both
the United States prosecution and the Russian prosecution
have made grave charges against the defendant Dr. Frank on
this very point of the compulsory transfer of workers, it
seems to me proper that one witness at least - the competent
official - should be examined on the facts presented by the
prosecution, so that he can say what orders he received on
the subject from the Government General. Information as to
the location of this witness has also been obtained. He is
in an internment camp near Paderborn.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I should suggest, my Lord, with
great deference, that if Dr. Seidl would run through the
other witnesses and show those to which he attaches special
importance, it would be convenient for the Tribunal, and if
Dr. Seidl would be good enough to, say quite bluntly whether
he attaches importance to any of the others or if he
doesn't; then it might be possible for the prosecution to
reconsider the elimination of all these witnesses, but the
position at the moment is that there are requests for all
sections, all departments of the Government General, and the
prosecution fails to see how these are necessary. If Dr.
Seidl would indicate any special purpose that he attaches to
any of them, then one might come back and consider President
Struve again; but the position at the moment is that the
prosecution does not see how it really helps the case of the
defendant Frank that each one of the departmental chiefs
should be called.

DR. SEIDL: It is not the case that all officers and/or
holders of office were to be named as witnesses. A good many
others could have been named. For instance, I have already
said that of nine governors, each of whom was in charge of
three to three and a half million people, I have named only
one: the witness von Burgsdorff.

I have also forgone witnesses whom I had previously named;
for instance the various military commanders. If, however,
the prosecution wishes to know which witnesses I consider of
special importance, I shall give the numbers of these
witnesses. They are, besides State Secretary Dr. Buehler,
witness No. 2 von Burgsdorff; Lammers has already been
approved. Further, the witness Dr. Max Meidinger; the
witness Gassner, No. 6; the witness No. 7, Helene Kraffzcyk;
the witness No. 9, Bilfinger - he was not a member of the
administration of

                                                  [Page 152]

the Government General; Members of the Government General:
Nos. 13, 14, 15,  and 19. That does not mean, however, that
I am willing to forgo the witnesses which I have not
mentioned. Witness No. 15, President Dr. Naumann, is an
important witness because he was the chief of the Main
Department for Food and Agriculture and can give us detailed
information about the defendant Dr. Frank's policy with
regard to the feeding of the Polish and Ukrainian peoples
and how he tried in particular, through the highest
authorities of the Reich, to have the demands of the Reich
reduced. The witness's address was not known until now, but
I understand that the chief Polish Public Prosecutor, Dr.
Sawicki, is supposed to know where he is at present.

The next witness is No. 16, President Ohlenbusch, who is
called mainly to testify to the cultural policy pursued by
the defendant. Frank in the Government General. He is not,
however, one of our most important witnesses and I imagine
that in his case an interrogation would suffice.

The same applies to Witness No. 17. Witness No. 18 is Dr.
Eisfeldt whose last appointment was head of the Main
Department of Forestry and who will testify to: the forestry
policy of the defendant and especially - this seems to me an
essential point - to the fact that there was so much trouble
with the partisans in the Government General that it was in
the interest of the Polish and Ukrainian people themselves
to take strong measures against them.

Witness No. 19 is President Lesacker, lately head of the
Main Department of Internal Administration, and whose last
known place of residence was Bad Toetz. His present address
may now have become known.

Witness No. 20 is Professor Dr. Teitge, who, as my
application shows, is to testify to the efforts made by the
defendant Dr. Frank in the field of public health.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: May it please the Tribunal. I have
now had the advantage of hearing everything that Dr. Seidl
has to say, and it seems to me that, so far as the witnesses
from the Government General itself are concerned, the
position is that Dr. Boepple, No. 13, does not add greatly
to the general position which would be explained by Dr.
Buehler and Dr. Burgsdorff and Fraulein Kraffzcyk; that the
witness No. 5, Dr. Meidinger, seems to deal with very much
the same problems as President Struve, witness No. 14, and
the witness Naumann, No. 115, and that, on reconsideration,
I think the prosecution would be prepared to agree that one
of these witnesses, either Dr. Meidinger, or Dr. Struve, or
Dr. Naumann, might well be called.

With regard to all the others, Dr. Ohlenbusch and Dr.
Senkowsky, and Dr. Eisfeldt seem to speak about points that
are really removed from the issues in this case, and Dr.
Lesacker speaks on the general attitude of the defendant
towards Poles and Ukrainians, which is covered by Dr.
Buehler and von Burgsdorff, and Heidinger, if he is granted;
and the last witness, Teitge, seems again to speak on a
really departmental point which is not a serious issue in
the case. And, therefore, in trying to apply our own
principle of recommending any witness where there is a real
relevancy, the prosecution would be prepared to go as far as
I said in their recommendation, that, in addition to the
witnesses that I have mentioned, they would suggest that
either Dr. Meidinger or one of the witnesses, Struve or
Naumann, should be called.

COLONEL POKROVSKY: I ask for permission to add a few words
to that which has been said by my esteemed colleague, Sir


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.