The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08//tgmwc-08-73.07

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08/tgmwc-08-73.07
Last-Modified: 1999/11/25

COLONEL POKROVSKY: After listening very carefully to Dr.
Seidl, I have come to the conclusion that we must ask you to
take notice of our negative attitude towards a further
summoning of the witness, von dem Bach-Zelewski. The Soviet
Delegation fears that should the Tribunal deem it possible
to grant Dr. Seidl's application which, to my mind, appears
completely unfounded, then a

                                                  [Page 153]

very dangerous precedent would be created for the factual
annulment of the principal decision already accepted by the
Tribunal in this respect.

As far as I understand, the Tribunal is of opinion that
every witness can and must be called once only for purpose
of cross-examination. In reply to your question Dr. Seidl
confirms that he was present here during the cross-
examination by my colleague, Colonel Taylor and myself. He
saw and heard how the cross-examination was progressing. His
reference to the fact that he did not have enough time to
prepare for participation in this cross-examination appears
to me unworthy of the slightest attention. He was in the
same position as the rest of us. The Tribunal will remember
that a number of the defence counsel participated in the
cross-examination of the witness, von dem Bach-Zelewski. I
see no reason why a different attitude should be adopted for
Dr. Seidl's sake and I do not see why, to gratify a wish of
Dr. Seidl's, which to me is completely incomprehensible, the
principle of the Tribunal should be changed concerning the
repeated calling of witnesses for cross-examination.

This is what I wanted to add to the words of my respected
colleague, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe.

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I do not believe that the desire
to hear an important witness is incomprehensible in itself,
if the cross-examination is rendered difficult for reasons
over which we have no control. In the first place, I have
only asked the Tribunal for permission to submit an
affidavit from this witness. If now the affidavit is such .
. .

THE PRESIDENT: Are you dealing with No. 20?

DR. SEIDL: No, sir. I am speaking about the witness von dem

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you said
about it.

DR. SEIDL: May I now begin with the list of documents?


SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with
regard to the documents, Dr. Seidl asks for the
correspondence between the Governor-General and the Reich
Chancellery. I have just verified that we have not got the
other part of the correspondence. Of course, if any of it
comes into our possession, we will be only too pleased to
give it to Dr. Seidl. We have not got it and we also have
not got the personal files of the defendant Frank. The same
applies to that, that if we do get possession we will let
Dr. Seidl know at once.

THE PRESIDENT: Has the prosecution any objection to the
other documents which are asked for?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I think that is all. The others are
the diary. Dr. Seidl can comment on and call evidence as he
desires as to the diary.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.

Now counsel for the defendant Frick.

DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (counsel for the defendant Frick):
Your Honours, the first witness I have named is Dr. Lammers,
who has, however, already been approved for the defendant
Keitel. I believe, therefore, that I need make no statement
on this point.

As my second witness I have named the former State Secretary
of the Department of the Interior, Dr. Stuckart. He is one
of the State Secretaries of the Department of the Interior,
and he is in custody in Nuremberg. He was chief of the
Central Office.

THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Stuckart being asked for by the
defendant Keitel ?

                                                  [Page 154]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I think the explanation is that it
was certainly thought that on 9th of February this witness
was to be so called by the defendant Keitel, and on that
basis he was approved in connection with the defendant

THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection to him?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have no objection to him, your


DR. PANNENBECKER: Mr. President, as witness No. 3 I have
named General Daluege, who was formerly General of the
Uniformed Police and who is now in custody here in
Nuremberg. He is informed especially about the attitude of
the defendant Frick to the anti-Jewish demonstration on 9th
November, 1938, and he also knows the relations between
Frick and Himmler.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have no objection.

DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness No. 4 I have named Dr. Diehls,
who is now in an internment camp in the Hanover district.
The witness was Chief of the Gestapo in Prussia in 1933-
1934. He is acquainted with the measures which the defendant
Frick, as Reich Minister of the Interior, decreed for the
supervision of the provinces by the Reich, as well as about
the concentration camps, and also, in particular, about
measures taken in individual cases and conditions in the

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I submit that this witness's
evidence should be taken in writing. With regard to the
earlier part, the Tribunal will have the advantage of the
defendant Goering who was concerned especially with the
practices of the police in Prussia in 1933 and 1934, and
with regard to the other points, as to the measures of the
defendant Frick, these are either laws or orders, or
administrative measures, which could be included, in the
submission of the prosecution, as being dealt with by
written testimony and supplemented by the testimony of the
defendant Frick himself.

DR. PANNENBECKER: I should like to say something to that I
believe that it would be more practical to hear the witness
here before the Tribunal. We can then have a talk with him
beforehand and find out the points on which he has detailed
information, whereas in an interrogatory these things could
not be discussed in detail.

THE PRESIDENT: We will consider that.

DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness No. 5 I have named the former
Police Commissioner Gillhuber. Gillhuber accompanied the
defendant Frick on all his official trips as his police
guard. He, therefore, knows what trips Frick made and can
therefore testify that Frick never went to the Dachau
concentration camp, which contradicts the testimony given
here by the witness Dr. Blaha.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have no objection, of course, to
the defendant Frick dealing with that point. The only
difficulty as to a witness of this sort is, I will say, the
unfamiliarity with all his travels, because if he is or was
a bodyguard, he is almost certain to have periods of leave,
and periods of interruption would occur. I should have
thought that this could have been dealt with by affidavits,
or an interrogatory, if necessary. When they are seen the
matter could be reconsidered. But I would suggest at first
stage the interrogatories, indicating in the witness's own
account how often he was with the defendant Frick and what
interruptions would be most frequent in that period;
therefore, it is for the Tribunal to decide.

DR. PANNENBECKER: I agree with that, Mr. President.

                                                  [Page 155]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Now dealing with the next point, I
have a suggestion to make in regard to the witness - the
next witness Denson. The point, as I understand it there, is
that the witness Blaha said before the Tribunal that Frick
had visited Dachau, that he said in his evidence at the
Dachau trial that Frick did not go to Dachau. I should say
the most satisfactory way in dealing with that is to get the
shorthand notes of the witness Blaha's evidence at the
Dachau trial and put in a certified copy.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Agreed. I believe also that these notes .
. .

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Actually we have a certified copy of
the shorthand notes of Blaha's evidence here, and I also say
in fairness to the witness that it does show he did say that
at Dachau Frick visited the concentration camp, and I will
show it to Dr. Pannenbecker whenever he likes.

DR. PANNENBECKER: As witness No. 7 I have named Dr.
Messersmith. An affidavit from him has been read here by the
prosecution. An interrogatory has already been approved for
this witness. We have not as yet received an answer. I
should like for the time being to withhold the question as
to whether a hearing of this witness in person seems

As an additional application I have also named the witness
Dr. Gisevius.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I should submit that Dr. Gisevius's
evidence might also be reasonably dealt with directly in an
affidavit in answer to interrogatories. He was consultant of
the Reich Minister of the Interior under the defendant Frick
and supposedly went to Switzerland after 20th July, 1944; he
has exact knowledge of the responsibility and actual
authority of the defendant Frick to issue orders in police
matters. I should think that such matters might be
conveniently dealt with in an affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: What do you say, Dr. Pannenbecker?

DR. PANNENBECKER: I should like to say that the witness Dr.
Gisevius is also required as a witness by the defendant
Schacht, as far as I know, about the events of 20th July,
1944. I believe that this witness will have to appear in
person for the defendant Schacht. It would also be better if
the witness could be heard here in person for the defendant
Frick. In case of necessity an affidavit would suffice.

THE PRESIDENT: There is one other point about it. You asked
earlier for the return of Colonel Ratke. I think that you
were told you could have him or Stuckart. Will you now leave
him out of your application because you have Stuckart?

DR. PANNENBECKER: No, it was like this. I had named three
witnesses for Dr. Blaha: Gillhuber, Ratke and a third. We
dropped Ratke when I got Gillhuber.

May I speak about the document book here?


DR. PANNENBECKER: In order to give a general description of
the defendant Frick's character, I asked permission to refer
to two books. One of them is a small book, We Build the
Third Reich, which contains a speech made by Frick. I intend
merely to quote short excerpts from this speech in the
course of my presentation of evidence. As regards the other
book, Inside Europe by John Gunther, I want to read here too
only a short excerpt, one sentence about Frick.

Then I offered further material evidence on the question of
whether Frick intervened, by means of restrictive decrees,
against arbitrary measures in imposing protective custody,
and have based my observations mainly on documents
originally submitted by the prosecution but not read here.
These documents I have listed simply under Nos. 2a-c.

                                                  [Page 156]

I have further asked for permission to refer to the files of
the police department of the Ministry of the Interior, where
restrictive decrees issued by the defendant Frick in regard
to protective custody are also to be found.

With reference to his intervention in individual cases, I
request permission to read a letter written to me by the
former Reichstag Deputy, Wulle. I have listed it under No.
3. The prosecution has submitted an affidavit by Seger, in
which the latter declares that Frick, as Chairman of the
Committee for Foreign Affairs of the Reichstag, had made
statements on putting political opponents into concentration
camps as early as December 1932.

In No. 4 I have asked for the stenographic records of the
Foreign Affairs Committee to prove that such a statement was
never recorded and never made.

No. 5 concerns the records of the Dachau trial in regard to
the Blaha incident already discussed.

No. 6 concerns an affidavit by the witness Dr. Stuckart,
which he made for the American prosecution on 21st
September, 1945. 1 could just as well ask this witness about
these questions when he is heard in person; but it would
shorten the hearing if I could read this affidavit, which
was made for the prosecution.

With regard to Frick's position as Reich Protector of
Bohemia and Moravia, I should like to submit the
prosecution's Document 1368-PS, which contains details of
the limitations imposed on the defendant Frick's powers as
Reich Protector at the time of his appointment.

I have also made a supplementary application for Gisevius's
book To the Bitter End. I learned of this book through an
extract published in the "Sueddeutsche Zeitung," on 26th
February, 1946. This extract states that for the events of
30th June, 1934, police power was assumed by Hitler and
transferred to Goering and Himmler. The book will give
further details in precisely this field, since Gisevius was
at that time expert for police matters in the Reich Ministry
for Internal Affairs.

I request the Tribunal, therefore, to refer to this book,
which is not yet in my hands, or to assist me to procure a

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I might say, I do not think that
there is much disagreement between Dr. Pannenbecker and the
prosecution. I might run through the documents asked for. In
the book We Build the Third Reich, if Dr. Pannenbecker will
indicate the excerpts he is going to use, the prosecution
will have no objection to his quoting from them, and the
same with regard to the quotations from Mr. Gunther's book
Inside Europe. To Paragraph 2 of the Document 779-PS and the
excerpt from a newspaper, the Document 775-PS, to these
there are no objections. The files of the police division
are not in the hands of the prosecution. If we do get any of
them, then we shall let Dr. Pannenbecker know. As far as the
letter from the former Representative Wulle is concerned,
there is no objection to that. I have not seen any letter
yet, but there is no objection to it in principle. With
regard to No. 4, I think there is some misunderstanding
there. That is Document 83-L. The affidavit of Seger is
before the Tribunal as Exhibit USA 234, and the statement
referred to by Seger was that the defendant Frick said to
  "Do not worry, when we are in power, we shall put all of
  you guys into concentration camps."

This was alleged in the affidavit as said by Frick to Seger
during the course of a conversation. It is not alleged to
have been said in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Then No. 5,
I say I have got the shorthand notes, and it will be shown
to Dr. Pannenbecker. As to No. 6, I understand that Dr.
Stuckart is going to be called. Of course, the affidavit can
be put to him and he can verify its truth. The Document 1336-
PS will be put at the disposal of the defence and they can
make such use of it as they can. That covers the documents.
As to Dr. Gisevius's book: I understand that Dr.
Pannenbecker has not a copy of that. Perhaps the Tribunal
will see that

                                                  [Page 157]

a copy can be obtained for him. I do not know whether we
have a copy. We will see what we can do and see that a copy
is available.

DR.  PANNENBECKER: As to No. 4, Dr. Seger, I still have a
brief comment to make on Document 83-L. Perhaps an
interrogatory could show whether or not Frick made the
statement in question in - his capacity as Chairman of the
Foreign Affairs Committee - in other words whether or not
that statement is in the stenographic records.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I understand that it was not in the
minutes. It would not be in the minutes because Dr. Seger
alleges that it was made during the course of a
conversation, and not in that committee.


THE PRESIDENT: The tribunal will continue tomorrow morning
at 10 o'clock, if possible, with the further applications
for witnesses and documents, which the Tribunal understands
have been lodged on Friday evening.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 5th 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.