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 Bach-Zelewski. THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you said about it. DR. SEIDL: May I now begin with the list of documents? THE- PRESIDENT: Yes. 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 Frick. THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection to him? SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have no objection to him, your Lordship. THE PRESIDENT: Very well. 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 camps. 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 necessary. 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? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. 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 copy. 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 him: "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. DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you. 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.)
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© 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.
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012