Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-17/tgmwc-17-164.06
Last-Modified: 2000/07/23

THE PRESIDENT: No, I thought there were not. Very well, we
will do that then.

The witness can retire.

Dr. von Ludinghausen, call your next witness and then we can
have him sworn before the adjournment.

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: May I ask that Dr. Diekhoff be allowed
to follow Dr. Koepke?

HANS HEINRICH DIEKHOFF, a witness, took the stand and
testified as follows:

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Q. Will you state your full name, please?

A. Hans Heinrich Diekhoff.

Q. Will you repeat this oath after me?

I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will
speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.

(The witness repeated the oath.)

THE TRIBUNAL: Now the Tribunal will adjourn.

(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, the first
application is on behalf of the defendant von Neurath with
regard to M. Francois Poncet. That has been dealt with. That
is covered.

Then, my Lord, the next is an application from Dr. Marx on
behalf of the defendant Streicher to put in an affidavit by
the publisher, Herr Gassner of Der Sturmer. My Lord, the
publisher is intended to deal with the question of the rise
and the circulation of Der Sturmer during the years 1933 to
1935. The prosecution has already submitted to the Tribunal
that they do not think that that is relevant when an
application was made to call Herr Gassner as a witness. The
prosecution still takes the same position. My Lord, it is
for an affidavit, and we leave to the Tribunal as to whether
they would like the affidavit, but the prosecution fails to
see the relevance of that evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Would Dr. Marx like to say something about
that now?

DR. MARX (counsel for defendant Streicher): Mr. President, I
have just discussed this matter with defendant Streicher and
he tells me that the witness, Herr Gassner, whom I have
proposed to call, and from whom an affidavit had been
proposed, would only be in a position to speak about the
publication figures of Der Sturmer from the year 1941
onwards. That, of course, is of no interest whatever to the
defence. I shall, therefore, forgo the affidavit and rely on
what the witness Heimer has said in that respect. Therefore,
it will not be necessary at all to procure the affidavit.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, the next application is by
Dr. Kranzbuehler on behalf of the defendant Donitz for
further consideration and admission of the affidavit of the
former fleet judge, Jekyl, by reason of the course of the
cross-examination.

My Lord, I think the most convenient course would be if the
prosecution does not object to the application at this time,
but reserves the right, when Dr. Kranzbuehler makes the use
that he desires of the affidavit, to consider whether we
shall then object.

                                                  [Page 223]

THE PRESIDENT: This is really evidence in rebuttal, is it?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, in rebuttal of the points
raised in the cross-examination. It is very difficult to
decide whether one should make a final objection until one
knows what use Dr. Kranzbuehler is going to make of it. I
suggest that we do not object at this stage.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, these applications and the Tribunal's
orders granting the witnesses are always subject to that
provision.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship pleases. Then the
prosecution makes no further objection.

My Lord, then there are two applications on behalf of the
defendant von Neurath, a request for minutes from the
interrogatory of the -

THE PRESIDENT: They have both been withdrawn, have they not?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Oh, they have? I was not certain.

My Lord, then Dr. Thoma makes application on behalf of the
defendant Rosenberg for three matters; the exchange of
letters between Dr. Ley and the defendant; the entry of Dr.
Strauber, 27th May, 1944; and third, a note of the
Ministerialrat, Dr. Beil.

My Lord, the prosecution feels that these documents are
cumulative, and they leave it to the Tribunal with that
suggestion - that the case is already well covered. I do not
know if Dr. Thoma wishes to say anything further.

DR. THOMA (counsel for defendant Rosenberg): Gentlemen of
the Tribunal, I should like to refer to it quite briefly as
apparently there is an error in the matter of Dr. Beil. It
is a question here of the interrogatory. I have sent an
interrogatory to Beil which has not yet been returned.
Otherwise, there is nothing that I know about this matter;
but I have made an application which has not been mentioned
yet. I applied for some of Rosenberg's writings, Tradition
and Gegenwart, new speeches and translations, to be included
in the document book, for these deal with questions which
were discussed on the occasion of Gau educational meetings
and discussions and which also deal with such questions as
the peaceful living together of the nations of Europe,
religious tolerance, his advocacy of an ideal humanity, and
similar writings. I request that these articles be admitted.
Apart from that, I have no further applications to make, and
for the rest I leave the decision, of course, to the
Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: If I understand what you said aright, Dr.
Thoma, you were not referring to any of the applications
which are before us. The applications which are before us
are an exchange of letters between Dr. Ley and the defendant
in the autumn of 1944; another is an entry which Dr.
Strauber made; and the third is a note of Dr. Beil; you have
not referred to them, have you?

DR. THOMA: Yes, that is right. I have to confess that these
applications are completely new to me. These applications
must have been made by Rosenberg on his own initiative,
because I cannot find any trace of them. Or perhaps an error
was made in the memorandum to the Tribunal. I do not know
the applications.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Thoma, the copies of the
applications are before us, and they appear to be signed
both by the defendant Rosenberg and by yourself.

DR. THOMA: In that case, this must have happened months ago.
I cannot remember; this is from 3rd June.

THE PRESIDENT: At any rate, you do not want them?

DR. THOMA: Application Number 3 is settled.

I have re-read the applications just now, and I do remember
them. I ask you to make a decision favourable to the
defendant.

                                                  [Page 224]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, the next applications are
for a number of documents on behalf of the defendant von
Papen, and the prosecution has no objection to this.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, a good many of them - certainly
Nos. 3, 5 and 73, I think - have either been admitted or
rejected, I think.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: That is so, my Lord. I had a note
opposite 13. I really think they have been dealt with, my
Lord, they are in the books, and I do not think any further
discussion is required.

THE PRESIDENT: Are they all in the books?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I think so, my Lord. I do not know
if Dr. Kubuschok says he agrees with me.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, the next
is an application on behalf of the defendant Bormann, a
request for a decree of Hitler's, and a decree issued by
Bormann in 1944.

My Lord, the prosecution has no objection to these.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not quite understand the meaning of the
last one. Can you tell me what it means?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I took it myself that it
was "to" the SD, instead of "of" the SD - the affiliation of
members of the head office of the National Socialist Party
to the SD.

I am afraid that that guess on my part does not meet with
approval.

DR. BERGOLD (counsel for defendant Bormann): My Lord, this
concerns a decree from Bormann in which he prohibits members
of the Party Chancellery from belonging to the SD. It is a
decree of Bormann's applying to the Party Chancellery.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, the remaining applications
are on behalf of the defendant Goering, the admission of an
affidavit by Baron von Gersdorff, and a book by Joseph
Chepski. My Lord, my Soviet colleague has dealt with that by
submission in writing, dated 20th June. I did not propose to
say anything further about that, my Lord. Colonel Pokrovsky
is here if your Lordship would like to hear him further.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought we had already made an order with
reference to this.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Your Lordship has.

THE PRESIDENT: We made the order on 9th June, apparently
that, for the defendant Goering, three witnesses could be
produced either personally - Perhaps we had better hear from
Dr. Stahmer about this.

DR. STAHMER: (counsel for defendant Goering): Mr. President,
that is the way I understood the decision of the Tribunal. I
had applied for five witnesses. The Tribunal ordered that I
could only produce three out of the five witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: That is right.

DR. STAHMER: Then, with reference to the affidavits, nothing
was said, as far as I can remember, in that particular
decision, so that I had assumed that I would be free to ask
for admission of affidavits in so far as the Tribunal
considers them necessary.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, after the Tribunal had made that
order about limiting the number of witnesses to three, did
you not receive a communication to which you have replied, I
think, suggesting that possibly you might be able to
dispense with oral witnesses and do that whole part of the
case by affidavits?

                                                  [Page 225]

DR. STAHMER: Yes, Mr. President, I received that
communication, and I have already negotiated about the
matter with the Soviet prosecution. We did not quite reach
an agreement however, and therefore I made a written
application to the Tribunal a few days ago.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but was not the agreement which you were
trying to arrive at an agreement that only three affidavits
should be produced on either side? Or was it more than
three?

DR. STAHMER: No. The question which remains, and which we
have not agreed upon, is whether I will be given the
opportunity to read a few of the affidavits here.

THE PRESIDENT: I see. Dr. Stahmer, I think the position is,
then, that unless you are able to arrive at an agreement
with the Soviet prosecution, we shall have to abide by our
previous order.

DR. STAHMER: Very well.

THE PRESIDENT: You will make further efforts to achieve an
agreement with the Soviet prosecution and let the Tribunal
know.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I wonder if your Lordship will grant
me the indulgence of mentioning three exhibits. They all
refer to the diary of Admiral Assmann, my Lord, which was
introduced during the cases of the defendants Donitz and
Raeder. There are three exhibits concerned.

The first is Document D-879. We thought that would be more
complete if a connecting page was put in to make the
continuity of the Exhibit. For that purpose, my Lord, the
prosecution asks that Exhibit GB 482 be withdrawn and that
there be substituted the two pages which were originally in
it with a connecting page. That is merely adding a
connecting page, my Lord.

The second is Document D-881 -

THE PRESIDENT (interposing): Is there any objection to that
on the part of the defence?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I do not think so, my Lord; I have
not heard of any.

THE PRESIDENT: What do the documents relate to, did you say?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: The diary of Admiral Assmann, who
was on the staff of the defendant Raeder.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, it is only a question of
putting the Exhibit in proper form.

The second document, my Lord, is D-881, which is another
passage from the same diary, on 23rd February, 1940. I
promised your Lordship that I would put in an Exhibit when I
dealt with the diary in cross-examination, and, my Lord, the
Exhibit has been prepared and I want to put it in under the
No. GB 475. That is, D-881 will become GB 475.

The third, which is in the same position as the second, is
Document D-892. That Exhibit has now been prepared and will
become GB 476. Copies are available for the defendants and
will be given to them after the approval of the Tribunal is
given.

THE PRESIDENT: And copies, of course, will be supplied to
the Tribunal as well?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Of course, my Lord. They are just
awaiting the formal approval of the Tribunal, and they will
be submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Sir David, that is all right.

Then, Sir David, we will consider the other matter.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship pleases.

                                                  [Page 226]

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

Yes, Dr. Thoma.

DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I just wanted to use this
opportunity to submit to the Tribunal the affidavit of
Robert Scholz, the Chief of Special Staff Rosenberg. It has
been translated into English and French, and I should now
like to submit it as Exhibit 41 to the Tribunal. I have
already shown it to Mr. Dodd, and he has not objected.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. KRAUS (counsel for the defendant Schacht): Mr.
President, I wanted to ascertain whether and till when after
this session we may submit affidavits and documents. The
reason is that during recent days I have received two
affidavits and a document, the relevance of which we have
not yet definitely decided upon.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know
when the counsel for the prosecution and counsel for defence
think would be the best time to deal with these matters
which are outstanding, and with any evidence which either
the defence or the prosecution may wish to bring in
rebuttal.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord. I have not had the
chance of discussing it with any of the counsel for the
defence, but I should have thought at the end of the
evidence. One might reasonably hope that the evidence will
finish this week. It might be possible to deal with it on
Saturday morning or on Monday, and suit the counsel for the
defence, and, of course, as the Tribunal decides.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal, I think, will expect the
defence counsel and the prosecution to be ready, directly
when the end of the evidence comes, to deal with all these
additional questions which are outstanding and also with any
applications that they may have with reference to rebuttal.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I wanted that to be clearly understood, that
it will be expected that it is to be done immediately the
evidence closes. That, I think, answers Dr. Kraus's point
about the affidavits and documents. That would be the most
appropriate time.

Sir David, have you got any idea as to how long that would
take?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I think a very short time.
I should have thought that two days or thereabouts would see
it through. I have discussed it with Mr. Dodd, and that was
the view we took.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. In about two days at the outside?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: At the outside, my Lord. Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship pleases.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor