Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-18/tgmwc-18-170.05
Last-Modified: 2000/09/11

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, with regard to that affidavit,
I am told, the prosecution not having seen it at all, that
it should be accepted with the same reservations as have
been made in the previous cases.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. Was that affidavit you spoke
of by Count von Spreti, S-p-r-e-t-i?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: Yes, my Lord.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I was going to submit a list of all of
Sauckel's decrees as Document 109 which will give an idea of
the great care he took over all kinds of matters. This list
will give only the titles.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you did not give a number to the
affidavit of Count von Spreti.

                                                   [Page 55]

DR, SERVATIUS: It will be given No. 108 in my document book
and then I shall give it an exhibit number later when I
submit the numbers for the other documents.

Then as Documents 110, 111 and 112 -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, are you not giving us exhibit
numbers now?

DR. SERVATIUS: I cannot do so at the moment because I have
not got the originals with me and most of these are
originals which have been submitted already.

THE PRESIDENT: But you see, in the case of the defendant
Sauckel, as in the case of every other defendant, the
exhibits put in on his behalf, the exhibits offered in
evidence on his behalf should have a consecutive series of
numbers and that is a consecutive series which is settled by
the counsel himself who offers the documents in evidence. It
does not depend upon whether he has the original before him.

DR. SERVATIUS: In that case, I can give them the exhibit
numbers. Document 108 will be Exhibit 18.

THE PRESIDENT: Which is that?

DR. SERVATIUS: Exhibit 18.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the most convenient way would be if
you would carefully go through your exhibits and give the
list to the General Secretary, giving the exact number of
each document.

DR. SERVATIUS: Very well.

Then Documents 110, 111 and 112 contained in the supplement
are three laws which deal with the position of the Reich
Defence Commissioner who was mentioned in connection with
manpower. The Reich Defence Commissioner is, of course, the
Gauleiter who was mentioned during the case of Speer in
connection with the armament industry. These are merely the
basic laws, so that they are at the disposal of the
Tribunal.

After the case of Speer had been heard, I received an
affidavit from the witnesses Hildebrandt and Stothfang, who
had been examined here in Court. It deals with the question
of how far Sauckel had to obey Speer's instructions and what
the relations were between the two departments. The
prosecution have not yet defined their attitude and I think
perhaps it would be best if -

MR. DODD: We will be glad to have this affidavit submitted,
Mr. President. We have no objection whatever to it. As a
matter of fact, if it was not submitted by Dr. Servatius, we
intended to offer it ourselves.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Of course the Tribunal thinks it
is irregular, really, that a witness who has been called and
has given evidence, has been cross-examined-has been re-
examined and cross-examined by any other counsel for the
defence who want to, that he should be entitled to give any
other evidence, but if you are both agreed that it is
convenient in this case, as a special circumstance, we will
admit it.

MR. DODD: I think - Mr. President, I, of course, appreciate
at once the Tribunal's observation about submitting
affidavits of witnesses who have been before the Tribunal.
What happened here was that some rather material matters
were not gone into when he was here, and I think the
Tribunal will find them quite helpful in clearing up the
situation about Sauckel and Speer with respect to their
relative and individual responsibilities for this slave
labour programme. Other than that, I, of course, would not
urge it at all. I think the Tribunal will find it helpful.

DR. FLAECHSNER (counsel for the defendant Speer): Mr.
President, I would not make a formal objection against the
admission of such an affidavit if I were not convinced in
this particular case that with the admission of such an
affidavit a series of questions will be opened up, which
will, in turn, necessitate further

                                                   [Page 56]

arguments. I only saw the wording of this affidavit this
morning and I am convinced that at least further
investigation of its contents will be necessary. I believe,
therefore, that if this trial is to be shortened, in the
case before us, one ought not to depart from the general
rule that affidavits from witnesses who have already
appeared before the Tribunal should not be permitted. In
this particular case, where there are references to
publications in the affidavit, the case could be made quite
clear if these publications were submitted and, therefore,
the affidavit is not at all necessary.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything in answer to that
objection?

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, this affidavit is, in fact, a
supplement to the instructions contained in Document 4006,
which the prosecution is proposing to submit; but I did not
know that this was proposed. What we are actually concerned
with here is a question which was opened up by Speer's
examination, namely, the significance of Speer's Ministry as
compared to Sauckel's department. Who, of the two, was the
more powerful; who could give orders; who had to obey. I
think the documents will make that clear.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you and the prosecution had the
opportunity of cross-examining Speer when he was in the
witness-box and you could then have elucidated anything you
wanted to elucidate at that time.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, only the circumstances were not known to
me at that moment.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, I do not wish to press this, and if
the Tribunal has any doubt about it at all I will withdraw
my position. I thought it might be helpful, but it really is
not important and if there is any question I think it is
better we let it go.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal thinks it is irregular to
introduce new evidence by affidavits from a person who has
already been called as a witness, and in view of the
objection on behalf of the defendant Speer, it cannot accept
the evidence.

DR. SERVATIUS: In that case, I will withdraw it.

That completes my statement of evidence. The only thing that
is still outstanding is the witness Letsch's interrogatory,
which has been granted, and the interrogatory of the witness
Bachenbach, and I have no hope of receiving them.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer?

DR. STEINBAUER (counsel for defendant Dr. Seyss-Inquart):
Mr. President, I have four documents which I beg to submit
and which I have received through the General Secretary. The
Tribunal has allowed them and the prosecution know of them.
Unfortunately, however, the translations have not yet been
completed.

The first document contains questions and answers from Dirk-
Hannema, director of the Bovmans Museum in Rotterdam, about
the alleged plundering of art treasures. I shall give this
document number 108. I shall submit the English text and the
Dutch original.

The next document is an edition of the newspaper Nieuw
Rotterdamsche Courant, dated 17th May, 1942, of which I have
the original and a German translation. It contains a warning
regarding the shooting of hostages. This document I shall
submit in the original under No. 109.

The following document is also an edition of the same
newspaper; it is dated 10th August, 1942, and it also
contains an announcement regarding the shooting of hostages.
In connection with this document, I should like to draw your
attention to the fact that this announcement was the result
of an order from the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
in Holland, General Christiansen, and that the Higher SS and
Police Leader Rauter signed it. I shall give it number 110.

The next document I received only yesterday from the General
Secretariat and it is a copy of the interrogatory of General
der Kavallerie von Kleffel. From the

                                                   [Page 57]

27th of March, 1945, until the 8th of April, 1945, he was
Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the 25th Army in Holland. He
confirms that Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart, in a letter
to the Fuehrer, had requested that the fighting should
cease, in order to save the country from being heavily
damaged and also to prevent a famine. This document is No.
111 in my document book. This document had been allowed by
the Tribunal. I beg, therefore, that it be received in
evidence.

Today, the General Secretary's office sent me two
affidavits; one comes from the former commander of the
Defence District of Scheveningen.  His name is Erwin
Tschoppe. He is submitting an affidavit dealing with the
attitude and conduct of the defendant with respect to the
evacuation of the coastal area. Because of the short time at
my disposal, I have not yet been able to show this document
or the following one to the prosecution, but I have already
informed the prosecution that these two documents exist. The
second document is also -

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, these documents, I
understand, have not been shown to the prosecution and they
have not been approved by the Tribunal, and, one question
that arises is, are they very long? Because I find that the
translation division is being overloaded with very long
documents.

DR. STEINBAUER: No, it is a short document, but it appears
to me to be important, because it shows how the defendant
acted during that difficult situation and how he took care
of the Dutch population.

THE PRESIDENT: If it is short and if you will submit it to
the prosecution, then it can be translated and admitted
subject to any objection.

DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, sir. The same applies to the following
document which I also received today. It is an affidavit of
Adalbert Joppich. He was President of the German Supreme
Court in the Netherlands, and he makes a very brief
statement about the position and the attitude of the
defendant with regard to legal questions affecting the Dutch
civilian population. I beg that this document also be
admitted in evidence and that I may use the same procedure
of submitting a copy of the translation to the prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: What number did you give?

DR. STEINBAUER: The Tschoppe document will be No. 112 and
the Adalbert Joppich document will be No. 113. Documents
allowed by the Tribunal and still outstanding are affidavits
by Bolle, Dr. Reuter, Volkers and Lindhorst-Hohmann. The
General Secretariat and I are trying to obtain these
affidavits. So far it has only been possible to ascertain
Bolle's address. Finally, I request that two applications
which I have made in writing should be granted; one concerns
the obtaining of the defendant's NSDAP. membership card
which was impounded when he was arrested, and which must be
among his personal documents in the custody of the Tribunal.
A few months ago I made a request to that effect, but both
sides apparently lost sight of the matter.

THE PRESIDENT: Of course, you do not mean that it is in the
custody of the Tribunal; you may mean that it is in the
custody of the military authorities.

DR. STEINBAUER: Yes. I meant the Prison Administrative
Department, of course.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, no doubt they can produce it. What was
the other document?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President, then in the cross-
examination -

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I do not want to take up your
Lordship's time, but that membership card could have been
applied for months ago. It is on the same footing as these
documents which counsel has been putting in. We have not
seen them. I do not know what this card is going to prove,
but it is going to be a great deal of trouble to get it
here, just as these documents are giving a great deal of
work to the Translation Division.

                                                   [Page 58]

THE PRESIDENT: What is the importance of the membership
card? Presumably he knows when he became a member. What
relevance does the card have to this?

DR. STEINBAUER: It is of importance because according to the
war crime law which has now been published in Austria, all
members having a membership number above 6,500,000 will not
be regarded as the so-called "old fighters" or illegal
members. Seyss-Inquart has stated in the witness-box -

THE PRESIDENT: That has nothing to do with this Tribunal. It
may be relevant in some other proceeding and before some
other court but not before this Court.

DR. STEINBAUER: Only in so far as the prosecution had
alleged that he had been a member of the N.S.D.A.P. since
1931. But, of course, I am not trying to make difficulties.
I only thought that the membership card might be among the
belongings which were taken away from the prisoner and that
one could have a look at it.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But did he deny that he was a member
since 1937?

DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, oh, yes. He states that he did not
become a member until the 13th of March, 1938 - formally.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes; formally, I remember, yes; but he
had been a member of the Austrian Nazi Party very much
longer, if I remember rightly.

MR. DODD: We will agree here and now, Mr. President, that
that card would show that he became a member, as far as the
card is concerned, on that date. I am sure that is what it
will show and if it will help the doctor, we will be glad to
agree to that.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. STEINBAUER: The last document for which I am applying is
the following: During cross-examination a document was
submitted in which an eighteen-year-old female police clerk
named Hildegard Kunze confirms that my client caused Dutch
Jews to be sterilised. Seyss-Inquart maintains that he has
never written to the police directly, but that in three
personal letters addressed to Himmler, he did object to the
treatment of Jews, and that in one of his letters he
mentioned sterilisation. This, presumably, was the reason
the witness mentioned it and probably she gained knowledge
of these facts through seeing the original or copy of the
letters which Himmler may have passed on to the Reich
Security Main Office. In connection with this important
matter my client has requested me to make an attempt to have
these letters which he wrote to Himmler produced in order to
disprove the incriminating statement made by the witness
Hildegard Kunze. I do not conceal the fact that it will
probably be difficult to find these letters amongst the very
many documents of the Reich Security Main Office.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you made your application in writing
about this?

DR. STEINBAUER: yes, I have made a written application.

THE PRESIDENT: Giving the dates when the letters were
written?

DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, everything I could ascertain regarding
the dates and the addresses is contained in my application.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that, but
you understand that the work involved in this sort of thing
is very great indeed.

DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, far be it from me to
underestimate the difficulties which are connected with my
application. Apart from this, I have no further application
to make.

THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.

(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)

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