Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-11/tgmwc-11-104.01
Last-Modified: 2000/01/10

                                                  [Page 189]

ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTH DAY

WEDNESDAY, 10TH APRIL, 1946

HANS HEINRICH LAMMERS - Resumed

CROSS-EXAMINATION - Continued

DR. THOMA (counsel for defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President,
I stated yesterday that the Larouche passage was not marked
red in my document book and should not be read. My assertion
was not correct. I made this assertion for the following
reasons:

My client, Herr Rosenberg, sent me the following note
yesterday while I was presenting my case:

"The passages in the document book to be cited are certainly
marked in red; the other parts do not have to be translated
at all." The passages referred to in the French text had not
been anticipated. I consequently assumed that the passages
should not be translated. This communication from Rosenberg,
however, had a different meaning. Rosenberg had made a sign
in certain documents that were marked in red to indicate
that these passages did not have to be read. That includes
the quotation from Larouche and therefore the error
occurred.

I also said yesterday that the passage cited by Mr. Justice
Jackson was incorrectly translated. That, too, was an error.
I apparently committed this error because the emphasis of
the word "Bastardisierung" shocked me. I presume that
"miscegenation" was meant. I request the translation
department to pardon me. The document book itself ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal quite understands
that there must have been some mistake, and no one, I hope -
and certainly not the Tribunal - is accusing you of any bad
faith in the matter at all. The Tribunal quite understands
that there must have been some misunderstanding or some
mistake which led to whatever happened.

DR. THOMA: I thank you very much.

DR. NELTE (counsel for defendant Keitel): Mr. President,
permit me to ask the Tribunal a short question related to
procedure matters in the case of Westhoff. I yesterday
stated the reasons why I believed I could forgo calling the
witness Westhoff. According to the explanation of the
English prosecution, the error has been cleared up and
therefore my assumption is no longer true. I should like now
to ask the Tribunal: Is the original situation thereby
automatically restored, and may I also claim to examine this
witness before the Tribunal as a defence witness or must I
make a formal application to be authorised to call this
witness again?

THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal does not desire
you to make any formal application. You can ask the witness
any questions when he has answered the questions which the
Tribunal will put to him, and the prosecution, of course,
can also ask him questions.

DR. NELTE: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Seidl, I think you wanted to put
some questions to this witness, did you not, on behalf of
the defendant Frank? We hope that they won't be very long.

BY DR. SEIDL (counsel for defendant Frank):

Q. Witness, the prosecution asked you a question yesterday
in connection with the "AB Action." For your information "AB
Action" means: Extraordinary

                                                  [Page 190]

Pacifying Operation. It was necessary in connection with
uprisings during 1940 in the Government General. In this
connection the prosecution read you a quotation from Frank's
diary of 16th May, 1940. I want to read to you, first of
all, one further sentence from this same citation, from the
same entry. It reads as follows:
  
  "Every arbitrary action is to be prevented with the most
  severe measures. In every case the point of view which
  takes into consideration the necessary protection of the
  Fuehrer's authority and of the Reich must be in the
  foreground. Moreover, action will be postponed until 15th
  June."

The prosecution then read you a further citation from 30th
May, from which one could draw the conclusion ...

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think that you really
can read passages of Frank's diary to the witness. I mean,
you are re-examining to clear up. He has not seen the diary.

DR. SEIDL: I shall ask him a question. However, before that
I must read another short passage, otherwise he cannot
understand the question.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the question? You can put the diary
to Frank when you call Frank.

DR. SEIDL: The witness was heard yesterday in connection
with this "AB Action," and he was presented with a passage
from this diary that must have given him the impression that
a large number of Poles had been shot without any court
proceedings.

THE PRESIDENT: What question do you want to put?

DR. SEIDL: I want to ask him whether he knows Ministerialrat
Wille, what position he occupied in the Government General
and what kind of assistance this Dr. Wille could possibly
give if he had anything at all to do with this action.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, ask him that, Dr. Seidl, if you like,
but the diary has no relevance to that question at all.

DR. SEIDL: But the question can only be answered sensibly if
I, Mr. President, read him the corresponding passage from
the diary. Otherwise he certainly won't see the connection.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal doesn't see the connection,
either - and the Tribunal thinks there is no point in
reading the diary to him.

DR. SEIDL: That will become apparent, Mr. President. I ask
to be allowed to read one more passage from the diary,
namely of 12th June, 1940.

THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Seidl. You can ask him your question
but you can't read the diary to him. You stated what the
question was, whether he knew somebody held a certain
position in the Government General. You can ask him that
question.

Q. Witness, do you know Ministerialrat Wille?

A. No, I can't remember him.

Q. You also do not know that he was the head of the Main
Justice Division in the Government General?

A. No; that, too, I do not remember.

DR. SEIDL: Then one question is already settled.

The second question which I had to present to the witness is
related again to an entry in Frank's diary in connection
with concentration camps. I can, however, also ask this
question only if beforehand I can read the witness a
corresponding passage from the diary.

THE PRESIDENT: Tell us what the question is.

DR. SEIDL: The question would have read: Is the point of
view expressed in the entry in Frank's diary which I
intended to read, the correct point of view? Does it agree
with his first explanation on Monday or is the view
expressed in the passage from the diary, which the
prosecution presented yesterday, the correct one.

(A short pause.)

                                                  [Page 191]

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal thinks you can put the
question, if you put it in the form: Do you know what was
the attitude of Frank towards concentration camps? - if you
put it in that way - and what was it?

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the witness has already answered
this question in his direct examination. He declared that
Frank held a negative attitude towards concentration camps.
Yesterday, however, an excerpt was read to him from Frank's
diary which could prove the opposite. However, there are
dozens of entries in Frank's diary that corroborate the
point of view of the witness and which contradict that which
was presented by the prosecution. I can therefore only ask
the witness a sensible question if I read him something from
the diary.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, all those matters can be gone into
with Frank. You can prove every passage in the diary which
is relevant, and you can put the most necessary passages to
Frank.

DR. SEIDL: The third question would have been in reference
to the telegram ...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr.
Seidl, it is only a very exceptional privilege that you, as
counsel for Frank, are allowed to re-examine at all, and the
Tribunal has expressed the opinion to you that it does not
think this is a matter on which you ought to be allowed to
re-examine. The person to re-examine is the one who calls a
witness in the first place. We can't allow, in ordinary
cases, re-examination by everyone.

DR. SEIDL: I therefore renounce any further question to this
witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.

(The witness left the court-room.)

And now the Tribunal wishes to have General Westhoff brought
in.

(A new witness entered the box.)

Sir David, could you find me the German version of General
Westhoff's statement in these papers
here?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I looked for it, but couldn't find
it, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: You can't find it?

ADOLF WESTHOFF, a witness, took the stand and testified as
follows:

EXAMINATION

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Will you give me your full name?

A. Adolf.

Q. Your full name?

A. Adolf Westhoff.

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.)

Q. You may sit down. General Westhoff, you made a statement
before Brigadier Shapcott or before Captain J. B. Parnell,
did you not?

A. I don't know the captain's name. I made a statement in
England.

Q. Yes. On 15th June, 1945?

A. That is possible, yes.

Q. You don't know English, I suppose?

A. No.

Q. Well, I will read you - has the prosecution got another
copy of this document?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, Sir David, if you would follow me
whilst I read it and draw my attention to any passages which
are really relevant ...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Since it's a considerably long document, I
don't wish to read it all to the witness.

Q. What the Tribunal wants to know, General Westhoff, is
whether you adhere to this statement or whether you wish to
make any alterations in it. And I will read to you, so that
you may remember it, the material passages from the
statement.

                                                  [Page 192]


A. Very well.

   Q. "I was in charge of the general department when the
   shooting of the escaped R.A.F. prisoners of war from
   Stalag Luft 3 took place. It was the first occasion on
   which Field Marshal Keitel sent for me. I went with
   General von Gravenitz. He had been sent for and I had to
   accompany him. A certain number of officers had escaped
   from the Sagan camp."

Am I going too fast?

  "I don't remember how many, but I believe about eighty
  ..."

DR. NELTE (counsel for defendant Keitel): Mr. President, can
I be of service to the Tribunal by handing him a German
translation, which has been placed at my disposal by the
prosecuting authority?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I am very grateful to Dr. Nelte.

THE PRESIDENT: General Westhoff, would you read that
statement of yours through as quickly as you can? You will
be able to see what are the really material passages, and
then tell the Tribunal whether that statement is correct.

A. Yes.

(A brief pause.)

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, there is still another part of the
statement which I have also received from the prosecuting
authority. It was a very extensive compilation. May I also
in addition submit this to the witness?

THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean that he has not the whole
document?

DR. NELTE: No, he has not all of it yet.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh yes, certainly.

DR. NELTE: I received it from the prosecution in three
sections and I should now like to give him these three parts
so that he may have it complete.

THE PRESIDENT: The statement that we have here in English is
five pages done in type, and is certified in this way:

  "This appendix contains an accurate translation of oral
  statements made to me by Major General Westhoff on 13th
  June, 1945, in reply to questions concerning the shooting
  of 50 R.A.F. officers from Stalag Luft 3. Dated the 23rd
  day of the ninth month, 1945. J. E. Parnell, Captain,
  Intelligence Corps."

Is that on - ?

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I do not know whether General
Westhoff was not perhaps interrogated several times. In this
document he also made statements relative to the whole
policy regarding prisoners of war; in other words, not only
about the Sagan case. We are here concerned with a
continuous report and the witness ...

THE PRESIDENT: The only document which is in evidence is
this document, which I have in my hand, which is annexed to
the report of Brigadier Shapcott.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I looked at the document,
the part that Dr. Nelte has. I think my German is sufficient
to identify it. It is the same document. If your Lordship
will look at Page 2, your Lordship will see the passage

  "General-Inspector, General Roettig."

My Lord, that is where it starts, and I have checked it as
to the last paragraph. It is the same, "I cannot remember
having received any reports." As far as my German goes, that
is the same here, so this part of the document is the last
half of the document that your Lordship has.

THE PRESIDENT: I see, yes; Dr. Nelte and Sir David, perhaps
the best course would be if Sir David put the passages upon
which he relies to the witness, and the witness could then
be asked whether those were accurate.

                                                  [Page 193]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And Dr. Nelte can ask any questions that he
wishes to after that. Witness, counsel is going to ask you
questions upon this document now, so you need not go on
reading.

EXAMINATION BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:

Q. Witness, have you had a chance of reading the first
paragraph of this statement?

A. Yes, I have read it.

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