Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-22/tgmwc-22-209.06
Last-Modified: 2001/01/10

                                                   [Page 23]

DR. PELCKMANN: But I should like to clarify matters
absolutely by stating that the assertion made by Erhardt
does not refer to the 136,000 affidavits but rather to the
answers to a questionnaire. I should expressly like to
withdraw as evidence the statistics which I announced
yesterday in just three words and which the General
Secretary now has. I do not attach any value to these
statistics.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pelckmann, you are going to make a
speech, are you not, in a few days' time. Is not this a
matter with which you will deal then? You will have the
opportunity of criticising Erhardt's affidavit. This is not
the time to do it.

DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. President, I believe it is my duty to
state my views concerning an affidavit which has been
submitted by the prosecution even though the presentation of
evidence has been concluded. I will do more -

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Pelckmann, I just told you that it
is not your duty and you will be able to deal with it when
you make your speech and therefore the Tribunal does not
desire to hear any more about it.

DR. PELCKMANN: In order to reply to this affidavit by
Erhardt, although I attach no value to the statistics, I
request you to summon two witnesses from this camp, for
naturally I cannot -

THE PRESIDENT: If you want to make an application, you must
make it in writing. Now, Dr. Servatius.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, I ask to make two short
applications on behalf of the Soviet prosecution. The first
one is concerned with the excluding from the record of the
morning and the afternoon sessions of 23rd April, 1946, of
the discussion which -

THE PRESIDENT: Do not go too fast, April what?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: 23rd April, Mr. President; the morning and
the afternoon sessions of 23rd April. The discussion which
arose about the official appendix to the report of the
Government of the Polish Republic. I mean the directive from
the Department of Propaganda in Poland. The witness Buehler
declared here that he doubted the authenticity of this
document and based his doubts on certain expressions which
seemed to him not quite German. By investigating this
episode, it appears that the witness had not the German
original but the appendix which has been translated from
German into Polish and then from Polish into English and
then from English back into German which, of course, caused
a certain confusion in terminology. As far as I was
informed, Dr. Seidl, defence counsel for the defendant
Frank, became familiar with this document and has not
objected to excluding this part from the minutes in as much
as it was caused by the defects of translation. All these
documents have, therefore, been submitted to the secretariat
of the Tribunal. That is the first application which I would
like to submit to the Tribunal. The second one is -

THE PRESIDENT: I am not certain, but I thought we had
already dealt with that point, in view of Dr. Seidl's
withdrawing his objection to that document, and perhaps you
can find out afterwards whether we have already dealt with
it. There was certainly a document presented to us from Dr.
Seidl in which he said that having checked up on the
particular document with which he was dealing, he was now
convinced that it was all right.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. As far as I know, Dr.
Seidl does not object to excluding this part from the record
because the confusion was caused by a faulty translation.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean that your application is to strike
out Buehler's evidence?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: On the part concerning this document.

                                                   [Page 24]

THE PRESIDENT: We will consider your application, Colonel
Smirnov.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: The second application consists of the
following: In the report of the Polish Government submitted
to the Tribunal, in many cases only incomplete figures are
stated for the losses suffered by Poland as a result of the
war. This was caused by the fact that, at the time when the
report was made, these losses had not been calculated, and I
would like to ask the Tribunal to admit an official
memorandum of the Presidium of Polish Ministers, War
Reparations Branch, which contains all the complete figures
of the losses suffered by Poland during the Second World
War. The text of this document has been translated into all
four languages; that is to say, into English, Russian,
French and German. That is my second application to the
Tribunal. I have no more applications to make, Mr.
President.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you suggesting that this is evidence in
rebuttal?

COLONEL SMIRNOV: No, Mr. President; it was caused by the
inexact translation. This is a document supplementing the
governmental report of the Polish Republic with the exact
figures of the losses suffered by Poland during the war. It
contains data on the military losses of Poland during the
Second World War, on the losses in manpower and in property.
It is a supplementary document and not one in rebuttal.

THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, the document is dated the
29th January, 1946, and now you wish to offer this document
in evidence at the end of August, 1946, at the very end of
this trial.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: Mr. President, this document was given to
the Soviet Delegation only recently, very recently.
Obviously some time was needed for the translation of this
document into four languages. Anyhow we received it only
very recently.

THE PRESIDENT: I was not suggesting that you were in any way
to blame, Colonel Smirnov. The Tribunal thinks that this
document cannot be put in a this late stage; the document
appears to have been made a long time ago and though it may
have been received by you recently, it is not proper that it
should admitted at this stage.

COLONEL SMIRNOV: I submitted this document, Mr. President,
exclusively for one reason. I considered that the data
contained in this document adds substantial significance to
the picture of the general losses suffered by the Polish
Republic. I think that the data could only be completed by
submitting this document and that was the reason why I
submitted this application to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: That may very well be, Colonel Smirnov, but
the reason why the Tribunal rejects it is because it is
submitted at such a late stage that it is impossible for the
Tribunal to go into the facts which are alleged in it or to
give the defendants the opportunity of contradicting it. We
will consider the other matters you have drawn our attention
to.

DR. NELTE (defence counsel for the defendant Keitel): Mr.
President, since Dr. Servatius, my colleague, has just been
called upon to deliver his final plea, I believe I may
assume that the presentation of evidence against the
organisations is now to be considered as concluded. Now, I
should like to ask the High Tribunal when the right time
would be to settle the applications for evidence which are
still outstanding. This concerns the individual defendants
who have made applications for evidence or have submitted
affidavits in the course of the proceedings against the
organisations. Can that be done now, or when should it be
done?

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, the Tribunal understands that you
have got some evidence which you have already applied for,
which you want to offer. You have it all ready, is that
right?

                                                   [Page 25]

DR. NELTE: Yes, indeed, I have already handed it in and
submitted it to the prosecution and I informed the High
Tribunal about this in writing on 9th August. It is a
question of just when I should ... it is a question of how I
can introduce the three affidavits here.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you got the evidence now?

DR. NELTE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Nelte, we think that you might
offer these affidavits now unless they are objected to by
the prosecution.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: There is no objection as far as I
know. There is certainly none from Mr. Dodd and myself. I
have not heard from any of my colleagues, but I do not know
of any objection.

THE PRESIDENT: You may offer them now. With reference to the
other defendants, they will -

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I beg your pardon, my Lord, there is
no objection from either.

THE PRESIDENT: With reference to the other defendants,
counsel will understand that if they have any fresh evidence
arising out of the evidence offered by the counsel for the
organisation, they must offer that evidence during the
course of the speeches for the organisations or immediately
at the end of the speeches for the organisations; and that
after that has been done, no further evidence can be
offered.

We will take the offering of your evidence now.

DR. NELTE: These affidavits, however, have not yet been
translated since I could not apply for the translation until
I had the approval of the prosecution. May I submit -

THE PRESIDENT: You are suggesting that we postpone hearing
the affidavits until we get the translations?

DR. NELTE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. SAUTER (defence counsel for the defendant von Schirach):
Mr. President, I still have two interrogatories to put in.
Two interrogatories which were duly approved by the High
Tribunal, and which in the meantime have been returned, and
which I have already submitted in the prescribed way. One is
Interrogatory 137, Baldur von Schirach, Document Book von
Schirach 137, an interrogatory by a certain Guenther
Kauffmann who used to work on the staff of the defendant,
von Schirach, in the Hitler Youth Leadership. This
interrogatory deals chiefly with Schirach's attitude on the
question of war, his attitude to foreign policy, his
attitude on the treatment of Eastern peoples, and his
attitude on the Jewish question, and finally, on propaganda
abroad. This interrogatory is being given No. 137 in the
Document Book von Schirach.

The next interrogatory will be von Schirach No. 138. It is a
Russian interrogatory deposed by a witness, Ida Vasseaux, I
repeat, Ida Vasseaux, who, in the meantime, has been
interrogated once more. In this interrogatory I consider
only two sentences on Pages 4 and 5 of any value, and I have
marked these in red in the margin. This interrogatory, as I
said, is being given the number von Schirach 138.

And finally, may I give you the number for another piece of
evidence. On the 11th July, 1946, I submitted to the High
Tribunal the original copy of a newspaper, the Rhein Neckar
Zeitung, of the 6th July, 1946, together with a
supplementary document, for the purpose of proving that the
witness Lauterbacher, who was heard before the Tribunal in
the case of Schirach, has in the meantime been acquitted by
an English Superior Court, in the well-known matter where a

                                                   [Page 26]

certain Kremer had accused Gauleiter Lauterbacher of
ordering the murder of the inmates of the Hameln
penitentiary. An original copy of this newspaper article has
already been submitted to you on the 11th July, 1946. It is
being given the number won Schirach Exhibit 137.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, that matter has been raised so many
times by Dr. Sauter that I think we should make the record
clear. At the time that I used that paper which was in our
hands for the purpose of cross-examining the witness
Lauterbacher, the Tribunal ruled that the matter should not
be submitted, or would not be accepted in evidence, and so
it never has become evidence before this Tribunal. I pressed
for it at the time, I frankly confess, but the Tribunal very
briefly, as the later events revealed, refused to have it
submitted in evidence. If Dr. Sauter takes pleasure in
talking about it once in a while, I have no objection to it,
but it does not help this Tribunal very much, and it does
not seem to do very much good to constantly bring it up.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the newspaper article which I
submitted on 11th July bears the date of 6th July, 1946, the
6th day of the seventh month of the year, and therefore
after the witness Lauterbacher was interrogated. Therefore,
it obviously could not have been taken into consideration
during Lauterbacher's interrogation; it might however be of
importance for judging the character of the witness
Lauterbacher. For the High Tribunal will perhaps remember
that it was precisely Mr. Dodd who at that time confronted
Lauterbacher with this business of the Hameln [sic]
penitentiary. Lauterbacher contested this under oath, but a
witness named Kremer asserted it in an affidavit. In the
meantime this witness Kremer has been convicted, but the
witness Lauterbacher has been acquitted, and I believe that
this fact would appear to be of importance to the High
Tribunal in judging the credibility, the reliability of the
witness Lauterbacher.

MR. DODD: I will withdraw my objection. If Dr. Sauter wants
to prove that he was not a hangman, I have no objection to
it. I do not suppose it is very important. I will not object
to it if he wants to put it in that he was not a poisoner or
a hangman. Von Schirach rejected the document, but, in any
case, Dr. Sauter wants to prove that he was not. I do not
suppose we should object to it.

THE PRESIDENT: He just wants to show that Lauterbacher was
freed by some -

MR. DODD: He was freed of the charge I raised against him
here. Dr. Sauter is not content with that, he wants to prove
it over again. He wants to prove that he was not a hangman
and not a poisoner. We do not object to that.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, of course, I do not wish to prove
that Lauterbacher is not a hangman, for up to now even the
prosecution has not been seriously able to maintain that. I
merely want to prove that the witness whom the prosecution
brought forward with an affidavit - namely, this Dr. Kraemer
- is not a trustworthy witness and that he did not tell the
truth. And that in the meantime this has been legally
established by the judgement of an English court. That might
be of importance in the question of the credibility of the
witness, Dr. Kraemer, in his affidavit, on the one hand, and
that of the witness Lauterbacher, who appeared here, on the
other.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the document you are wanting to put
in? A newspaper article?

DR. SAUTER: The name of the newspaper - I have submitted it
to you - is Rhein Neckar Zeitung, R-h-e-i-n N-e-c-k-a-r Z-e-
i-t-u-n-g, of the 6th July, 1946, and I submitted it to the
Tribunal with the proper form on the 11th July, 1946.

Mr. President, I think that will be all I should like to say
regarding requests for evidence. Thank you very much.

                                                   [Page 27]

THE PRESIDENT: We will consider it. Now, Dr. Servatius.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the English translations were
to have been completed this morning, and it is quite
possible that they are ready now. But I am not certain on
that point. Therefore only the German text is available. I
gave a copy to the interpreters.

Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal, the prosecution
has moved to have the Corps of Political Leaders declared as
criminal. What is the charge against the persons grouped
together under this name?

Points of investigations were the persecution of the Jews;
the conflict with the Church, as well as the dissolution of
the trade unions; the incitement to lynch airmen who made
emergency landings; the maltreatment of foreigners; the
arrest of political opponents, and methods of surveillance
and police spying.

In relation to this, the fundamental legal point involved in
the accusation raised by the prosecution has to be
expounded. The accusation is to the effect that the Corps of
Political Leaders collectively committed the deeds mentioned
for the purpose of unleashing a war of aggression, or that
they had banded together in order to commit the above-
mentioned War Crimes.

It must be made clear in the beginning that deeds which do
not result from these motives, or which as individual
actions do not belong to the Common Plan or Conspiracy are
not included in this accusation.

The major crimes, such as the extermination of the Jews and
the killing of political opponents in concentration camps
are not Crimes Against Humanity within the meaning of the
Charter, and the minor measures of police spying or election
frauds are in themselves insignificant in this trial,
provided that they were not carried out with the aim of
being Crimes Against Humanity, Crimes against Peace, and War
Crimes as set down in Article 6 of the Charter.

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