Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-07/tgmwc-07-66.03
Last-Modified: 1999/11/20

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: No. The only other mention that I
know of is by the defendant Ribbentrop's Counsel on a
limited point.

DR. HORN (Counsel for the defendant von Ribbentrop): Before
the Court makes a decision about the witness Dahlerus, I
would like to inform the Tribunal that I have asked for that
witness for the defendant von Ribbentrop. Dahlerus, in the
decisive hours before the outbreak of World War II in 1939,
played a conclusive role. He particularly can give important
evidence about the last document which contained the
conditions for further negotiations with Poland. This
document was the cause of the second world war. I believe
that this should be a sufficient reason for calling Dahlerus
to come here, especially since Dr. Siemers has declared that
he knows that the witness is prepared to come on his own
initiative.

DR. STAHMER: In view of the importance of this motion to me,
may I in addition state the following: I have sent an
interrogatory with fifty-two questions; but I do not believe
that these questions really exhaust the subject matter of
the evidence. For it is impossible, as I said before, to
summarise everything that the witness knows in a skilful
way, and to bring it out in such sequence that the Tribunal
can have a complete picture of the important function which
Dahlerus exercised at that time in the interest of England
as well as of Germany.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that
point.

DR. STAHMER: As the next witness, I have named Dr. Baron von
Hammerstein, who was Judge Advocate General in the Air Force
and who is at this time a prisoner of war either in American
or British hands.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: With regard to Dr. von Hammerstein,
the Tribunal allowed interrogatories on 9th February, and
Dr. Stahmer has not yet submitted the interrogatories, and
the witness is not yet located. I have no objection to
interrogatories. It seems as if this is essentially the type
of witness that interrogatories would be most helpful with.
He was the equivalent, as I understand it, to our Judge
Advocate General of the Air Force, and interrogatories as to
procedure, as foreshadowed in this application, would be a
matter to which the prosecution takes no objection at all.
If he can be found, then Dr. Stahmer can administer the
interrogatories as soon as he likes.

DR. STAHMER: As far as I can find out, I have not received
any decision that an interrogatory should be submitted, but
I would nevertheless like to ask to call Hammerstein as a
witness.

THE PRESIDENT: You must be mistaken about that, Dr. Stahmer,
because upon our documents the right to administer
interrogatories was granted on 9 February.

DR. STAHMER: I cannot find it at the moment; I must check it
first. But in any case I make the request.

Hammerstein has known the defendant for many years,
specifically in a sphere which is of greatest importance for
the forming of an opinion concerning the defendant's
attitude towards justice and also towards the treatment of
the population in occupied territory and of prisoners-of-
war, and here also, in my opinion, it will be highly
important that the witness should give to the Tribunal
detailed information about these facts, and describe them in
a manner which cannot possibly be expressed in an
interrogatory or in answer to an interrogatory.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I am told, my Lord, that the
interrogatories have been sent in and reached the Tribunal
Secretariat a day or two ago. I do not want to add to my
point.

DR. STAHMER: I believe that is correct.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, the next one ?

DR. STAHMER: The next witness is Werner von Brauchitsch
junior, Colonel in the Air Force, son of General Field
Marshal von Brauchitsch, who is here in the Court House
prison in Nuremberg.

                                                  [Page 253]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have no objection to Colonel von
Brauchitsch.

DR. STAHMER: This witness is to give information about the
attitude of the defendant with regard to Lynch law, the law
as applied to "terror fliers" and with regard to his
attitude towards enemy fliers in general.

Next, General of the Air Force, Kammhuber, who is a prisoner
of war either in American or British hands.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: With regard to General Kammhuber,
interrogatories were also allowed on 9th February of this
year, and they have not been submitted, as far as my
information goes, and again the witness has not been
located. I have no objection to interrogatories, and when
the interrogatories are received, probably Dr. Stahmer could
decide whether it is necessary to call the witness.

I remind the Tribunal that this sketch-map was introduced in
quite guarded terms by Colonel Griffith-Jones, and therefore
it seems to me the sort of subject that might well be
investigated by interrogatories.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you think that some agreed
statement could be put in about this ?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE : If we could see the result of the
interrogatories, we would certainly be willing to consider
that, because as the Tribunal will no doubt remember, it was
the plan showing the Luftwaffe commands in Warsaw and other
districts outside Germany, and Colonel Griffith-Jones, in
dealing with it, said that he was not stating positively
that it had been placed before the defendant Goering.
Therefore, if we have a statement, we should be most ready
to consider it, and, if possible, agree on the point.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer ?

DR. STAHMER: General of the Air Force Koller, a prisoner of
war in American hands.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: The prosecution has no objection to
General Koller. The Tribunal ordered on 26th January that he
should be warned. He has not yet been located, but if he is
located, then clearly the matters suggested are relevant in
the view of the prosecution.

DR. STAHMER: Colonel General Student, a prisoner of war in
English hands.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: The prosecution has no objection to
this witness.

If your Lordship will allow me one moment, I have not had
the chance to take this particular point up with my French
colleague. As far as I know there is no objection. I would
like to verify that.

I am grateful to your Lordship. My French colleague, M.
Champetier de Ribes, agrees that he has no objection.

DR. STAHMER: General Field Marshal Kesselring, who is in the
Court House prison in Nuremberg at the present time.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: This is on the same point, and the
prosecution takes the same attitude: No objection.

THE PRESIDENT: We would like to hear some explanation from
you, Dr. Stahmer, on what the evidence - what is the
relevance of Field Marshal Kesselring's evidence.

DR. STAHMER: The facts about which he knows I consider
relevant because the prosecution has declared that Rotterdam
had been attacked without military necessity, and also that
the attack took place at a time when negotiations were
already under way for the capitulation of the city.

THE PRESIDENT: You do not say where General Student is, but
General Student and Field Marshal Kesselring are to give
evidence, as I understand it, on exactly the same point, and
therefore, if Field Marshal Kesselring were called as a
witness, would it not be sufficient to give interrogatories
or get an affidavit from General Student?

DR. STAHMER: Yes, I agree.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Agreed, my Lord.

                                                  [Page 254]

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. STAHMER: Dr. von Ondarza, Chief Surgeon of the
Luftwaffe, whose whereabouts are unknown to me, but who has
presumably been released from captivity and may be at his
home in Hamburg now.

SIR MAXWELL DAVID FYFE: The next two witnesses are really on
the same point. As I understood it, I thought that - my copy
is very bad, but I gather that the defendant was not
informed of the experiments conducted by two doctors - the
first one must be Rascher, I think, and Dr. Romberg - on
inmates of Dachau and other places; that the defendant
himself never arranged for any experiments whatsoever on
prisoners, and that Field Marshal Milch said that the
defendant was not informed of the letters exchanged between
the witness and Wolffe concerning the experiments conducted
by Dr. Rascher in Dachau, in which prisoners were used, and
the witness did not even inform the defendant of this
subject; that Dr. Rascher, on taking up his duties in
Dachau, withdrew from the Luftwaffe and joined the S.S. as a
surgeon.Clearly evidence on that point may be relevant. We
have no objection to the witness being called.The position
with regard to the first witness, Dr. von Ondarza, is that
he is not located. The Tribunal ordered that he should be
warned on 26th January. Field Marshal Milch is in the
prison. Again I think that in these circumstances we would
make no objection to Field Marshal Milch being called on
this point, and if the surgeon von Ondarza can be located,
then I shall agree to interrogatories, but I don't feel very
- THE PRESIDENT: Would it be agreeable to you, Dr. Stahmer,
if we were to grant the application to call Field Marshal
Milch on this point and were to allow an interrogatory for
the other witness when he has been located?DR. STAHMER: I
have also examined the question whether the evidence would
be cumulative. That is not the case. The evidence to be
offered by Milch is slightly different, and the defendant
Goering considers it important to have Ondarza as a witness
because Dr. Ondarza was his physician for many years and
therefore is well informed; and, furthermore, he will tell
us that the defendant Goering did not know anything about
the experiments which were made with these five hundred
brains. That is not yet in my application, but I have just
found out about it. There was a long deposition which was
submitted by the prosecution concerning these five hundred
brains. I protested against that at the time and I was told
that I should make this objection at a specified time.THE
PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider what you
say upon that. You can turn now to Korner.DR. STAHMER: State
Secretary Paul Korner, who is here in Nuremberg in the Court
House prison - SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: There is no objection
on the part of the prosecution.THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer,
on our documents it is stated that the suggested witness
Paul Korner is not located, but in the document of your
application you say that he is in the Nuremberg prison.DR.
STAHMER: I have received that information, but I cannot at
the moment say where it came from.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I am afraid I do not know, but I
could easily find out for the Tribunal. I will ask if the
matter can be checked.

THE PRESIDENT: If you would, yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, I have just been given a roster
of internees on 19 February and he does not appear to be in
that list.

THE PRESIDENT: In the Nuremberg prison?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT:  That is the information that I had.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes.

                                                  [Page 255]
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you go on about this evidence, Dr.
Stahmer?DR. STAHMER: Korner was a State Secretary since 1933
and he can testify about the purpose behind the
establishment of concentration camps in 1933, about the
treatment of the people imprisoned there, and that Goering
was in charge of these camps only until 1934. He can also
testify about the measures and regulations, the purpose and
aim of the Four Year Plan, and also about the attitude of
the defendant after he had been informed in November, 1938,
about the anti-Jewish incidents.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that.

DR. STAHMER: Dr. Lohse, art historian, either in an English
or an American Camp.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My information, my Lord, is that
interrogatories were allowed on 9th February. They have not
yet been submitted, and the witness is not yet located. I
have no objection to interrogatories with regard to Dr.
Lohse or the next witness, Dr. Bunjes, who deals with the
same point.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. STAHMER: Also the testimony of the witness Lohse seems
to me important, considering the weight of the accusations
which have been made here against the defendant, so
important that I ask to hear him as witness here before this
Tribunal. The question is a very short one. He is to testify
as to what the defendant's attitude was toward the
acquisition of art treasures in the occupied territories.
That is, to be sure, a very short subject, but for the
judgement on the defendant it is extremely important, and
the accusation made by the prosecution in this respect is
extremely serious.

THE PRESIDENT: You are now dealing with Dr. Bunjes?

DR. STAHMER: No, still with Lohse.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: May it please the Tribunal;
interrogatories appeared a suitable method to the Tribunal,
and the prosecution respectfully submits that we should see
what Dr. Lohse can say in answer to the interrogatories, and
then Dr. Stahmer can, if necessary, renew the application.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, is there anything you want to say about
Dr. Bunjes?

DR. STAHMER: The last witness is Dr. Bunjes, the art historian.

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