The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)
Nuremberg, war crimes, crimes against humanity

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
14th February to 26th February, 1946

Sixty-Sixth Day: Saturday, 23rd February, 1946
(Part 3 of 8)

[Page 252]

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.


[Page 254]


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?


THE PRESIDENT: That is the information that I had.


[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.


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.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.