Q. And you continued to broadcast referring to those alleged facts for some time, did you not ?
A. Yes, of course, because in those days I was under the impression tat they were true.
Q. That is what I wanted to ask you about. You had got a naval liaison officer in your office ?
A. Yes.
Q. What inquiries did you make ?
A. This naval officer was not actually the liaison officer between us and the supreme command of the war navy. He was the liaison officer for the entire armed forces; and in spite of this, I called on his services in connection with naval matters. He was the ran whom I asked, or ordered, repeatedly to inform himself about the state of affairs connected with the investigation of the Athenia case and make his inquiries at the supreme command of the navy.
The answer was always the same. We maintain that no German submarine was near the place of the catastrophe.
Q. And are you saying that that liaison officer of the navy told you that after the 23rd of October, 1939 ?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Did he continue to tell you that ?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. He may return to the dock.
Yes, dr. Fritz ?
DR. FRITZ: Now, with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to call my only witness, Herr von Schirmeister. lows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you state your full name, please ?
A. Moritz von Schirmeister.
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.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Mr. Witness, before beginning your examination, I should like to ask you quite generally to make your answers as brief as possible. culum vitae, so that the Tribunal will know who you are and have it before them.
A. A family of officers and civil servants; three terms of theology; a few years as a banking official, some of them in South America; then editor, until my appointment in Berlin, on the 1st of October, 1931; became a member of the Party; SS Hauptsturmfuehrer in the Allgemeine SS; during the war, a soldier; on the 22nd of September, 1944, became British prisoner of war, and in Great Britain since then.
Q. When I discussed the subject of your examination with you a few days ago, you stated to me that your earlier positive attitude toward National Socialism would not prevent you in anyway from making truthful statements here; is that true ?
A. I have already told you that I had believed in this, that I have sacrificed everything to it, that I have lost everything through it. It was most bitter for me. liberated myself completely. In my last camp in England, I was already permitted to assist in the re-schooling of my comrades, because there I was allowed to edit a camp newspaper. And if I only could, then I would help today to rebuild a democratic Germany.
Q. When did you meet the defendant Fritsche ?
A. On the 1st of July, 1938.
Q. What were you at the time ? Which position were you occupying ?
A. I was an editor in Braunschweig and I was called into the ministry of Propaganda in order to become personal press expert attached to Dr. Goebbels.
Q. Which position did you actually occupy in the Ministry of Propaganda ?
A. Until the 1st of July, 1943, I was the personal press expert of Dr. Goebbels, Then I became personal referendary for Secretary of State Dr. Gutterer, until the 1st of April, 1944, when, for three months, I joined the UFI with him, which was the controlling company of all German phone companies. Then, on the 31st of July, 1944, I went to the front.
Q. Were you there together with Dr. Goebbels daily ?
A. Yes, since the outbreak of the war. Let me describe briefly to you what my activities mainly were.
Q. Yes; please do, briefly.
A. During the war I had to deal with all the news and propaganda material as it arrived, which came from the enemy broadcasting stations. I had to go through it and handle Goebbels' extracts all the time. For Dr. Goebbels these extracts formed the basis for his propaganda instructions which he issued daily in the morning, and in the afternoon and evening I had to present them to the press section and radio section by telephone. So that during the war, unless it was done by my deputies, I visited Dr. Goebbels' apartment, ate my meals with him, slept in his house, accompanied him on journeys, and so on and so forth.
Q. What position did Fritsche occupy at the time ?
A. Fritsche in those days was the deputy chief in the department of the German Press -- Inlandspresse.
Q. Will you please describe the type and significance of Fritsche's position in the Propaganda Ministry and at subsequent times, very briefly ?
A. I was to get acquainted with the work of the German press department. Conditions there were as bad as possible, The chief, Mr. Berndt, was following a mallet policy. He would give orders and yell, and I would sack editors en masse. far as their knowledge and their abilities were concerned. The only steady factor was Fritsche; he was the only expert. He knew the needs and desires of the press. On the one side, he would have to mend the China which Mr. Berndt was continuously smashing, whereas, on the other hand, he was trying to replace inefficient officials in the organization with good ones.
Q. Would it be right to say, therefore, that defendant Fritsche was not appointed because he was an exponent of the party, but because he was an expert?
A: Only as an expert. The extreme Party men in the Ministry didn't attach Q: Was Fritsche a member of those associates of the Ministry who would fre quently consult Goebbels ?A: Theses regular conference hadn't started to take plaze in those days at all und Fritsche wasn't a member of those in any case.
Q: So that he was only consulted when be became a department chief; is that right ?A: As far as such conferences were taking place at all but really only since Q: In which way did Dr. Goebbels confer with his associates ?A: Since the beginning of the war there were daily conferences at 11 A.M., which were presided over by Dr.Goebbels personally and during which he Q: How many people would participate in these 11 o'clock meetings ?A: At the beginning, that is to say, until the beginning of the Russian campaign about twenty people.
Later the circle grow to about fifty people.
Q: Were there discussions during these conferences und arguments and was it mere or loss the handung out of orders that took place ?A: There were nor arguments during such conferences.
First of all, the liaison Dr.Goebbels would give this instructions regarding propaganda, mostly in the Q: Who ran or who was at the head of the conferences when Dr.Goebbels wasn't present ?A: Normally, the Secretary of State.
Q: And who presided when the Secretary of State wasn't there either?
A: Usually Mr.Fritsche and sometimes the head of the foreign press department or the foreign department but mostly Mr .Fritsche.
Q: Did Fritsche give one daily propaganda instructions in cases of that on his own initiative or what was the situation ? A: No; if the Minister wasn't in Berlin, he would still have himsel informed currently about news material coming from abroad.
The he would give to me or one of my representatives, these instructions just as usual during the ordinary conferences and I had to send the instructions through and in Berlin, they were taken down by a stenographer and then handed out or read out during the conference verbatim as the instructions coming from the Minister. Incidentally, the records of the meeting, I want to show that it was particularly described as the minister's instructions. Q: Here Fritsche would use some of these written instructions which you have described, which came from Dr.Goebbels; would Fritsche then come to questions and clear up questions which Goebbels dealt with, by having them up for discussions ? A: When Dr.Goebbels continued to be absent from Berlin, it would happen that the latest news didn't get to him in time. In such cases, Mr.Fritsche would bring things up for discussions, which would be considered and then he would give instructions on his own initiative. That was then put down in writing, the Minister to read it afterward and he either approved or altered it. Q: But, then, surely there weren't only such big conferences with thirty or fifty people present when Goebbels used to give his instructions; there must have been more intimate conferences, too. A: In the course of the meaning, individual department chiefs would certainly see the Minister for the purpose of such conferences, too. Q: Was Fritsche consulted for the purpose of such more intimate conferences ? A: Generally, no. The Minister used the conferences when all departments were represented, to announce the things he had to say for press, radio and newsreel. Those heads of the various departments would then come for individual conferences, whose subjects weren't of any interest to ohters. Q: How often was Mr.Fritsche consulted in comp risen, say, to Secretary of State Pankte, Putterer, and eventualle Dr.Naumann ? A: The Secretaries of State could always be present during these individual conferences and so could the personal referendaries who were always there and Mr.Fritsche was only present during individual conferences on very rare occassions.
Q: What was the position of the twelve department heads of the Ministry of Propaganda, one of whom was the defendant Fritsche ? A: These department heads could be divided up into exports on one side, such as, for instance, the domestic department, Dr.Ott, and definite Party men on the other side as, for instance, Herr Berndt, and officially they would merely have to state such matters as a department head in a Ministry would have to state.
It was generally known that the Minister was using them as instruments and when he didn't need them any more he "chucked" then out and that didn't only apply to the department chiefs. Letme remind you what happened to Secretary of State Putterer who was chased out in an unworthy manner when he had done his job. Q: The prosecution are accusing Fritsche of having used the news service, radio and press in Germany as his instruments and that he had played an important part in placing then into the hands of the so-called conspirators for the purpose of their so-called plans; and was the organization of the press and the National Socialist State in any way dependent on Fritsche;what can you say about that ? had long been completed and constructed.
Apart from that, let me tell you that even Dr. Goebbels cannot be regarded as a member of these conspirators in the sense of this Indictment in so far as he, after all, didn't want to drive us into war but carried out his task in the sense of an unbloody conconquering of countries. Fritsche took over the department of the German press in the winter of 1938 to 1939 ?
Q Was Fritsche independent as the head of that department ?
Q Who was his superior ? Dr. Goebbels as as a dependant department chief, he stood between two fires, because on the other side there was the Reich Press Chief, Dr. Dietrich, and in the entire German press this split between the two was known. The Reich Press Chief, as secretary of State, was a member of the ministry of Propaganda but in spite of this, he demanded the right to act independently and give orders in his capacity of Reich Press Chief. If, therefore, the Minister and the Reich Press Chief did not agree on a certain point, then this was always handed to the unfortunate chief of the department of the German press, Fritsche. ganization; did he shackle it even further or did he give it more freedom ?
A I have already told you, Mr. Fritsche was the only reel expert of any size who worked in the press department. He knew the needs and the worries of the press.
He know that an editor could only work if you give him a certain amount of freedom and thus on every occasion he fought for releasing the shackles.
He did much more than had became apparent to the outside world because, after all, the Minister would then make a decision in this way or another and the outside world would only know what the Minister wanted.
THE PRESIDENT : Do you think he has answered the question ?
Q Did Dr. Goebbels have any objections to the way the Press worked?
Weren't they severe enough? Please be very brief. individual journalists and with reference to entire newspapers? headed by the Minister as well as on the occasion of private invitations by the Minister, he talked for the Press and for the journalists and he tried to represent their point of view to the Minister. Fritsche acted in the described manner?
A THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, why should he call the names of individual journalists and papers? Isn't it too detailed to get into that?
DR. FRITZ: Very well, but Mr. President, may I, in that case, at least offer an affidavit in connection with this problem, Fritsche Exhibit No. 5. It is in my Document Book No. 2 and you will find it on Page 22. It comes from the chief editor of the Frankfurter Zeitung, Dr. Wendelin Hecht, and I should like to quote it very briefly:
"I am herewith making the following declaration in lieu of oath, for submission to the international Military Tribunal:
"1. It is true that several years prior to a ban against the 'Frankfurter Zeitung' Hans Fritsche also helped, to protect it by withholding copies of the 'Frankfurter Zeitung' from the Fuehrer's headquarters.
"2. In the numerous attacks directed against the 'Frankfurter Zeitung' because of its political attitude, the Defendant Hans Fritsche repeatedly intervened, in favor of a continued publication of the 'Frankfurter Zeitung'. Loutkirch, 6 March 1946. Dr. Wendelin Hecht." BY DR. FRITZ: people in the Minis try of Propaganda ?
AAfter Secretary of State Hancke's departure there"was only one man in the Ministry of propaganda who had any real influence on the Minister. Only one man to whom Dr. Goebbels had some personal relations, and that was his later Secretary of State and personal referendee, Dr. Naumann.
Q Did Fritsche c ome to you frequently to learn details about the Minister's views because the Minister just wouldn't inform Defendant Fritsche himself?
A Very often, because Mr. Fritsche knew that I had many private conversations with the Minister, too, and he always complained that he was suspended in the air, that he was swimming and continually I communicated the Minister's views to him in this matter or that. I did succeed in helping insofar as I could arrange for him to be privately invited by Dr. Goebbels, during which Mr. Fritsche's wishes were openly discussed.
Q Did Goebbels take definite charge of the radio himself? propaganda for Dr. Goebbels which he had. He did not scrutinize any department as carefully as he did the wireless department, the radio department. In meetings which he presided over, the most minute details of the artictic programs were decided upon by him personally.
Q That is enough, Mr. Witness. Was Fritsche really the leading man of German broadcasting, as it appeared to the outside world?
A There again, by no means. The leading man was Dr. Goebbels. Apart from that, here again Fritsche sat between two stools, because there were the demands by the Foreign Office, for instance, with reference to foreign broadcasts.
Q Was Fritsche perhaps too lenient for Dr. Goebbels when he made his broadcasts? by Goebbel's orders because he said his broadcasts were much too weak.
Q Did Goebbels ever praise him and, if so, in what manner?
THE PRESIDENT: We don't have any interest in whether Goebbels praised him. BY DR. FRITZ?
Q Then another question. Has Defendant Fritsche ever contradicted the Minister?
A Mr. Fritsche was one of the few people in the Ministry of Propaganda who would contradict the Minister, both during conferences and in his apartment, and always quietly and decisively and often with quite an effect.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, may I have your permission to draw your attention at this point to a document, an affidavit of Scharping, Fritsche Exhibit No. 2, which has already been mentioned frequently, and may I draw your attention to Page 7, the end of Page 7, and the beginning of Page 8, in my Document Book No. 2. Then perhaps, if I may, I should like to quote one brief sentence.
I quote: "During the so-called Minister conferences, it was exclusively Fritsche who would contradict Goebbels in political questions." BY DR. FRITZ:
Q Mr. Witness, who was responsible for the definitely erroneous or exaggerated news in the German Press during the Sudeten crisis?
A That was Alfred Berndt, the head of that department. In those days he spent nights sitting ever General Staff maps, Press books and lists of names, and he manufactured atrocity reports from Sudeten Germany. Just then Mr. Fritsche was worried about the developments. He came to me once and he asked me: "What are we drifting into? Aren't we drifting into war? If only we knew what they care wanting at the top and what is behind it all."
Q And then another question on the same subject. Did Goebbels, in connection with any military or political actions, which were carried out or were to be carried out, ever consult previously with Defendant Fritsche?
A Not only not with Mr. Fritsche but with nobody at all. The Minister never had any such consultations.
Q Fritsche states that he had only heard of Dr. Goebbel's participation in the anti-Jewish riots in 1938 much later and that he had heard it by means of a remark made by Dr. Goebbels. That doesn't sound very credible, because after all, Defendant Fritsche was a close associate of Dr. Goebbels. Can you give us an explanation? Dr. Goebbels was the originator. During that famous night Dr. Goebbels was in Berlin. As far as I remember, just before that he had been to see the Fuehrer and he was still in Southern Germany. The conversation which you have just mentioned didn't take place until the middle of the war. It happened at Lancke, one of the apartments of the Minister, on the occasion of an invitation when Mr. Fritsche was also there. At the time someone asked the Minister quite directly about his connection with the atrocities, the outrages of November, 1938.
Thereupon, Dr. Goebbels said that the National Socialist economists had arrived at the conclusion that the elimination of Jewry from Germany's economy could not be carried out further.
Q Mr. Witness -- excuse me. That is enough. We have heard about it already today. Did Fritsche later on -- I believe it is supposed to have been in June, '44. -- talk to you about his general attitude toward the Jewish problem?
A In May or June, '44, I talked to Fritsche in his apartment about the fact that on the day of these outrages he had told me: "Von Schirmeister, can one still go on with this sort of thing as a decent human being? " And then he said to me: "You knew, admittedly, I have always been against the Jews, but only in the sense that some of the Jews were against themselves." And he quoted some Jewish newspapers, the very paper, I think -
Q That is enough, Mr. Witness. Then how did Fritsche's antiSemitic statements in various of his broadcasted speeches happen just the same?
A They had been ordered by the minister. From the English press we hadrecognized that there was a certain anti-Semitic current in Britain which was growing, but a law in England stopped this from appearing in the British Press. Now the minister tried to find a common factor against which our propaganda abroad could, be directed. This common factor was the Jew. now received orders that in Germany, too, he should touch upon this subject in some of his broadcasts.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think you will be in concluding the case of the de fendant Fritsche?
DR. FRITZ: I think three-quarters of an hour and no more, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, after that the Tribunal will continue the case of the defendant Bormann until 1:00 o'clock tomorrow.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 29 June 1946 at 1000 hours).
Official Transcript of the International Military 29 June M LJG 1-1
THE PRESIDENT: I will deal with the supplementary applications for documents. defendant von Neurath, and that has been dealt with.
The second was on behalf of the defendant Streicher. That was withdrawn. affidavit of former Fleet Judge Jakobs. That application is granted. von Neurath. These have been withdrawn. Rosenberg, are denied. been dealt with during the presentation of the defense on behalf of von Papen. granted. Goering, are subject to the possibility of agreement being reached upon the question of whether affidavits are to be presented or witnesses called, and therefore that application is postponed.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, before the Tribunal goes on with the business of the day, I should like to inform the Tribunal of the results of my inquiries as to outstanding witnesses and perhaps these could be supplemented by any of the learned counsel who can. your Lordship has just mentioned, of the defendant Goering, dealing with the question of Katyn.
29 June M LJG 1-2 three that the Tribunal allowed to be called for cross examination if desired in respect to the case of the defendant Kaltenbrunner. I have just had a word with Dr. Kaufmann and he says that he will not require the witnesses Tiefenbacher, Steinbauer and Strupp for cross examination. in the case of the defendant Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you get to that, Sir David, on the list that I have there was a witness called Strupp for Kaltenbrunner.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, may Lord, there are three, Tiefenbacher, Steinbauer, and Strupp. Dr. Kaufmann tells me he doesn't want these.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then you were speaking about the defendant Raeder.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, there is the question of Admiral Boehm. Dr. Siemers was going to let the Prosecution see an affidavit and I haven't seen it yet, but, my Lord, I don't anticipate that the Prosecution will require that witness unless the affidavit as in very different form from what I expect. the three for which application was undo by Dr. Fritz yesterday in the present case. The Tribunal is considering that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that, as far as I can see, is the full extent of the outstanding witness, unless I have missed some.
THEPRESIDENT: Was there an application for witnesses from the defendant Bormann on the 26th of June?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Well, I asked Bergold thismorning. He has only get one witness that he is calling he told me, who unfortunately is not here today.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am told he has now arrived.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, your Lordship's information is later than mine.
THEPRESIDENT: It has only this moment come through. Dr. Gergold wants to call now?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: So Dr. Bergold informed me this morning.
DR. BERGOLD: Only one witness has arrived, your Lordship. But I have to put in several more requests which have not been decided on and I cannot say whether these witnesses will actually be found. The Bormann case is characterized not only by the fact that the defendant cannot be found but almost all the witnesses cannot be found.
At today's session I should like to put a special application before the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Will you tell us exactly which witnesses you are referring to? Miss Christians.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kloepfer isthe witness who just arrived in Nurnberg.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, there is then the witnesses Kupfer and Rattenhuber.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Helmut Friedrich and the witness Christians has not been located.
DR. BERGOLD: No, he has not been found.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you wanting to call Miss Christians?
DR. BERGOLD: She has not arrived either. She was at Camp Oberursel and she received leave and she has disappeared.
It seems she has fled -- obviously she has fled.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got your application of 26 June or did you make application on 26 June?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I did make application.
THE PRESIDENT: Whom did you ask for then?
DR. BERGOLD: Just a minute, I have to consult my secretary.
SIR. DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Miss Christians and Dr. Helmut Friedrich.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Kloepfer and Friedrich.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, and Miss Christians, My Lord.
DR. BERGOLD: On the 26 June I applied for the witnesses Falkenhorst, Rattenhuber and Kempka. may have Dr. Kloepfer instead.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Kloepfer is the only one who has arrived, as I understand it.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, the only one who has arrived, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What I think the Tribunal wants to know is how many you want to call now and with reference to the others you had better withdraw them if you cannot find them.
DR. BERGOLD: Very well, Mr. President, I wanted to put an application for postponement. The witness Dr. Kloepfer has just now arrived. Up until this time I have not had a chance to talk with him and I consider it unsuitable to have him testify here for the first time because he has not been prepared, he does not know the document which has been presented by the Prosecution and I myself do not know whether he has knowledge of the things I want to question him about. Therefore, I should like to apply that the examination and presentation of this case Bormann be postponed until Monday so that I shall have the opportunity to talk with him, my only witness, and to discuss the case with him.
Mr. President, I do not even know whether I want to have the witness put on the witness stand for he may not want to make statements that are irrelevant for after all, it is not my fault that he has not been here and I would not have found him even today if it had not been for the very kind assistance of the American Prosecution.
Mr. President, a postponement of my case until Monday at ten would be quite in keeping so that I may prepare my case. been at my disposal. I have not been able to prepare my case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Bergold, you have had many months in which to prepare your case and the Tribunal has put the matter back for you already for a very long time and this witness is now here. You can see him immediately and the Tribunal thinks you ought to go on. You must have known that the case would come on in the same way every other case has come on in its proper place, subject to the license which has been allowed to you to have your case put back to the end and all your applications for witnesses and documents put back to the very latest possible moment and the witness is here and we still have some time to deal with the witnesses for Fritsche and documents.
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, it is quite correct I have had time at my disposal but if I do not have tin information andthe witness, I am asking the Tribunal to put themselves in my place, what do many months mean to me during which I cannot do anything and during which my hands were tied? Nobody could tell me where the witness Kloepfer could be found until the very last moment. In fifteen minutes I just cannot discuss the entire case with him andI am just asking for a very small postponement until Monday morning, and in that case just a very few hours would be lost. defendant who is not present.
THEPRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, the only thing you propose to prove by this witness is the alleged fact that the defendant Bormann is dead and any evidence he can give about that. That is what the application says.
DR. BERGOLD: No, Mr. President, that isa mistake. The witness Kloepfer will not testify as to that. He will testify as to the balance of the Indictment, as to the fact whether he is guilty or not and the fact as to the death of Kupfer, Christians and Rattenhuber, these witnesses will testify or can testify as to the death of the defendant.
But this witness can only testify as to the balance of the Indictment and the charges made against my defendant.
THE PRESIDENT : Where is the application for KLOEPFER ? Where is your applications ?
DR. BERGOLD : That is the application put in on 26 May.
THE PRESIDENT : Let me see it. Have you got it there ? Dr. Bergold, do you not have anything else at all in the way of documents or evidence that you can continue with without call this witness KLOEPFER.
DR. BERGOLD : Mt Lord, the things at my disposal are so small and meager and I do not know whether those things apply until after I have talked with the witness for up to this point I have been dealing with suppositions only. I have not been able to receive or obtain any effective data.
MR. DODD : Mr. President, I have an objection to any post-ponement for this case. As the Court has pointed out, Counsel has had months and he has had every cooperation from our office, both for his documents and for his seeking out of his witnesses, and if he would stop talking and go out and talk with his witness, who is here now, I think he might be prepared to go on with his case.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Bergold, the Tribunal will go on with the case against the defendant Fritsche now, and in the meantime, you will have an opportunity of seeing this witness Kloepfer, and if after seeing him, you wish to make further application, you may do so, but the Tribunal hopes that if you can ascertain what the nature of his evidence is that you will be able to go on with it. English your application for the witness Kloepfer, and a summary of it is that he was head of Section 3 in the Party Chancellory "and that he can deal with questions relating to constitution of law and elaboration of laws and that he is to testify that the activity of Bormann in the proclamation of laws and ordinances was an entirely subordinate one." That is the only reason why you allege that you want to call him in your application.
DR. BERGOLD : There is the possibility that the witness in actually really knows much more, for he was one of the important co-workers. I formulated and stated my application very gingerly.
THE PRESIDENT : Well, I have said what you can do with reference to Kloepfer and are you still asking to call a witness called Falkenhorst.
DR. BERGOLD : I can only decide on that after I have talked, with the witness Kloepfer, In all probability I shall forego the calling of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT : You heard what I said, Dr. Par gold. You can now see Dr. Kloepfer.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : My Lord, I only wanted the Tribunal to know that that was the position as to witnesses and when your Lordship asked me, I said that the process of finishing off witnesses might take two days. My Lord, subject to the Katyn witnesses, it might take much shorter than that, as I am at present advised.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes. And when shall we be informed what the position is with reference to the Katyn witnesses, as to whether there is an agreement as to using affidavits or calling witnesses ?
DIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : My Lord, I will make inquiries and try to let Your Lordship know at the end of the session.
THE PRESIDENT : I take it that we shall not be able to go into that this morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : I do not think so. Apart from that, there are certain outstanding interrogatories which Counsel for the Defense may want to refer the Tribunal to, but that is the only other matter I know. From the point of view of the Prosecution, there may be a few documents which will be put in more or less to clarify points that have arisen during the case, rather than formal evidence and rebuttal. They will be quite small in number and will not take any time.
THE PRESIDENT : Were there any documents on behalf of the defendant von Neurath which have to be dealt with ?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : My recollection is that there were one or two interrogatories, but apart from that I do not know of any others.
THE PRESIDENT : Perhaps those matters had better be gene into on Monday morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : If your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT : Well, the Tribunal hopes that Counsel for the defendants understand that the Tribunal will expect them to be prepared to go on with their speeches on behalf of the defendants directly the evidence is finished.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : My Lord, it is to try to give some indication of the time that I ventured to intervene this morning.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : As I understant it, the proposal is that Professor Jarries will make his general speech first.