THE PRESIDENT: Then, for the purposes of the record, you had better read in the signature and the department at the bottom.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: The document is signed by H. Chapcott, Brigadier, Military Deputy, and is certified by Military Department, Judge Advocate General's Office, London, 25 September 1945.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, so far as the Russian Chief Prosecutor is concerned, does that conclude the case for the Prosecution?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes.
DR. NELTE (Counsel for the defendant Keitel): Mr. President, the report which the Prosecution has just read refers again to the documents which it has been said are attached to the report. In the appendix there are several documents listed upon which the report is based. I ask the Tribunal to decide whether the document USSR-430 would be acceptable without attaching the additional material which is definitely mentioned in the report, whether that document is relevant according to Article 21 of the Charter, and if it is not, I request that the Prosecution be asked to also give the appendix to the text.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, do you mean that you have only had the report made by the Brigadier and you haven't seen any part of the other evidence upon which the report proceeds?
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, the Tribunal, in a former case in this trial, once decided -
THE PRESIDENT: (interposing): Yes, but I didn't ask you what we had decided. I asked what you had received. Have you received from the Prosecution the whole of this document or only the report made by the Brigadier?
DR. NELTE: Only the report, without the appendix.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal certainly intended thatthe whole of the document should be furnished to defendant's counsel, and that must be done so that you may have all the documents before you.
DR. NELTE: Evidently that has not been done. In the appendix there was reference made to statements by Major General Westhoff and by Oberregierungs un Kriminalrat Wielen. I have not read either statement. They were not included in the report.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution must see that the whole of this documen is furnished to the defense counsel.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly, My Lord. I don't think the whole of it has been published, but if Dr. Nelte will let us know if he wants the whole of it, or a part, we will cooperate the best way we can. The last thing we desire is that he shouldn't have it. We want him to have everything he wants.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, will you inform the Tribunal whether the Prosecution has now concluded their case.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord. That is the conclusion of the case for the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then me will now proceed with the applications for witnesses and documents by the second four of the defendants, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank and Frick.
DR. KAUFFMANN (Counsel for the defendant Kaltenbrunner): The defendant Kaltenbrunner asks to call a number of witnesses which I will name now. First, Professor Dr. Burckhardt.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, if the Tribunal approves, we will adopt the same procedure as was done on the first four defendants. Meyer, the interrogatories were granted on the 15th of December and submitted on the 28th of January. The Prosecution suggested that they might be made more precise. The Prosecution has no objection to interrogatories in principle, and I am sure that there wouldn't be much difference between Dr. Kauffmann and the Prosecution as to the form. That applies to the first three witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: We are informed that none of these three witnesses have been located yet.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I respectfully agree, My Lord, That is the position of the Prosecution, that we have no objection in principle to these interrogatories, and if we can help the Court in any way to locate the witnesses, we should be glad to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: When were the interrogatories furnished to the Prosecution?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The 28th of January, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: And were the Prosecution's objections communicated to the defense counsel shortly afterwards, or when?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I'm sorry: I am afraid I haven't got that date, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Wouldn't the most sensible course be for the Prosecutio* to try to agree upon a suitable form of interrogatory whilst the General Secretary is prosecuting further inquiries to find the witnesses?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. Well, if Dr. Kauffmann will communicate with me, I have no doubt that we could agree on a form that would be mutually acceptable.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Therefore, I need not repeat the individual questions which I have mentioned in the interrogatory. I don't think that I have to repeat them now, do I?
THE PRESIDENT: No, certainly not.
DR. KAUFFMANN: The fourth witness is the former German Minister in Belgrade, Neubacher. At present he is in an internment camp, Oberursel, near Frankfurt, in American custody.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No objection to this witness.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Does the Tribunal want me to specify the evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if you would.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Neubacher will, in the opinion of the defendant Kaltenbrunner, be able to testify that the stopping of the persecution of Jews in October 1944, which was ordered by Hitler, really was done at the order of Kaltenbrunner or on the initiative of Kaltenbrunner. that Himmler had made the defendant the Chief of the Reichssicherbeitshauptamt and put him in charge of Officers 3 and 6. This seems to be an important point because so far the prosecution has always maintained -- and there is certain evidence for that that the defendant was also in a definite connection with Office No. 4, and this Neubacher is expected to clarify.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, if those are the questions which it is desired to interrogate Neubacher on, couldn't they be dealt with by interrogatories?
DR. KAUFFMANN: According to the information which I received from Kaltenbrunner, Kaltenbrunner stresses the personal presence of this witness for personal reasons. I believe that Kaltenbrunner considers this witness as one of his most Important witnesses, and he would like to see that this witness be called.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that.
DR. KAUFFMANN: The next witness is number 5, Wanneck, at present in American custody.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The prosecution suggests that the witness Wanneck is cumulative. According to Dr. Kauffmann's application, he is going to deal with the point that the defendant Kaltenbrunner was actually occupied mainly with the task of the intelligence service, and that he objected to persecution of the Jews. That is already covered by Neubacher, and it is also covered by the cross examination of the prosecutions's witness Schellenberg, who was the Chief of Amt 6, which Dr. Kauffmann has set out in his note on the witness Neubacher, number 4, as being one of the Intelligence Amts.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I leave it to the Tribunal whether this witness could be dealt with by an interrogatory, but I think the matter is essential. In a certain sense it is cumulative, but in some points it will go beyond that.
I agree with an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, do you think it would be unreasonable to administer an interrogatory?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord. Generally I make no objection to interrogatories at all. defendant Kaltenbrunner's adjutant, and as such the prosecution would not make any objection. But I think it would be convenient if I were to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the next six witnesses, number 6 to 11 inclusive, all deal with concentration camps, and numbers 6, 8, 9, and 11 deal with Mauthausen. I want to give Dr. Kauffmann warning that I shall ask for some selectivity amongst these six witnesses. one, but it will be reflected in objections to later witnesses.
DR. KAUFFMANN: The defendant, of course, considers it very important that the adjutant, who has served him for many years, who was present at every individual thing, be called. He knows also, for instance, that the broadcast to Fegelein, which is a matter of evidence for the prosecution, was not issued by Kaltenbrunner. He also knows that Kaltenbrunner, particularly in Theresienstadt, had made all preparations to see that this camp should be made accessible to the Red Cross. but they do shed some light -
THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking now of Scheidler?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes THE PRESIDENT:
Sir David, the Tribunal would like you to deal with the while of that group together, and then Dr. Kauffmann can answer what you say.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With pleasure, My Lord. secution. The situation as I have found it is that Dr. Kauffmann did cross examine the witness Ohlendorf on the defendant Kaltenbrunner's responsibility over concentration camps on the 3rd of January of this year, at page 2034 of the transcript. behalf of Kaltenbrunner by Dr. Kauffmann, would be the natural person to deal with that point. But, of course, if Dr. Kauffmann has any special point for the recalling of Ohlendorf, he will tell the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, if you had the opportunity of cross examining General Ohlendorf and actually availed yourself of the opportunity wasn't that the appropriate time for you to put any questions which you had on behalf of the defendant Kaltenbrunner?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, may I remind you that Kaltenbrunner was sick for over 12 weeks and that I had almost no information fromhim? At that time, in the session of the 2nd of January, it was told to me, by the Court, that I could confer with the witnesses at a later date -- because, as the Court will remember, I had made a motion to call them later -and then I was permitted to cross examine the witnesses later, at a date which I could name. in theabsence of Kaltenbrunner, I would like to be able to cross examine them at this time. I am prepared to forego the cross examination if I could talk to the witnesses before. Perhaps it will be unnecessary to call one or the other witness.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you mean by one or the other witness? Which is the other? Wisliceny?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Number 7, Ohlendorf; then number 11; Hoellriegel;
number 12, Wisliceny; number 14, Schellenberg. All these witnesses have been called here and have been examined here, and Kaltenbrunner was sick at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say about it, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should suggest that Dr. Kauffmann cross examine number 11, Hoellriegel, and number 12, Wisliceny, whom he has not cross examined so far. And then, if there is any special point which remains to be dealt with by the witness Ohlendorf, Dr. Kauffmann can make a special application to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the Tribunal would like to know what position you take about the Defendants' Counsel seeing these witnesses and discussing with them before they call them. I mean, there is a distinction between crossexamination when Defendants' Counsel cannot see them and calling them as their own witnesses when they can see them.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, the Prosecution feel that they ought simpl* to cross-examine witnesses that have been called by the Prosecution, unless there is very special circumstances. I think that Dr. Seidl showed special circumstances with regard to the case that he mentioned, of one witness in relation to the Defendant Hess. But as a general rule, the Prosecution submit that witnesses that they have called should be cross-examined without prior consultation.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Sir David, the Tribunal would like to know your view. Of course, we are not deciding the point now, but we should like to know your view as to whether it would be a proper course to allow the Defendants' Counsel to see the particular witness in the presence of a representativ of the Prosecution, because it may be that that would lead to a shortening of the proceeding, because the Defendants' Counsel might after that not wish to cross-examine the witness any further.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I am afraid that would require discussions with my colleague, on each particular witness. I am afraid I haven't covered that point. Witness 11 and 12 were called by my American colleagues and although I have the general position which I put before the Tribunal, I haven't discussed that point, but I shall be preased to discuss it with them and perhaps to inform the Tribunal later on in the day. a special witness that may come up.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Perhaps I may give a clarification. As to the witness Ohlendorf, I was told I could cross-examine him later and an agreement with the Prosecutor of the United States has already been made that I forego the cross-examination of Ohlendorf and under that condition I could agree to Ohlendorf already. I think it would be quite fair if I could do that with regard to other witnesses. That would mean that I forego the cross-examinati and be able to speak to them.
Maybe in one of the other cases this could be done.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite sure that I understand the view being put to you Dr. Kauffmann. The view is that when a witness is called on behalf of the Prosecution the Defendants' Counsel certainly have the right to crossexamine the qitness, not to see the witness beforehand, but only to crossexamine him. If on the other hand they are entitled to call that witness as their own, then they are entitled to see him beforehand, which is -
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, sir, that is exactly what I mean. But if I can speak to the witness beforehand, then the Court will understand, in the presence of a representative of the Prosecution, that I would like to avoid that, if if is possible, because the reasons which may be reasons for me to forego the calling of the witnesses would then be known to the Prosecution, I believe that everybody will understand that, and if seems to be fair.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution said that when the witness was called for the Prosecution the right of the Defendants is only to cross-examine. Can you help us further with respect to this group, Sir David.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Certainly with regard to Eigruber, No. 8, he is no longer in Nurnberg, and he is being held as a probable Defendant in the Case concerning Mauthausen Camp, which will be dealt with by a military court, and therefore the Prosecution suggests that in the circumstances, as he is one of this group dealing with concentration camps in general and Mauthausen in particular, he ought to be dealt with by interrogatories.
Then with regard to Hoettl, No. 9, he deals with two aspects of one point, that is, that Kaltenbrunnen on his own initiative ordered the surrender of the concentration camp of Mauthausen and that he took steps to induce Himmler to release people from concentration camps. These seem to be general points that again might be conveniently dealt with by interrogatories. point that Kaltenbrunner is alleged not to have given an order to destroy the concentration camp at Dachau and that he did not give an order to evacuate Dauchau. The Prosecution suggest that there ought also to be interrogatories.
objection to further cross-examination, and respectfully suggest to the Tribunal that he will be able to deal with the question of Mauthausen which is one of the main questions that this whole group of witnesses are called to deal with.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Maybe I can say something to that -
THE PRESIDENT: Are you in agreement with No. 12, in the same group?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: No. 12 is not in the same group, because he deals with the question of Kaltenbrunner's relations with Eichmann and with reports he received regarding the action against the Jews. We have no objection to this witness being called for cross-examination, as Dr. Kauffmann did not cross-examine him.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir. Dr. Kauffmann?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Concerning the witness Eigruber, No. 8, may I point out that this witness is here in Nurnberg. However, I agree that interrogatories should be sent. The subjects, it seems to me, are relevant. For what Eigruber is supposed to say is not more or less than the fact that the concentration camp, Mauthausen, was immediately supervised by Himmler through formed about any more deals concerning the camp of Mauthausen. Two witnesses-
THE PRESIDENT: You were in error in saying he was here in town. Sir David said he has been removed from Nurnberg for the purpose of trial by a military court. So perhaps you won't object to interrogatories in that case.
DR. KAUFFMANN: That's right. known that Kaltenbrunner is also accused of having participated in the conspiracy against the peace, and here I intend to prove that Kaltenbrunner since 1943 has conducted an active peace policy. An important name in this connection is Mr. Dulles. That is according to information received from Kaltenbrunner, they were confident that he was a friend of the late President Roosevelt. Mr. Dulles was in Switzerland and continuously, according to the information received from Kaltenbrunner, there were conversations in that direction. I believe that this subject is relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that you want Dr. Hoettl in person, not by way of interrogatories?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, if I may ask for that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Witness No. 10, Police General von Eberstein, is named to prove that the statement of another witness of the name of Gerdes is untrue. The Tribunal will probably remember that the Prosecution submitted an affidavit by a man named Gerdes who played an important role in Munich. He was a confidential friend of the former Gauleiter of Munich, and Gerdes says in that affidavit that Kaltenbrunner had given the order to bomb Dachau by airplanes and destroy it. Kaltenbrunner definitely denies that.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which could be clearly dealt with by interrogatories, whether or not Kaltenbrunner did give an order to destroy a concentration camp, or an order to evacuate Dachau. Surely those are matters which admit of proof.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I agree, your Honor.
by interrogatories.
Concerning the next witness, No. 11, the witness who has already been heard, Hoellriegel, there is the same problem, that is, whether I will be given the opportunity to speak to this witness before examining him. Kaltenbrunner denies that he has ever seen gas chambers.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, isn't No.11 really cumulative to No. 6, whom you particularly wanted to call?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, Mr. President, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Anyhow, the Tribunal will consider the question whether you ought to be given the right merely to cross-examine or to recall as your own witness, with reference to 11 and 12.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, sir.
May I say one more thing concerning the witness; No. 12? Eichmann, as is well know, is the man who directed the acts of extermination against the Jews and this action has been brought in connection with the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. Kaltenbrunner denies that. Therefore I consider Wisliceny a very relevant witness.
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes that group. What about the latter ones, Sir David? Are they in the same category?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Not quite, but I think it might be convenient if I deal with them.
Dr. Mildner, No. 13, is sought to testify that Kaltenbrunner did not authorize the chief of the Gestapo to sign orders for protective custody of internment, and I should reply that in view of the previous evidence, of Scheidler and No. 4, Neubacher, Dr. Meldner's evidence was cumulative and that interrogatories would suffice.
As to Schellenberg, No. 14, I have already said that the Prosecution make no objection to his recall for cross-examination.
Finally, Dr. Rainer. We do object to that request, because the object of his testimony, that Kaltenbrunner recommended to the Gauleiters of Austria not to oppose the advancing troops of the Western Powers and not to organize "werewolf" movements, is in our submission, irrelevant to the issues before this Tribunal.
DR. KAUFFMANN: The witness, Dr. Mildner, No. 13, is here in Nurnberg,
THE COURT: Yes. Dr. Kauffmann? in custody. For that reason I have asked to call this witness, because the witness has submitted an affidavit in which he charged Kaltenbrunner with certain things, and Kaltenbrunner denies them. And I do not believe that within these difficulties can be overcome within an interrogatory.
Now, I come to No. 14-
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Mildner had submitted an affidavit?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean -
DR. KAUFFMANN: In the Prosecution there is reference made to an affidavit by Dr. Mildner. I believe it was on the 3rd of January. The name of this witness was mentioned in connection with the accusations against Kaltenbrunner. That name is mentioned as one or the other of two affidavits -
THE PRESIDENT: But if the affidavit hasn't been produced to the Court, what have we got to do with it? We haven't seen it, at least in my recollection.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, sir.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I haven't been able to trace this affidavit of Dr. Mildner's. I don't remember it, but I will willingly check the reference that Dr. Kauffmann has given.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if the Prosecution can use the affidavit, then you would have no objection to the witness being called for crossexamination?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL_FYFE: Well, in general, no. The reason why I am rather surprised is what usually that point has been taken when it is sought to use the affidavit. The Defense Counsel involved has asked for the production of the witness, but I will have it looked into, this particular point; but ingeneral the Tribunal may take it that unless we put forward a special point, where an affidavit has been given and where we have not argued to the Court previously, it is a very good case for the THE PRESIDENT:
I didn't understand that Dr. Kauffmann was saying that witness being brought here, if it is convenient.
the affidavit had actually been put in by the Prosecution but there was some reference made to it. Is that right, Dr. Kauffmann?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Mr. President, in about ten seconds I can find out about it. I have the file here.
(here Dr. Kauffmann went through a file of papers.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann, perhaps we will give you an opportunity of looking that up. We will adjourn now for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
DR. KAUFFMANN: In the record of 2 January, the name of Mildner appeared, but not in the form of an affidavit; in the form of a letter which a third person had written, and this letter is named and the name of Mildner appears in this letter, not in an affidavit. I would, therefore, request that Mildner be interrogated in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: Fourteen.
DR. KAUFFMANN: We have already dealt with Number 14.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, you have already dealt with that? Very well, then, Fifteen.
DR. KAUFFMANN: That is the witness Rainer, who was a former gauleiter. In this case, I should request to hear this witness, who is in Nurnberg. The contents of this testimony seems important to me. In the Indictment there was nothing contrariwise mentioned toward Kaltenbrunner, but when we mention breaches of the peace, it seems important and relevant to me if a defendant tries to clear himself, and we should hear his witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Would an interrogatory satisfy you for that witness?
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR: KAUFFMANN: I have not submitted any documents, Mr. President. It is possible that in the course of time I will present affidavits which have not been presented by me because I have not been able to present them up to this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands, Dr. Kauffmann, that you wish to reserve to yourself the right to apply to put in documents at a later stage.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I request that permission.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider that and let you know when they make the order.
Yes, Dr. Thoma?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Thoma suggests that we deal with the document list.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On the first six documents, which are quotations from various books on philosophy the Prosecution submit that they are irrelevant to the question of the ideology propounded by the defendant Rosenberg, which the Prosecution make part of the case against him.
Of course, if the purpose is merely that Dr. Thoma would quote from such books in making his speech and if he would let us know the passages he wants to quote so they can be dealt with mechanically, we don't make any anticipatory objection. on philosophy. The Prosecution view with some dismay all these books being put in evidence and the Prosecutors having to read them.
I think I have made the position quite clear that if Dr. Thoma wishes to use them to illustrate the argument, and if he lets us know the passage, we make no general objection, but we object to them being put in as evidence, as not being relevant to the matters before the Court.
DR. THOMA (Counsel for the Defendant Rosenberg): I believe that only in an exhibition of the ideology before Rosenberg is brought in an impression of the spiritual need of the German people after the first world war, which had been lost, can be gained, and that only through the spiritual need of the people can we see how and why Rosenberg was of the opinion that his ideas would be or might be of help. Rosenberg's opinions and ideas are a phase of the ideological conceptions of the then current times; that is, that a number of philosophers of Germany and of the foreign countries preceded him, and I am especially concerned that I anticipate the objection that the ideology of Rosenberg was a degenerate and -- I must use the word -- dirty ideology, and I must refer to the gentlemen of the Prosecution, especially Mr. de Menthon, who was especially concerned with the ideology of National Socialism and dealt with the many ramifications of this ideology. I believe in such a way the French Revolution of 1789 is considered in the same light as something unpardonable.
It is considered as such by the neighboring countries and neighboring peoples. believe that Nazi ideology was by him mentioned as a special phase, and I believe that we should have the opportunity that his ideology was presented to the other countries at that time, and I would request that contemporary philosophers of that time should be heard, and I am especially interested in showing what other philosophers have said about Rosenberg, what they had to say about Living Space, and how these other philosophers felt on the same subject. These ideas are based on rational facts, and they should-not be considered as anti-scientific, even though they are considered as antihumanistic and disturbing to humanism. were treated by rational and empirical science, and it seems important to me that, in fact, in the political sphere of other countries, they were put into practice and used, and I would like to point to the United States and their immigration laws, which also discriminate against certain races and favor others.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understand Dr. Thoma, he wants to use the teachings of other philosophers as illustrations and argument. If he is going to quote from them, then all that the Prosecution asks is that he tell us which passages he is going to quote, but we suggest that it is not relevant for us to go into an examination of, say, M. Bergson's book as a matter of evidence.
It is a perfectly clear distinction, and I suggest that Dr. Thoma will be well able to develop the point which he has just put with the limitation which I have just suggested.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal would like to know what it is that you actually propose. Are you proposing to put in evidence certain passages from certain books and that the Tribunal should read them or are you simply asking for the production of books so that you may consult them, read them and then incorporate in your argument certain ideas which you may gather from the books?
DR. THOMA: I would request that the Tribunal take official notice of the contents of the books which I will cite. I will not read all these quotations, but I would ask the Tribunal to take official notice in a large scope and I would beg that the Tribunal would receive the quotations so that they would be able to get a clear idea of the ideological ideas especially the spiritual situation of the German people, as shown in these quotations.
THE PRESIDENT: But the books are not books of any legal authority. you can only cite, surely, to a court of international law books that are authorities on international law. You can, of course, collect ideas from other books which you can incorporate in your argument. You cannot cite them as authorities.
DR. THOMA: Through the fact that I submit the quotations by known philosophers who had similar ideas to Rosenberg's, I would like to prove that this ideology is to be considered in a serious vein, and I would also like to prove that those things which are considered detrimental in the ideology of Rosenberg, which are considered degenerate, are ramifications of this ideology, and in my opinion, it seems very important for the Tribunal to know the history of the philosophy, and that even in the best ideas -- and I point to the ideas of the French Revolution -- that a certain degeneracy, so to speak, may creep in, and this historical parallel I would like to co-relate with National Socialism and with the ideology of Rosenberg I also need these books to bring the following proof:
That Rosenberg was only concerned with the spiritual combat of ideology and religion, and that he was not in a position to prevent the brutal application in National Socialism of his ideology but his scientific basis was given a free rein and his theological opponents the Gestapo, was never called in his aid. He assumed that his popular ideas were not to be carried through or applied by force, but that every people should keep its own national character and identity and that only a mixture with allied races was permissible. He believed that this ideology was in the interest of the German people and of humanity and was to be consider as such, and I believe that the Tribunal should have the plastic background of the rise of National Socialism, and should take into consideration the spiritual condition of the time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the argument you have addressed to it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: with regard to the document number 7, that is excerpts from certain books, the first five are from Rosenberg's own works, and the last is a book by another author on Hitler.
Again I submit that if Dr. Thoma wants to support the theses contained in the first half of his note -- that "the defendant Rosenberg does not see individual and race, individual and community in contrast but represent the new romantical conception that the personality finds its perfection and its inner freedom by having the community or the racial spirit developed and represented within itself."
If Dr. Thoma will give any of the distracts from Rosenberg's works on which he bases that argument, then he can present them at whatever part of his case is convenient, and similarly, with regard to the specific points set out in the second part of his note, there again, if he will give the relevant extracts, they can be considered and their relevancy for the purpose of this Court dealt with when he introduces them in his presentation.
But again I take general objection to the fact that either the Court or the Prosecution should read all these works and treat them as evidence. I developed that in the previous document.
DR. THOMA: My Lord, when I quote Rosenberg's works and ask the Tribunal take official notice, I am in the fortunate position to prove just how the philosophy and ideology of Rosenberg is basicly different from the off-shoots which his ideology had to suffer and which he contradicted. I am in a position to show that it is definitely clear from his works that Rosenberg wanted the Fuehrer principle to be limited through a special counsel which was to have an advisory function. I am also able to show that the Myth of the Twentieth Century was a special personal work of Rosenberg's and was not accepted by Hitler personally. I am also able to show and prove that Rosenberg, according to his works, was not interested in a physical destruction of the Jews and, also on the basis of his works, he was not interested in a preparation for war and, also on the basis of his works, wanted to work toward a peaceful arbitration, especially among the four great powers of Europe. And I ask the Tribunal for the opportunity to show the real and true quotations from his works as material of probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal will consider the whole question of the Prosecution and the citation from these books.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Number 8, My Lord, falls in a rather different field. The first eleven documents seem to be books and writings containing Jewish views of an anti-national basis. The Prosecution reminds the Tribunal that the questions at issue are: Did the defendants as co-conspirat* embark in a policy of persecution of the Jews; secondly, did the defendants participate in the later manifestations of that policy, the deliberate extermination of the Jews? Within the submission of the Prosecution, it is remote and irrelevant to these important and terrible accusations that certain Jewish writings, spread over a period of years, contained matters which were not very palatable to christians.
DR. THOMA: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I would like to reply to this point. I am not interested in showing that the precedence of Nazism against the Jews was not that it was justified.