Otherwise I could make the explanation myself, but I consider it better that the witness tell what I told him immediately after this incident.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that you may properly put the question to the witness -BY DR. DIX: time.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite sure now -
DR. DIX: Would you have the kindness to repeat it.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you hear now?
DR. DIX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite sure how what your question was, but the Tribunal thinks that you may put the question: Was there anything in connection with the incident which the witness has not already told us, which he wishes to say?
DR. DIX: Yes. The question relates to a conversation between the witness and myself. BY DR. DIX:
Q Mr. Witness, what did I tell you yesterday? colleague Dr. Stahmer did not wish to put undue pressure upon me and that the pressure would come from Goering. BY DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendants Hess and Frank):
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Dr. Seidl, are you attempting to reexamine?
DR. SEIDL: I wanted to put a single question.
THE PRESIDENT: I wasn't thinking of the time which you would take up, but the question of whether you wanted to be allowed to put any questions.
Yes, go on, Dr. Seidl. BY DR. SEIDL: intelligence service of a foreign power?
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): That is not a question which you ought to put to this witness in re-examination.
DR. SEIDL: But, Mr. President, it is a question that relates to the credibility of this witness, and if it should happen that it could be shown there this witness who is a citizen of the German Reich, or at least was a citizen of the German Reich, was within the intelligence service of a foreign power, that is a fact which is important and significant to the credibility of this witness.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should like to be heard, on that. In the first place, I don't think that this witness should be subjected to any attacks. In the second place, I respectfully submit that it does not militate against the credibility of the witness that he should have opposed this kind of an organization. I think that the attack upon the credibility this witness, if there were one to be made -- he is sworn on behalf of the defendants and is not the Prosecution's witness.
The attack is not timely, is not a proper attack, and the substance of it does not go to credibility.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will allow you to put the question. BY DR. SEIDL:
A Mr. Attorney, it is not at all necessary for you to remind me of my oath. I have said that I was never in the service of a foreign power. I was in the service of a good, clean German service.
Q During the war did any power at war with Germany submit to you or had you received funds from them?
Q Do you knew what the three letters OSS mean?
Q What do they stand for?
Q And you were not connected with that organization? of this organization.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions to put to the witness.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Dr. Kubuschok, representing von Papen.
THE PRESIDENT: I hope the defendants' counsel will remember that they have all had a free opportunity to cross-examine this witness already and have not.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The personality of Mr. von Papen was mentioned by the Chief American Prosecutor and therefore I could not ask before this time. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK: Chief American Prosecutor, that the defendant von Papen at any time protested. Of course, you did point out that somehow or other a written statement of von Papen's had not been directed to the Ministry of the Interior. assertion is to be limited only to the Ministry of the Interior. On page 133 of your book you pointed out that one of the chief activities of the defendant von Papen as vice-chancellor was to submit protests and he wrote protests and that he put those protests above all to von Hindenburg and Goering. today. Any protests by von Papen to the competent police minister after the 30th of June, 1934, is not known to me officially. I can only say it would have been an extra-ordinary support if a protest of that nature, describing the murders of the closest collaborator of von Papen had reached the Ministry of Interior.
Then this rumor about the suicide or tather the doubtful death of these two men would not have reached the public.
position of Frick, that is the rather small position of Frick, that protests should have been brought to a higher officer if such a possibility existed? could protest only to the higher officers, that is to the dictator himself of their own accord they destroyed the constitutional province of the Reich Ministers and the cabinet. It would have been of tremendous significance if Mr. von Papen at that time had used the formal way. in other questions as well sent many protests to the higher officials? an unfavorable characterization of the defendant von Papen. This character sketch coincides with the one you gave in your book. In your book you go into detailandupon these details you base your conclusions. your book and you had very little connection with him and no connection at all in your official capacity, you must surely have been relying upon the information of a third party in making your statement and the statements as far as they refer to von Papen are wrong and I refer to them briefly. of the 30th of June von Papen did not protest. But it is historically correct that von Papen, after the prohibition of his speech at Marburg, had protested and negotiations between Hitler and von Hindenbrug were to take place and that Hitler directly after von Papen's liberation on the 3rd of July again entered into this matter. Is it possible that this domestic problem was not known to you in its correctness? internal happenings but I would like to emphasize that a Minister or vicechancellor is obligated to assert publicly his opinion. I can say no matter what Schacht said to Hitler in private as far as his intentions and decisions were concerned, it was always possible for him in a masterly fashion to conceal his intentions and that is the important point.
the defendant von Papen some months before had a very bad experience when his own opinion as expressed in the speech at Marburg was not made public and that anyone who tried to dominate was to be punished? chancellor of the German Reich could be silenced in such a way. I do believe that the 30th of June would not have been as bloody as far as the citizenry was concerned if at the time the vice-chancellor von Papen had given a manly "no" and an obvious "no". von Papen because of what happened with reference to his speech, wanted to resign.
Point two: You make the assumption that von Papen took part in the cabinet session of the 3rd of July, in which the laws were made that measures in line with the 30th of June had been taken for the purposes of the state. Is it known to you that von Papen did not participate in this session; that he came into the Chancellery while the session was taking place? Hitler left the session and von Papen asked him to step into an anteroom; that he asked for his resignation; that he was granted this resignation; that von Papen immediately left the Chancellery without having participated at this session at all.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know whether it is possible for the witness to follow your questions but they are so long and contain so many statements of fact that it is very difficult for anybody else to; it is very difficult for the Tribunal to.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The nucleus of my question was that von Papen did not participate in the cabinet session on the 3rd of July.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, why do you not ask the witness whether he did participate or not? If that is the question you want to ask why don't you ask it?
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK: ory assertion in the book is to be traced back to an error in information because of a third party. the silence of Mr. von Papen and through the silence of von Papen I myself was misled as well as the German people.
Q Point three: You stated the fact that von Papen later on traveled to von Hindenburg and there did not protest sufficiently against the measures taken. Is it not known to you that von Papen tried everything within his power to reach von Hindenburg but that he was kept away from Hindenburg and that for the first time after the 30th of June he came to the estate of Hindenburg after the death of von Hindenburg? Can the contradictory assertion in your book be traced back to an error in information? could not reach the President of the Reich and that he remained in office nevertheless, even though there were foreign journalists, even though there was a diplomatic corps and sufficient German people who heard and saw, if you tell me all these things, then I would take cognizance of the behavior of the German Vice-Chancellor. had been without office.
Point four: You start with the premise that von Papen did participate--I would like to finish my question--did participate in justifying the measures of the 30th of June. Do you know that von Papen, despite the demands on Hitler's part, did not participate in that session? Could you be misinformed on that point?
Q No, this is a different matter; it is not a Cabinet session, it is a Reichstag session.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, it seems to me that the defense has had every opportunity to interrogate this witness. The defense have already examined this witness, and the witness was cross-examined by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks, at any rate, that it is perfectly able to manage its own proceedings without any interruptions of this sort. We can deal with Dr. Laternser when he makes his application to crossexamine.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I understand, Mr. President. I merely wanted to say that we would like to shorten the duration of the proceedings as much as possible.
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for the General Staff and the OKW): I have several questions which I would like to put to the witness, which result from the cross-examination to which he has been submitted, and I assume there is no objection to my questioning him.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you have a right to cross-examine him. BY DR. LATERNSER: prosecutor, you uttered the opinion that a putsch against the then existing regime would have been possible only in connection with or the workingtogether of the generals, but that the many persuasions which took place did not bring about a working-together. I would like to ask you, witness, with which generals did you personally speak about the intended putsch plans?
THE PRESIDENT: You aren't concerned with every general in the German Army; you are only concerned with those who are charged with being a criminal group.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Your question must be addressed to them, or with reference to them.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Mr. President. Then I ask that I may describe to the witness the circle of the OKW and of the General Staff so that he may be able to answer my question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can put to him, I think, whether he had contact with any members of the General Staff who are charged with being a criminal group. You know who the generals are.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes. I would like to make a preliminary remark to the witness and then put the question in that connection.
THE PRESIDENT: Now what is the question you want to put?
DR. LATERNSER: So that the witness can answer the question in the limits prescribed by the High Tribunal, I would like to give the witness a brief description about the circle of these people who actually belonged to this group, and ask him, in connection with that, with which of these people he talked personally in order to win them over for the putsch intentions of his group.
THE PRESIDENT: If you do it shortly. BY DR. LATERNSER: incumbents of certain offices, beginning with February of 1938 until May of 1938. These officers and ranks are as follows: The Commanders in Chief of the various branches-
THE PRESIDENT: You are not going through the whole lot, are you, 130 of them?
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, the series is rather brief. On the other hand, I cannot limit my question asis desired by the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know what you mean. What I said was, are you proposing to go through the whole 130 generals, or officers?
DR. LATERNSER: No, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, go on.
BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q In the group there are the incumbents of certain ranks and offices; briefly, those who, in the period of time from February 1938 until May 1945, were commanders in chief. Now, I would like to ask you, with which generals of this group did you speak personally? And I am referring to discussions with the intention of your gaining them for your side.
A You mean commanders in chief of group? neral Staff of the Wehrmacht.
Q One question, witness; did you speak with Field Marshal von Brauchitsch about the intention of a putsch against the regime or against the Gestapo only?
A I talked about both with him, yes. So far as both topics are concerned, he said "yes" and first, and then acted with "no". Kluge as well. I had known him for many years. I do not know at what period he entered into the category which I mentioned, but my connection with Kluge was never cut short. It may be that I talked with one or another which fall into your category. the intention of a putsch, and you would recall it if you had talked with another Field Marshal, say about this matter.
A It wasn't as large an event as all that, Mr. Attorney. Field Marshal weren't such important people.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser the fact that these generals were spoken to and refused to join a putsch is not a crime within the meaning of the Charter.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, yesterday I set forth that this point is very important because it would exclude the assumption of a conspiracy.
THE PRESIDENT: I am afraid, Dr. Laternser, it is no good answering me that a point is very important. What I asked you was, how is it relevant to show that these generals discussed a revolt against the regime? That, I am putting to you is not a crime within the meaning of the Charter.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, but so far as it would exclude the assertion of a cons piracy, the assertion put dorm by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: But does it preclude the possibility of a conspiracy, to make aggressive war? It has nothing to do with it.
DR. LATERNSER: That did not quite come through to me, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The question of a revolt against the regime in Germany is, it seems to me, not necessarily connected with the conspiracy to carry out aggressive war; therefore, anything which has got to do with a revolt against the regime in Germany is not relevant to the question which you have to deal with.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, a conspiracy is assumed in considering wars of attack, and a conspiracy would be excluded if the high military leaders would turn against the regime in such a dramatic form that the intention of a putsch would have been discussed and carried through.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal thinks the proper way of putt in the question, which they understand you want to put, is to ask which of the generals were prepared to join in a revolt. You may put that question.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, in order to clarify just how far the readiness was for the entire group, I must ask the witness with how many of this group he contacted and how many of those declared themselves ready to act with them.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you might put that to him--how many. Ask him how many.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, that was the question which I did wish to put.
THE PRESIDENT: I said you may put it.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, Mr. President. BY DR. LATERNSER:
Q Witness, with how many of this group did you speak about this matter? would like to say that it was more the mission of Beck and Oster and Canaris to talk with these gentlemen, rather than being my task. That which you may want to hear you will rather not hear from me, that is, as far as names are concerned. But I can abbreviate your question insofar that unfortunately very few leading generals showed their serious will to overthrow this system.
Q And, witness, that was the point I wanted to make with my question. As you testified just a little while ago, you talked with von Brauchitsch and Halder and with Witzleben, and Olbrecht did not belong to this group. You did speak with these three, then?
Q Regarding the putsch intentions?
A They all gave agreements. Only Witzleben stuck to his word.
Q Then he did participate in this putsch? on the 20th of July in the main came from the Wehrmacht, that is, from the generals and from the officers of the general staff, and that they had the intention to keep those who were initiated into this plot as small as possible?
A No, I did not say that exactly. What I aid say was--I would rather put it in this way--a putsch can be carried out in a terror regime only by the military, and in that respect it is true that these few generals were the bearers of the putsch, and the strong points on the 20th of July were among the broad front of the civilia who for years had fought for the generals and were continually disappointed by the And for that reason, only because the assurances and agreements made by the genera were broken again and again, we decided on the 20th of July to wait this once unti the generals had actually acted for once, in order not to make false hopes to many civilians.
That is how I meant my limitation of my statement. generals and civilians?
Q And the head of this group was, as you testified, Colonel General Beck? name of the General Staff and OKW. Now, I have a further question: Do you know of connections of these military leaders with the minister of finance Popitz, who had intentions for a putsch for the purpose of doing away with Hitler and is alleged to have dealt with Himmler? Do you know anything about that?
A Yes, that is true. Popitz made great efforts to win the generals to a putsch and an attempted assassination. I regret that I did not mention his name in time. He was one of the men also who, starting with 1938 or 1939, did everything in order to bring about the downfall of the regime.
Q Did you talk with minister von Popitz about that? had made connections with for this purpose? he was in connection with Halder and Brauchitsch, and the list of disappointments which came to von Popitz is not shorter than the list of disappointments which we had.
Q Did he himself mention disappointments?
A He was bitterly disappointed. The eternal disappointment was the topic of our conversation, and that was the difficulty we ran into in connection with the civilians.
Q But were there other possibilities for the doing away with?
A No. No other means of power ware at our disposal in Germany either constituti nally or legally. The generals were the only bearers of arms and were delegated as such by Hitler.
Because of this, it is not possible to make any other relations or connections. I regarded that after 1933 these attempts at striking were considered mutiny and would have been punished as such during the war, and I would like to call your attention to the many death sentences, which ran into the hundreds, which civilians received during the war.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that this matter has been fully covered and is really not relevant. You have already cross-examined this witness at some length before this, and the Tribunal does not wish to hear any further evidence on this subject in any further cross-examination.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I have already concluded. BY DR. LATERNSER:
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you said you had concluded?
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I must have been misunderstood. I have concluded those questions as far as the putsch intentions were concerned. I would like to pass on to another point now and put one question. I would like to ask the question about the Fritsch crisis and would like to ask him when he heard about the exact situation; when he transmitted the knowledge of the situation to high military leaders or had that knowledge transmitted to them.
THE PRESIDENT: But the Fritsch crisis has nothing to do with the charges against the High Command. The charges against the High Command are crimes under the Charter, and the Fritsch crisis has nothing whatever to do with that.
DR. LATERNSER: Then I will withdraw that question. BY DR. LATERNSER:
THE PRESIDENT: What are you going to put to him now?
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I would like to ask the witness now about some points which he made in response to the American prosecutor's question. I believe that some clarification is necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: The principle is not whether you think the clarification is necessary, but whetherthe Tribunal thinks it, and, therefore, the Tribunal wishes to know what points you wish to put to him.
DR. LATERNSER: Yes, indeed. In his testimony today the witness mentioned the fact that he had proof about murders in Poland and Russia. I wanted to ask him who had produced these reports and whether one report by Blaskowitz is known to him while he was commander in Poland; whether he made this report; so that it was to be reported and transmitted to his superiors, and that should be an important point. Blaskowitz is a member of the group which I represent. From the fact which is to be concluded that the members of this group were always against cruelty, if and when they received reports of these cruelties through official channels; therefore, I must determine whether these reports, activity of generals who belonged to this group which is accused.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: It seems to me, if I may surest, Your Honors, individual generals. We are dealing only with the group. If what counsel right to say that General Blaskowitz did defy this Nazi conspiracy. And if penalties for the acts which he stood up against. a misapprehension that this is the occasion to try each and every of the generals. We make no charge against them that they either did or did not have a putsch or a Fritsch affair. The Fritsch affair is only referred to here as fixing the time when the defendant Schacht became convinced that aggressive warfare was the purpose of the Nazi refine. The putsch is only introduced because in his defense Schacht says he tried to induce a putsch. It enters not at all into the case against the General Staff. And most of the General Staff who took any part in the putsch were hanged and I cannot see how it was or was not conducted. It seems that we are off the main track.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, I would like to define my position in response to this point.
If it is not admissible for me to ask about the demeanor of the members of this group and a point of such tremendous importance, High Tribunal.
It is absolutely necessary that I can follow these points, especially since I do not have any other evidence at my disposal, for I can consider and call a group criminals only if, for instance, the majority of the members of these groups actually committed crimes. I must be in a position to ask how Blaskowitz acted against murders and what position he took
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn to consider the matter.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Laternser, the Tribunal considers that the questions that you have been putting, if relevant at all, are only extremely remotely relevant, and they cannot allow the cross-examination to continue for any length of time or the time of the Tribunal to be wasted further. They think, and they rule, that you may put the question which they understand you desire to put in this form: The witness has spoken of reports which were received by the group of which he has spoken about atrocities in the East, and they think you may ask him who submitted those reports.
Q Witness, I would like you to answer this question: From whom did these reports emanate about murders in Poland and Russia? of the Polish capaign and on the basis of information received by his subordinate military offices, made. Beyond that, such reports to my knowledge were only made by the group Canaris Oster, but I would not like to asser that it is impossible that some one else had sent such reports.
Q What was the purpose of the report which Blaskowitz sent?
THE PRESIDENT: The report which one particular general sent does not tend to show that the group was either innocent or criminal.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, we have to find out what the attitude of that group was.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal think that the report of one general is not evidence as to the criminality of the whole group.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, is that question approved that I have asked for the purpose of that report?
THE PRESIDENT: No, the Tribunal is of the opinion that what was contained in that report is not admissible.
DR. LATERNSER: I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness may retire.
(The witness retired)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Pannenbecker, that concludes your case, does it?
DR. PANNENBECKER: The case of the defendant Frick is hereby concluded, with the exception of the answers on interrogatories which I have not yet received.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Counsel for the defendant Streicher, Dr. Marx. Go on.
DR. MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): With the permission of the Tribunal, Mr. President, I call now the defendant Julius Streicher as witness to the witness box.
JULIUS STREICHER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name?
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. MARX: of your career? description for the purpose of my defense.
THE PRESIDENT: You really ought to answer the questions that are put to you.
A My Defense Counsel could not say now What I desire to say. I would like to, ask permission to.
My Defense Counsel was not in a position to
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you understand that the Tribunal does not wish to have its time taken up with unnecessary matters.
It has no objection to your stating what is material or to your reading it if necessary. It hopes that you will be as brief as possible. guarantees to the defendants the right to speak freely and to have an undisturbed defense. a list with the names of the attorneys from which the defendants could choose a defendant's counsel.
Since the Munich attorney whom I had selected for Military Tribunal to put the Nurnberg attorney, Dr. Marx, at my disposal, expect as my Counsel to be attacked in public. Shortly thereafter, an attack in Berlin.
The International Military Tribunal felt itself compelled in Counsel of the express protection of the Military Tribunal. Tribunal, no doubt could remain about the fact that the Tribunal wished to see the defense of the defendants without any disturbance, a renewed attack occurred, this time by radio. The broadcaster said that among the That this terror occurred with the intention to intimidate the defendants' These terror attacks might have contributed or led to it -- that is my impression -- that my own counsel has refused to use a large number of pieces, of evidence which I considered important and to submit them to the Tribunal.