100% found this document useful (1 vote)
16 views

Where can buy Learn to Program with Python 3: A Step-by-Step Guide to Programming - 2nd ed 2nd Edition Irv Kalb ebook with cheap price

Programming

Uploaded by

gastansimida
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (1 vote)
16 views

Where can buy Learn to Program with Python 3: A Step-by-Step Guide to Programming - 2nd ed 2nd Edition Irv Kalb ebook with cheap price

Programming

Uploaded by

gastansimida
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 65

Download Full Version ebook - Visit ebookmeta.

com

Learn to Program with Python 3: A Step-by-Step


Guide to Programming - 2nd ed 2nd Edition Irv Kalb

https://ebookmeta.com/product/learn-to-program-with-
python-3-a-step-by-step-guide-to-programming-2nd-ed-2nd-
edition-irv-kalb/

OR CLICK HERE

DOWLOAD NOW

Discover More Ebook - Explore Now at ebookmeta.com


Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

Start reading on any device today!

Learn Python By Coding Video Games Intermediate A step by


step guide to coding in Python fast Patrick Felicia

https://ebookmeta.com/product/learn-python-by-coding-video-games-
intermediate-a-step-by-step-guide-to-coding-in-python-fast-patrick-
felicia/
ebookmeta.com

The Absolute Beginner's Guide to Python Programming: A


Step-by-Step Guide with Examples and Lab Exercises 1st
Edition Kevin Wilson
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-absolute-beginners-guide-to-python-
programming-a-step-by-step-guide-with-examples-and-lab-exercises-1st-
edition-kevin-wilson/
ebookmeta.com

A STEP BY STEP GUIDE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF MICROECONOMICS


2nd Edition Huntington-Klein

https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-step-by-step-guide-to-the-principles-
of-microeconomics-2nd-edition-huntington-klein/

ebookmeta.com

A Preface to Economic Democracy 1st Edition Robert A. Dahl

https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-preface-to-economic-democracy-1st-
edition-robert-a-dahl/

ebookmeta.com
History of medicine a scandalously short introduction
Third Edition Jacalyn Duffin

https://ebookmeta.com/product/history-of-medicine-a-scandalously-
short-introduction-third-edition-jacalyn-duffin/

ebookmeta.com

Karma Sutras: Leadership and Wisdom for Uncertain Times:


Leadership and Wisdom in Uncertain Times (SAGE IIM-
Kozhikode Series for New Managers) 1st Edition Debashis
Chatterjee
https://ebookmeta.com/product/karma-sutras-leadership-and-wisdom-for-
uncertain-times-leadership-and-wisdom-in-uncertain-times-sage-iim-
kozhikode-series-for-new-managers-1st-edition-debashis-chatterjee/
ebookmeta.com

Modern Arc Welding Technology 2nd Edition S. V. Nadkarni

https://ebookmeta.com/product/modern-arc-welding-technology-2nd-
edition-s-v-nadkarni/

ebookmeta.com

The Owner Dalvegan Dragons 1 1st Edition Xavier Neal

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-owner-dalvegan-dragons-1-1st-
edition-xavier-neal/

ebookmeta.com

Of the People 5th Edition Michael E. Mcgerr

https://ebookmeta.com/product/of-the-people-5th-edition-michael-e-
mcgerr/

ebookmeta.com
Laddering Unlocking the Potential of Consumer Behavior 1st
Edition Eric V Holtzclaw

https://ebookmeta.com/product/laddering-unlocking-the-potential-of-
consumer-behavior-1st-edition-eric-v-holtzclaw/

ebookmeta.com
Learn to

Program with

Python 3

A Step-by-Step Guide to Programming

Second Edition

Irv Kalb

Learn to Program

with Python 3

A Step-by-Step Guide

to Programming

Second Edition

Irv Kalb

Learn to Program with Python 3

Irv Kalb

Mountain View, California, USA

ISBN-13 (pbk): 978-1-4842-3878-3

ISBN-13 (electronic): 978-1-4842-3879-0

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-3879-0

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018954633

Copyright © 2018 by Irv Kalb

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the


Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned,
specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other
physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.

Trademarked names, logos, and images may appear in this book.


Rather than use a trademark symbol with every occurrence of a
trademarked name, logo, or image we use the names, logos, and
images only in an editorial fashion and to the benefit of the
trademark owner, with no intention of infringement of the
trademark.

The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service


marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is
not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not
they are subject to proprietary rights.

While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true
and accurate at the date of publication, neither the authors nor the
editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any
errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no
warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein.

Managing Director, Apress Media LLC: Welmoed Spahr

Acquisitions Editor: Todd Green

Development Editor: James Markham

Coordinating Editor: Jill Balzano

Cover designed by eStudioCalamar

Cover image designed by Freepik (www.freepik.com)

Distributed to the book trade worldwide by Springer


Science+Business Media New York, 233 Spring Street, 6th Floor,
New York, NY 10013. Phone 1-800-SPRINGER, fax (201) 348-4505,
e-mail [email protected], or visit
www.springeronline.com. Apress Media, LLC is a California LLC and
the sole member (owner) is Springer Science + Business Media
Finance Inc (SSBM Finance Inc). SSBM Finance Inc is a Delaware
corporation.

For information on translations, please e-mail [email protected], or


visit www.apress.com/

rights-permissions.

Apress titles may be purchased in bulk for academic, corporate, or


promotional use. eBook versions and licenses are also available for
most titles. For more information, reference our Print and eBook
Bulk Sales web page at www.apress.com/bulk-sales.

Any source code or other supplementary material referenced by the


author in this book is available to readers on GitHub via the book's
product page, located at www.apress.com/9781484238783. For
more detailed information, please visit www.apress.com/source-
code.

Printed on acid-free paper

This book is dedicated to the memory of my mother, Lorraine Kalb.

I started learning about programming when I was 16 years old,

at Columbia High School in Maplewood, New Jersey.

We were extremely fortunate to have a very early computer,

an IBM 1130, that students could use.

I remember learning the basics of the Fortran programming


language

and writing a simple program that would add two numbers together
and print the result. I was thrilled when I finally got my program to
work correctly. It was a rewarding feeling to be able to get this
huge, complicated machine to do exactly what I wanted it to do.

I clearly remember explaining to my mother that I wrote this

program that got the computer to add 9 and 5 and come up with an

answer of 14. She said that she didn’t need a computer to do that.

I tried to explain to her that getting the answer of 14 was not the

important part. What was important was that I had written a

program that would add any two numbers and print the result. She

still didn’t get it, but she was happy for me and very supportive.

Hopefully, through my explanations in this book, you will get it.

Table of Contents

About the Author


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������ xiii

About the Technical Reviewer


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������xv

Acknowledgments
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����xvii
Chapter 1: Getting Started
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������� 1

What Is Python?
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
2

Installing Python
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������������ 2

IDLE and the Python Shell


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���������������� 3

Hello World
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������� 4

Creating, Saving, and Running a Python


File�����������������������������
�������������������������������
��������������������� 6
IDLE on Multiple Platforms
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��������������� 8

Summary���������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��������������� 9

Chapter 2: Variables and Assignment Statements


�������������������������������
������������������ 11

A Sample Python Program


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������� 12

The Building Blocks of Programming


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���������������������������� 14

Four Types of Data


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������� 15

Integers
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����� 15

Floats
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��������� 15

Strings
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������� 16

Booleans
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���� 16

Examples of Data
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���������������������� 17

Form with Underlying Data


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������� 18
Variables
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��������� 19

Assignment Statements
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������� 24

Table of ConTenTs

Variable Names
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������������
27

Naming Convention
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������ 28

Keywords
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��� 29
Case Sensitivity
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������ 31

More Complicated Assignment Statements


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������ 32

Print Statements
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���������������������������� 33

Simple Math
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���� 35

Order of Operations
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������ 38

First Python Programs


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������� 39
Shorthand Naming Convention
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������ 41

Adding Comments
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������� 43

Full-Line Comment
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������� 43

Add a Comment After a Line of Code


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������������� 44

Multiline Comment
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������� 44

Whitespace
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����� 45
Errors
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������� 46

Syntax Error
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������������
46

Exception Error
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������� 48

Logic Error
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
� 49

Summary���������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������� 49

Chapter 3: Built-in Functions


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������� 51

Overview of Built-in Functions


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������� 51

Function Call
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��� 52

Arguments��������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������ 52

Results
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������ 53

Built-in type Function


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��������������������� 53

Getting Input from the User


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������ 55

Conversion Functions
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��������������������� 56

int Function
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
57

float Function
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���������������������������� 57

str Function
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������������
57

vi

Table of ConTenTs

First Real Programs


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������������� 58

Concatenation
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
� 61

Another Programming Exercise


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����� 62

Using Function Calls Inside Assignment Statements


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���� 63

Summary���������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������� 65

Chapter 4: User-Defined Functions


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������� 67

A Recipe as an Analogy for Building Software


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������� 68
Ingredients
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
68

Directions
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�� 68

Definition of a Function
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������ 71

Building Our First Function


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������ 72

Calling a User-Defined Function


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����� 73

Receiving Data in a User-Defined Function: Parameters


�������������������������������
����������������������������� 76
Building User-Defined Functions with Parameters
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������� 78

Building a Simple Function That Does Addition


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������ 81

Building a Function to Calculate an Average


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������� 81

Returning a Value from a Function: The return Statement


�������������������������������
��������������������������� 82

Returning No Value: None


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������� 84

Returning More Than One Value


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����� 85

Specific and General Variable Names in Calls and Functions


�������������������������������
���������������������� 86

Temperature Conversion Functions


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������������
88

Placement of Functions in a Python File


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������������� 89

Never Write Multiple Copies of the Same Code


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������ 90

Constants
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������� 91

Scope
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������� 93

Global Variables and Local Variables with the Same Names


�������������������������������
����������������������� 97

Finding Errors in Functions: Traceback


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������� 98
Summary���������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������� 101

vii

Table of ConTenTs

Chapter 5: if, else, and elif Statements


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��� 103

Flowcharting
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
� 104

The if Statement
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������� 107

Comparison Operators
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������� 109

Examples of if Statements
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������� 109

Nested if Statement
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��������������������� 111

The else Statement


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���������������������� 111

Using if/else Inside a Function


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����� 114

The elif Statement


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������ 115

Using Many elif Statements


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��������� 118

A Grading Program
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������������� 120

A Small Sample Program: Absolute Value


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������� 120

Programming Challenges
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������� 123

Negative, Positive, Zero


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���������� 123

isSquare
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�� 125

isEven
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������ 128

isRectangle
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������������������� 130

Conditional Logic
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������� 132

The Logical not Operator


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������� 132

The Logical and Operator


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������� 133

The Logical or Operator


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���������������� 135

Precedence of Comparison and Logical Operators


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����� 136

Booleans in if Statements
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������ 136
Program to Calculate Shipping
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���� 137

Summary���������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������� 141

Chapter 6: Loops
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������ 143

User’s View of the Game


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������� 144

Loops
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������ 145

The while Statement


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������� 147
First Loop in a Real Program
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������� 150

viii

Table of ConTenTs

Increment and Decrement


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������� 151

Running a Program Multiple Times


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������������������� 152

Python’s Built-in Packages


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���������� 154

Generating a Random Number


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����� 155

Simulation of Flipping a Coin


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������� 157

Other Examples of Using Random Numbers


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��������������� 158

Creating an Infinite Loop


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������� 160

A New Style of Building a Loop: while True, and break


�������������������������������
������������������������������
160

Asking If the User Wants to Repeat: the Empty String


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
163

Pseudocode��������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������� 164

Building the Guess the Number Program


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������� 164

Playing a Game Multiple Times


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���� 171

Error Detection with try/except


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���� 173

The continue Statement


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��������������� 175

Full Game
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������ 176

Building Error-Checking Utility Functions


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������� 178

Coding Challenge
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������� 179

Summary���������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������� 181

Chapter 7:
Lists�����������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���������� 183

Collections of Data
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������������� 184

Lists
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������� 185

Elements
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������� 185

Python Syntax for a List


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��������������� 186

Empty List
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����� 187

Position of an Element in a List: Index


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������ 187

Accessing an Element in a List


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
���� 189

Using a Variable or Expression as an Index in a List


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��� 190

Changing a Value in a List


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������ 192

Using Negative Indices


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������� 192

Building a Simple Mad Libs Game


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������������������
193

ix

Table of ConTenTs

Adding a List to Our Mad Libs Game


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
��������������������������� 195

Determining the Number of Elements in a List: The len Function


�������������������������������
�������������� 196

Programming Challenge 1
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������� 198

Using a List Argument with a Function


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
����������������������� 200

Accessing All Elements of a List: Iteration


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������������������ 203

for Statements and for Loops


�������������������������������
�������������������������������
�������������������������������
������ 204
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
were employed, and the witness did not even inform the defendant
of this subject; and that Dr. Rascher, on assuming his activity in
Dachau, withdrew from the Luftwaffe and joined the SS as a
surgeon.
Clearly evidence on that point may be relevant. We have no
objection to the witness being called.
It is the position with regard to the first witness, Dr. Von
Ondarza, that he is not located. The Tribunal ordered that he should
be alerted on 26 January. Field Marshal Milch is in the prison. Again I
should have thought that in these circumstances we would make no
objection to Field Marshal Milch being called on this point, and if the
surgeon, Von Ondarza can be located, then I shall agree to
interrogatories, but I don’t feel very. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be agreeable to you, Dr. Stahmer, if
we were to grant the application to call Field Marshal Milch on this
point and were to allow an interrogatory for the other witness when
he has been located?
DR. STAHMER: I have also examined the question whether the
evidence would be cumulative. That is not the case. The evidence to
be offered by Milch is slightly different, and the Defendant Göring
considers it important to have Ondarza as a witness because Dr.
Ondarza was his physician for many years and therefore is well
informed, and he is furthermore to tell us that the Defendant Göring
did not know anything about the experiments which were made with
these 500 brains. That is not yet in my application, but I have just
found out about that. There was a long deposition which was
submitted by the Prosecution concerning these 500 brains. I
protested against that at the time and I was told that I should make
this objection at a specified time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider what you
say upon that. You can turn now to Körner.
DR. STAHMER: State Secretary Paul Körner, who is here in
Nuremberg in the courthouse prison. . .
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: There is no objection on the part of
the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, in our documents it is stated that
the suggested witness Paul Körner is not located, but in the
document of your application you say that he is in the Nuremberg
prison.
DR. STAHMER: I did receive that information at one time. At this
moment I cannot say where my information comes from.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am afraid I do not know, but I
could easily find out for the Tribunal. I will ask if the matter can be
checked.
THE PRESIDENT: If you would, yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I have just been given a roster
of internees on the 19th of February and he does not appear to be
in that list.
THE PRESIDENT: In the Nuremberg prison?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the information that I had.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you go on about this evidence, Dr.
Stahmer?
DR. STAHMER: Körner was a state secretary since 1933 and he
can testify about the purpose behind the establishment of
concentration camps in 1933, about the treatment of the people
imprisoned there, and that Göring was in charge of these camps
only until 1934. He can also testify about the measures and
regulations, the purpose and aim of the Four Year Plan, and also
about the attitude of the defendant after he had been informed in
November 1938, about the anti-Jewish incidents.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will consider that.
DR. STAHMER: Dr. Lohse, art historian, either in an English or an
American camp.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My information, My Lord, is that
interrogatories were allowed on the 9th of February. They have not
yet been submitted, and the witness is not yet located. I have no
objection to interrogatories with regard to Dr. Lohse or the next
witness, Dr. Bunjes, who deals with the same point.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. STAHMER: Also the testimony of the witness Lohse seems to
me important—considering the weight of the accusations which have
been made here against the defendant—so important that I ask to
hear him as witness here before this Tribunal. The question is a very
short one: He is to testify as to what the defendant’s attitude was
toward the acquisition of art objects in the occupied territories. That
is, to be sure, a very short subject, but for the judgment of the
defendant it is extremely important; and the accusation made by the
Prosecution in this respect is extremely serious.
THE PRESIDENT: You are dealing now with Dr. Bunjes?
DR. STAHMER: No, still with Lohse.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal; the
interrogatories apparently seemed a suitable method to the Tribunal,
and the Prosecution respectfully submits that we should see what Dr.
Lohse can say in answer to the interrogatories, and then Dr. Stahmer
can, if necessary, renew the application.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, is there anything you want to say about
Dr. Bunjes?
DR. STAHMER: The last witness is Dr. Bunjes, the art historian.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He seems to be, My Lord, in exactly
the same position as Dr. Lohse, and I do not think I need repeat
what I said.
THE PRESIDENT: Except that he may be located. I do not know
where he is.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I think this is the first reference
to Dr. Bunjes, and therefore we have not been able to find out
whether he can be located or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, perhaps Dr. Stahmer knows.
DR. STAHMER: I am told just now that Dr. Lohse is in the camp
at Hersbruck. That is here in the vicinity of Nuremberg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, I shall have inquiries made
about him.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bunjes—do you know where he can be
located?
DR. STAHMER: No; his home is in Trier, but whether he is there I
do not know.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well, that concludes your witnesses,
does it not?
DR. STAHMER: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Are those all the witnesses that you are
applying for?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: As far as you know, is that your final list?
DR. STAHMER: I cannot yet foresee how far the Prosecution,
which has not finished the presentation of its case, will make it
necessary for me to make further applications.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we consider your documents the
Tribunal will adjourn.
[A recess was taken.]

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we can deal with the documents more


as a whole. Have you anything to say about them?
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, may I make a statement
concerning the two witnesses, Koller and Körner? I was just told that
Koller was Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and Körner a lower staff
officer. Both were repeatedly questioned by the occupying forces.
This indication may make it easier and more possible to locate the
witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I will note that point and, of course,
we will do our best to help in locating them.
THE PRESIDENT: Which two witnesses are those?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Koller and Körner. They are both
witnesses to whom I made no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It might be convenient, if the
Tribunal please, if I were to explain the general position of the
Prosecution with regard to the documents, and then Dr. Stahmer
could deal with these points because they fall into certain groups
which I can indicate quite shortly. There are three documents which
are not in evidence, but to which there is no objection: Number 19,
the Anglo-German Naval Agreement. That is a treaty, of course, and
the Court can take judicial cognizance of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And the Constitution of the German
Reich, the Weimar Constitution of 11 August 1919. Again I shall
assume the Court will take judicial cognizance of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And Number 30, Hitler’s speech of
21 May 1935.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Then there are a number which are
already in evidence as far as I know:
Number 4, the Rhine Pact of Locarno; Number 5, the
Memorandum to the Locarno Powers of the 25th of May 1935;
Number 6, Memorandum to the Locarno Powers of the 7th of March
1936; Number 9, the Treaty of Versailles; Number 17, the speech by
the Defendant Von Neurath, of 16 October 1933; Number 18, the
proclamation by the Reich Government, of the 16th of March 1935.
And then Number 7 was referred to but not read. That is the speech
by the Defendant Von Ribbentrop before the League of Nations on
the 19th of March 1936. All these are in or have been referred to
and, therefore, there is no objection as far as they are concerned.
Then we come to a series of books. Dr. Stahmer has at the
moment referred to the whole book: Number 1, the late Lord
Rothermere’s book, Warnings and Prophecies; Number 2, the late Sir
Nevile Henderson’s Failure of a Mission; Number 3, the references to
a number of years of the Dokumente der Deutschen Politik.
THE PRESIDENT: Those appear to be repeated, don’t they, in the
ones that follow or some of them? Six and seven, for instance, are
taken from those volumes, aren’t they, of the Deutschen Politik?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, apparently they are, My Lord. If
I might just give Your Lordship the others so that you have the
group together:
Number 8, Mr. Fay’s book on the Origin of the World War, the
first World War; Number 20, Mr. Winston Churchill’s book, Step by
Step; Number 24, the Defendant Göring’s book, Building up a
Nation; Number 26, to which I have already referred, is Mr. Dahlerus’
book, The Last Attempt.
With regard to these, there are two points: First of all, it is
mechanically impossible to translate the whole of these books into
Russian and French. I think most of them are in English already;
secondly, the relevancy of the book cannot be decided until we see
the extract which Dr. Stahmer is going to use. So the Prosecution
submits that Dr. Stahmer should at the earliest opportunity let us
know what are the extracts on which he relies so that they can be
translated and we can decide as to whether they are relevant or not.
Now the fourth category of books or documents, where either
the issue is not clear or insofar as it is clear, it is obviously irrelevant.
One to which I have already referred comes into this:
Number 8, Fay on The Origin of the First World War. Number 10,
speech by President Wilson, of 8 January 1918—that is the 14-point
speech; Number 11, the note of President Wilson, of 5 November
1918—that is the Armistice note; Number 12, a speech by M. Paul
Boncour, of 8 April 1927; Number 13, a speech by General Bliss in
Philadelphia, which is before 1921, because it is quoted in What
Really Happened at Paris, published in 1921; Number 14, a speech
by the late Lord Lloyd George of 7 November 1927; Number 15, an
article by Lord Cecil, on the 1st of March 1924, and another on the
18th of November 1926; Number 16, Lord Lloyd George’s
memorandum for the peace conference of 25 March 1919.
May I pause there. As far as the Prosecution can judge, the only
relevancy of these books and documents is to the issue of whether
the Treaty of Versailles accorded with the 14 Points of President
Wilson. The Prosecution submits that that is poles removed from the
issues of this Trial and is just one of the matters against which the
whole intendment of the Charter proceeds and which should not be
gone into by this Court. It may be that I am wrong, or so it seems,
difficult, in view of the collection of documents, to suppose that
there is another issue, but it may be, and I put it in this way, that Dr.
Stahmer ought to indicate quite clearly what is the issue to which
these documents are directed and, where the document is long, to
indicate what extract he refers to. But if the issue be that that I have
referred to, then in the submission of the Prosecution—I speak for
all my colleagues—we submit that it is a completely irrelevant
matter.
I am sorry; I should have included in that same category Number
21 and 22, which are two letters of General Smuts in 1919. They
ought to be added.
Then I have already dealt with Number 20, Mr. Churchill’s book.
Apart from the question of extracts, again the Prosecution submits
that it ought to be made clear what is the issue for which that book
has been quoted.
Number 23 is a missive of M. Tchitcherin, stated to be the
Foreign Commissar of the U.S.S.R., to Professor Ludwig Stein. Again
the Prosecution has not the slightest idea as to what is the issue to
which that is directed.
The Defendant Göring’s book, I have already dealt with, and I
ask that we should get extracts. Number 28, General Fuller’s book
on Total War or an essay on Total War—again the Prosecution does
not know the issue at which it is directed.
Then my fifth category, Number 27, which is the White Books of
the German Foreign Office.
And I draw attention to Number 4, document to the Anglo-France
policy of extending the war; Number 5, further document as to the
western policy of extending the war; Number 6 are secret files of the
French General Staff; Number 29, documentations and reports of the
German Foreign Office regarding breaches of the Hague regulations
for land warfare and Crimes against Humanity committed by the
powers at war with the German Reich. These last documents seem
to raise quite clearly the issues of tu quoque: If the Reich committed
breaches of the laws and usages of war, other people did the same
thing. The submission of the Prosecution is that that is entirely
irrelevant. The standard is laid down by the conventions and it is no
answer, even if it were true that someone else had committed
breaches. But, of course, there is the additional reason, that it would
be quite impracticable and intolerable if this Tribunal were to embark
on the further task of investigating every allegation, however
tenuously founded, that some one else had not maintained these
conventions.
It is in the submission of the Prosecution—again I speak for all
my colleagues—a matter which is completely irrelevant; and
therefore we object to any evidence, whether oral or documentary,
intended on that point. Of course, we all along have taken the view
that we have no objection to the Defense Counsel having access to
these documents in order to use them for refreshing their memory
as to the background, but we object to their introduction in evidence
for the reasons that I have given.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Stahmer, perhaps you could say in the
first instance whether you agree, that so far as the books are
concerned that you would be willing to provide the extracts upon
which you rely? You cannot expect the Prosecution or the Tribunal to
get the whole books translated.
DR. STAHMER: This was also not my intention, and I believe that
I prefaced my list of documents with a remark in which, under
Number 2 I had pointed out, and had declared myself willing to
specify the quotations. To that extent, of course, the objection in
itself is in order.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Another topic the Prosecution has attacked is the
books which I have cited, and which refer to the Treaty of Versailles.
Here also I will state specifically to what extent I wish to use
quotations from these books. As a matter of principle, however, the
Defense must be granted the right to present its point of view in this
matter, since after all. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, all these books which Sir David
referred to, of which the Tribunal will take judicial notice, of course,
you can make comment upon them if you wish, as on any document
of which the Tribunal takes judicial notice.
[There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges
conferred.]
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I thought you were referring to the Treaty
of Versailles.
DR. STAHMER: No; with the literature concerning the Treaty of
Versailles.
THE PRESIDENT: You are now dealing with the ones which Sir
David itemized as follows: 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 22?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STAHMER: Since an essential accusation made by the
Prosecution is that the defendants violated the Treaty of Versailles,
the Defense naturally has to take a stand relative to the question as
to whether and to what extent the breach of the treaty took place
and whether and to what extent that treaty was still valid. To that
extent, at least, the books and dissertations which deal with these
questions are important. I believe that an understanding of this
question in detail can be reached only after I have submitted the
quotations, and that will take place at the beginning of the
presentation of testimony. I have not been able to accomplish the
work.
THE PRESIDENT: Aren’t you confusing the question of validity
with the question of justice?
DR. STAHMER: No, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. STAHMER: I believe that in this sphere also the Defense is
justified in demanding the presentation of the White Books, because
the contents of these White Books will, to a great extent, be of
importance in the question of the war of aggression; and to that
extent also a reference to these books has significance. Here also, I
believe, it will only be possible to make a decision after the individual
quotations from these White Books have been read.
Furthermore, the presentation of the reports concerning the
breaches of the Hague Convention has been demanded. I believe
that this motion cannot be rejected with the remark that it is not
concerned with the question whether such breaches were committed
on the other side too. This fact, in my opinion, is of importance in
two ways. First of all, to reach a just decision one has to make sure
whether the conduct on the other side was really correct and beyond
reproach and it is furthermore of importance because it involves the
question of whether the defendants were not resorting to retaliatory
measures.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have dealt with each topic with the
exception of Numbers 20, 23, and 28. Number 20 is Mr. Winston
Churchill’s book; 23 is Tchitcherin’s, and 28 is General Fuller’s book.
We will take those.
DR. STAHMER: Book Number 20, Churchill’s Step by Step—here
we are concerned with statements in which Churchill at one point
expresses his opinion as to whether England, by the Naval Treaty of
1935, had not sanctioned Germany’s renunciation of the Versailles
Treaty.
Furthermore, this book is of importance as far as I can see it
now, in evaluating the extent to which England rearmed, and finally
at various points in that book there are references to Hitler’s
personality.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I say with the greatest respect to Dr.
Stahmer that he has reinforced my point, that if Dr. Stahmer is
putting forward the thesis that in order to reach a proper decision on
the matters before the Tribunal it is necessary to investigate whether
other belligerents have committed breaches of conventions, then, as
I say, I join issue with him in toto. I cannot add to the matter. But
with regard to Mr. Churchill, Dr. Stahmer makes three points; one,
that some passages in the book give color to the idea that by the
naval agreement the validity of the Versailles Treaty was affected.
That is a point to which there are obviously many answers, including
the facts that France was a party to the treaty and the United States
was a party to a treaty in the same terms. But clearly Mr. Churchill’s
view expressed in a book, as to the legal effect of one treaty or
another, is in my submission irrelevant.
Equally irrelevant is the British rearmament and the personality of
Mr. Churchill himself. And I respectfully submit, without going into
detail, that Dr. Stahmer has, by his examples, confirmed the
argument that these matters are irrelevant to the issues before the
Court. I do not wish to say more.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal would like to know if
you would go back from this question, or if you like, deal with
anything you have to say about Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe’s
observations about Mr. Churchill’s book. If you prefer to do that, do
that now.
But afterwards, and before you finish your argument upon these
documents, the Tribunal would like to hear you somewhat further
about Document 8 and following up to 22, in order that you should
develop your argument as to how those documents can be relevant.
For instance, Document 10 and Document 11, the speeches and
notes of President Wilson. How can such documents as that have
any bearing upon this Trial or indeed upon the validity of the Treaty
of Versailles? But take it in your own order.
DR. STAHMER: These speeches form the foundation of the
Versailles Treaty and they are significant therefore for the
interpretation of the treaty. Consequently it is important to refer to
the speeches, in order to judge the contents of the treaty and the
question whether Germany rightfully or wrongly renounced the
treaty, that is, whether thereby a breach of the treaty took place, or
whether the treaty actually gave Germany the right to withdraw.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you wish to say about that?
DR. STAHMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you wish to say anything further
about Number 20, 23, or 28?
DR. STAHMER: I have spoken about 20. Number 23 refers to the
same questions regarding the interpretation and the contents of the
treaty.
THE PRESIDENT: The statement by the Foreign Commissar of the
U.S.S.R. in 1924. . . . Very well, you say that it is relevant on the
interpretation of the Treaty of Versailles. And General Fuller’s
book. . .
DR. STAHMER: General Fuller also refers in this speech to the
personality of Hitler and to the question of rearmament.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that concludes them.
[There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges
conferred.]
The Tribunal will consider their decision upon your witnesses and
upon your documents. Have you anything further to say upon it?
DR. STAHMER: No.
[Professor Dr. Franz Exner approached the lectern.]
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Exner?
PROFESSOR DR. FRANZ EXNER (Counsel for Defendant Jodl):
May it please the Court, I take the liberty of adding something for
the specific reason that there is danger that evidence may be
refused which is of crucial importance for my client also. It concerns
evidence which will show that War Crimes and violations of
international law were committed by the other side too. The
Prosecutor has said that this is irrelevant as far as we are concerned
here in this Trial. The Defense certainly does not think of making
defendants of the prosecutors, but this point is certainly not
irrelevant, specifically because:
First, it has to do with the concept of retaliation in international
law. Retaliation justifies an action, which under normal
circumstances would be illegal. That is to say, retaliation then has
this significance when the individual action is the answer to a
violation of international law committed by the other side. If,
therefore one wants to justify one’s own action from the point of
view of retaliation—one can only do so by proving that violations of
law have preceded it on the other side.
Secondly, I want to add an important point. It is well known that
this war in the beginning was conducted relatively humanely and. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, you will forgive me, the argument
which you are presenting to us was fully developed by Dr. Stahmer
and will, of course, be fully considered by the Tribunal.
[There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges
conferred.]
THE PRESIDENT: Would you continue then, Dr. Exner?
DR. EXNER: The second point is the following: It is well known
that at the beginning of this war international law was respected on
both sides and that the war was conducted humanely. It was only in
the second phase of the war that a terrible bitterness among the
fighting powers developed and on both sides things occurred which
international law cannot sanction. In my opinion, it is entirely
important in the judgment of a crime, whatever crime that may be,
to consider the motive. If one does not know the motive of the
action, one cannot judge the action itself. And the bitterness which
was started, purely psychologically, by the manner in which the war
was conducted on one side and on the other, was the motive for
actions which normally cannot be justified.
I therefore ask the Tribunal to consider carefully before this
evidence is declared irrelevant.
[There was a pause in the proceedings while the Judges
conferred.]
DR. SIEMERS: I should like to mention a matter of principle with
reference to the manner in which the relevancy of evidence is being
discussed. If I understand the Tribunal correctly, then we should talk
today about the relevancy of those witnesses and documents which
are still to be brought here. That was exactly what was stated in the
Tribunal’s decision of 18 February.
Now, however, the Prosecution has brought the discussion round
to documents which we already have in our hands. I ask the Tribunal
to understand me correctly if I protest unequivocally to this. In no
case was it possible to discuss the relevancy of the Prosecution’s
documents weeks before they were presented. If I have documents
in my possession, as is the case with most of the documents about
which we have spoken, then, as defendant’s counsel, I must be able
to submit these documents without the consent of the Prosecution.
Sir David has said that the relevancy of books which are here in
the building is to be examined after we have presented the extracts,
and then the Prosecution will decide whether they are relevant. Sir
David has also said that numerous books which are here are not
relevant. If this motion by the Prosecution is granted, then that is an
extraordinary limitation of the Defense which I cannot accept
without protest.
The Prosecution was permitted to submit documents. The Court
has declared that each letter and each document could be presented
and therefore I do not understand why we are now arguing about
the relevancy of documents which are at hand, since, in my opinion,
the Court has already said that we will argue only about the
relevancy of documents which are still missing.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought that on behalf of the Tribunal I had
explained this morning—in answer to the argument of Dr. Horn on
behalf of the Defendant Ribbentrop—what the Tribunal was seeking
to do today, was to follow the provision of Article 24(d), which
provides that the Tribunal shall ask the Prosecution and Defense
what evidence, if any, they wish to submit to the Tribunal, and the
Tribunal shall rule on the admissibility of any such evidence, and I
pointed out that the reason why the Defense had been to some
extent treated in a different way from the Prosecution was because
in the case of the Defense the Tribunal has got to find all the
witnesses and bring them here, and the Tribunal has got, in many
instances, to find the documents or supply the documents; and
therefore it isn’t reasonable that the Tribunal should be asked to
bring witnesses or documents here and it also is not in accordance
with the Charter, until the Tribunal has heard argument upon the
admissibility of the witness or the document. And that is what it is
doing. I thought that I had fully explained that in answer to Dr.
Horn’s argument.
It is perfectly true that you cannot rule finally on the admissibility
of a document or the admissibility of a witness until you have
actually heard the passage in the document which is relied upon or
the questions put to the witness which are said to be relevant or
irrelevant. Therefore, the final determination upon the question of
admissibility will be when the witness is put in the witness-box and
asked questions or the document or the passage from the document
is actually produced.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes. Excuse me, but I believe that this still does
not answer one point. It is undoubtedly true that we are arguing
here about documents and witnesses which are not at our disposal.
But it is a different thing in the case of those documents which are
already here in this building and which are at our disposal as
Defense Counsel. To give an example:
The White Books which Sir David has mentioned are here; why
should we argue now about the relevance of this evidence? This
question has nothing to do with the delay of the Trial, nor with the
procurement of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything, General Rudenko?
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, Mr. President. Sir David has already
expressed the point of view of the Prosecution on the question
raised by the Defense Counsel. I should like to add to what has
already been said by Sir David regarding the statements made here
by the Defense Counsel.
The position of Defense Counsel Exner is that the Defense would
not intentionally turn the prosecutor into a defendant and that the
Defense will resort to a method of analysis and explanation of events
which will establish the motives, for in its opinion, the motive is
unknown, and in order to determine this motive it is necessary to
examine the question: Were the Geneva and Hague Conventions at
least violated by other powers at war with Germany? It stands to
reason in my opinion—and I believe that I am also expressing the
point of view of all the Prosecution—it is really strange to hear such
a statement on the part of a lawyer after a 3-months’ trial and after
the presentation of a mass of evidence by the Prosecution.
The Defense unquestionably has full right to submit proof—
documents and witnesses—on all counts of the charges lodged
against the defendants; and, as is evident from this morning’s
session, when the Prosecution examined the request on behalf of
the Defendant Göring, as is known to the esteemed Tribunal, the
Prosecution, in its opinion, gave its consent, in major part, to the
calling of witnesses. But in the question raised by Dr. Exner we have
here positive divergences of opinions and divergences of principle.
The Prosecution considers it impossible to diverge from the one
fundamental and decisive factor, that this is a trial of the major
German war criminals. The Tribunal is investigating atrocities
perpetrated by the Hitlerite fascists and as a result of this position,
and not losing sight of this fact, the Defense certainly could submit,
after examining and analyzing the evidence already presented by the
Prosecution, this or that evidence which in some manner could
change individual details. But it is, not admissible and it would
indeed be a grave violation of the Charter to transform examination
of these charges into a digression on questions having no relation
whatever to this particular Trial.
The Prosecution therefore so energetically objects to the
requests for and incorporation of such documents as have absolutely
no relevancy to this Trial and the examination of which, without a
doubt, would lead to a digression from the basic fact. This is what I
wanted to add to what Sir David has said on behalf of the
Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the Tribunal adjourns, as it will do now,
I want to say that the next four defendants on the Indictment are
required to name their witnesses and the subject matter of their
evidence, and the documents and the relevance of the documents,
by Wednesday next at 5 p. m. The Tribunal will hold a similar session
to the session it has been holding this morning with reference to the
defense of those defendants on Saturday next at 10 o’clock.
The Tribunal will now adjourn until a quarter past 2.
[The Tribunal recessed until 1415 hours.]
Afternoon Session
THE PRESIDENT: I have an announcement to make. With
reference to the announcement that I made this morning, the
Tribunal may hear the applications for witnesses and documents of
the Defendants Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, and Frick before
Saturday. That will depend upon the progress of the case. I have
already stated that those applications must be deposited with the
General Secretary by 5 o’clock p. m. on Wednesday.
Secondly, all the defendants, other than the first eight named in
the Indictment, must make application naming their witnesses and
the relevancy of their evidence, and the documents and the
relevancy of the documents, by Friday next at 5 p. m.
Thirdly, the Tribunal will sit in closed session on Monday next at 4
p. m.
Perhaps I also ought to say that this does not affect—it does not
refer directly to defendants’ counsel who represent the criminal
organizations. Those counsel will be heard after the close of the
Prosecution’s case, as has already been announced.
Next would be Hess.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I only want to say that if the Tribunal
did desire to hear anything on the question of reprisals, which was
raised by Dr. Exner, Mr. Dodd is prepared, if the Tribunal would care
to hear further matter on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The Tribunal would like to hear that now.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United
States): May it please the Tribunal, I wish to say at the very outset,
that I have made a rather hurried preparation during the noon
recess of the few notes on this subject based on some work which
we had done a little earlier. I am not altogether prepared to go into
the matter to any great extent at this time, but I did want to call to
the attention of the Tribunal a few of these notes that we have
prepared, and to say that, in view of Dr. Exner’s contention that
some of the documents which are offered by the Defense, or which
they intend or hope to offer, are admissible on the theory or under
the doctrine of reprisal.
We would like to say to the Tribunal that the Convention of 1929
concerning the treatment of prisoners of war expressly prohibits
altogether the use of reprisals against prisoners of war.
Parenthetically, I might say that the United States prohibited in its
Army instructions reprisals against prisoners of war as early as 1862
or 1863.
Secondly, I should like to point out that the Hague regulations do
not mention at all, insofar as we are able to ascertain, the use of so-
called “reprisal action” against civilians.
It appears that the Brussels conference of 1874, which accepted
the unratified Brussels Declaration, so-called in international law—
that conference rejected or struck out several sections which were
proposed by the Russians at that time, having to do with the use of
reprisal action against civilians. I cite that because it is interesting
and indicates that the powers were certainly thinking about the
matter of reprisals against civilians as early as then.
Thirdly, I should like to point out to the Tribunal that it is
commonly said by the writers on this subject that before reprisal
action may be taken a notice of some character is usually required,
and this reprisal action is directed against some specific instance
which the first power believes to be offensive and which it believes
may call for or justify the use of reprisal action. So that some notice
of some kind seems to be required by the power which feels it has
been offended to the offending power.
I might say that in the Prosecution’s case-in-chief we specifically
avoided any reference to the well-known incident during this war of
the shackling of prisoners of war, because there, there was some
color of notice, and the matter was resolved by the powers
concerned.
These are the points that we have had in mind during this brief
recess this noontime, and if the Tribunal would like to have us do it,
we shall be glad to prepare ourselves further, and to be heard
further on this subject at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the
position with regard to the Defendant Hess is set out in Dr. Seidl’s
communication to the Tribunal; and I have one or two comments to
make on that on behalf of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you comment upon that, Dr. Seidl? Would it
be convenient to follow the same course as we followed with Dr.
Stahmer, and perhaps Sir David may say if he has any objection, first
of all to the witnesses, one by one, that you are asking for?
DR. ALFRED SEIDL: I should like, however, to request the Court
to permit me a short preparatory remark and to make a motion.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: My Lords, from what happened in this morning’s
session I gained the conviction that now the Trial has entered into a
decisive phase, at any rate as far as concerns the Defense. I
consequently feel myself obliged to make the following application.
I should like to ask that the Court, at this point in the Trial,
should, when examining the relevancy of the evidence submitted by
the Defense, limit itself to the witnesses, and postpone examination
of the relevancy of documents until a later time. To establish reason
for this I permit myself to point out the following:
The Court issued a ruling regarding the submission of evidence
by the Defense for the first time on 17 December 1945. In this ruling
only witnesses and not documents were discussed. A second
decision is that of 18 February in which the following introductory
remark is made, “In order to avoid delay in the securing of witnesses
and documents, Defense Counsel shall . . .” and then follow the
remaining contents of the ruling.
I am of the opinion, My Lords, that the question as to whether a
document has relevancy or not can only be decided when I have this
document in my own hands; in other words, when I am familiar with
the precise contents of that document. It is impossible in a summary
proceeding such as is now being attempted, in which the
admissibility of whole books is supposed to be decided on, to pass
appropriate judgment as to whether a particular passage in a
document has relevancy or not. This question can be decided clearly
and definitely only if the Prosecution and the Court as well have the
document in their hands in the form in which the Defense wishes to
submit it. I am convinced . . .
THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Seidl, I have stated twice this morning
that the question of the final admissibility, whether of witnesses as
evidence, or documentary evidence, can only be finally decided
when the document is actually put in or when the witness is actually
asked a question. What we are now considering is whether the
document has any possibility of relevance and must, therefore, be
searched for, if necessary, or sent for.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. If I understand you correctly, Mr. President, it is
not necessary . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, the Tribunal thinks that you had
better deal with your witnesses and documents now, and we do not
desire to hear any further general arguments on the subject. We
desire to hear you upon the documents and the witnesses which you
wish to call and produce.
DR. SEIDL: It is, then, a question of the documents I already
have in my possession and not of the documents which I wish to
obtain.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the documents which you are about to
mention.
DR. SEIDL: It is a question of all the documents, and not simply
the documents that must first be procured.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have before us your application for
certain witnesses and certain documents, and we wish to hear you
upon that application.
DR. SEIDL: Very well, but I must draw up a list by next
Wednesday for the Defendant Frank, and I should like to know
whether those documents should be brought up which I already
have in my hands.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all you had better deal with your
witnesses in the same way that Dr. Stahmer did.
DR. SEIDL: The first witness that I intend to hear is Fräulein
Ingeborg Berg, a former secretary to the Defendant Rudolf Hess.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have not seen this list
until a moment ago.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness he wants to call is Ingeborg Berg;
is that right?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl tells me that this lady
was a private secretary to Hess, it seems to me, prime facie,
reasonable that there was a chance of discussing the matter. As a
general rule it seems to me reasonable that a private secretary
should be called who can corroborate the matters with which the
defendant was dealing. I do not think any of my colleagues will
disagree with that point.
DR. SEIDL: My second witness is the previous Gauleiter and head
of the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, Ernst Bohle, who is
imprisoned here on remand.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, you have not really adopted the
procedure which the Tribunal asked you to adopt. You have not
specified the relevance of the evidence which you wish to produce.
You have referred to some previous application. The Tribunal has not
got all these applications before it at the moment, and therefore we
wish to know in what respect the evidence of Ingeborg Berg is
relevant.
DR. SEIDL: The witness Ingeborg Berg was the secretary of the
Defendant Hess at his liaison offices in Berlin. She is to make
statements regarding the time Hess began making preparations for
his flight to England, and what sort of preparations they were.
She is further to testify as to what Hess’s attitude was toward the
Jewish question in a particular case, namely, in connection with the
Jewish pogrom of 8 November 1938.
THE PRESIDENT: Is she in Nuremberg?
DR. SEIDL: She is here, in Nuremberg.
THE PRESIDENT: You may deal with the second witness now, if
you like.
DR. SEIDL: The second witness is the previous Gauleiter of the
Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, Ernst Bohle. He is imprisoned
on remand in Nuremberg. He is to testify whether the Auslands-
Organisation developed any activity which might make it appear to
be a Fifth Column.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: On the second witness, that is one
of our allegations against the Auslands-Organisation, and therefore it
does seem relevant. I make no objection.
DR. SEIDL: Walter Schellenberg is the third witness I mention.
Whether I shall be able to uphold his application I can only judge
after the Court has given me the opportunity to speak to this witness
who is here in Nuremberg. I do not know whether the witness can
give pertinent evidence concerning the time in question, prior to 10
May 1941. I should like to avoid occupying the time of the Tribunal
with the hearing of a witness whose hearing proves that he cannot
offer pertinent evidence. I consequently ask the Tribunal first of all
for permission to speak to this witness for the purpose of getting
information.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have anything to say about that, Sir
David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understand that this is the witness
Schellenberg who was called for the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I submit that it would be very
undesirable to have private conversations with witnesses before
cross-examination. If Dr. Seidl wishes to cross-examine the witness
Schellenberg further, then he ought to apply to the Court to cross-
examine him in open court.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think I remember that some of the
defendants’ counsel asked to postpone the further cross-examination
of Dr. Schellenberg.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, my objection is not to the
further cross-examination; that is a matter, of course, which is
entirely for the Court once a witness is in its hands. But my
recollection is that Dr. Merkel and Dr. Kauffmann also wanted to
cross-examine the witness further, and therefore I submit that, both
generally and on this particular occasion, it would be very
undesirable for any counsel who is going to cross-examine to have a
private conversation with the witness before he cross-examines.
That is the matter to which I object.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but if the defendants’ counsel finally
decide that they are not going to cross-examine the witness, I
suppose then they would be able to examine him in chief if they
wanted to do so, to call him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I have never heard, My Lord,
of that procedure being adopted. If a witness is called by one side,
then the other side must, in my respectful submission, do what they
can by way of cross-examination. The witness is before the Court
and, as the Prosecution have called the witness, then I submit that
the Defense should deal with the witness by way of cross-
examination. They have the additional rights which cross-
examination gives, which is a compensation for the other rights
which they would have if he were their own witness.
DR. SEIDL: Perhaps we might find a solution whereby I would
renounce the right to cross-examination, and if the witness could
actually say something pertinent, I could let him give me an
affidavit. I do not believe that the Prosecution would object to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, as there are no technical rules of
evidence applicable to this Trial, would it be objectionable, would
you say, if the Defense were permitted to see Schellenberg in the
presence of a representative of the Prosecution, if that is satisfactory
to them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am sure the Prosecution all desire
that only the interest of justice should be furthered, and if the
Tribunal consider that that would be a suitable method of dealing
with it, the Prosecution would raise no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless you wish to say something further about
Schellenberg, the Tribunal will consider your application.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any other witnesses that you wish to
refer to?
DR. SEIDL: For the time being, no. However, according to the
resolution of 18 February, every Defense Counsel has the right, until
the conclusion of the Trial, to ask permission to call further
witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: I think now is the time for you to apply; in
accordance with the order of the Tribunal to which you are referring,
this is the time at which you are to apply for any witnesses you
want. The Tribunal always has the discretion, which it would
exercise, if you prefer to make any further applications. If later you
want to ask for further witnesses, the Tribunal will always consider
your application.
Did you get that?
DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President.
As to the question of whether the Auslands-Organisation, the
Volksbund für das Deutschtum im Ausland, and the Bund Deutscher
Osten had anything to do with the activities of a Fifth Column, a
further witness who would come into question is the brother of the
Defendant Rudolf Hess, Alfred Hess, who was formerly a deputy
Gauleiter of the Auslands-Organisation, and is at present in
Mergentheim in an internment camp.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have not got your application in front
of us with reference to that. If you want to make any further
application you may do so.
DR. SEIDL: I have made the application.
THE PRESIDENT: You say you want to make it now?
DR. SEIDL: If it is possible I should like to make the application
now, since the Tribunal has asked me to speak. I am, of course,
prepared to submit that application in writing later.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear you now, then, upon this
application, and you can put the application in writing afterwards as
a matter of record.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the name?
DR. SEIDL: Hess, Alfred. His last official position was Deputy
Gauleiter of the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP. At present he
is in the internment camp in Mergentheim.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes? For what purpose? You said because he
was going to speak as to Fifth Column activities; was that it?
DR. SEIDL: Regarding the Fifth Column and regarding the
question of whether the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP and
the Volksbund für das Deutschtum im Ausland and the Bund
Deutscher Osten have anything to do with a Fifth Column or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have already conceded
that this is a relevant issue, and therefore the only question is
cumulation. The Defendant Hess will himself be able to speak on this
point, and the witness further if the Tribunal allows it.
The Tribunal might well consider, in my submission, that an
affidavit or interrogatories from a third witness on the point would
be sufficient at the moment, unless any further issue is disclosed, in
which case Dr. Seidl could summon the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, you can pass on to your documents.
DR. SEIDL: Very well. It is my intention first to read further
passages from individual documents in Rudolf Hess’s document book
which was submitted by the Prosecution in order to establish the
connection. A further justification of the relevance of these
documents would be superfluous, since it is entirely a question of
documents submitted by the Prosecution which have already been
accepted in evidence by the Court.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the application is in this
form:
“I intend to read pages from the following books: Rudolf
Hess’s Speeches; Directives of the Deputy of the Führer.
The relevancy of these documents can be inferred simply
from the fact that both have already been introduced in
evidence by the Prosecution.”
Insofar as the documents are documents already before the
Tribunal, of course, Dr. Seidl may, within the usual limits, comment
on them as much as he likes. If he intends to put in other speeches
and directives, documents of the same class, then the Prosecution
asks that he indicate which speeches and which directives he is
going to put in.
DR. SEIDL: What Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe just read was the
second point of my application. It is true that I also intend to read
certain passages from the book, Rudolf Hess’s Speeches, and also
from the book Directives of the Deputy of the Führer. But since the
Prosecution has already submitted passages from both these books
in evidence, which were likewise already accepted as evidence, I
believe I may say that there are at least passages in these books—
and that it is here a question of documents—that are most certainly
relevant. Whether those passages that I intend to read are relevant
or not can be decided only when I submit these documents and this
is exactly what I meant at the beginning of my remarks, that it is
possible to decide on the relevancy of a document only when one
has that document before one and knows its precise contents.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I hope Dr. Seidl will realize that this
is largely a matter of mechanics. If he is going to introduce new
speeches and new directives, they have got to be translated into
English, Russian, and French; and therefore it will be necessary, for
the general progress of the Trial, that he should indicate which
passages he is going to put in so that they can be translated as well
as considered.
I am sure that Dr. Seidl will desire to use only relevant passages.
Naturally, every politician makes many speeches on many subjects,
and some of Hess’s speeches may well not be relevant.
I suggest that it is not unreasonable; we are only trying to help
along the general progress of the Trial by the request that I have
made.
DR. SEIDL: Of course, Mr. President, I shall read only those
passages from the speeches, and few of them at that, which are
relevant. I have no intention of having whole sections of the book
translated if it is not necessary. I declare formally to the Tribunal
that neither as counsel for the Defendant Hess nor as counsel for
the Defendant Frank shall I submit one single document that could
not be considered as relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what Sir David was saying was that for
the mechanics of the Trial, owing to the unfortunate fact that we do
not all understand German, it is necessary that these documents
which are in German should be translated. Therefore, it is necessary
for you to specify which speech and which part of the speech you
propose to rely upon, and then it will be translated.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I shall incorporate every single passage
that I intend to read in a document book, and I shall, in good time,
submit to the Court and to the Prosecution every passage from a
speech which I intend to read, in a document book. It is not the task
of the Prosecution, nor of the General Secretary, to do work which,
of course, I shall attend to.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that is quite all right. That
is exactly the point that I was seeking to make.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, now you are coming to Paragraph 3.
DR. SEIDL: Yes. Thirdly, I shall read passages from the report of
the conference between the Defendant Rudolf Hess and Lord Byron,
who at that time, as I recall, was Lord Privy Seal, and which took
place on 9 June 1941. In this way the motives and aims which
caused the Defendant Hess’s flight to England are to be clarified.
The relevancy is derived directly from the fact that the Prosecution
has, for its part, submitted as evidence the reports of Mr. Kirkpatrick
concerning his conference with Hess.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Seidl thinks that that
conversation adds anything to the conversations with the Duke of
Hamilton and Mr. Kirkpatrick, I shall not object to his reading the
report.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the document?
DR. SEIDL: It is in my possession.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the nature of the document? I mean,
what authenticity has it? Who made it? Who wrote it?
DR. SEIDL: The document was found among the papers of the
Defendant Hess which were given to him when he was brought from
England to Germany. It is a copy of the original, that is to say a
carbon copy, and a series of official stamps prove beyond doubt that
it is the carbon copy of an original.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to see the document.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: If you would let us have the document, we will
consider it.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you finished your presentation?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then there is a letter, isn’t there? There are two
other documents referred to, but you are not asking us for those? A
document of a letter to Hitler on the Reich Cabinet, dated 10 May
1941?
DR. SEIDL: This application appears to have been made by my
predecessor, by the lawyer Dr. Rohrscheidt. I should like to have an
opportunity of examining the relevancy of this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Do you wish to say anything, Sir
David, about them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We have not got that document. The
Prosecution have not got the letter that the Defendant Hess sent to
Hitler, and we just simply cannot help on that point.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. If that document can be located, it
shall be submitted to you.
DR. SEIDL: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Horn.
DR. HORN: It is my intention to call as the first witness for the
Defendant Ribbentrop the former Ambassador Friedrich Gaus, at
present in a camp at Minden near Hanover. Ambassador Gaus was
for more than three decades the head of the legal department of the
German Foreign Office. I believe that this witness is necessary in
view of this function alone.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Dr. Horn would carry out the same
procedure as Dr. Stahmer and pause for a moment when he has
introduced the witness, I shall then be able to indicate in the same
way whether there is any objection.
Dr. HORN: Certainly.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As far as Herr Gaus is concerned,
there is no objection, subject to one point on what I may call the
Foreign Office group of witnesses; and I think it will be convenient if
I develop it now, and then Dr. Horn would deal with the point in one
moment.
Dr. Horn is asking for Herr Gaus, Miss Blank, who was the
defendant’s private secretary, and then witnesses 3 to 7, five Foreign
Office officials, Herr Von Sonnleitner, Herr Von Rintelen, Gottfriedsen,
Hilger, and Bruns.
The position at the moment is that there is some doubt as to
whether Miss Blank was allowed or not by the Tribunal, and two of
the witnesses, Von Sonnleitner and Bruns were granted on 5
December. Von Sonnleitner was granted as one of two and Herr
Bruns was granted simpliciter.
The Prosecution draws the attention of the Tribunal to the fact
that no special facts are stated as to which of these witnesses will

You might also like