DR. THOMA: It is known to you that Rosenberg repeatedly made representations to the Führer on behalf of a cultural betterment of the eastern European peoples, especially the Ukrainians?
GÖRING: I was present once when Rosenberg spoke about the varying treatment of the Occupied Eastern Territories, of the peoples living there, and their cultural care. As far as I can recall—or better said—I especially recall that the conversation dealt with the establishment or the continuation of a university in Kiev. The Führer agreed with him in his presence, I believe, but when he had gone, the Führer said to me: “That man, too, has his particular worries. We have more important things to take care of now than universities in Kiev.” That I do remember.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps we had better adjourn now for 10 minutes.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter; one moment. I want to speak to Dr. Nelte first.
Dr. Nelte, in view of your application with reference to this document which is called “Characteristics of General Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel,” the Tribunal have investigated that matter and have referred to Page 4987 of the shorthand notes (Volume VIII, Page 233), which possibly you may have had in mind; but you seem to have failed to notice that this very document, “Characteristics of Keitel,” was denied in the order of the Tribunal in Paragraph 2, which contains the decision of the Tribunal after the argument in court, and which is set out on that page of the shorthand notes to which I have referred. Therefore, in the opinion of the Tribunal you have no right to offer that document which the Tribunal have already denied.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I have not the entire notes of the session before me. But I know that this affidavit was refused with the explanation that, in case the witness can be called, an affidavit is not to be submitted, and that is the case here.
Thereupon, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, in quoting this particular document number of my document book, stated the following: “The Tribunal may perhaps remember that in the case of the witness Dr. Blaha, my friend, Mr. Dodd, adopted the practice of asking the witness. . . .” And this affidavit belongs to this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, I am quite aware of that and I have already referred you to the exact page of the transcript which I have consulted. But defendants’ counsel must be perfectly well aware that the Tribunal have given no decision in open court upon these applications for witnesses and documents, and the Tribunal made it perfectly clear that they would afterwards consider the applications that had been made. In each case a written order, which was perfectly clear, has been issued to the defendants’ counsel, setting out the witnesses who are allowed, the witnesses who are denied, interrogatories that are allowed, and the interrogatories that are denied, the documents that were allowed and the documents which had been denied. In Paragraph 2 of the order is “The Characteristics of Keitel.” Therefore, in the opinion of the Tribunal that document should never have been offered. That is all.
DR. NELTE: I tried to explain why I assumed that, in spite of the refusal of the affidavit, the material of the affidavit could be used in the interrogation of the witness.