“I declare under oath that some of the expressions used in these
documents were not used by Hitler at all, while others were used
by Hitler partly in another sense and partly in another form.
“As to Document 798-PS, the following numbers of the pages and
lines agree with the version which I have just received, and
which was submitted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.”
I should like to remind the Tribunal that this is the 10-page summary,
GB-464. In this version you will find the sentence:
“‘Afterward we shall discuss military details.’
“Comment: This sentence was not used. Military details did not
follow in 798-PS either.
“Page 1, Lines 7 to 10: ‘I made this decision already in the
spring, but I thought that first of all, in a few years’ time, I
should turn against the West, and only afterward against the
East.’
“Comment: The account as set down by me, on Page 1, Lines 5 to
8, is absolutely true. In any case Hitler never used the words
that he would first of all turn against the West.
“Page 1, Lines 12 to 14: ‘First of all I wanted to bring about
satisfactory relations with Poland so that I could first of all
fight against the West.’
“Comment: This sentence was never used, and what I have just
said applies here, too. Hitler never voiced the intention that
he wanted to fight against the West.”
Now I shall omit the next point and on Lines 15 to 18 on Page 2 it says:
“‘It is easy for us to make decisions. We have nothing to lose,
only to gain. Our economic situation, due to our limited
resources, is such that we can hold out only a few more years.’
“Comment: As to the attitude taken here—the version in my
statement, Page 2, Lines 21 to 26, is absolutely correct. Above
all the sentence, ‘We have nothing...’”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, does it not come to this? There are two or
three versions of this particular speech and this admiral is saying that
his version is correct. That is all it comes to. I mean, he does not
think the other versions are correct. Well, the Tribunal will no doubt
have to compare the three versions and compare it with this affidavit.
But what is the purpose or use of reading it to us at this stage I do
not know.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you very much. Then I ask
that the Tribunal take judicial notice of the further statements, as set
out therein. I should like to refer only to the fact that Generaladmiral
Böhm expressly asserts and declares under oath that the sentence which
has been quoted several times: “I am afraid that at the last moment some
dirty dog will submit to me a plan for mediation”——was not uttered by
Hitler.
Referring to Document 1014-PS, I should like to read a sentence which
has been brought up by the Prosecution six or seven times:
“The destruction of Poland is in the foreground and the aim is
the elimination of Polish vitality, not the reaching of a
certain line.”
In this connection Böhm says:
“There was never any talk of destroying Poland or of eliminating
the vitality of the Polish people. What was discussed was the
breaking of the military forces.”
And I should like the Tribunal to take judicial notice of these very
carefully set down statements for it seems to me that this is important
in assessing the evidence value of the documents presented by the
Prosecution.
Then under “III” Generaladmiral Böhm describes that period during which
he was commanding admiral in Norway. I should like the Tribunal to take
judicial notice of this. This statement chiefly concerns the struggle
carried on by Raeder and Böhm against Terboven, against the German
civilian administration, and the attempts to make peace with Norway.
Mr. President, after many weeks the interrogatory of Albrecht has
reached me in its final form. I sent it to the Translation Division
several days ago and have not yet received the translation. This
interrogatory has been approved and I put it in as Exhibit Number
Raeder-128. I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this
interrogatory.
I should like to mention that Generaladmiral Albrecht was for many years
one of Raeder’s closest co-workers. He resigned in October 1939. He
knows the attitude taken by Raeder and he knows the High Command of the
Navy before 1933 and up to 1938. He, too, confirms the fact that Raeder
constantly warned Hitler of complications, and that Hitler always
stated, “I have matters under control and I will not let it come to
war.”
As regards all the other points, I ask, Mr. President, that the Tribunal
take judicial notice of these.
Then I should like to refer to the following: One interrogatory by
Generaladmiral Schulze has not yet come to hand. My efforts to obtain
this interrogatory date back to March 1946. I have given his address.
The witness is in retirement and lives in Hamburg-Blankenese.
Unfortunately until now the interrogatory has not arrived in Hamburg. I
should be very grateful to the Tribunal if it would give me permission
to submit this interrogatory at a later date, as I myself have no means
of expediting it. I do not know when it will come in, as in the meantime
it has been sent to Washington for reasons I do not understand, but I
certainly hope that it will be returned at some future date. Finally,
Mr. President...
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. What do you mean by it having been sent to
Washington? Did you say Washington?
DR. SIEMERS: I was informed by the General Secretary that this
interrogatory had been sent to Washington in order to locate the witness
there. But the witness resides in Hamburg-Blankenese. I am sorry that I
have no means of using my influence even though I have been trying for 3
months.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no doubt the General Secretary is making every
effort to have the witness found. If he is found, then—what are the
dates? You say that 3 months ago you submitted this interrogatory? Was
it sent to Hamburg or where was it sent?
DR. SIEMERS: I have...
THE PRESIDENT: Surely, Dr. Siemers, you ought to know. You have been in
touch all these 3 months with the General Secretary and you are stating
that he sent it to Washington. You ought to know. Have you given him any
address in Hamburg? What is your complaint?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, you have misunderstood. I was not
complaining. I was just stating the facts in order to show why the
interrogatory is not here, and I ask that when the interrogatory arrives
I may be permitted to submit it then, though by that time the
evidence...
THE PRESIDENT: I know you say that, but the Tribunal wants to know where
the interrogatory was first sent and why it was sent to Washington, and
why it was not sent to Hamburg and what you know about the fact—the
alleged fact—that the person who was to make the interrogatory was at
Hamburg?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I am from Hamburg myself and last November I
talked with the witness, and I gave his address when I put in my first
application to the General Secretary. Perhaps some misunderstanding
arose with the other offices which transmitted the interrogatory.
Perhaps they looked for a witness by the name of Schulze in some other
place. The name of the Generaladmiral is Otto Schulze and it is quite
possible that they looked up someone else with this rather common name.
The only answer I received was that the witness was being looked for, to
which I replied that it was not necessary to look for the witness.
MR. DODD: I think the Tribunal might be interested in knowing that Dr.
Siemers himself returned from Hamburg a few days ago, and I think he has
been there two or three times since he asked for this interrogatory.
Now, if he knows where this witness is, all he had to do while he was up
there was to go to a Military Government officer, submit his questions,
get them answered, and bring them back; and I think it is a little bit
unfair to blame the General Secretary under these circumstances.
DR. SIEMERS: I regret very much that Mr. Dodd considers it necessary to
reproach me with unfairness. I was told that an interrogatory could not
be given to the witness by me. The interrogatory for Admiral Albrecht I
brought back with me from Hamburg at the request of the General
Secretary because the formula of the oath had been omitted. In a case of
this kind I consider it quite natural that I should co-operate with the
General Secretary. However, I have submitted this interrogatory and I
cannot understand how Mr. Dodd could blame me if I have not brought the
interrogatory back with me.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this seems to me a waste of time. We had better get
a report from the General Secretary.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe that I still have not been
understood. I am not accusing anyone. I am just asking for permission to
submit my interrogatory subsequently.
THE PRESIDENT: Well. We will consider that. We will not make any
decision until we have heard a report from the General Secretary upon
the circumstances.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, then I should like to point out that two of
my applications were granted, which were not carried out completely. One
was the application concerning the files of the British Admiralty
containing the Allies’ plans regarding Scandinavia and Finland. Purely
as a matter of form I should like to say that the answer from the
Foreign Office, which is known to the Tribunal, is available, and the
Tribunal had approved the submission of these files, but the request was
turned down by the Foreign Office. As this matter has not been dealt
with before I should like it to be made absolutely clear.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, I think, has the communication from the
Foreign Office.
DR. SIEMERS: But I did not submit it, Mr. President. Therefore, I did
not know under what number, what exhibit number it can be found in the
files of the Tribunal. Would it be possible, Mr. President...
THE PRESIDENT: You can give it a number, certainly. Give it whatever
number you think right. What is the number you want?
DR. SIEMERS: May I submit this document as Exhibit Number Raeder-130
either this afternoon or at the latest tomorrow morning?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SIEMERS: Then, Mr. President, I made the request that the first
edition of Hitler’s book _Mein Kampf_ be placed at my disposal. In this
case as well, I should like to point out that according to information
received the General Secretary has made every effort, for which I am
grateful, but he has not been successful in providing me with this first
edition.
I should like to remind you of the fact that the edition used by the
Prosecution is from the year 1933 and therefore it cannot be used as a
basis for the argument put by the Prosecution concerning the period
before 1933.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter of argument.
DR. SIEMERS: Yes indeed.
During my absence four documents were submitted by Sir David
Maxwell-Fyfe. As far as I was able to ascertain, these documents, which
all come from Admiral Assmann, were submitted with the remark that
Admiral Assmann belonged to the Staff of Grossadmiral Raeder. This fact
was also mentioned several times in preceding records.
For the sake of order, I should like to clear up this error. Assmann was
in the historical section and he was in no way concerned with the staff
of Raeder. In this connection...
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got any evidence of the facts you are stating,
or do the Prosecution accept them?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We accept, I am sure. My Lord, we have had it in
evidence and we accept the fact that he was in the Naval Historical
Section of the German Admiralty. My Lord, when I said “staff” I was
speaking generally. I did not mean the Operations Staff.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we need not waste further time about that.
DR. SIEMERS: I should like to refer to one point, Mr. President,
concerning these four documents: D-879, D-881, D-892, and D-854. I hope
that in this matter as well Sir David will agree with me. All the
English translations bear the heading “Diary”...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is simply a point of how the
compilation of Admiral Assmann should be described. I am quite prepared
that it should be described as it is in the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Well...
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Dr. Siemers objected to its being described as a
“diary” and said that it should have been described as an index. My
Lord, I do not mind what it is described as.
THE PRESIDENT: What does it matter? Let us call it an index then. Is
that all your points?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, this is important insofar as here in this
courtroom many “Tagebücher” have been submitted under the designation of
a “diary,” and these were really entries made at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David says that he will withdraw the word “diary” and
you may call it anything else you like. Really, it is only a waste of
our time to make this sort of technical point. Sir David agrees with
you, and he is prepared to withdraw the word “diary.”
DR. SIEMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well then, let us not say anything more about it.
DR. SIEMERS: I quite agree, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I do not wish to take up the time of the Tribunal with
all the other and very numerous errors in translation. My final speech
will show how important this point was in connection with the Assmann
document. As suggested by the Tribunal I have brought the other errors
in translation to the notice of the General Secretary only.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are any errors in translation, that matter can
be taken up through the General Secretary with the Translation Division.
Dr. Siemers, it is very improper for counsel in your position to make
statements of that sort for which you have no proof at all. You know
perfectly well that when there have been any alleged mistranslations,
the matter has always been referred through the General Secretary to the
Translation Division and then they have been corrected; and for you to
get up at this stage of the Trial and say that there are many
mistranslations, without any proof of it at all, simply upon your own
word, is a most improper thing for counsel to do, and that is the view
of the Tribunal.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I beg to apologize, but I think I probably
did not express myself correctly. I am not making an accusation, but
with so many documents it is not surprising that these errors did occur.
I myself make mistakes. I am sorry if my remarks should have been
misunderstood.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody makes mistakes, and everybody is capable of
having different opinions as to translations, but you and every other
member of the defendants’ counsel know that those mistakes, if they are
mistakes, will be corrected, if it is possible, and they know the way
that it can be done, and, therefore, as I said before, it is very
improper for you to get up and allege that there are a lot of
mistranslations. I do not want to hear anything more about it.
The Tribunal will adjourn.
[_A recess was taken._]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, have you any documents that you wish to offer
in evidence?
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, with a letter dated 1 July 1946, I put in
three affidavits, after having submitted them previously to the
Prosecution. Those three documents will become Documents Keitel-23,
Keitel-24, and Keitel-25. I beg the Tribunal to receive them, since the
Prosecution, as Sir David has told me, does not object to their being
offered in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: And they are at present being translated, or have they
been translated?
DR. NELTE: They are in the process of being translated. I have merely
submitted the originals to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well then, we will receive them in evidence and
consider them.
DR. NELTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann?
DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): Mr. President,
I have a few interrogatories which have been granted to me by the
Tribunal. I have the originals here with me; they have been numbered,
and I should like to submit them. The Translation Division has informed
me that the translations are not yet at the disposal of the Tribunal,
but I assume they will be in the hands of the Tribunal in the next few
days.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I should like to state, in a few short sentences, what
the contents of the documents are, if the Tribunal wishes me to do so.
There are three documents which refer to the same subject: The testimony
given by the President of the Red Cross at Geneva, Professor Burckhardt;
the testimony given by Dr. Bachmann, who was the delegate of the Red
Cross; and then there is Dr. Meyer’s testimony, and he too was an
official representative of the Red Cross.
In these documents these witnesses deal with the discussions during
March and April 1945 which they had with the Defendant Kaltenbrunner.
They also show that agreements were reached on the strength of these
discussions which made it possible for thousands of French, Belgian, and
Dutch women and children to be returned to their home countries.
Prisoners of war were also released under these agreements and internees
from concentration camps were allowed to return. Another result was that
Kaltenbrunner gave permission to visit the Jewish camp at Theresienstadt
and took pains that other camps received medical supplies, food, _et
cetera_.
All that is contained in detail in these three documents.
THE PRESIDENT: What numbers are you giving them?
DR. KAUFFMANN: The Professor Burckhardt document will be Number
Kaltenbrunner-3; Dr. Meyer and Dr. Bachmann, Numbers Kaltenbrunner-4 and
5.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: A further document is the interrogatory supplied by the
former Gauleiter in Upper Austria, Eigruber. That is Exhibit Number
Kaltenbrunner-6. Here again I should like to draw attention to one
point. Among other things, this witness states that the concentration
camp at Mauthausen was not set up by Kaltenbrunner, as has been alleged
by the Prosecution and that he was not responsible for the life there or
the presence of the internees at the camp. That is stated here in detail
and I do not propose to read it.
The next document is the interrogatory of Freiherr von Eberstein, which
is Number Kaltenbrunner-7. Again, I shall not read from it, but perhaps
I may say, in just one sentence, that this witness is testifying that he
knows that the concentration camp at Dachau and the two auxiliary camps
belonging to Dachau were not, as has been alleged by the Prosecution, to
be exterminated during the last months or weeks of the war, but that
such a plan had been contemplated exclusively by the Gauleiter of
Munich, Giessler.
Then there is a further interrogatory, which is the testimony of the
witness Wanneck. That will be Exhibit Kaltenbrunner-8. I should like to
draw the attention of the Tribunal particularly to this document. It is
a lengthy document, and I shall not read from it. However, I believe I
can say that this man was particularly well acquainted with the
defendant and the whole of his official activities in the course of many
years. This witness held for years a leading position in the Foreign
Intelligence Service. He knows Kaltenbrunner’s attitude regarding the
executive and he confirms the fact that Kaltenbrunner agreed with
Himmler at the time, that he, Himmler, would retain the executive powers
while Kaltenbrunner would work mostly in the sector of the Intelligence
Service as a whole.
Finally, Mr. President, there are two documents which have not yet been
discussed. Therefore, first of all, the Tribunal would have to decide as
to the relevancy of the documents, and as to whether I shall be entitled
to submit the documents. They are two short letters which I have
received.
One is a letter from the mayor of the town of Dachau, dated 4 April
1946. The Tribunal may possibly remember that during the taking of
evidence by the Prosecution it was frequently mentioned that the
population in the vicinity had knowledge of the abuses. This man, who
has now been instated by the American authorities, confirms his own
experiences. In my opinion they do not bear out the thesis of the
Prosecution.
Immediately connected with this is the second letter, which is from the
well-known Pastor Niemöller, and which is dated 17 April 1946. Niemöller
had spent some time in Dachau.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, would it not be best if we were heard on the
first affidavit before the Niemöller affidavit is taken up?
We have objected to this affidavit by the mayor of Dachau for the reason
that it is simply a letter. We have had no opportunity to file any
cross-questions or to ask any questions of the man at all. These letters
come in here. If we are going to submit all the letters that come in—we
have bales of them, actually.
We do not like to object on purely technical grounds, if there is
anything here that would really be helpful to the Tribunal. On the other
hand, we do not feel that we should deny ourselves the opportunity to
make clear the entire story by cross-questions of some kind.
THE PRESIDENT: That is with reference to Schwalber?
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I did not quite understand what you said, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What Mr. Dodd said was that they objected to this
document from Schwalber because they have not had any opportunity to put
any questions to him, either by way of having him called as a witness or
by a cross-interrogatory. Therefore, they object to the introduction of
the document in its present form.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I understand. I know this is somewhat problematical,
but the Tribunal will be able to assess the evidence value of the
letters according to their own opinion. Perhaps I may submit these two
short documents to the Tribunal. So far as I know, the Prosecution is
acquainted with these two documents, because they have been in the
Translation Division, and some time ago a representative of the
Prosecution told me that very probably objections would be raised. That
was why, at the beginning, I told the Tribunal it would first have to
decide as to the relevancy of the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Kauffmann, the best way will be for the
Tribunal to read the document and to consider it. We will do that.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you.
MR. DODD: I should also like to indicate to the Tribunal that we take
the same position with respect to the Niemöller letter.
THE PRESIDENT: You consider them both, then? You are objecting also to
the Niemöller letter?
MR. DODD: Yes, on the same grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): Mr. President, the
reply to the Messersmith interrogatory has not yet been submitted. The
reply has been received in the meantime, and has been translated, too. I
believe, however, that the Tribunal has probably not yet received it.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you offer it in evidence and give it a number?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, Sir; I was going to. But I did not expect that it
would come up today, and I have not the number which I shall give to the
exhibit. May I be permitted to furnish the number later? Yes—I have it
here, Mr. President, and I shall now submit it as Exhibit Number
Frick-14. This is the reply to an interrogatory. The replies are in the
same form as those which Mr. Messersmith gave in the interrogatories
concerning other defendants. I shall refer to this interrogatory in
detail during my final speech. Therefore I need not read it now.
Then there is still one reply outstanding in an interrogatory of Konrad,
and I beg to be permitted to submit it as soon as I receive it.
THE PRESIDENT: That has been granted, has it? And it is now before the
witness?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius.
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel): Mr. President,
several interrogatories have still to be submitted. First of all, I
submit Exhibit Number Sauckel-15 to the Tribunal. That is a Darré
interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Whose interrogatory was that? Whose interrogatory?
DR. SERVATIUS: Darré, the Minister for Food and Agriculture. This
interrogatory deals with matters which have in part already come up at
this Trial. I should like to draw your attention to a few points. There
is the question of what was Sauckel’s general attitude, particularly
toward Himmler’s views; and the witness stresses the fact there was
considerable controversy between Himmler and Sauckel in this respect. He
mentions one particular instance which he himself witnessed. He speaks
about a factory in Thuringia which was directly under Sauckel’s control
and says that the workers there were so free that they hired themselves
out to farmers during the day, which was rather too much of a good
thing. He then talked about a clash between Sauckel and Himmler in the
presence of the Führer about the question of treatment, and he says that
Himmler stated, “I am subordinate to the Führer only, and for my
official business I am under the Reich Marshal; and I do not have to
justify myself to you.”
Then there is an interrogatory from Minister of Labor Seldte, which has
been allowed by the Tribunal and which I shall submit as Exhibit Number
Sauckel-16. I should like to bring out just a few points. The witness
talks about Sauckel’s functions and the functions of Dr. Ley, and he
says that Sauckel carried out the functions of the state while Ley
looked after the social welfare and social supervision.
Then he goes on to talk about inspections and control, and he says that
the offices for accident insurance, health, and factory inspection were
in existence before and had continued to function under the
responsibility of the Ministry of Labor.
Then comes the interrogatory of Dr. Voss, which I submit as Exhibit
Number Sauckel-17. I shall submit the original later. I am afraid I
cannot find it at the moment. This doctor was medical officer in a camp,
and he speaks of the conditions in the camps, particularly after air
attacks, and about the activities and care of the Labor Front. He not
only deals with the camps in which he was working but he knows a great
deal generally about conditions in other camps.
His statement is in contradiction to the testimony given by Dr. Jäger.
In the same way the following document, which I shall submit as Exhibit
Number Sauckel-18 and which comes from Dr. Ludwig Scharmann, although
dealing with another sector, contains similar statements, too, which are
also in direct contrast to the testimony given by Dr. Jäger.
That completes the interrogatories which have been granted me. Now I
have still another number of documents for which I have applied, but on
which a decision has not yet been given. I do not know whether I should
now submit them to the Tribunal. They are mostly concerned with laws and
decrees and I would like to submit them in addition to what I have
already submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal would like you to submit
them now, because the Tribunal wishes to deal with the evidence on
behalf of the Defense finally, now and today.
DR. SERVATIUS: There is a decree by Sauckel dealing with the return of
sick foreign workers to their homes. It shows that workers who had
fallen sick were sent back and that Red Cross employees had to accompany
them. The actual decree is in the official collection of laws and
decrees which has already been submitted. I shall ascertain my exhibit
number presently. It will be Number Sauckel-99 in the supplementary
document book.
Then there is Document Number Sauckel-100, which comes from the
_Reichsarbeitsblatt_, 1943, which has already been offered in evidence,
too. This deals with the investigation of sanitary measures in camps,
and it concerns the accusations which have been made with reference to
these accommodation problems.
Then there is Document Number Sauckel-101 which is a memorandum for
French prisoners of war on leave regarding their improved status under
the so-called “transformation.” I shall submit it and give the exhibit a
number. For the moment it is Document Number Sauckel-101.
Then come Documents 102 and 103. Both are laws contained in the official
_Reichsgesetzblatt_. They are “German Instructions Regarding Compulsory
Labor Service.” It is the Emergency Services Order which I submit as
Document Number Sauckel-102. Then there is the Compulsory Labor Decree
which will be Document Number Sauckel-103, in the supplement.
Then I find that Document 4006-PS contains a number of important
regulations, but I am told that the Prosecution is going to read them,
and therefore I assume that I need not do so.
Then I have received an affidavit from Count Spreti, who, from the
beginning of the Eastern campaign, was active as a recruiting officer in
the East. It deals with conditions, and it states particularly that
Sauckel’s activity had brought about a basic change in the general
attitude. It is short and I consider that it is of particular
importance, because up to now no recruiting officer has been heard on
the subject.
Then I was proposing to submit Document Number Sauckel-109, which will
be a list...
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, with regard to that affidavit I am told, the
Prosecution having not seen it at all, that that should be accepted with
the same reservations as have been made in the previous cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. Was that affidavit you spoke of by Count
von Spreti, S-p-r-e-t-i?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I was going to submit a list of all of Sauckel’s
decrees as Document Number Sauckel-109 which will give an idea of the
great care he took of all kinds of matters. This list will give the
titles only.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you did not give a number to the affidavit of
Count von Spreti.
DR. SERVATIUS: It will be given Number Sauckel-108 in my document book
and then I shall give it an exhibit number later when I submit the
numbers for the other documents.
Then as Document Number Sauckel-110, 111, and 112...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, are you not giving us exhibit numbers now?
DR. SERVATIUS: I cannot do so at the moment because I have not got the
originals with me and part of these are official records which have been
submitted already.
THE PRESIDENT: But you see in the case of the Defendant Sauckel, as in
the case of every other defendant, the exhibits put in on his behalf,
the exhibits offered in evidence on his behalf should have a consecutive
series of numbers and that is a consecutive series which is settled by
the counsel himself who offers the documents in evidence. It does not
depend upon whether he has the original before him.
DR. SERVATIUS: In that case I can give them exhibit numbers. Document
Number-108 will be Exhibit Number Sauckel-18.
THE PRESIDENT: Which is that?
DR. SERVATIUS: Exhibit Number 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the most convenient way would be if you would
carefully go through your exhibits and give the list to the General
Secretary, giving the exact exhibit number of each document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Very well.
Then Documents Number 110, 111, and 112, contained in the supplement,
are three laws which deal with the position of the Reich Defense
Commissioner who was mentioned in connection with the allocation of
labor. The Reich Defense Commissioner is, of course, the Gauleiter who
was mentioned during the case of Speer in connection with the armament
industry. These are merely the basic laws, so as to have them at hand.
After the case of Speer had been heard, I received an affidavit from the
witnesses Hildebrandt and Stothfang, who had been examined here in
Court. It deals with the question of how far Sauckel had to obey Speer’s
instructions and what the relations were between the two offices. The
Prosecution have not yet defined their attitude and I think perhaps it
would be best if...
MR. DODD: We will be glad to have this affidavit submitted, Mr.
President. We have no objection whatever to it. As a matter of fact, if
it was not submitted by Dr. Servatius, we intended to offer it
ourselves.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Of course the Tribunal thinks it is irregular,
really, that a witness who has been called and has given evidence, has
been cross-examined—has been re-examined and cross-examined by any
other counsel for the defense who want to—that he should be entitled to
give any other evidence, but if you are both agreed that it is
convenient in this case, as a special circumstance, we will admit it.
MR. DODD: I think—Mr. President, I, of course, recognize at once the
Court’s observation about submitting affidavits of witnesses who have
been before the Tribunal. What happened here was that some rather
material matters were not gone into when he was here, and I think the
Tribunal will find them quite helpful in clearing up the situation about
Sauckel and Speer with respect to their relative and individual
responsibilities for this slave labor program. Other than that, I, of
course, would not urge it at all. I think the Court will find it
helpful.
DR. HANS FLÄCHSNER (Counsel for Defendant Speer): Mr. President, I would
not make a formal objection against the admission of such an affidavit
if I were not convinced, in this particular case, that with the
admission of such an affidavit a series of questions will be opened up
which will, in turn, necessitate further arguments. I saw the wording of
this affidavit only this morning and I am convinced that at least
further investigation of its contents will be necessary. I believe,
therefore, that if this Trial is to be shortened, in the case before us
as well, one ought not to depart from the general rule that affidavits
from witnesses who have already appeared before the Tribunal should not
be permitted. In this particular case, where there are references to the
publication with which the affidavit deals, the case could be made quite
clear if these publications were submitted and, therefore, the affidavit
is not at all necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything in answer to that objection?
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, this affidavit is, in fact, a
supplementation of the instructions contained in Document 4006, which
the Prosecution is proposing to submit; but I did not know that this was
proposed. What we are actually concerned with here is a question which
was opened up by Speer’s examination, namely, the significance of
Speer’s Ministry as compared to Sauckel’s office: Who, of the two, was
the more powerful? Who could give orders? Who had to obey? I think the
documents will make that clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you and the Prosecution had the opportunity of
cross-examining Speer when he was in the witness box and you could then
have elucidated anything you wanted to elucidate at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, only the circumstances were not known to me at that
moment.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I do not wish to press this at all, and if the
Tribunal has any doubt about it at all I will withdraw my position. I
thought it might be helpful, but it really is not important and if there
is any question I think it is better we let it go.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal think it is irregular to introduce new
evidence by affidavits from a person who has already been called as a
witness, and in view of the objection on behalf of the Defendant Speer,
they cannot accept the evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS: In that case, I will withdraw it. That completes my
statement of evidence. The only thing that is still outstanding is the
witness Letsch’s interrogatory, which has been granted, and the
interrogatory of the witness Bichenbach. I have no hope of still
receiving them.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer?
DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): Mr.
President, I have four documents which I beg to submit and which I have
received through the General Secretary. The Tribunal has allowed them
and the Prosecution know of them. Unfortunately, however, the
translations have not yet been completed.
The first document contains questions and answers from Director Dirk
Hannema, director of the Bovymans Museum in Rotterdam, about the alleged
plundering of art treasures. I shall give this document the Number
Seyss-Inquart-108. I shall submit the English text and the Dutch
original.
The next document is an edition of the newspaper _Nieuwe Rotterdamsche
Courant_, dated 17 May 1942, of which I have the original and a German
translation. It contains a warning regarding the shooting of hostages.
This document I shall submit in the original under Document Number
Seyss-Inquart-109.
The following document is also an edition of the same newspaper; it is
dated 10 August 1942, and it also contains an announcement regarding the
shooting of hostages. In connection with this document I should like to
draw your attention to the fact that this announcement was the result of
an order from the Military Commander in Holland, General Christiansen,
and that the Senior SS and Police Leader, Rauter, signed it. I shall
give it Document Number Seyss-Inquart-110.
The next document I received only yesterday from the General
Secretariat, and it is a copy of the interrogatory of General of the
Cavalry Von Kleffel. From 27 March 1945 until 8 April 1945, he was
Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the 25th Army in Holland. He confirms that
Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart, in a letter to the Führer, had
requested that the fighting should cease, in order to save the country
from being heavily damaged and also to prevent a famine. This document
is Number Seyss-Inquart-111 in my document book. This document had been
allowed by the Tribunal. I beg, therefore, that it be received in
evidence.
Today the General Secretary’s office sent me two affidavits. One comes
from the former commander of the Defense District of Scheveningen. His
name is Erwin Tschoppe. He is submitting an affidavit dealing with the
attitude and conduct of the defendant with respect to the evacuation of
the coastal area. Because of the short time at my disposal, I have not
yet been able to hand this document and the following one to the
Prosecution, but I have already informed the Prosecution that these two
documents exist. The second document is also...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer, these documents, I apprehend, have not
been shown to the Prosecution?
DR. STEINBAUER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute; they have not been approved by the
Tribunal and one question that arises is: Are they very long? Because I
find that the Translation Division is being overloaded with very long
documents.
DR. STEINBAUER: No, it is a short document, but it appears to me to be
important, because it shows how the defendant acted during that
difficult situation and how he took care of the Dutch population.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is short and if you will submit it to the
Prosecution, then it can be translated and admitted subject to any
objection.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Sir. The same applies to the following document
which I also received today. It is an affidavit of Adalbert Joppich. He
was President of the German Supreme Court in the Netherlands, and he
makes a very brief statement about the position and the attitude of the
defendant with regard to legal questions affecting the Dutch civilian
population. I beg that this document should also be admitted in evidence
and that I may use the same procedure of submitting a copy of the
translation to the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: What number did you give?
DR. STEINBAUER: The Tschoppe document will be Document Number
Seyss-Inquart-112 and the Adalbert Joppich document will be Document
Number Seyss-Inquart-113. Documents allowed by the Tribunal and still
outstanding are affidavits by Bolle, Dr. Reuter, Völkers, and
Lindhorst-Homan. The General Secretariat and I are trying to obtain
these affidavits. So far it has only been possible to ascertain Bolle’s
address. Finally, I request that two applications which I have made in
writing should be granted; one concerns the obtaining of the defendant’s
NSDAP membership card which was impounded when he was arrested, and
which must be among his personal documents in the custody of the
Tribunal. A few months ago I made a request to that effect, but both
sides apparently lost sight of the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, you do not mean that it is in the custody of
the Tribunal; you may mean that it is in the custody of the military
authorities.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes. I meant the prison administration.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no doubt, they can reproduce it. What was the other
document?
DR. STEINBAUER: Well, Mr. President, then in the cross-examination...
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I do not want to take up Your Lordship’s time,
but that membership card, that could have been applied for months ago.
It is on the same footing as these documents which counsel has been
putting in. We have not seen them. I do not know what this card is going
to prove, but it is going to be a great deal of trouble to get it here,
just as these documents are giving a great deal of work to the
Translation Division.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the importance of the membership card? Presumably
he knows when he became a member. What relevance does the card have to
this?
DR. STEINBAUER: It is of importance because according to the war crime
law which has now been published in Austria, all members having a
membership number above 6,500,000 will not be regarded as so-called “old
fighters” or illegals. Seyss-Inquart has stated in the witness box...
THE PRESIDENT: That has nothing to do with the Tribunal. It may be
relevant in some other proceeding and before some other court but not
before this Court.
DR. STEINBAUER: Only insofar as the Prosecution had alleged that he had
been a member of the NSDAP since 1931. But, of course, I am not trying
to make difficulties. I only thought that the membership card might be
among the belongings which were taken away from the prisoner and that
one could have a look at it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But did he deny that he was a member since 1931?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, oh, yes. He states that he did not become a member
until 13 March 1938—formally.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, formally; I remember, yes. But he had been a
member of the Austrian Nazi Party very much longer, if I remember
rightly.
MR. DODD: We will agree here and now, Mr. President, that that card
would show that he became a member, as far as the card is concerned, on
that date. I am sure that is what it will show and if it will help the
doctor, we will be glad to agree to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. STEINBAUER: The last document for which I am applying is the
following: During cross-examination a document was submitted in which an
18 year-old female police clerk named Hildegard Kunze confirms that my
client caused Dutch Jews to be sterilized. Seyss-Inquart maintains that
he has never written to the Police directly, but that in three personal
letters addressed directly to Himmler, he did object to the treatment of
Jews, and that in one of his letters he mentioned sterilization. This,
presumably, was the reason why the witness mentioned it and probably she
gained knowledge of these facts because Himmler sent the original or
copy of the letters to the Main Security Office. In connection with this
important matter my client has requested me to make an attempt to have
these letters which he wrote to Himmler produced in order to disprove
the incriminating statement made by the witness Hildegard Kunze. I do
not conceal the fact that it will probably be difficult to find these
letters among the very many documents of the Main Security Office.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you made your application in writing about this?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, I have made a written application.
THE PRESIDENT: Giving the dates when the letters were written?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, everything I could ascertain regarding the dates
and the addresses is contained in my application.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will consider that, but you understand
that the work involved in this sort of thing is very great indeed.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, far be it from me to underestimate the
difficulties which are connected with my application. Apart from this, I
have no further application to make.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not sit in open session Saturday next,
nor will it sit in open session on any Saturday in the future unless it
gives notice that it is going to do so.
Yes, Dr. Thoma?
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, yesterday I mentioned an affidavit of Dr.
Heinz Oeppert, Reichshauptstellenleiter. I have now received this
affidavit, and I have also already conferred with Mr. Dodd about it.
I now beg the permission of the High Tribunal to submit this affidavit.
Mr. Dodd has no objections to the submission of this affidavit.
May I read a very brief passage from this affidavit, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Can you tell us what the affidavit is about?
DR. THOMA: Yes, Mr. President. This Dr. Oeppert had the Office of
Ideological Enlightenment in the office of the Führer’s deputy for the
supervision of the entire ideological and intellectual framing of the
Party. Concerning this activity and this office he testified that it
involved almost exclusively a reporting and registration of events in
this sphere.
Any active interference in the church policy of the State or the Party
would not have been possible even if they had wished it, for this office
had no executive facilities of any kind. There were constantly very
intense differences with the State and Party organizations which
participated in this sphere of activity, that is, between the Propaganda
Ministry and the Church and the SD and Party Chancellery. The
suppression of certain ideological groups and sects as well as the
measures taken against individual clergymen, as far as I know, were
taken by the SD or the Gestapo without the knowledge or authority of
this office.