THE PRESIDENT: Have you—I did not hear the name of the second one. Was
it Feldscher?
DR. SCHILF: Excellency Feldscher, Minister of the protective power. He
is now at Berne in Switzerland.
THE PRESIDENT: Have these affidavits been placed before the Prosecution?
DR. SCHILF: No, Mr. President, they are not yet available. They have not
arrived yet.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. Are they affidavits or interrogatories?
DR. SCHILF: They are two interrogatories, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Interrogatories, I see. Well then, when the
interrogatories come back answered, they can be shown to the Prosecution
if they want to put in cross-interrogatories; and then they can be
translated and submitted to the Tribunal.
Dr. Schilf, there was an application—I am not sure whether it was in
writing or whether it was only oral—with reference to Schörner and
Voss, and one other man, whose statements were used in cross-examination
by the Prosecution. I think they were affidavits, I am not sure; and
there was an oral application, I think, to cross-examine those persons.
Do you want that to be done, or have you withdrawn that?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, that application has not been withdrawn, but
it was put in only as an auxiliary application, to have effect only if
the interrogation notes submitted by the Russian Prosecution—it seems
to me that these interrogation notes cannot be considered as affidavits,
but only interrogation records of a police character.
And Dr. Fritz made application to the effect that if these three
documents were to be used as documents of evidence, we cannot waive the
cross-examination. These three documents were used in the examination of
the Defendant Fritzsche only in part, and only short passages were
submitted to the defendant in his examination. Every detail there he
has...
THE PRESIDENT: What you were saying is that in case the Prosecution do
not want to use the whole of these documents, but only the parts which
were put to the Defendant Fritzsche in the course of cross-examination,
then you do not need to have those persons, Voss and Schörner, called
for cross-examination; but if the Prosecution wish to put in the whole
document, then you want to cross-examine them. Is that right?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you meaning that you are asking the Tribunal to
strike out the passages in the Defendant Fritzsche’s evidence which deal
with these statements or are you merely meaning that if the Prosecution
wish to use, not only the parts which they have put to the defendant in
cross-examination but other parts of the document, that in that event
you would like to cross-examine the deponents Voss and Schörner?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, we only want the cross-examination to take
place in case the Court should regard the three interrogation records,
as a whole, as documentary evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, then you do mean what I first of all put to you.
Well, perhaps the Prosecution, General Rudenko, would tell us whether he
is wanting to put in the whole document or whether he has put enough of
it in.
GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, as I have already stated to the Tribunal,
when these written statements were submitted, the records of the
interrogations were written down in agreement with the rules of
procedure which is in existence in the Soviet Union. The Prosecution
will only use those parts which were read here before the Tribunal and
on which the Defendant Fritzsche was cross-examined.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then it is not necessary to have those
witnesses brought here for cross-examination. Very well.
DR. SCHILF: Yes, indeed, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then that brings the Tribunal to the end of the evidence
for the Defense, with the exception of two witnesses who are to be—who
are here and to be called on behalf of the Defendant Bormann.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, on behalf of the Defendant Speer may I
submit in addition a document which has already been translated and is
known to the Prosecution. This is the Führer protocol of 3 January 1943.
This shall have the Document Number Speer-35. I had already listed it as
Exhibit Number 35 in the index of the documents submitted by me which I
gave the Court. Only at that time it had not yet been translated. I
should like to submit it now.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
What I wanted to say was that that concludes the whole of the evidence
on behalf of the defendants with the exception of interrogatories which
have already been granted, the answers to which have not yet been
received. Of course, those interrogatories, subject to their being
admissible, will be admitted when the answers are received and that
applies also to anything in the shape of an affidavit which has been
allowed by the Tribunal; but otherwise the evidence for the defendants
is now closed with the exception of Dr. Bergold.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have another question regarding the
appearance for testimony of the witness Walkenhorst. In case he is not
called as a witness, I have an affidavit at my disposal, which I have
received; and I assume that I may submit this in case this witness is
not examined here before the Court. It deals with a very brief question,
namely, the telephone conversation which Sauckel had regarding the
evacuation of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. Walkenhorst happened to
be the man at the other end of the wire. I have an affidavit on this one
question.
Of course, if the witness is being questioned here in Court I shall ask
him; but in case he is not examined I request that this be held open.
THE PRESIDENT: You are speaking of Walkenhorst?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, the witness Walkenhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he is just going to be examined now.
DR. SERVATIUS: I hope so, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: But—I believe he is here.
I have before me a list of supplementary applications but I think that
they have all been dealt with in the discussion which we have had during
the last 2 days. And if there is any other matter which the defendants’
counsel wish to raise they should raise it now.
Well then, I take it then, that as I said, the evidence for the Defense
is now concluded, subject to the reception of documents which I may
describe as outstanding, either interrogatories or affidavits.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I be permitted, please, to introduce three
more documents with the permission of the Tribunal. They concern the
following questions:
When considering what influence the paper published by Streicher
exercised on the German population, it is of decisive importance to know
how the circulation of this paper developed and to what circumstances
the fact is to be attributed that, within a certain period of time,
there was a marked increase in its circulation.
I set myself the task of determining from the mastheads of the weekly
paper, _Der Stürmer_, how its circulation developed.
THE PRESIDENT: But—we have already dealt with this application. We have
had the application before us and we have considered it and we have
refused it.
DR. MARX: Yes, I beg your pardon, Mr. President; it concerns the
following:
Quite by accident, when looking at various issues of this newspaper, I
ascertained that in the year 1935 a marked jump in circulation took
place and the Defense would like to prove that this increase is not to
be traced to an increased demand by the German people but rather to the
fact that high Party offices exercised their influence and, together
with a new publishing management, brought about a threefold increase.
Naturally, it is of essential significance whether a threefold increase
results from a demand by the people or whether, as in this case, the
German Labor Front intervened in the person of Dr. Ley, and a special
publicity number was published, which was then circulated by Dr. Ley’s
efforts and by using the huge machinery of the German Labor Front.
That is something I want to prove and I am of the opinion that it is of
importance to the Defense.
I have three documents along these lines, Mr. President; and with the
permission of the Tribunal I shall read a directive, and I ask that I be
allowed to introduce it as evidence. From this it appears that Dr. Ley
as the leader of the German Labor Front, gave the order to all the
offices of the German Labor Front to circulate this special edition and
to see to it that it was widely circulated in the factories, and so
forth. For, indeed, it is one of the essential points of the Indictment
that the German people were influenced against the Jews by _Der Stürmer_
and by the Defendant Streicher, and thereby later made ripe to support
the measures in the East, even to the extent of mass extermination.
Therefore, I ask that this evidence be admitted and that it be declared
relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: You said you have got three documents. The first one is a
directive from Ley?
DR. MARX: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. What are the other two?
DR. MARX: One is an excerpt from the newspaper _Der Stürmer_ in May
1935, Number 18, which reads as follows:
“Bernhardt, who fled from Berlin to France, writes in the
_Pariser Tageblatt_ (Paris, 29 March 1935) under the heading,
_‘Stürmer_ Circulation Increases Threefold,’ as follows:
“‘The support which the pornographer Streicher received from the
highest offices of the Reich in circulating his _Stürmer_ helped
him to triple his circulation within less than a year...’”
THE PRESIDENT: Wait. You have already told us that the circulation of
the Stürmer went up threefold. It is not necessary to repeat it all
again. We only want to know what the documents are. The first one is a
directive of Ley. The second one is an issue of _Der Stürmer_. What is
the third one?
DR. MARX: And the third—the third is a summary of the circulation from
January 1935 until the middle of October 1935; and from this it appears
that, within the period of 1 year, the circulation increased from
113,800 to 486,000. Anybody will probably...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is quite sufficient. We do not want to know
any more about it.
DR. MARX: Very well, Mr. President. Then, may I be permitted...
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I—it is entirely in the hands of the
Tribunal, but we should see no objection from the Prosecution’s point of
view to admitting these documents. The first would appear to directly
link the Defendant Streicher with another of the conspirators. It would
be a most important document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Marx. Then the three documents will be
admitted.
DR. MARX: I should like to submit the documents under Exhibit Numbers
19, 20, and 21.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. May I make one more remark?
Why the matter came about now and was so delayed is that I personally
did not know anything about it before. It was only by accident that I
learned this from _Der Stürmer’s_ masthead. It was previously unknown to
me, and I considered it—considered it from my point of view as
pertinent evidence. I ask to be excused for not submitting it before
now.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I naturally do not wish to submit any further
evidence; but I should like to ask you to clarify a question, a question
of law.
At this time interrogations are going on constantly in the commissions
in order to gather evidence with regard to the organizations. Witnesses
are being interrogated there whom we here do not know, and documents are
being submitted which we have not yet seen. It will be several weeks
before we know the results of this evidence about the organizations.
Now we defense attorneys, who are working here, are thinking of the
following case: It could happen, for instance, that one of these
defendants could be incriminated by some new testimony about the
organizations, or that documents might be submitted which we, as Defense
Counsel for these defendants, would absolutely have to take into
consideration in our pleas, or to which we would have to offer evidence
in rebuttal.
Now we are agreed that the evidence here should be concluded, but we
would naturally like to reserve the right in such cases to learn the
results of the hearings for the organizations.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you will find, when you look carefully at the
order which the Tribunal made, that this matter was provided for and
that, if there is any matter in the course of the hearing of the case
against the organizations which in any way materially or directly
affects any of the individual defendants, the Tribunal, of course, has
discretion to hear counsel for that defendant upon the matter; and I
think that is specifically dealt with in the order that we have made.
DR. SAUTER: This order is known to us, of course, Mr. President; but we
just wanted to be clear on this point, that this order will still remain
in force, even if the presentation of evidence here is concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
Do the Prosecution wish to make any application to the Tribunal?
COL. PHILLIMORE: I have eight documents to put in. My Lord, they are
documents which it is intended to refer to in the final speech; and
accordingly I would not propose to do more than just to indicate their
nature to the Tribunal and put them in very quickly. I have a list of
them which I will hand up first.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they documents which have not yet been offered in
evidence? It may be convenient to see their nature.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord; I am offering them in rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: You have a list here?
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord, the first document is...
THE PRESIDENT: Have they been communicated to the defendants’ counsel?
COL. PHILLIMORE: No, My Lord; I have copies here.
The first document, 1519-PS, contains orders for the treatment of Soviet
prisoners of war. My Lord, that is not strictly offered in rebuttal; but
the Tribunal has had before it a document, EC-338, which was put in as
Exhibit USSR-356. That document consisted of a commentary by Admiral
Canaris on these orders, and Your Lordship may remember the document.
Defendant Keitel had made certain notes on it on which he was
cross-examined, the reference in the shorthand notes being Pages 7219 to
7223 (Volume X, Pages 622-625). My Lord, it seems appropriate that the
actual orders should be before the Court and not merely the commentary.
My Lord, that will be GB-525, and the Tribunal will see it consists of a
covering letter from the Defendant Bormann to Gauleiter and Kreisleiter
covering the OKW letter signed by General Reinecke, the head of the
Prisoners of War Organization; and then there follow the actual
regulations.
THE PRESIDENT: Has not this been in before?
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I am told not. What was put in was the
commentary on this document, which was by Admiral Canaris. It was
included—this document was included in the Keitel document book, but it
was not formally put in.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. You mean it will be GB...
COL. PHILLIMORE: 525, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, the second document, D-912, will be GB-526.
This is a series of broadcasts from German stations between 6 September
and 22 October 1939, monitored by the British Broadcasting Corporation
and dealing with the _Athenia_.
My Lord, I offer that document in view of the Defendant Raeder’s
evidence. The Tribunal will remember that, according to him, the article
on the 23 October in the _Völkischer Beobachter_ came as a complete
surprise. The reference in the shorthand notes is 9832, Page 9832
(Volume XIV, Page 80).
My Lord, it also arises out of the question, I think, put to the
Tribunal—put by the Tribunal to the Defendant Fritzsche; and it
confirms his evidence that broadcasts blaming Mr. Winston Churchill for
being responsible for the sinking of the _Athenia_ started at the early
part of September and went right on through the month. Actually, these
broadcasts, the Tribunal will see—the first on 6 September. I might
read perhaps one sentence in the second line:
“The German press refutes the accusations of the British press
that the German submarine had sunk the _Athenia_. Churchill, as
one of his first actions, ordered the _Athenia_ to be sunk in
order to stir up anti-German feeling in the U.S.A.”
Well, then there are similar broadcasts from other stations on that day,
again on the 7th, the 11th, the 25th. I have not got the one on the
27th, put in by General Rudenko; but there is one by the Defendant
Fritzsche on 1 October, and so on, culminating with a broadcast by
Goebbels on the 22d, the day before the article appeared. My Lord, that
will be GB-526.
The next document, 3881-PS, is an extract from the proceedings before
the Peoples’ Court on 7 and 8 August 1944, when seven defendants were
tried for the attempt on Hitler’s life. My Lord, I am only putting in a
translated extract, but the photostat is in fact complete. I should have
said that what is before the Tribunal is only a translation of certain
extracts, but the exhibit contains the complete record of the
proceedings. My Lord, I...
THE PRESIDENT: Unless we have it translated, we shall not be able to
have it in evidence.
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, we do not intend to refer to more than the
translated extracts.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
COL. PHILLIMORE: I only said that for the benefit of Defense Counsel,
who may wish to look elsewhere.
My Lord, I put that in in view of the Defendant Jodl’s evidence that it
was only because British generals obeyed orders that the German generals
were now being tried. That is Page 11043 of the shorthand notes (Volume
XV, Page 383). And the passages—the nature of the passages is that the
president of the Peoples’ Court is refusing to accept the defense of
superior orders put forward by the defendants. My Lord, that will be
GB-527.
My Lord, the next document is D-181, which I offer as Exhibit GB-528. It
is a letter by a Gauleiter to Gauamtsleiter, Gauinspektor, and
Kreisleiter on the subject of the law of hereditary health and
sterilization on the ground of imbecility. It is an important document
in connection with the Defendant Frick, and I put it in in view of the
statements made on his behalf by his counsel at Page 8296 (Volume XII,
Page 162) of the shorthand notes, My Lord, when he said in effect that
Frick had no control over the political police and that Himmler’s
subordination to him was purely nominal.
My Lord, there are a number of references in the letter to the fact that
the decree—and indeed its administration—was the responsibility of the
Defendant Frick.
My Lord, the next document is of a similar nature, and I attribute it to
the same page of the shorthand notes. It is Document M-151, and I offer
it as Exhibit GB-529. It consists of three letters on the subject of the
murder of mental patients in institutions. The first is dated the 6th of
September and addressed by the supervisor of a sanatorium at Stetten to
the Reich Minister of Justice. It sets out the feeling of insecurity in
the neighborhood of the sanatorium administered by its inspector, in
view of the number of deaths which are occurring.
The second, dated the 10th, is a letter from the Minister of Justice
acknowledging the complaint and saying that it has been passed to the
Defendant Frick.
And the third, of the same date, is the Minister’s letter to his
colleague passing the complaint to him.
My Lord, the next document is again on the same subject. It is Document
M-152, and I offer it as Exhibit GB-530. It consists of four letters.
The first, dated the 19th of July 1940, is addressed to the Defendant
Frick as Reich Minister of the Interior, by Bishop Wurm, the Provincial
Bishop of the Württemberg Evangelical Provincial Church. My Lord, it
again sets out the mass of complaints he is receiving and then goes on
to deal with the wickedness of the practice which is apparently going
on.
The second letter, dated the 23d of August, is a letter to the Minister
of Justice referring to the letter sent to the Defendant Frick.
The third, of the 5th of September, is a letter to the Defendant Frick
reminding him of the previous letter of the 19th of July to which no
reply had been received.
And, on the 6th of September, the next letter is a parallel
communication again to the Minister of Justice.
Finally, on the 11th of September, the last page of the document, there
is a memorandum on the Minister of Justice’s file indicating that an
official of the Ministry had informed the Bishop’s dean, presumably Dean
Keppler, that the matter was entirely one for the Defendant Frick.
My Lord, the next document, D-455, which I offer as Exhibit GB-531, is a
pamphlet prepared by the German. Military Government authorities in
Belgium. It comes from the files of the German War Office, the OKW, and
it is entitled, _Belgium’s Contributions to Germany’s War Economy_, and
is dated the 1st of March 1942.
My Lord, I offer it in view of the general evidence that German
occupation was benevolent, and that—the Tribunal has heard, again and
again, the suggestion that they did a great deal of good to the
countries they occupied. This document is a very graphic illustration of
the falsity of that evidence out of the mouths of the Defense.
My Lord, if I might take the Tribunal very quickly through it, at Page 3
is a chart of the population figures in terms of employees, and it shows
that more than half the working population was working for Germany. Of
the 1,800,000 workers and employees in Belgium, 901,280 were employed
with the German Armed Forces and in the German interests.
My Lord, at Page 4 is a comparison between Belgium, Holland, and France
in terms of percentage of workers employed as slave labor.
My Lord, at Page 5 is a statement of the production figures for the
Belgian contribution to Germany, in—I think it is the seventh line, it
is summed up: “Output to the value of 1,200 million Reichsmark.”
Page 6—there is a comparison between the coal taken from Belgium and
the same amount produced in the year in the Ruhr.
At Page 8 there is comparison of iron, with the total amount of iron
used in the West Wall.
Page 9, cement; Page 10, textiles; Page 11, metals. There is a statement
there which contains a sentence about the summing up of what had been
taken out: “It was possible to achieve these results only by exhausting
the last reserves of the country.”
At Page 12 there is a chart of how the metal collection has affected
individuals. It is a comparison between Belgium, Holland, and France.
At Page 13 there is a statement about the contribution to traffic; and a
chart on Page 14.
At Page 15 it appears that the contributions in money exceeded the total
earning—earned income of the Belgian workers for the last year.
At Page 16 there are figures with regard to the quantity of gold taken
for safekeeping in the Reichsbank.
Page 18 deals with shares, a comparison with the total share capital of
I. G. Farben, the comparison being 700 million Reichsmark as against the
share capital of I. G. Farben of 800 millions.
Then there is a statement with regard to rations, showing that Germany
had imported food into Belgium but that, despite that, the rationing was
the lowest of all western countries.
And finally, on the last page, there is an indication of the change in
the Belgian rations by comparison between 1938 and under the benevolent
rule of the German Military Government in 1941. My Lord, it speaks for
itself.
My Lord, I—My Lord, the last document, D-524, is a similar pamphlet
referring to France. It comes from the same source, and I offer it as
Exhibit GB-532.
My Lord, owing to a breakdown in electric power, I have not been able to
finish photostating the English copies, but I will hand them in, if I
may, subsequently and for the moment I hand up German photostats.
My Lord, I offer it in view of the Defendant Sauckel’s evidence, at Page
10617 of the shorthand notes (Volume XV, Page 52), where he said that
the total slave labor figure was not more than 5 millions. My Lord, at
Pages 8 and 9 of this document, the Tribunal will see the slave labor
position of Germany at the end of 1943, so that to this must be added
slave labor drawn in during 1944. My Lord, it amounts to just under 7
millions, of which 1,462,000 were prisoners of war, so that the figure
of slave labor at the date was slightly over 5 millions; that is, slave
labor excluding prisoners of war was slightly over 5 millions, and to
that, as I say, one must add the increase during 1944.
My Lord, on Page 8 are the figures and comparisons: Men, civilians,
3,631,000; prisoners of war, 1,462,000; women, 1,714,000. And then it is
set out how that is divided by countries. And on Page 9 is merely an
illustration in color.
My Lord, the rest of the pamphlet merely gives figures illustrative of
what was taken from France, very similar to those in the case of
Belgium. And I would not propose to take the Tribunal through it unless
it is desired that I should do so.
My Lord, I think I gave that a number, Exhibit GB-532.
My Lord, that is all the documents that I have to offer. I understand my
friend, Mr. Dodd, has some.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief of Counsel for the United States):
May it please the Tribunal, at the time of the cross-examination of the
Defendant Hermann Göring we confronted him with a document, numbered
3787-PS, It was received as Exhibit USA-782. It was the report of the
second meeting of the Reich Defense Council. Göring acknowledged the
authenticity of the minutes as presented to him in the German text. But
the document at that time had not been translated, and consequently it
was not possible to read into the record the many parts of that document
which we considered important as bearing upon his credibility and
testimony, and as bearing upon the denials of many other of the
defendants that they knew of the planning of the war and that they
knew—participated in it.
I would now like to read from the record part of this which we consider
extremely important as rebuttal testimony received from several of the
defendants.
On the face of it, it is a letter of transmittal dated the 10th day of
July 1939, from the supreme command of the Armed Forces, on the subject,
“Second Meeting of the Reich Defense Council.”
One hundred copies were prepared, and our copy is the 84th. It is
labeled “most secret” and merely transmits in the name of the chief of
the supreme command of the Armed Forces the enclosed document to
following parties, among others. I shall name only the ones to which we
have attached some importance: To the Party, the Führer’s Deputy, the
first copy; to the Chief of the Reich Chancellery; to Ministerpräsident,
Field Marshal Göring, the Reich Minister and Commander-in-Chief of the
Air Force; to the Foreign Office; to the Plenipotentiary General for
Reich Administration are nine copies, including copies for the Minister
of the Interior, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Education, the
Minister for Church Affairs, and the Reich Office for Planning; also to
the Plenipotentiary General for Economy, including copies for the
Minister of Economy, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the Ministry
of Labor, the Chief Forester, and the Commissioner for Price Control; to
the Minister of Finance; the Minister of Transport, Motor Transport, and
Roads; and the Minister of Railways; the Post Minister; the Minister of
Enlightenment and Propaganda; the Reichsbank Directorate; the General
Inspector of German Roads; the Armed Forces, including nine copies for
the OKH, five copies for the OKM, the Reich Minister for Air and
Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force; the supreme command of the Armed
Forces; a series of other copies being enclosed.
The enclosure is a report of the second meeting of the Reich Defense
Council, held on a date to which we attach importance, the 6th day—the
23d day of June 1939.
“Place: Large conference room of the Reich Air Ministry.
“Commencement: 1110; termination: 1355.
“President: Ministerpräsident, General Field Marshal Göring.
“Persons present...”
I shall name only those to which we attach some importance, because the
list is very long:
The Führer’s Deputy; the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Dr. Lammers;
Reichsministerpräsident General Field Marshal Göring’s staff, Secretary
of State Körner, Secretary of State Naumann, Councillor Bergbohm, and
several others; Plenipotentiary General for Reich Administration,
Reichsminister Frick, Reichsführer SS Himmler and uniformed police,
Daluege; Plenipotentiary General for the Economy, Reichsminister Funk;
the Reichsminister of Finance Von Krosigk; Minister of Transport;
General Inspector of German Roads, Dr. Todt; supreme command of the
Armed Forces, Generaloberst Keitel, Warlimont, and Generalmajor Thomas;
supreme command of the Army, by—from the General Staff, General of
Artillery Halder; supreme command of the Navy, General
Admiral—Grossadmiral Raeder; Reich Minister for Air Force, Milch and
Bodenschatz, both of whom were witnesses here.
The contents, summarized, I will not read.
The minutes of the meeting:
“Ministerpräsident, General Field Marshal Göring emphasized in a
preamble that according to the Führer’s wishes the Reich Defense
Council was the determining body in the Reich for all questions
of preparation for war. It is to discuss only the most important
questions of Reich defense. They will be worked out by the Reich
Defense Committee.
“Meetings of the Reich Defense Council are to be convened only
for these decisions which are unavoidable. It is urged that the
departmental chiefs themselves be present.
“Distribution of labor.
“I. The President announced the following directives to govern
the distribution and employment of the population in wartime.
“1. The total strength of the Armed Forces is determined by the
Führer. It includes only half of the number of those fit and
liable for military service. Nevertheless, their disposition
will involve difficulties for economy, the administration, and
the whole of the civil sphere.
“2. When a schedule of manpower is made out, the basis on which
the question is to be judged is how the remaining number, after
those required for the Armed Forces have been withdrawn, can be
most suitably employed.
“3. Of equal importance to the requirements of the Armed Forces
are those of the armament industry. It, above all, must be
organized in peacetime as regards material and personnel in such
a way that its production does not decrease but increases
immediately with the outbreak of war.
“4. The direction of labor to the vital war armament industry
and to other civilian requirements is the main task of the
Plenipotentiary General for Economy.
“a. War armament covers not only the works producing war
materials, but also those producing synthetic rubber (Buna),
armament production tools, hydrogenation works, coal mining, _et
cetera_.
“b. (1) As a rule, no essential and irreplaceable specialists
may be taken away from ‘war decisive’ factories, on whose
production depends the course of the war, unless they can be
replaced.
“Coal mining is the most urgent work. Every worker who is
essential to coal mining is ‘indispensable.’
“Note: Coal mining has even now become the key point of the
whole armament industry, of communications, and of export. If
the necessary labor is not made available for it now, the most
important part of the export trade, the export of coal, will
cease. The purchase of coal in Poland will stop. The correct
distribution of labor is determinative. In order to be able to
man these key points with the right people, severe demands will
shortly be submitted to the Führer which, even in the current
mobilization year, will under certain circumstances lead to an
exceptional war economy, for instance, to the immobilization of
lorries and to the closing down of unessential factories owing
to lack of coal.
“In addition, there is the supplying of Italy and other
countries such as Scandinavia with coal (to maintain the German
supplies of iron).”
I shall omit certain parts of the document which do not seem
particularly important to our argument and pass to Item 2, Page 9 of the
English translation:
“(2) A second category of workers liable for military service
will be called up during the war after their replacements have
been trained. A decisive role is played by the extensive
preliminary training and retraining of workers.
“(3) Preparations must be made for replacing the mass of other
workers liable for military service, even by drawing on an
increased number of women. There are also disabled servicemen.
“(4) Compulsory work for women is of decisive importance in
wartime. It is important to proceed to a great extent with the
training of women in important war work, as replacements and to
augment the number of male workers.
“(d) In order to avoid confusion when mobilization takes place,
persons working in important war branches, that is,
administration, communications, police, food, will not be
removed at first. It is essential to establish the degrees of
urgency and importance.
“In the interests of the auxiliary civilian service, provided by
every European people to gain and maintain the lead in the
decisive initial weeks of a war, efforts must in this way be
made to insure by an efficient organization that every German in
wartime not only possesses his mobilization orders but has also
been thoroughly prepared for his wartime activity. The works
must also be adapted to receive the replacements and additional
workers.”