“My last mission, at Sauckel’s request, was to ascertain whether
it was possible by means of using our banking connections to
purchase an additional amount of grain in Romania and
Hungary—about 50,000 to 100,000 tons was the figure given. This
grain was to be used as additional food for foreign laborers in
the form of a light afternoon meal.”
Then he says that that project failed due to circumstances. He gives a
general impression of Sauckel, and says briefly:
“Sauckel approached that task with the energy and vigor peculiar
to him. He pointed out repeatedly what conditions were necessary
for the success of the task and repeatedly emphasized that it
was the major duty of all authorities to see that correct
treatment was given to workers at their places of employment.”
Then he describes the details:
“Above all, he demanded that foreign workers should not be given
the feeling of being imprisoned in their camps. He demanded the
removal of all barbed wire fences.”
He continues by saying:
“...Sauckel said that the workers must return to their native
countries as propaganda agents.”
Then the witness gives an important statement concerning information as
to atrocities and bad conditions. I should like to read something from
Page 6 to show what kind of person this witness Goetz is. He says...
THE PRESIDENT: What page is your excerpt from?
DR. SERVATIUS: Page 6, or Page 266 of the document book, at the top of
the page.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: He says:
“I feel also that I should mention that following my arrest by
the Gestapo, after the affair of 20 July 1944, Sauckel spoke on
my behalf to the RSHA (Kaltenbrunner). I cannot say to what
extent my release from the Ravensbrück Concentration Camp was
brought about by this.
“I wish to state further that I did not receive from Sauckel any
material remuneration, awards, or decorations.
“I found it expedient to conceal from him my own inner political
convictions and my connections with Goerdeler and Popitz. In his
blind obedience to Hitler—and in spite of our old
friendship—he would otherwise no doubt have handed me over to
that Gestapo from which he endeavored to free me in November
1944.”
I have read this in advance and I return now to Page 265, because the
witness, who was then working on Sauckel’s staff, states his attitude to
that question which is of great interest to all of us. He says:
“Now that the extent of atrocities in concentration camps has
become known to me from publications, I ponder and rack my
brains as to how the picture drawn above can be made to tally
with the events now brought to light. Although I have thought it
over for weeks, I can find no explanation for this.”
THE PRESIDENT: What page is this? Page 265?
DR. SERVATIUS: Page 265. It is near the top of the page. Where it is in
the English text, I cannot say; but it should be Page 265.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: “On one side I see the foreign workers, men and
women who move freely about in great numbers and associate with
the German population. Frenchmen and Belgians, with whom I spoke
out of personal interest, were usually happy to hear their
native tongue, conversed freely, hoped the war would soon end,
and criticized their work, but rarely sharply. On the other side
appears the totally unbearable sight of the recently revealed
mass atrocities. One had heard that foreign workers were tried
and sentenced—they were certainly subject to the same
arbitrariness and the same methods of punishment as were the
natives—but not that mass sentences were passed. But that
really had nothing to do with the Allocation of Labor. I find it
impossible to reconcile what I heard and what I saw in those
days with the present revelations. Either this was a development
which took place in the last year and a half, when I was not
able to observe the situation because of my arrest and my
retirement to the country, or else there existed, besides the
regular Allocation of Labor, an employment of concentration camp
inmates on a vast scale. It is also possible that Sauckel was
not able to supervise things and was not informed or that he
deceived himself with his general orders and oral statements,
which I could not comprehend.”
I considered these statements of particular importance, because the
witness stood on the side of the men of 20 July 1944 and certainly
observed carefully, and great importance has to be attached to his
judgment.
As to the questions themselves, Question Number 1 and its answer I
consider irrelevant; also, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. All of these are answers
which are of minor importance.
To Question Number 10, Page 276:
“Who was responsible for the billeting, treatment, and feeding
of foreign workers after they had arrived at the place of work?”
The answer is:
“The only thing I heard was that from the moment work was
started responsibility for that rested with the factory
managers, and in most cases with special employees under them.”
Question 11 is:
“What kind of orders did Sauckel issue for the treatment of
workers in the factories?”
The witness in his answer refers to the introduction which I have read.
The next questions—13, 14, 15, 16, and 17—are irrelevant.
Question 18 is:
“Did Sauckel receive reports about irregular conditions? What
measures did he take? Do you know of any individual cases?”
The answer is:
“I remember only one case. Sauckel was informed that the workers
of a certain factory were still housed in a camp surrounded by
barbed wire. I cannot recollect the name of the place or the
factory concerned. I heard that he ordered the immediate removal
of the fence.”
Then we come to the questions which are put by the Prosecution. I
consider that Question Number 1 is not relevant because it deals with
personal, unofficial relations with Sauckel, and how he became
acquainted with him. He made his acquaintance when a prisoner of war.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, Mr. Biddle thinks that the Prosecution
ought to be asked to read anything they wish to out of those
interrogatories.
M. HERZOG: The Prosecution, Mr. President, does not wish to read any
excerpts from this interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you know that the witness Jäger is
present, do you not?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, he is present.
THE PRESIDENT: You know he is present.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then, with the permission of the Tribunal, I will call
the witness Jäger.
[_The witness Jäger took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?
DR. WILHELM JÄGER (Witness): Dr. Wilhelm Jäger.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, during the war you worked as a doctor with the
firm of Krupp, in Essen, and were entrusted with the medical care of the
camps of foreign workers? Is that true?
JÄGER: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who put you in charge there?
JÄGER: I was appointed by the firm of Krupp which employed me when a
change in the care of foreign workers was brought about through the
public health administration having to take it over.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were you not also appointed to this post by the German
Labor Front?
JÄGER: No. The contract which the firm of Krupp made with me was made
through the German Labor Front.
DR. SERVATIUS: If I understand you correctly, you did not conclude the
contract directly with the Labor Front; but you were under obligations
to the German Labor Front, were you not?
JÄGER: I have never felt that I had anything to do with the Labor Front
in that respect.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, did you not continuously send reports to the
German Labor Front about the conditions in the camps?
JÄGER: That happened only in a few cases, as far as I can remember. I
generally sent these reports to the public health authorities and to the
firm of Krupp.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you not also report to the Trade Inspection Board?
JÄGER: Not always. I reported just a few cases to the health office of
the city of Essen, but only in individual cases when it appeared
important to me that the health office should be informed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know the office for public health and medical
care?
JÄGER: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: With what office was that connected?
JÄGER: That was in Essen.
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not mean the locality, but with what office was it
connected? Was it not with the German Labor Front?
JÄGER: I cannot say that precisely. I know only that it was a
subdepartment of the public health administration in Essen.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is it known to you that the foreign workers were under
the care and control of the German Labor Front?
JÄGER: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Also with respect to their health?
JÄGER: On only one occasion did I meet a commission from the Labor Front
in my camp.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you know the institution of Gau camp doctors?
JÄGER: An institution of that kind was to have been created in Essen,
but it did not happen. At that time, when we had just had a typhus
epidemic, I suggested to the health officer—who was then Dr. Heinz
Bühler of Mühlheim—that something of the sort should be instituted.
Then also at a meeting I spoke about my idea, but I did not hear
anything more about this Gau office for camp doctors.
DR. SERVATIUS: That will do. How many camps did you supervise?
JÄGER: That varied. First, there may have been 5 or 6, then later maybe
17 or 18, and later again it fell to a lower figure. But I am not able
at this moment to give you the exact figure.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the nature of your task?
JÄGER: Above all, I was supposed to assure the medical care of foreign
workers.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you have anything to do with the treatment of the
sick?
JÄGER: Only when they were brought to me and when I was in the camps. I
always concerned myself personally with individual cases in the camps
whenever I inspected them.
DR. SERVATIUS: You had not only a supervisory capacity, but you also
gave treatment yourself?
JÄGER: Whenever I was in a camp I would be consulted by the camp doctors
and I would advise them.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the job of the camp doctors?
JÄGER: The camp doctors had their daily duty in the infirmary and the
care of the patients in general.
DR. SERVATIUS: So your work was supervisory?
JÄGER: Yes; supervisory.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, the Prosecution has repeatedly interrogated you
outside this courtroom?
JÄGER: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: You have been in Nuremberg before—in this building here?
JÄGER: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you make an affidavit about the conditions in the
Krupp camps?
JÄGER: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: I will put this affidavit to you. This is an affidavit of
15 October 1945. Did you give that affidavit as a witness for the
Prosecution?
JÄGER: As far as I can remember, yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now I ask you to state whether you still stand by the
statements which you made at that time?
JÄGER: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall read the statements to you: “My name is Dr.
Wilhelm Jäger. I am a physician in Essen...”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, we cannot have the whole document read to
him. You can put to him anything you want to challenge him upon.
DR. SERVATIUS: Very well.
[_Turning to the witness._] You say, at about the middle of the first
page:
“I began my work with a thorough inspection of the camps. At
that time, in October 1942, I found the following
conditions...”—and you go on to say—“The Eastern Workers were
housed in the following camps: Seumannstrasse, Grieperstrasse,
Spendlerstrasse, Hoegstrasse, Germaniastrasse, Dechenschule...”
THE PRESIDENT: Are you challenging that?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Where were these camps?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, that is what I want to ask him.
[_Turning to the witness._] Did these camps exist at the time, and were
they occupied?
JÄGER: As far as I can remember. One has to take into consideration that
until I started my work I did not know at all what camps existed. At a
meeting which had been called, where there were doctors of the various
nationalities, I asked first of all what camps there were. They did not
know; and then a list was procured in which the camps were given.
Then...
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have mentioned the camps here by name, and
yet you are not certain that these camps existed at that time, in
October 1942?
JÄGER: I have given the camps which existed at the beginning of my
activities, as far as I could remember. I had to go to each one of these
camps personally, and I had to depend entirely upon myself.
DR. SERVATIUS: Further, concerning the food of the Eastern Workers—if
you will look at the second page of the document—you state the
following:
“The food for the Eastern Workers was completely inadequate.
They received 1,000 calories less per day than the minimum for
Germans....”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, below the names of the camps he says:
“...all surrounded by barbed wire and were closely guarded.” I
understand you are challenging that?
DR. SERVATIUS: Were the camps surrounded by barbed wire and closely
guarded, as it says here?
JÄGER: In the beginning, yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you do not know whether that was the same case in all
camps, do you?
JÄGER: The camps which I visited, where I was as yet unknown, for
instance, Krämerplatz and Dechenschule, were closely guarded, and I had
to show my credentials in order to get in.
DR. SERVATIUS: I repeat the question concerning the food. You said the
Eastern Workers received 1,000 calories less per day than the minimum
for Germans. Whereas German workers who did hard work received 5,000
calories per day, the Eastern Workers who performed the same kind of
work received only 2,000 calories per day. Is that true?
JÄGER: That was true at the beginning of my activities. The food for
Eastern Workers—as could be seen from the posted lists—had been
determined as to quantity, and there was a difference between that for
Eastern Workers and that for German workers. The 5,000 calories
mentioned here were given to specific categories of German workers who
did the hardest type of work. That was not given to everybody.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I shall put to you a chart of the calories.
I submit to the Tribunal a copy of this chart. That is an exact table of
the calories to which the individual categories of workers were
entitled. It begins with 9 February 1942 and shows the individual quotas
for the various types of workers; and on the last page there is a
summary of the average quotas of calories which were allotted.
It is shown there in the summary, Group 1. Eastern Workers and Soviet
prisoners of war: Average workers, 2,156 calories; heavy workers, 2,615;
very heavy workers, 2,909; for long hours and night workers, 2,244. Are
you familiar with these figures?
JÄGER: Approximately.
DR. SERVATIUS: Will you compare that with what the German workers
received: The normal consumer, 2,846 calories; heavy workers, 3,159;
very heavy workers, 3,839; for long hours and night workers, 2,846
calories. Is that in accordance with your statement, according to which
you said that German workers doing the heaviest work received 5,000
calories, whereas the Eastern Workers received only 2,000 calories?
THE PRESIDENT: It is very hard to follow these figures unless you give
us the exact page. Are you on the last page?
DR. SERVATIUS: This is a summary.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, on which page are you?
DR. SERVATIUS: On the last page, the last sheet on the right side.
First, there are the food groups 1, 2, 3 on different pages; and then on
the last page, on the right side next to Group 3, which concerns the
Poles, there is a summary of calories for Eastern Workers, for Germans,
and for Poles. If you compare the amounts of calories here in the
columns, that should tally with what the witness has stated. He singled
out the very heavy workers and said that the Germans received 5,000
calories; the table shows that they received only 3,839. He also says
the Eastern Workers received 2,000 calories; whereas, according to the
table, they received 2,900—that is, instead of a proportion of 5,000 to
2,000, it is from 2,900 to 3,800—in round figures about 1,000 calories
and not, as the witness has said here, 3,000 calories. Is that correct?
Do you stand on your statement? A distinction has to be made...
THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear the witness’ answer.
MR. DODD: I think it would be more helpful to the Tribunal, and
certainly to the Prosecution, if it were established who made up this
chart, and whether or not the figures given here cover the camps where
this witness had jurisdiction. From looking it over I cannot tell where
it was made up, except on the front page it says:
“According to the food table by Dr. Hermann Schall, Medical
Superintendent of the ‘Westend’ Sanatorium. Calculations of
controlled foodstuffs for the camps of the firm of Krupp...”
And so on.
But these things can be made up by the bale and presented to witnesses.
Unless there is some foundation laid, I think it is an improper way to
cross-examine.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have an affidavit which can prove where that chart
comes from.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you ever seen this chart before?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is the affidavit of the witness Hahn.
JÄGER: Was a question put to me, please?
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness has the original. It is attached. May I ask
the witness to return the document to me?
JÄGER: I wanted to make a statement on this subject.
At the beginning of my activity the Eastern Workers’ food definitely
differed from that of the German people, and also from that of the
so-called western workers—the French, the Belgians, and so on. It can
be seen from the figures that, even though it may not be stated exactly,
at least there is a difference of 700 to 800 calories. In the beginning
until, I believe, February or March 1943, the Eastern Workers received
no additional rations for long hours, heavy work, or very heavy work.
These additional quotas were given only after Sauckel had ordered it;
and that was, if I remember correctly, at the beginning of 1943. At that
time, as far as I remember, the Eastern Workers were put on an equal
footing with the German workers as far as food was concerned; and they
received additional rations for long hours, heavy work, and very heavy
work, which they had not received at all before.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, if I understand you correctly, you want to say
that this chart may be right but that in reality the workers did not
receive what is listed on the chart. Did I understand you correctly?
JÄGER: Even from this chart you can see the difference.
DR. SERVATIUS: It was a difference of 3,000 calories which you
mentioned, whereas the table shows a difference of about 1,000 calories.
JÄGER: I said before that there were individual categories of workers
doing the heaviest type of work—such as stokers and miners—and that
they received up to 5,200 calories. That, however, was not the rule.
Only very special workers received up to 5,200 calories.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then what you say here is not correct, because you did
not mention that. You say generally that, whereas the German worker who
did the heaviest type of work received 5,000 calories, the Eastern
Workers who did the same type of work received only 2,000 calories per
day. That is, however, a general statement; and it does not show that
you are referring to exceptional cases of individual groups of workers.
Is that correct?
JÄGER: That is the way I saw it, and I believe that you understand it as
it appears here.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, where does this chart come from, and are you putting
it in? Will you put it in?
DR. SERVATIUS: In the affidavit this assertion is made, and the witness
said clearly at that time that the workers doing the heaviest type of
work received 5,000 calories if they were German, and if they were
Eastern Workers, they received only 2,000. That is a very clear
statement in the affidavit, which is not in accordance with the chart.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering it in evidence?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What will it be? What number will it be?
DR. SERVATIUS: That will be Exhibit Sauckel-11.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the affidavit refer to the chart?
DR. SERVATIUS: I asked because I questioned the correctness of the
affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I asked whether the affidavit refers to and
identifies the chart, the chart which the witness has just had in his
hand.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you have put in an affidavit by Walter
Hahn. Does that affidavit mention the chart and say where the chart
comes from and by whom it was made up and to what it refers?
DR. SERVATIUS: The affidavit which is here as Document Number D-288 does
not mention the chart, but only the affidavit which I have submitted.
Now I understand it is the affidavit by the witness Hahn, and the chart
is attached; and it is covered by the affidavit made by the witness.
That document I submit in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: I said the affidavit by Walter Hahn—does it identify and
is it attached to the chart? What page? There are seven pages, you know.
We cannot find it unless you tell us.
DR. SERVATIUS: In the German text on Page 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you mean where it says, “The amount of calories
contained in this food can be seen from the calorie table made by me
which covers the whole period of the war”? Is that what you mean? That
is on Page 4 of our copy. It is under the heading “C”: “Food Supply of
French Prisoners of War and Italian Military Internees.”
DR. SERVATIUS: It is there, as I have said before, on Page 4 of the
German text, where it says that the rations were based on calories; and
that the caloric content of the food can be seen from the calculations
made which cover the entire duration of the war. That is the document
attached.
THE PRESIDENT: But it is all right to say that the document is attached,
but it does not refer to it by any name.
DR. SERVATIUS: But the document is attached, so that it is obvious that
it must belong to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I do not want to be contentious about this,
but—maybe I do not understand—I think we ought to know when this
schedule was made; by whom. This affidavit says it is an appendix. Maybe
it was made by the man Hahn, but we do not know it yet; and this witness
has not testified to it, and counsel has not told us.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, the position is this, is it not: The man named
Walter Hahn made an affidavit annexed to this chart. That affidavit is
dated, I imagine...
MR. DODD: Yes, 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: ...after the affidavit had been made by this witness, and
replies in detail to the evidence given by this witness.
MR. DODD: Yes. What I wanted to understand fully was that this schedule,
concerning which this witness is being cross-examined, was apparently
not made up at the time when he had responsibility for these camps; and
so far it does not appear from the examination that that is so, and I
think it would have great bearing on the weight of the evidence adduced
through the cross-examination.
I would like to point out that it was the defense of Sauckel that he had
nothing to do with the feeding and care of these workers after they came
into Germany, but that it was the responsibility of the DAF. I think it
might be more helpful if counsel cleared that up, so that we would know
whether he does admit responsibility after they came in and whether that
is the purpose of this cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President...
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. The Tribunal does not think that you need
interrupt your cross-examination. You can go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: The Prosecution has just made that assertion as an
accusation against Sauckel. If the Prosecution today is of the opinion
that Sauckel was not responsible for the happenings in the factories but
rather the works manager was responsible and that he was not responsible
for prisoners of war but that the Armed Forces were responsible for
them, then I do not need this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on with your cross-examination, please.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have made some statements concerning the
clothing of Eastern Workers. You said that they slept in the same
clothes in which they had come from the East and that almost all of them
had no overcoats and were therefore forced to use their blankets—even
in cold and rainy weather—to carry their blankets in the place of
coats.
Was it always like that, or only for a time? Was that a general
occurrence or only an individual case?
JÄGER: In order to avoid another misunderstanding I have to state again:
At the beginning of my activity I depended entirely on myself. There was
no camp command. There was nobody else to work with me. The calorie
tables as were as the clothing charts were not made until later.
The camp management which existed, according to Hahn—if I remember
correctly—was only until February or April 1943. The phase which I
intended to describe, and have described here, refers strictly to the
time when I started my work. At that time the conditions were actually
as I have described them, and I had to go by that. That also included
clothing, as I have confirmed. These people remained in the same
condition as on arrival, as far as clothing was concerned, for quite a
while; and as far as I know they did not receive anything at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was done about that?
JÄGER: I reported these conditions as soon as possible. I do not
remember when. As far as I could see, the intention was to establish
tailor shops, shoe repair shops, and other work shops in the camps; and
some of them were actually established.
DR. SERVATIUS: One question. Did things generally get much better in the
course of your activities, or did they become worse?
JÄGER: They did not become worse after 1943. After, the first heavy air
raids, of course, the confusion was always very great. A great deal was
destroyed by fire. I recall that during one night 19,000 persons became
homeless; and, of course, clothes and underwear were destroyed also. It
naturally took quite some time to make up these losses.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these conditions caused by the firm of Krupp, or by
lack of supervision on the part of the Labor Front?
JÄGER: As I have said, I saw members of the Labor Front only once in a
camp. Then that commission did actually criticize conditions. It was in
the camp at Krämerplatz, and the firm of Krupp was fined at that time,
because of the conditions. But that was the only time that I got in
touch at all with the Labor Front.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the firm of Krupp object in any way to the
improvements, so that the Labor Front had to intervene?
JÄGER: That I cannot say. I had no influence in that respect and did not
know anything about it, because I had to deal only with medical affairs,
and did not participate in meetings of the firm of Krupp or the Labor
Front. I could only make reports.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you also made statements concerning the
conditions of health; and you said that the supply of medical
instruments, bandages, medicines, and other medical equipment was
completely inadequate in these camps. Is that true, or were those
exceptional cases; or was it a condition which existed all the time?
JÄGER: That was how I found the camps in October 1942, and slowly I had
to clear up these conditions. Later, of course, there was an
improvement.
DR. SERVATIUS: You say here that the number of Eastern Workers who fell
sick was twice as high as the number of German workers; that
tuberculosis was especially prevalent; and that the percentage was four
times as high among the Eastern Workers as among the Germans. Is that
correct?
JÄGER: That was the case at the beginning when we received workers who
had not had any medical examination at all. When I went through the
camps, I heard from the camp doctors—and saw for myself on the occasion
of inspections—that very many people were sick. The figure was
considerably higher than among the Germans, as far as I could see at
that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was done about that by the Krupp firm?
JÄGER: After we had found out that it was tuberculosis we had to deal
with, we made examinations in large numbers, even X-ray examinations.
Then those affected with tuberculosis were separated from the others and
put into the Krupp hospital for medical treatment.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then you mentioned typhus, and said that that was also
widespread among the workers.
JÄGER: I busied myself with that in particular, as we had about 150
cases.
DR. SERVATIUS: At what time?
JÄGER: During the entire period from 1942 to 1945.
DR. SERVATIUS: How many workers did you have during that time?
JÄGER: Oh, that varied.
DR. SERVATIUS: Give us some approximate figure.
JÄGER: Well, if I remember correctly, there may have been 23,000 or
24,000; there may have been more. Later, there were about 9,000. But
these figures varied.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you consider it correct, if 150 people out of such a
large number are affected by typhus over such a long period of time, to
say that it was very widespread among the workers?
JÄGER: Yes, for we had no typhus at all among the German population. So
that statement may be justified. If among a population of 400,000 or
500,000—such as there was in Essen at that time—there was no typhus at
all, and if one then takes an average of 20,000, with 150 cases among
the 20,000, then that statement can quite well be made.
DR. SERVATIUS: In other words, you maintain your statement, that it is a
correct statement that typhus was widespread. You say, furthermore, that
carriers of these diseases were fleas, lice, bedbugs, and other vermin
which tortured the inhabitants of those camps. Was that true of all the
camps?
JÄGER: It was the case in almost all the camps when I began my work.
Then a disinfection station was set up by the firm of Krupp, which was
hit in an air attack immediately. It was then rebuilt, and then
destroyed a second time.
DR. SERVATIUS: You say that in cases of illness the workers had to go to
work until a camp doctor certified that they were unfit for work. In the
camps at Seumannstrasse, Grieperstrasse, Germaniastrasse, and
Kapitän-Lehmannstrasse there were no daily consultation hours, and that
at these camps the camp doctors appeared only every second or third day.
Consequently workers were forced to go to work despite illness, until a
doctor appeared. Is that correct?
JÄGER: Naturally a worker had to work unless a camp doctor certified he
was unfit. It was the same with the German population. I am a panel
doctor myself and I know that in many cases a man had to go to work if
he did not report himself sick; there was no difference in that respect.
DR. SERVATIUS: And you say that that was the case in the camps
mentioned; that there was no real consultation hour, which meant that a
man could not possibly report sick?
JÄGER: But he could go to a doctor. Because there were no doctors there,
I purposely arranged that whenever possible people should come to me
during my consultation—to me personally.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you have said here...
THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better adjourn now.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you just said that the workers could report ill
even when there was no doctor present, that there was some other
provision for them. Here you say that these camps were visited only
every second or third day by the competent camp doctors; that as a
consequence the workers, despite illness, had to report for work until a
doctor was actually there. Is that correct?
JÄGER: That is wrongly expressed. If anyone reported ill he had to be
taken to a doctor, or the doctor was notified.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I should like to return once more to the subject
of the spreading of typhus. How many deaths resulted?
JÄGER: Only about three or four cases of death resulted, and they
occurred only because the case was diagnosed too late. I always took
personal charge of the typhus cases and had them brought to the hospital
immediately, for I was responsible for this.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then you say in another place, on Page 2:
“The plan of supplies prescribed a little meat each week. Only
Freibankfleisch could be used for this purpose, which was horse
meat, meat infected with tuberculosis, or meat condemned by the
veterinary.”
Does that mean that the foreign workers received bad meat?
JÄGER: One must define the expression “Freibankfleisch.” That was meat
which was not released for general consumption by the veterinary but
which, after being treated in a certain way, was quite fit for human
food. Even in times of peace and afterwards, the German population
bought this meat. During the war the German population received in
return for their coupons a double quantity of Freibankfleisch.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then the veterinary allowed it for consumption?
JÄGER: Meat which had been condemned at first was released for human
consumption after it had been treated in a certain manner and was then
not harmful.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then the expression “condemned by the veterinary” means
that it was first condemned and then allowed?
JÄGER: Yes, then allowed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, regarding the French prisoner-of-war camp in
Nöggerathstrasse you said the following:
“This camp was destroyed in a bombing attack; and the inmates
for almost half a year were housed in dog kennels, latrines, and
old baking ovens.”
Is that correct?
JÄGER: That is how I found this camp.
DR. SERVATIUS: And you saw that yourself for a half year?
JÄGER: I was there only on three occasions. It was described to me in
that way, and I found the camp in that condition. As far as I could
determine at the time, it had been in that condition for about 4 months;
then it was rebuilt.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I am interested in the dog kennels. How many dog
kennels were there? Were they really dog kennels, or was that only a
derogatory remark about some other kind of billets?
JÄGER: It was an expression of mine, because the inmates built and
hammered these huts together themselves.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is the same true of the latrines, or what does that mean?
JÄGER: That was the place where the doctor had his consultations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that a former latrine, or was it a latrine that was
being used as such?
JÄGER: A former latrine.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then it was a former latrine which had been rebuilt?
JÄGER: It had not been rebuilt; it was just as it had been.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was this latrine then still being used?
JÄGER: It was not being used.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then you say that there were no tables, chairs, or
cupboards in this camp.
JÄGER: That was also not the case.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, did you swear to this testimony which you have
seen?
JÄGER: Yes, to the one I saw before.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are you sure it is that testimony which you have just had
in your hands?
JÄGER: In my home in Chemnitz I crossed out various things in the record
of the interrogatory which was submitted to me, and initialed these
corrections...
DR. SERVATIUS: This very sentence, did you not...
THE PRESIDENT: Please do not interrupt him.
DR. SERVATIUS: Please continue.
JÄGER: I must assume that this is that corrected record.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you have it before you?
JÄGER: Yes, I have a record before me.
DR. SERVATIUS: Can you not determine which passages you crossed out?
Were there many passages like that, or was it just single words?
JÄGER: No, sometimes entire sentences.
DR. SERVATIUS: And you swore to that?
JÄGER: Yes. After I had made these changes, I swore to this record.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I should like to call the attention of the
Tribunal to the fact that this statement was in the Krupp files at the
beginning of the proceedings, and that it was considerably shorter, and
that a number of sentences which the witness has sworn to here were
lacking in that statement. I would suggest, therefore, that the
Prosecution should submit the original, which the witness states he has
altered, so that it can be seen just what he did write. As far as I
know, he struck out at the time a few of those very statements which he
has just repeated here.
As an example, I mention that he stated that in this camp there were no
chairs, tables, or cupboards. That is a sentence which was struck out.
The witness thus had doubts at the time, and did not swear to these
facts.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know what you are talking about. We have before
us what is called a sworn statement, which was put in evidence and which
is signed by the witness. The witness is now saying that that statement
is correct, subject to any alterations which you have extracted from him
in cross-examination.
DR. SERVATIUS: He said it might be entire sentences. I should like to
ask the Prosecution to produce the original document with the passages
crossed out, because I have seen two statements: a brief one in which
these passages are apparently left out, and a complete one, such as we
have before us, and which the witness says had been cut short.
THE PRESIDENT: All that the witness is saying, is it not, is that it was
originally submitted to him in a certain form? He made certain
alterations in it. Then, when those alterations had been made—I do not
know whether it was fair-copied or not—he then signed it and swore to
it, and that is the document that we have.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, my contention is this: The document which
we have before us does not show these crossings out. The words which
were struck out are still contained in the document.
THE PRESIDENT: You may ask the witness any question you like about it.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did you mark your alterations?
JÄGER: I crossed the passages out with ink and put my name next to the
alterations. It is difficult, of course, and today I am not able to say
what I did strike out at that time, as I did not retain a copy.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, if this document which we have before us
were reproduced correctly these crossed-out passages would have to be
shown, especially as the witness says that he put his initials in the
margin.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you sign the document after it had been fair-copied?
Witness, did you sign the document after it had been fair-copied? You
know what a fair copy is, do you not?
JÄGER: Yes. I must try to remember exactly.
The document was submitted to me. I made the alterations, and then I
signed three or four of these statements. Then these records were taken
away; and on the same day or the following day, I was in Essen and swore
to this record. Then I received a record which I read before the court.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that a fair copy without any alterations?
JÄGER: That was a fair copy. I do not remember exactly; I really cannot.
DR. SERVATIUS: And why did you make these alterations?
JÄGER: The record came about in this way. Captain Harris came to me and
interrogated me on these matters. Notes were taken; and then Captain
Harris, I think, compiled this record and asked me to sign it.
DR. SERVATIUS: And why did you make these alterations?
JÄGER: Because I could not swear to those things—the things that I
struck out I could not swear to.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was it incorrect, or did it go too far?
JÄGER: In part it went too far, I think I can put it that way; and in
part it was incorrect—unintentionally, of course. But I had to make
those changes, and I did make them.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, if I show you a document in which I mark in red
the passages that you struck out, would you recognize those passages?
JÄGER: That is very difficult, for I cannot remember that.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I have no further questions.
MR. DODD: I am not clear on this. I do not know whether counsel is
claiming that we have another document, one which we have not submitted.
I do not know of any such. We submitted the only one that came into our
possession...
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got that original, or is it with...
MR. DODD: There were a number of these made up, and they were all signed
as originals. The first was the copy made with the typewriter, the
others carbon copies. It was a joint British-American team that
interrogated the witness, and this one copy was turned over to us, and
we submitted it. That is the only one we have ever seen.
THE PRESIDENT: I see in the certificate of translation it refers to a
certificate dated 14 October 1945, signed by Captain N. Webb...
MR. DODD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You will find that at the end of the document, I think.
DR. BALLAS: As former counsel for Herr Krupp Von Bohlen, I wish to make
a statement about this.
In the Krupp file which the counsel for Krupp...
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. What have you got to do with it? We are
now considering the suggestion made by Dr. Servatius that this document,
which we are now considering...
DR. BALLAS: I am sorry. I did not quite follow you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We are now considering the Document Number D-288. You
haven’t anything to do with that document.
DR. BALLAS: Yes, this document does concern me. The Krupp portfolio...
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. What right have you to speak about it? You
are only a former counsel to Krupp.
DR. BALLAS: I want to help explain the matter. At present I am appearing
for Dr. Siemers, counsel for Admiral Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: But how can you help us about the framing of the
affidavit of this witness by the Prosecution? You cannot do anything
about that.
DR. BALLAS: I just wanted to refer to the different versions of the
document.
In the Krupp file there is a Document D-288 which is considerably
shorter than this Document D-288 which has been submitted by the
Prosecution in the case of Sauckel. At the time I called Dr. Servatius’
attention to this difference, and we checked point by point just how far
the deviations went. There are thus two documents—the one original
Document D-288 and the one in the Krupp file which differs from the
document presented in the case of Sauckel.
THE PRESIDENT: But this document was signed by this witness. There may
have been some other document signed which was put in the Krupp file,
but this witness has said that he signed this document. Therefore, it
does not seem to me that it is material.
DR. BALLAS: I just wanted to call your attention to the fact that there
are two different documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; thank you. Is there any other member of the Defense
that wants to ask questions of this witness?
[_There was no response._]
Then, Mr. Dodd, do you want to re-examine him?
MR. DODD: No, Sir—except that I would like to say, with respect to the
Tribunal’s question concerning this certificate of translation where the
name Captain N. Webb appears, that I am informed that refers to a
certificate which is attached to all British documents and that is a
certificate which goes along for the purpose of the translators.
Undoubtedly, that is what it is. However, I will have a search made in
the document room and clear it up. It is better that way. But my British
friends say that is so—they do send a certificate; and the only
possible explanation is that it is the certificate with a mistake in the
date. But in any event, I will look into it.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the witness had the original of that affidavit put to
him?
MR. DODD: I believe he has. I understood he had the one which is before
the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Has he acknowledged the signature?
MR. DODD: Well, I understood so. I can inquire.
[_Turning to the witness._]
Witness, you saw the signature? Is it your signature?
JÄGER: Yes.
MR. DODD: As a matter of fact, I talked to you personally on this
matter; and you told me that this was a statement you gave. Do you
remember that? Do you recall when you and I talked, and you told me this
was your statement? You looked it over and read it.
JÄGER: Yes.
MR. DODD: You read English as well as German, do you not? You have some
knowledge of English.
JÄGER: Some knowledge, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, the document is being handed to you. It is in
German, is it not?
JÄGER: It is in German.
THE PRESIDENT: And it is signed by you, is it?
JÄGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any passage in it which you want to strike out
of it?
JÄGER: May I read the document first?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; you may read it as quickly as you can.
MR. DODD: While the witness is reading the document, I should like to
inform the Tribunal that we made a call to the document room and have
been told by the officer there that there is only one Document D-288,
and this is it; there is no duplicate signed, as counsel for Krupp
stated.
JÄGER: Yes, here there is an alteration which is written in pencil, on
Page 2. I crossed that out, but that was not written by me.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I submit the document which I received
from the counsel for Krupp at the beginning? I also have here an English
document, Document Number 288 and the passages which allegedly were
crossed out at the time have been marked by me in red. I should like to
submit this document for the information of the Court; I believe it will
help in clarifying this matter. There are many passages struck out.
THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Servatius, that is a different document, as I
understand it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not need that. We have this document before us,
signed by the witness; and we have asked him whether he has anything in
it which he thinks did not form part of the original document which he
signed.
JÄGER: On Page 1 it says, “Conditions in all these camps were extremely
bad.” I would have probably limited this statement, because I...
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, Witness, we do not want to know whether
you think you expressed yourself too strongly. We only want to know
whether the document represents the document which you
signed—accurately represents the document which you signed. If there is
anything which you want to change now, you can say what it is.
JÄGER: The record, as it is before me, I would not change in any way.
THE PRESIDENT: Just one or two questions I want to ask you. Were
prisoners of war employed at Krupp’s during the time you were
supervising these camps?
JÄGER: I did not supervise the prisoner-of-war camps. That is a wrong
expression. I received the permission to visit the prisoner-of-war camps
which were under the sole jurisdiction of the Wehrmacht, and I was told
that these prisoners of war were all working for Krupp.
THE PRESIDENT: Were any of the people who were working at the camps,
which you mentioned in this, prisoners of war?
JÄGER: In Hoegstrasse.
THE PRESIDENT: Prisoners of war were working there, were they?
JÄGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Krupp’s?
JÄGER: For the Krupp Works, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What sort of work was it?
JÄGER: These things were not under my jurisdiction. It depended on their
trade—locksmiths probably worked in the locksmith shop. But there were
also many unskilled laborers. But I am naturally not able to give you
all the details; these matters were not under my jurisdiction. I was
concerned with these people only in my capacity as a physician.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
[_The witness left the stand._]
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I have found that certificate; and it is as I
described it for the Tribunal. It is a certificate by Captain Weber of
the British Army service that he received a copy of this document from
the American team; and it is signed by him, Captain H. Weber, IMT Corps,
British Army, European Sector.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that your case then, Dr. Servatius?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. There are two more witnesses, Biedermann and
Mitschke. I can dispense with both of these witnesses.
Then we still do not have the sworn affidavits, the interrogatories from
Dr. Voss, Dr. Scharmann, a witness by the name of Marenbach, and the
witness Letsch, who was an expert in Sauckel’s office. We have received
interrogatories from the witnesses Darré and Seldte, but these have not
been translated as yet. I shall submit them as soon as they have been
translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I have concluded my case.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, counsel for the Defendant Jodl.
DR. EXNER: Your Honors, with your kind permission I shall present my
case in the following manner. First of all, I shall call the Defendant
Jodl to the stand and use all documents, with a single exception, during
his examination, and submit them to the Court.
I do not need to bore the Tribunal with lengthy readings. I have three
document books which are numerically arranged, Jodl 1, Jodl 2, and so
forth—and I shall in each case quote the page which is found in the
upper left-hand corner on every page of the translation. The numbering
is the same as in the original; they correspond. I am sorry to say that
the documents are not exactly in the order in which I shall read them,
and this is due partly to the fact that they were received too late and
partly to other factors. I still do not have several interrogatories,
particularly one which is very important to me. I hope that I shall be
able to submit them later. I was granted five witnesses, but I can
dispense with one of them. The four remaining witnesses will take up
little time.
Now, with the kind permission of the Tribunal, I should like to call the
Defendant Jodl to the witness box.
[_The Defendant Jodl took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name?
ALFRED JODL (Defendant): Alfred Jodl.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.
[_The defendant repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. EXNER: Generaloberst Jodl, in the English-American trial brief it
says that you are 60 years old. That is a mistake. You became 56
recently. You were born when?
JODL: I was born in 1890 on 10 May.
DR. EXNER: You were born in Bavaria, and both of your parents are
descended from old Bavarian families. You chose the military profession;
what was the chief reason for your choice?
JODL: A great-grandfather of mine was an officer; my father was an
officer; an uncle was an officer; my brother became an officer; my
father-in-law was an officer—I can well say that the military
profession was in my blood.
DR. EXNER: And now I should like to hear something about your political
attitude. To which of the political parties which existed in Germany
before 1933 were you closest in spirit?
JODL: As an officer all party politics were entirely remote to me; and
especially the offshoots of the post-war period. If I look at the
background from which I come, the attitude of my parents, I must say
that I would have been closest to the National Liberal Party and its
ideas. In any event, my parents never voted anything but National
Liberal.
DR. EXNER: Tell us in a few words what your attitude was to the Weimar
Republic.
JODL: True to my oath I served the Weimar Republic honestly and without
reserve. If I could not have done that, I would have resigned. Moreover,
a democratic system and a democratic constitution was not at all a
foreign idea to us southern Germans, for our monarchy was also
democratic.
DR. EXNER: And what were your relations to Von Hindenburg?
JODL: I knew Hindenburg. I was assigned to him after his first election
to the Reich Presidency when he spent his first vacation in
Dietramszell. Then I spent a day with the Hindenburg family at their
Neudeck estate together with Field Marshal Von Manstein. I can only say
that I admired him; and when he was elected Reich President for the
first time, I considered that the first symptom of the German people’s
return to self-respect.
DR. EXNER: What was your attitude toward the National Socialist Party?
JODL: The National Socialist Party I hardly knew and hardly noticed
before the Munich Putsch. It was this Putsch which dragged the
Reichswehr into this internal political development. At that time, with
few exceptions, it met this test of obedience. But after this Putsch
there was a certain cleavage in the views of the officers’ corps.
Opinions varied as to Hitler’s worth or worthlessness. I was still
extremely skeptical and unconvinced. I was not impressed until Hitler,
during the Leipzig trial, gave the assurance that he was opposed to any
undermining of the Reichswehr.
DR. EXNER: Did you attend meetings at which Hitler spoke?
JODL: No, never.
DR. EXNER: Tell us which leaders of the Party you knew before 1933.
JODL: I knew only those who had previously been officers: for example,
Epp, Hühnlein, and Röhm. But I no longer had any connection or contact
with them after they had left the Reichswehr.
DR. EXNER: Before the seizure of power had you read the book _Mein
Kampf_?
JODL: No.
DR. EXNER: Did you read it later?
JODL: I read parts of it later.
DR. EXNER: What was your opinion on the Jewish question?
JODL: I was not anti-Semitic. I am of the opinion that no party, no
state, no people, and no race—not even cannibals—are good or bad in
themselves, but only the single individual. Of course I knew that Jewry,
after the war and in the moral disintegration that appeared after the
first World War, came to the fore in Germany in a most provocative
fashion. That was not anti-Semitic propaganda; those were facts, which
were regretted very much by Jews themselves. Nevertheless, I was most
sharply opposed to any outlawing by the state, any generalization, and
any excesses.
DR. EXNER: The Prosecution asserts that all the defendants cried,
“Germany awake; death to the Jew.”
JODL: As far as I am concerned, that assertion is wrong. At every period
of my life I associated with individual Jews. I have been a guest of
Jews, and certain Jews have visited my home. But those were Jews who
recognized their fatherland. They were Jews whose human worth was
undisputed.
DR. EXNER: Did you on occasion use your influence on behalf of Jews?
JODL: Yes, that too.
DR. EXNER: Did you know that the Reich Government in the year 1932
counted on the possibility of attempts to overthrow it and sought to
save itself in this direction?
JODL: I certainly knew that, for when I came to Berlin at that time I
did not find in the later operational division any preparations for war;
but I found preparations for the use of the Reichswehr in the interior
of the country, against the extreme leftists as well as the extreme
rightists. There were plans for maneuvers of some sort in that
connection in which I myself participated.
DR. EXNER: What was your attitude to the appointment of Hitler as Reich
Chancellor in the year 1933?
JODL: The appointment of Hitler as Reich Chancellor was a complete
surprise to me. That evening when I was returning home with a comrade,
through the excited crowds, I said to him, “This is more than a change
of government; it is a revolution. Just how far it will lead us we do
not know.” But the name of Hindenburg, who had legalized this
revolution, and the names of such men as Von Papen, Von Neurath,
Schwerin-Krosigk exerted a reassuring influence on me and gave me a
certain guarantee that there would be no revolutionary excesses.
DR. EXNER: At this point I should like to read a part of General
Vormann’s interrogatory. This is Page 208 of the third volume of my
document book. I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal to
the fact that Page 208 in the upper left hand corner—I submit the
original—refers to the period from 1933 on. Jodl was then at the group
headquarters (Gruppenamt), and Vormann was in his group. I read under
Figure 2:
“Jodl, who at that time was a major on the General Staff, was my
group (Gruppe) leader in 1933. He shared completely the view of
the Chief of the Army Command at that time, General Von
Hammerstein, and was thoroughly opposed to Hitler and the
Party.”
I shall now skip a few lines; they are not so important. Then in the
center of the page, I continue:
“When on 30 January 1933 Hitler was appointed Reich Chancellor,
Jodl was dismayed and astonished. I clearly recall that on 30 or
31 of January, at his request, I had to call together the
officers of his group for a conference. At this conference he
explained that Hitler had been called to be the head of the
Reich according to the existing constitution and the laws in
force. It was not for us to criticize this, particularly the
behavior of Reich President and Field Marshal Von Hindenburg. We
must obey and do our duty as soldiers. The kind of criticisms
made hitherto, of the new measures initiated by the new
chancellor, were not to be made in future for they were
inconsistent with his and our own position.
“His entire speech showed great worry and apprehension with
regard to the coming development of the situation...” and so
forth.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, this would be a convenient time to break off.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Sir David, you were going to show these
applications.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord.
I wonder if I might leave, for the moment, Number 1, which my friend
General Rudenko will deal with, because he will deal with another one;
and if I might deal with the ones which I have?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The second one is on behalf of Defendant
Kaltenbrunner and is an application to cross-examine three witnesses
whose affidavits were used by the Prosecution. The first is
Tiefenbacher, and he dealt with conditions at Mauthausen; the second,
Kandruth, who dealt with the same subject; the third, Stroop, dealt with
the reception of orders from the Defendant Kaltenbrunner by Stroop as SS
and Polizeiführer in Warsaw. The Prosecution submits that in these cases
cross-examination by way of interrogatories would be sufficient. Next, I
do not know if...
THE PRESIDENT: Interrogatories are all they asked for, certainly in the
case of—in all three.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will have no objection to
cross-interrogatories as long as they are not brought here as witnesses.
My Lord, the next application is on behalf of the Defendant Von Neurath
to use M. François-Poncet as witness. The Prosecution will be grateful
if the Tribunal would allow that to stand over for a day or two, as my
French colleagues are awaiting instructions from Paris at the moment and
they have not got a reply yet. I do not think it will prejudice the
Defendant Von Neurath’s case. It will be time for a reply before there
is any difficulty as to time.
Then, My Lord, the next is an application on behalf of the Defendant Von
Schirach. I think that all that is now wanted is to use an affidavit
from Dr. Otto Wilhelm von Vacano. The affidavit is 12 pages long and is
a highly academic statement on the educational philosophy underlying the
Adolf Hitler Schools. The Prosecution feel that the matter has been
thoroughly covered by the Defendant Von Schirach himself and also by his
witnesses Hoepken and Lauterbacher, and they feel that the affidavit
would be cumulative and repetitive. But, of course, it is an affidavit;
it is not a question of an oral witness, and if the Tribunal feel that
they ought to have it, the Prosecution do not wish to press their
objection unreasonably.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the affidavit been translated yet?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I have certainly got an English—I have
read the English translation of it, My Lord, so I assume that it has
been translated into the other languages.
The next, applications from the Defendants Hess and Frank to put an
interrogatory to General Donovan. If I may put the objection quite
shortly, that raises the same point as the application on 2 May 1946 for
Mr. Patterson of the United States War Department. The objection of the
Prosecution is the same as I made on that occasion, that when you are
cross-examining a witness as to credibility you are bound by his answer,
and should not, in the opinion of the Prosecution, be allowed to call
evidence to contradict him. So it is on exactly the same point, the
relationship between the witness Gisevius and the United States Office
of Strategic Services.
The next application is on behalf of the Defendant Speer for the
approval of certain documents which are in his possession. The
Prosecution have no objection to the application. They reserve the right
to make any individual objection when the documents are produced at the
Trial.
My Lord, the next is a purely formal application on behalf of the
Defendant Jodl, whose case is now before the Tribunal, to use an
affidavit of Dr. Lehmann. There is no objection to that.
Next is the application on behalf of the Defendant Hess...
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, that application we have already heard. We
have heard the arguments for that in full and the Tribunal will consider
that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
Then I think that only leaves an application of the Defendant Keitel for
the use of a decree of Hitler of 20 July 1944, and the Prosecution has
no objection to that.
My Lord, I think I have dealt with every one except the first one, which
my friend General Rudenko will deal with—the application of the
Defendant Göring.
GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): Members of
the Tribunal, the Soviet Prosecution have several times expressed their
view respecting the application of Defense Counsel to call witnesses
with regard to the mass shooting of Polish officers by the Fascist
criminals in Katyn Forest. Our position is that this episode of criminal
activity on the part of the Hitlerites has been fully established by the
evidence presented by the Soviet Prosecution, which was a communication
of the special Extraordinary State Commission investigating the
circumstances of the mass shooting of Polish officer prisoners of war by
the German Fascist aggressors in Katyn Forest. This document was
presented by the Soviet Prosecution under the Document Number USSR-54 on
14 February 1946, and was admitted by the Tribunal; and, as provided by
Article 21 of the Charter, it is not subject to argument.
Now the Defense once again are putting in an application for the calling
of three supplementary witnesses—a psychiatrist, Stockert; a former
adjutant of the Engineer Corps, Böhmert; and a special expert of the
staff of the Army Group Center, Eichborn.
We object to the calling of these three witnesses for the following
reasons:
The calling of the psychiatrist Stockert as a witness must be considered
completely pointless as the Tribunal cannot be interested in the
question of how the commission drew its conclusion—a conclusion which
was published in a Hitlerite _White Book_. No matter how this conclusion
was drawn, the fact of the mass shooting of Poles by Germans in Katyn
Forest has been unequivocally established by the Soviet Extraordinary
State Commission.
Stockert himself is not a doctor of forensic medicine but a
psychiatrist—at that time a member of the Hitlerite commission, not on
the basis of his competence in the field of forensic medicine, but as a
representative of the German Fascist military command.
The former adjutant, Captain Böhmert, is himself a participant in the
crimes of Katyn Forest, having been a member of the Engineer Corps which
carried out the executions. As he is an interested party, he cannot give
any useful testimony for clarifying the circumstances of this matter.
Third, the expert of the staff of the Army Group Center also cannot be
admitted as a witness because he, in general, knew nothing at all about
the camp of the Polish prisoners of war, and could not have known all
that pertained to the matter. The same reasons apply to his potential
testimony to the fact that the Germans never perpetrated any mass
shooting of Poles in the district of Katyn. Moreover, Eichborn cannot be
considered an unprejudiced witness.
Regardless of these objections which express the opinion of all the
prosecutors, the Soviet Prosecution especially emphasize the fact that
these bestial crimes of the Germans in Katyn were investigated by the
special authoritative State Investigating Committee, which went with
great precision into all the details. The result of this investigation
has established the fact that the crimes in Katyn were perpetrated by
Germans, and are but a link in the chain of many bestial crimes
perpetrated by the Hitlerites, a great many proofs of which have
previously been submitted to the Tribunal.
For these reasons the Soviet Prosecution categorically insists on the
rejection of the application of the Defense Counsel.