DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, on 28 February I made a supplementary motion
on behalf of the Defendant Hess. I should be grateful if the Tribunal
would inform me whether they wish to hear the argument in regard to this
motion now or later, since I do not know whether the Tribunal have a
translation of my motion in their hands.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal have not seen the application yet, so I
think you had better postpone making the argument until the Tribunal has
seen the application.
DR. SEIDL: Very well, Mr. President.
DR. SERVATIUS: For the Defendant Sauckel I have suggested a number of
witnesses and in my preliminary remarks on the list I have divided them
into various groups.
The peculiarity of this evidence, as presented, lies in the fact that in
this case a mosaic of smaller facts has to be clarified. In its case
against Sauckel the Prosecution confined itself to the production of
incriminating material generally, and did not work out the full details
about SS assignments carried out under the auspices of the Labor Service
and similar matters.
Very few facts have been established at all with regard to Sauckel’s
sphere of activity generally. I am compelled, in consequence, to present
his staff, his collaborators, and their spheres of activity. At first
sight my list of witnesses may appear cumulative, but closer inspection
shows that they represent different fields. Some of them are experts on
Eastern affairs, others deal with the West or South. There is the
question of direction of manpower, supplies, housing, and the authority
exercised by individuals. The recruitment of workers in foreign
countries comes under another head; and witnesses must be heard on this
subject, too.
In Sauckel’s case, the question of manpower is all-important and that of
conspiracy is a secondary matter. I believe I can rely to a very great
extent on the statements which may be expected from others among the
accused and from their witnesses.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution have
endeavored to follow Dr. Servatius in considering the suggested
witnesses under various heads.
The first witness, Ambassador Abetz, falls into a class by himself. The
defendant’s counsel wishes to call this witness on the question of
agreements between him and Laval. The Prosecution submit that that
cannot affect the position over, certainly, Occupied France, and
suggested that this witness is really irrelevant to the main charges
which have been made against the defendant. My French colleagues will,
however, if Dr. Servatius desires it, let him know the effect of an
interrogation of Ambassador Abetz with regard to this subject. I do not
want to comment on it at the moment, because it is obviously a matter
which Dr. Servatius should consider before any comment is made on it in
court. But, if he will allow me to say so, I think it would be useful if
he considered that point before any decision was come to.
Then, the next group are the witnesses 2 to 8. They all come from the
Reich Ministry of Labor, and they are called to speak generally as to
the defendant’s attitude, the limitations on him as regards recruiting,
and his personal dealings with offenders. The Prosecution suggest that
it will be reasonable for Dr. Servatius to select the two best out of
eight for oral testimony, and two more to give affidavits.
The next three, Numbers 9, 10, and 11, were members of the Defendant
Sauckel’s staff, who are sought to be called to give evidence as to his
efforts to obtain good conditions. Again, the Prosecution suggest a
selection, and put forward one witness and one affidavit.
Number 12, the witness Hoffmann, is called for the purpose of saying
that the DAF, the Deutsche Arbeitsfront, looked after the welfare of
foreign workers by agreement with the late Dr. Ley. The Prosecution
submit that that witness would be cumulative, and object to him, as that
subject is already covered.
Then there are a series of witnesses, Numbers 13 to 18, who deal with
the relations and liaison between the Defendant Sauckel and the DAF.
These are substantially still on the same point, and the Prosecution
suggest that one witness and one affidavit out of that group would be
sufficient.
The next witness, Number 19, Karl Goetz, bank director, deals with the
question of wages, and also of the transmission of money to their homes
by foreign workers. The Prosecution suggest that that is the sort of
material which might conveniently be dealt with by an affidavit or an
interrogatory, according to Dr. Servatius’ wishes.
Number 20, Beckurtz, deals with the special conditions of foreign
workers at the Gustloff works. That subject has been thoroughly covered
in general by previous witnesses, and the Prosecution suggest that this
particular witness is cumulative.
With regard to Franz Seldte, from the Reich Ministry for Labor, he deals
with the division of authority between Sauckel and Ley and the
contention that Sauckel had nothing to do with labor from concentration
camps. Again, the Prosecution suggest that an affidavit would show how
far the witness Seldte is speaking merely of routine matters, such as
orders and the like, and how far he is dealing with individual or
personal matters. If he does in fact deal with individual and personal
matters and interviews, then I suggest that Dr. Servatius could resume
his application on that point.
The witness Darré, who was the former Reich Minister for Food and
Agriculture, is sought in order to speak as to the defendant’s efforts
to get higher food rations for foreign workers, especially in Eastern
areas. The Prosecution suggest that this witness also is cumulative, and
it will indicate a number of other witnesses and documents which deal
with this point.
As to Number 23, General Reinecke, there is no objection.
Number 24, Colonel Frantz, is sought to say that French prisoners of war
were exchanged against voluntary workers. The Prosecution object on the
ground of irrelevance.
As to Number 25, there is no objection to Dr. Lammers, who is being
called by, I think, every defendant, or practically every defendant.
The next, 26, the witness Peuckert, again deals with the administrative
position and executive apparatus of Sauckel, which has already been
treated by witnesses at considerable length, and the Prosecution object
to this as cumulative.
Number 27, Governor Fischer, Chief of Labor in the Government General,
is called to say that Sauckel had made dealings with the SS in regard to
resettlement. Again, if he is speaking as to rules and orders that were
laid down, we suggest an affidavit.
As I understand it, the next witness, Dr. Wilhelm Jäger, is asked for
cross-examination on his affidavit. That is Exhibit Number USA-202
(Document Number D-288), and the references in the transcript are 1322
to 1327 (Volume III, Pages 441-446) and 3057 (Volume V, Page 509). No
request was made at this time, and I leave it to Dr. Servatius to
explain his position before dealing with this point.
The next two, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharmann, deal with the public health
aspect of foreign workers. They deal with different districts. The
Prosecution submit that that question could be dealt with by one
affidavit.
As to the next three witnesses, 31, 32, and 33, I think the position is
that Dr. Servatius wants one of the three to dispute certain evidence
given by M. Dubost on 28 January that the defendant authorized the
evacuation of Buchenwald. I have looked, at Pages 3466 to 3492 of the
transcript (Volume VI, Pages 242-263), but I cannot find the evidence
which Dr. Servatius has in mind, and perhaps he would be good enough to
indicate it to the Tribunal.
With regard to 34, Skorzeny, who is called to prove that the defendant,
as Gauleiter, had nothing to do with concentration camps, we make no
objection.
With regard to Schwarz, to prove that the chart of the Party produced
before the Tribunal was incorrect in one respect, we suggested that that
be allowed.
With regard to Frau Sauckel, who is desired in order that she may speak
as to the defendant’s charitable disposition, irrespective of the Party,
the Prosecution suggest that that is irrelevant to the issues before the
Tribunal.
I think it is impossible in this case, My Lord, to leave the witnesses
without asking the Tribunal to take a glance at the documents, because
the two are interrelated.
There is an application for 97 sets of documents and in general they set
out what we should call in England all the relevant statutory rules and
orders, that is, the subsidiary legislation made with regard to the
activities of this defendant. Frankly, I must say to the Tribunal that I
have not had the opportunity of reading the original orders. I have read
only the summary which Dr. Servatius has been good enough to provide in
his application. But, quite clearly, these documents cover again in the
greatest detail the various problems with which the respective sets of
witnesses to be called deal, and, in the submission of the Prosecution,
they provide a good reason and a fair ground for some considerable
limitation of the oral witnesses.
There are certain of the documents to which my colleagues and myself
take considerable objection, and I might just state two or three of
these.
Number 45 deals with the Reich law for sanitary meat inspection, and is
presented to prove especially that the German civilian population also
received meat graded as inferior, which therefore could not be
considered inedible meat. If one has not the comparison of the caloric
and other properties of the meat, it is going to be extremely difficult
to get any benefit from the evidence, if one is going into that. It is
unreasonably detailed for the inquiries before the Tribunal.
If the Tribunal would then turn to Numbers 80 and 81; Dr. Servatius
wishes to prove certain Soviet orders, apparently for the purpose of
showing that the Soviet methods of mobilization were contrary to the
Hague convention and are therefore evidence that the Hague Convention
had become obsolete. I submit that the two small examples of this
evidence indicate that there would have to be extensive examination of
the facts surrounding them and they could not be the basis of a sound
argument that a convention had been abrogated. It is possible that in
rare cases international agreements may be abrogated by conquest. But
evidence of that kind would, in my respectful submission, not be the
basis of such an argument.
Then come Numbers 90 and 91, which are files of affidavits. There again
it is very difficult, without serious and prolonged consideration of the
circumstances under which each affidavit was made, to assess the values
of bundles of affidavits of that kind.
Number 92 is a film of foreign workers, and I suggest that it would be
reasonable if the representatives of the Prosecution were shown that
film first, before it is shown in court—I think that was the course
that was taken with regard to the concentration camp film—because, of
course, without going into arguments at the moment, the question of
propaganda is a serious one which the Prosecution are bound to consider.
I have expressly refrained from further comment, but I think the
Tribunal will see the point that is in my mind, and will, I hope,
consider that it is reasonable that we should see the film before we are
asked to comment on it further.
I have taken only certain examples in the documents because obviously
they will have to be considered in detail when we see the text, and the
Prosecution have to reserve their rights as to objection. But I make the
general point—and I hope the Tribunal will think that it is a fair
point, and I hope Dr. Servatius will not think that I am decrying his
work; I am emphasizing the industry and care which he has shown in doing
it—that with this immense body of documentation the witnesses in this
case will want careful pruning. That, as I have said, indicates our
general view.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you deal with what Sir David said, Dr. Servatius,
I ought to say, for the information of other defendants’ counsel and
other persons concerned, that the Tribunal proposes to adjourn today at
4 o’clock instead of 5 o’clock.
Sir David, I wanted to ask you: Throughout the discussion I think you
referred to affidavits. Did you mean to particularize an affidavit as
opposed to an interrogatory?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord. I did not. I am sorry. I really
have not made that distinction. It is written evidence that I wish to
refer to, either by affidavit or interrogatory, whichever Dr. Servatius
wishes to have.
THE PRESIDENT: And one other question: In view of what you have said
about the documents, would it not be a good thing for the Prosecution to
have a little more time to consider the documents? And then perhaps they
could give more help as to their view about the documents.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be so, My Lord, but Your Lordship
will appreciate that we have been under considerable pressure in the
last few weeks and it is impossible to cover them all, but we should be
glad of a little time to go into the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could see Dr. Servatius about them after the
adjournment some time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And in the course of a day or two, let us know.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, we could do that.
THE PRESIDENT; Now, Dr. Servatius, will you deal with the witnesses?
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Number 1, Ambassador Abetz. I name this witness
to show Sauckel’s subjective conception of the admissibility of the
Arbeitseinsatz from the point of view of international law. On the basis
of the treaties, and in the absence of any protest from the governments
of other countries—notably France—he was entitled to assume that it
was legitimate. I am, however, willing to admit the witness Stothfang,
who as Sauckel’s deputy repeatedly negotiated with Laval. If he is
admitted, I would renounce the witness Abetz. In other words, I am to
forego witness Number 1 if I am permitted witness Number 9.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. What about witnesses 2 to 8?
DR. SERVATIUS: Witnesses from Sauckel’s staff. It is difficult to
dispense with any witness; and one witness is absolutely necessary for
the graphic illustration of the way in which orders were carried out in
practice. The Tribunal would find it very difficult to read through this
enormous number of laws, and it is easier to hear witnesses on the
essential points than to undertake the amount of reading involved. The
witness Timm is the most important, as for all practical purposes he was
in charge of the so-called Europa Amt which was responsible for the
actual distribution of the labor forces.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Servatius. First of all, you will, no
doubt, be calling the Defendant Sauckel himself?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I should like to call him last, for he is a
defendant and his statements are less valuable than that of a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: These witnesses will be corroborating his evidence about
his administration. Under those circumstances, would not two of them, as
Sir David suggested, out of eight, and two more affidavits be
sufficient?
DR. SERVATIUS: From a legal point of view, the witness Beisiegel can be
dispensed with, but the other witnesses are necessary because they have
actual knowledge of the use of manpower abroad. So far, I have only one
witness who can really speak on the use of manpower in the East. This
witness should be able to describe the actual procedure followed; for
laws have little meaning in themselves, if we do not know how they were
applied. For the East, we have the witness Letsch—a highly important
witness—and for the West, the witness Hildebrandt, who can testify how
conditions gradually changed in France in consequence of the resistance
movement.
The witness Kaestner could not be found, and I will dispense with him.
Witness Number 7, Dr. Geissler, is of the greatest importance because he
can testify regarding inspections. The main point is at what period
these workers were employed and what provision was made by Sauckel for
their well-being in Germany. To ensure that Sauckel’s
regulations—which, I maintain, were models of their kind—were actually
put into practice, a series of inspectorates existed. Witness Number 7,
Geissler, was in charge of the Reich inspectorate, a branch established
by Sauckel. I consider him indispensable.
THE PRESIDENT: Why are not Number 3 and Number 8 cumulative?
DR. SERVATIUS: I named Number 8 in order to give special emphasis to the
wage question. So far the Prosecution have not treated individual points
in any very great detail. Otherwise I should find myself in difficulties
owing to lack of evidence when the emphasis is transferred later to the
question of wages. Only witness Number 8 can testify to this question.
Witness Number 3 can testify regarding the regulations generally and in
particular that Sauckel constantly improved conditions to the last, so
that the situation of all foreign workers was considerably improved by
legislation and continued to improve. This can be seen from all the
regulations, which I have carefully collected for the purpose.
Witness Number 9, Dr. Stothfang, was Sauckel’s consultant, his personal
adviser, and conducted many negotiations, particularly with France. For
this reason I have named him as a substitute for witness Number 1,
Abetz. In particular he conducted negotiations over the restrictions of
the so-called Weisungsrecht, the restriction, that is, Sauckel’s right
to recruit workers. From the very start of Sauckel’s activities, it was
clear that no official administering a zone would tolerate interference
of this kind on Sauckel’s part, that from a practical point of view it
was impossible to tolerate it and his powers were promptly curtailed
through parleys. Witness Stothfang will testify on that subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Why are 9 and 10 not cumulative?
DR. SERVATIUS: I will forego Number 10. I wish to say something on a
rather different subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Number 11 knows the conditions. He was the press
expert, and if I must forego any witness, I would dispense with him
rather than anyone else. He really does know, however, exactly what
conditions were like. He wrote the book _Europa Works in Germany_ and
made the film, and can say that these pictures were not faked but are
genuine photographs. For this reason he is important, as his testimony
is supplementary to the book and the film.
The next witnesses belong to the Labor Front. The Labor Front was
responsible for the welfare of all foreign workers, as well as for that
of German workers. The situation never changed in that respect; and the
witnesses can testify now to the way in which the regulations were
carried out in different cases, with regard to the construction of the
camps, supplies, clothing, and everything else that took place.
Witness Number 13 would be the most important witness, but he has not
been found. For this reason I attach special importance to witness
Number 14, who worked with him. The witness Hoffmann was practically in
charge and knows what conditions were in the camps.
Those were the witnesses who worked with Sauckel in liaison with the
Labor Front. The other witnesses will testify as to the practical work
done by the workers themselves.
The situation is this: Dr. Ley no longer appears here, so that the whole
of Ley’s field now becomes part of the case against Sauckel and forms a
further charge against Sauckel unless the question is clarified. There
are a good many charges and they must be clarified.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the difference between 15 and 16?
DR. SERVATIUS: 15 is a stenographer’s error; 15 is identical with
witness 12. Witness 16, Mende, of the head office is particularly
important because he had to look after the organizations within the
Labor Front.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean 15 comes out, does it?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, 15 comes out.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness 17, Dr. Hupfauer, can testify as to the origin of
the code of regulations in general and about the direction in which
Sauckel worked.
THE PRESIDENT: Why is not he cumulative with Number 14, whom you wanted
to have instead of 13? The charge of inhumanity applies to both of them.
DR. SERVATIUS: Because witness 14 deals with the practical side, and
witness 17 deals with the legislative side. Witness 18 was responsible
for the practical application within the Labor Front. One must keep
these various fields distinct from each other. Sauckel had a small
office, which was incorporated into the Ministry of Labor. He issued
regulations with the aim of steadily improving matters. I offer evidence
that they were of social value and will prove on investigation to be
irreproachable.
We then have to consider the other side of the question—the practical
application, for which the Labor Front was responsible; and the
recruitment. I have special witnesses to deal with these heads as well.
The next witnesses are members of Sauckel’s specialist staff. Witness
19, Bank Director Goetz, can testify that billions of marks were
transferred to foreign countries for workers’ wages.
Witness 20, Beckurtz, was manager of the Gustloff works and one of
Sauckel’s closest collaborators. He will confirm that the treatment and
housing of workers in this very Gustloff factory was exemplary.
Witness 21 will testify as to the degree of authority exercised by Ley
and Sauckel respectively. It is of great importance to know whether
Sauckel himself was responsible or whether some other office was in
charge of the practical side.
THE PRESIDENT: Why cannot this be dealt with by an affidavit or
interrogatories?
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall be satisfied here with an affidavit. I have not
yet spoken to the witness personally and for that reason I had to list
him as a witness.
Witness 22, Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture. He will testify
that from the moment Sauckel took up his appointment, he made every
effort to improve conditions for foreign workers and that he continued
to pay special attention to this point. That is of particular importance
in view of the accusation that the foreign workers had been starved.
Through it I shall be able to adduce evidence that the foreign workers
were in part—I say in part—better off than German workers.
Witness 23. . .
THE PRESIDENT: He has already been granted to another defendant.
DR. SERVATIUS: Oh, I see. Then I can forego him.
The next witness has not yet been found. He will testify regarding the
exchange of prisoners of war for French workers. I understand that Reich
Minister Lammers has already been approved for other defendants.
Witnesses 26 and 27 are important because they can furnish information
on the way in which workers were recruited in the Eastern territories.
They can testify to the extent of Sauckel’s powers, whether they were
executive or otherwise, to the authority given to the police, and to
what extent the organization was distinct from the SS. Witness 26 has
not been found. Consequently, I shall have to confine myself to witness
Number 27, Governor Fischer, who has been found and approved.
THE PRESIDENT: What about an affidavit for 27?
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not consider that I can forego calling him as a
witness. It is of the utmost importance to have a witness who can say
what conditions in the East actually were.
Witness 28, Dr. Jäger. We have a detailed affidavit, but it is extremely
inaccurate. It has been submitted as Document Number D-288, Exhibit
Number USA-202. I have also received the German translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, was it not the proper course to
cross-examine Dr. Jäger when his affidavit was read?
DR. SERVATIUS: I assumed that it was accurate, as at that time I was not
acquainted with conditions in the district in question. I have since
made inquiries and can bring evidence to show that his statements were
not only very much exaggerated, but in many cases actually false. The
truth emerged by degrees on studying in detail some half dozen sworn
statements which I obtained. Krupp had 60 camps. The witness deals with
three or four of them at a time when the aerial war was at its peak—a
fact which he does not mention. I do not anticipate much difficulty in
proving his statements incorrect. I should like to reserve the right to
submit further affidavits with which the witness can be confronted if he
appears here in person, I also made an application, which has not yet
been granted, for leave to make use of a number of medical reports made
in these very factories, which in themselves prove that Dr. Jäger’s
testimony is inaccurate. My chief difficulty was to obtain possession of
this evidence, hence the delay. Otherwise I should have submitted it
sooner. I attach great importance to Dr. Jäger as a witness.
The next witnesses, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharmann, will testify on the same
subject, but each in connection with a different area. They have
attended the camps as doctors and can testify that the conditions there
were irreproachable and good. I could name many such doctors if I had
the time and opportunity to look them up. I know both of these and they
will confirm what conditions were really like.
THE PRESIDENT: If that is so, why can they not both give an affidavit
about it?
DR. SERVATIUS: They are in a camp. It is difficult for me to contact
them; it would be easier to bring the witnesses here. Perhaps Dr. Voss
can appear here so that one of the witnesses can be heard.
The next three witnesses are named for this purpose.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, since I gave the explanation, I have
had a chance of comparing the English text with the French text, and it
would appear that an error has crept into the English text, which says:
“He seemed to be impressed and he gave an explanation of the
gravity of the communication Shiedlauski had given. Shiedlauski
had given an order that no prisoner should remain in
Buchenwald.”
The French text is, if I may translate it:
“He seemed very embarrassed and an explanation was given. The
Governor of Thuringia, Sauckel, had given the order that none of
the detained persons should remain at Buchenwald.”
So that apparently when I told the Tribunal that we could not find this
reference, I was dealing with the English text, and it appears that
there was such a reference in the French text. Since M. Dubost was
calling the witness, the probability is that the French text is right,
and as there is evidence that Sauckel had given this order, I think it
is only fair that I should say that one witness should be permitted to
deal with this point in the view of the Prosecution; it is, of course, a
matter for the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: I agree with the Prosecutor and need only one of the
three witnesses. Should none of the witnesses be found, I have in the
document book an affidavit of one of Sauckel’s sons who was also present
at the conference.
Witness 34, Skorzeny, will testify to the general connection between the
Gauleitung and the concentration camps; in other words, to what extent
the Gauleitung, by virtue of its official position, had knowledge of
what went on in the concentration camps.
Witness 35, Reich Treasurer of the NSDAP, Schwarz. This question has
been settled. I have received my interrogatory with the answers.
Witness 36, Frau Sauckel, was previously approved by the Tribunal. I can
see that certain objections might be raised but the essential point is
this: Among other things, the witness repeatedly heard that the
Defendant Sauckel was criticized for treating foreign workers too well
and for manifesting an international rather than a nationalistic
attitude. That is one point. The other point is that which concerns the
conspiracy, namely, that Sauckel kept aloof and had very little
intercourse with other members of the Party. He worked consequently on
his own and knew very little about major developments in policy.
That concludes my remarks on the list of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you probably realize that you have asked
for a very much larger number of witnesses than other counsel and I
have, therefore, to ask you whom you regard as the most important
witnesses. It may be that it will be necessary to limit the number, as
you are aware that we are directed to hold an expeditious trial, and so
would you kindly give me the list of those witnesses whom you regard as
the most essential.
DR. SERVATIUS: If I have time till tomorrow to think it over, I shall
try to reduce the number. It is difficult because the field is so large.
Also I did not receive a trial brief for Sauckel defining charges in
detail, so that I must be prepared for all eventualities. I must define
my position with regard to many points: food, wages, leave, workers,
transport, illness and there are many aspects to which I must refer.
THE PRESIDENT: You will not forget that many of the defendants are
concerned in various aspects and they have neither asked for nor been
allowed this very large number of witnesses.
DR. SERVATIUS: May I turn to the documents now?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I rather thought that perhaps Sir David was going
to get in touch with you after the adjournment and perhaps you could
then deal with the documents more successfully.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think that would be time usefully spent, My
Lord, if the Tribunal would allow it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.