dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MAJOR JONES: I will read the last sentence, in order to refresh your memory as to these murders: "'Hundreds of people in Zuman and its vicinity were shot down with the aid of an entire police company, because they had communist sympathies. None of the Ukrainians believed this; and the Germans were also puzzled by this argument, because even if this was done for the security of the country, it would, at the same time, have been necessary to execute elements infected by communism in other regions. On the contrary it is flatly maintained all over the country that those men were ruthlessly shot down without trial simply because the evacuation was too extensive and could not possibly be carried out in the short time at their disposal and because, in any case, there was not enough space available at the new spot where the evacuees were to be settled."' Do you mean to say that after reading that report you did not know that Koch WAS a murderer?
LAMMERS: On receiving that report I did everything in my power. The report was immediately submitted to the Fuehrer, and' if It is true, I admit it was murder; but I do not remember this report just now. If he killed these people, he is a murderer; but I am not Herr Koch's judge. Rosenberg complained very bitterly about this matter and it was immediately passed on to the Fuehrer.
MAJOR JONES: Rosenberg continued in office with this man as one of his commissioners, did he not?
LAMMERS: The Fuehrer asked Bormann and myself to decide; and he tried to console Rosenberg. Rosenberg tried to resign repeatedly but was not able to do so.
MAJOR JONES: I want to turn to another territory so that you can give further information to the Court as to the conditions in the occupied territories because what I am putting to you generally, you see, is that the battles that were going on there were bathes between ruthless men struggling for power and that there was totally absent from this scene of Nazi control any person who was pressing for human decency, pressing for human pity. You were not pressing for either of those things, were you?
LAMMERS: I did not hear; what would I not initiate? There are continual disturbances on this channel. Will you please repeat the question.
MAJOR JONES: You, in the situation in which you found yourself, were not acting on the side of human decency in this regime, were you?
LAMMERS: I was always on the side of human decency and pity. I have always done such things. I have saved the lives of perhaps one to two hundred thousand Jews.
MAJOR JONES: All you did was to forward annihilation reports to the Himmlers and Bormanns and Hitlers, was that not so?
LAMMERS: I never transmitted annihilation orders.
MAJOR JONES: There is one matter which went through your hands relating to the Defendant Keitel and the ruthless policy that Terboven was carrying out against the Norwegian people. I draw your attention to the document...
LAMMERS: I only asked Herr Keitel to define his point of view and I objected to the Fuehrer against the shooting of hostages. My subordinates can vouch for that.
MAJOR JONES: I just want to draw your attention to Document 871-PS, which will be Exhibit GB-322, which is a letter from Keitel to yourself and is related to the report by Terboven in Document 870-PS, which my learned friend Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe put in in connection with the Defendant Keitel. Now' you will see that that letter, 871-PS, is a letter from Keitel to yourself and it says in the first paragraph: "In connection with the problem of checking sabotage in Norway, I agree with the view of the Reich Commissioner for the occupied Norwegian territories to the extent that I expect results from reprisals only if they are carried out ruthlessly and if Reich Commissioner Terboven is authorized to have the offenders shot."
LAMMERS: I submitted that to the Fuehrer expressing at the same time my views on the shooting of hostages; and my representations to the Fuehrer were successful.
MAJOR JONES: You were successful in what respect?
LAMMERS: The Fuehrer, in a discussion in which Terboven participated, expressly stated that the shooting of hostages was not to take place on the scale he and some others wanted. Hostages were to be taken only from the offenders' intimate circle.
MAJOR JONES: So the effect of your intervention was that the murders did not take place on the scale that Terboven wanted to commit them, did it?
LAMMERS: Yes, Terboven wanted hostages shot on a large scale but the Fuehrer did not approve of that and I objected to every shooting of hostages. The officials of the Reich Chancellery know that and can vouch for it.
MAJOR JONES: And as a result...
LAMMERS: Yes, it is true that I received this letter. Matters took the following course: First I received Terboven's request and then I wrote to Field Marshal Keitel and told him that I intended to submit Terboven's request to the Fuehrer. I asked him to comment on it. Then the teletype came from Keitel and the request teas submitted to the Fuehrer. Terboven's request was watered down. The Fuehrer took the position that the most important thing teas to apprehend the miscreants and hostages were to be taken only in case of necessity. There was no mention of shooting them.
MAJOR JONES: Witness, you know perfectly well that over all the territory where Nazi power ruled hostages were taken, fathers and mothers were killed for the actions of their sons against the Nazi regime. Are you saying you do not know that?
LAMMERS: No, I did not know that for I was not the controller of the occupied territories and I have never been there myself.
MAJOR JONES: But you were receiving regular reports from there and you were the link between the ministers of the occupied territories and Hitler. Just a minute-you were the link between the-now will you please listen to my question? You were the link between the ministers of the occupied territories and Hitler, were you not?
LAMMERS: Not in all cases. A great many of them went through Bormann, especially Terboven. My subordinates in the Chancellery can vouch for that. Terboven constantly avoided sending his reports through me and sent them through Bormann.
MAJOR JONES: You were working hand in hand.
LAMMERS: Yes, I had to collaborate with him.
MAJOR JONES: You were working hand in glove with Bormann, you know, were you not?
LAMMERS: Yes, I had to work with him.
MAJOR JONES: You had to work with him? You were the head of the Reich Chancellery.
LAMMERS: In order to submit proposals to the Fuehrer I had to work through Bormann. I had to collaborate closely with him in order to have the sanction of the Party in countless instances where the sanction of the Party was prescribed, and for that reason I was forced to work closely with Bormann.
MAJOR JONES: Did you find it distasteful to work with Bormann?
LAMMERS: I did not find it distasteful. It was my duty to work with him.
MAJOR JONES: Of course I am suggesting to you, you see, that' the power which you and Bormann exercised was very great.
LAMMERS: Yes; it was also exercised in a very one-sided manner; for Bormann could see the Fuehrer every day and I could see him only once every 6 or 8 weeks. Bormann passed on to me the Fuehrer's decision and had personal interviews with the Fuehrer, but I did not.
MAJOR JONES: You were seeking to the very end to maintain your collaboration with Bormann, were you not?
LAMMERS: I had to work with Bormann; that was the only way in which certain things could be brought to the Fuehrer's notice at all. During the last 8 months of the Fuehrer's regime I had no interviews with him and I could only achieve through Bormann the things which I did accomplish.
MAJOR JONES: You wrote to Bormann, you remember, as late as the first of January 1945, a letter, Document D753(a), Exhibit GB-323.
LAMMERS: Yes, I remember. The letter contains-I can tell you that from memory without reading the letter-my complaints about the fact that I was no longer admitted to the Fuehrer's presence and said that this state of affairs could not go on any longer.
MAJOR JONES: And you say in that letter in the last paragraph but one: "For our former harmonious cooperation has for a long time been a thorn in the flesh of various persons who would like to play us off one against the other." That is the last paragraph but one of your letter, right at the end of it.
LAMMERS: Where is the place?
MAJOR JONES: The last paragraph but one of your letter, the last sentence but three.
LAMMERS: The sentence before the last?
MAJOR JONES: The one before.
LAMMERS: "In conclusion I would like to say," is that the paragraph you mean?
MAJOR JONES: The sentence before that, "For our former harmonious cooperation..."
LAMMERS: Yes, but I would like to add that at the end I repeated my wish for our cordial personal relations and I repeat that it was a New Year's letter and when I write to some one wishing him luck for the New Year, I cannot write that things went badly the year before; so in order to maintain cordial relations I say that everything went well.
MAJOR JONES: You were not seeking to shift responsibility in this matter to Bormann. You were the link between the occupied territories and Hitler.
LAMMERS: I was; but not exclusively, only for matters of secondary importance. The Reich commissioners were directly responsible to the Fuehrer.
MAJOR JONES: I want to ask you some questions now, not about terror which existed in the territory that Germany conquered, but about the terror in Germany itself. You have testified as to the Defendant Frick that as Minister of the Interior he was in effect a man without power, a man of straw. That is the rough effect of your evidence, is it not?
LAMMERS: I said that he had no influence on the Police.
MAJOR JONES: Did you not know that appeals against arrests in concentration camps went to Frick?
LAMMERS: Yes, many cases were referred to Frick.
MAJOR JONES: Do you know whether he exercised his power in any substantial way for the victims who were in those camps? Did you not hear my question?
LAMMERS: I cannot hear it all; I can hear about half of what you say. Other voices keep on interfering on my channel. Perhaps I had better take the earphones off.
MAJOR JONES: No, put them on. Just try again, just put them on, will you? Put your earphones on, will you and just try- patiently, you see, a little patience. Is it not a fact that Frick was the person to whom petitions for release from concentration camps went?
LAMMERS: Frick received such petitions, of course; but a great many petitions of that kind came to me, too; and I took care of them. I treated them as petitions to the Fuehrer. They were given careful attention and I frequently secured the release of certain people in this way.
MAJOR CONES: But what did Frick do in his capacity as having authority in these matters?
LAMMERS: Frick often passed on such complaints to me to be reported to the Fuehrer. It is impossible for me to know what he did with all the other complaints.
MAJOR JONES: I want you to listen to an affidavit by a Dr. Sidney Mendel, a Doctor of Law, which is Exhibit GB-324 (Document Number 3601-PS). He says that he is a Doctor of Law, that until the end of 1938 he was a member of the Berlin Bar and admitted as an attorney at law to the German courts. His legal residence is now 8520 Elmhurst Avenue, Elmhurst, L.I., State of New York. In his capacity as attorney he handled numerous concentration camp cases in the years 1933 to 1938. He remembers distinctly that in the years 1934 and 1935 he approached, in several cases, Frick's Reich Ministry of the Interior as the agency superior to the Gestapo for the release of concentration camp inmates. Frick's Ministry had special control functions over concentration camps. The deponent further states that he informed the Ministry about illegal arrests, beatings, torture, and mistreatment of inmates, but the Ministry declined the release and upheld the decisions of the Gestapo. That was Frick's attitude towards these matters, was it not?
LAMMERS: I really do not know what steps Frick took with regard to complaints received. You will have to ask Dr. Frick.
MAJOR JONES: But you have testified on his behalf, you see- of Frick. If you now say you know nothing about him, then I shall not trouble you further with the case of the Defendant Frick; but you gave evidence for him, you know.
LAMMERS: I could only speak generally on his attitude on the Police but I cannot possibly know what steps he took in regard to letters which he received.
MAJOR JONES: You said that in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Frick again was a man without power. That was the effect of your evidence, was it not?
LAMMERS: I said then that he was mainly a decorative figure. That does not mean that he received no petitions or requests; but I do not know what he thought fit to do.
MAJOR JONES: You say he was a decorative personality. That is a matter of taste. But one of his functions, at any rate, was that he was the person to decide whether death sentences in his territory were carried opt or not. That is not a small matter for the human beings in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, you know.
LAMMERS: Yes, please delete the word "decorative." I mean more decorative than active, like the head of a state, for instance who usually deals with certain matters only. Frick was in Thai position. He was the head of the German organization and had authority to remit sentences. That was a very important matter, of course; I do not doubt it.
MAJOR JONES: You know, Witness, perfectly well that it was within Frick's power to reprieve the death sentences that were being carried out in the territory of Bohemia and Moravia, do you; not?
LAMMERS: Yes, certainly that was in his power; there is no doubt about it.
MAJOR JONES: And I suggest to you that Frick did not exercise clemency or influence by moderation, but on the contrary enforcer brutal means against the victims of Nazi administration in that unfortunate part of Europe.
LAMMERS: Frick was empowered to use his own judgment in the matter of remitting sentences. I do not know on what principle he based his actions.
MAJOR JONES: You were concerned with Frick and the Ministry of Justice in the drafting of penal laws against Poles and Jews in the annexed Eastern territories, were you not?
LAMMERS: There was a proceeding pending at the Ministry of Justice at one time; and the Ministry of Justice corresponded with me, but I believe nothing ever came of the matter.
MAJOR JONES: You had no part in the drafting of that legislation, did you?
LAMMERS: No, I am not acquainted with it. I believe no special law was issued; as far as I remember, it was left to the Gauleiter to establish laws. I do not know.
MAJOR JONES: The laws were left to the Gauleiter, to the Kochs and the Franks and the Rosenbergs; is that what happened?
LAMMERS: No, we are talking about the provinces of West Prussia and of Posen now; that is what our correspondence was about.
MAJOR JONES: I now want you to answer some questions about Sauckel.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn for 10 minutes?
MAJOR JONES: If Your Lordship pleases. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Lammers, can you hear what I say?
LAMMERS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will you kindly try and answer the questions after they have been put to you and not break into the questions? Try and wait for a moment until the questions have been put because the interpreters and the reporters are finding it very difficult to take down what you say and to interpret what you say.
MAJOR JONES: I want to deal with your relations, for the moment, with Seyss-Inquart. You were receiving reports from him as to his administration in the Low Countries, were you not?
LAMMERS: It was like this: Every three months or so, a general report was sent in and then passed on to the Fuehrer. We also received individual reports.
MAJOR JONES: And in the Low Countries, as elsewhere, you know that the object of German administration was to extract and exploit that territory for the German advantage as much as possible, do you not?
LAMMERS: Our aim was naturally to make use of the occupied countries for our war production. I know nothing about any orders for exploitation.
MAJOR JONES: To reduce their standard of living, to reduce them to starvation, that was one of the results of the Netherlands policy. You knew that, did you not?
LAMMERS: I do not believe that we went as far as that. I myself had friends and relatives in Holland and know that people in Holland lived much better than we did in Germany.
MAJOR JONES: I want you to look at the Document 997-PS, which is already Exhibit Number RF-122, which consists of a letter which you sent to Rosenberg, the defendant, enclosing a report given to you by Stabsleiter Schickedanz to the Fuehrer, together with a report delivered by Reich Commissioner Dr. SeyssInquart, about the period from May 29 to July 19, 1940. If you look at Page 9 of your text, Page 5 of the English text, of 997-PS, you will see there is a first statement of the outlines of German economic policy in the Low Countries. You will see the paragraph is marked on your copy, so that your difficulty of finding where these passages are, might be eliminated. You see it reads, "It is necessary to reduce consumption by the population..."
LAMMERS: It goes without saying that in wartime consumption by the population must be reduced. There is no intention of gaining supplies for the Reich.
MAJOR JONES: Just one moment and I will read out the passage to you: "It was clear that with the occupation of the Netherlands a large number of economic and, in addition, police measures had to be taken. The first of these were intended to reduce the consumption of the population in order, partly to gain supplies for the Reich and, partly, to secure a uniform distribution of the remaining stocks." That is a very concise statement of the economic policy that SeyssInquart was pursuing towards the Dutch people, is it not?
LAMMERS: Yes, it is also a very reasonable policy. Supplies had to be reduced in order to distribute them equally and to gain some for the Reich. In any case, the report is not mine but was made by Herr Schickedanz, and I do not know if it is correct.
MAJOR JONES: But the object of this reduction of consumption of the population was to benefit the Reich so that the territory of the Low Countries should be robbed in order that the Reich should profit. That was the whole policy, was it not?
LAMMERS: That is certainly not here. It says here, firstly, that supplies must be acquired for the Reich; and secondly, that the various supplies must be equally distributed; that means among the Dutch people. There is not a word about a policy of exploitation.
MAJOR JONES: If it please the Tribunal, they have the document and can read the language in which it appears. [Turning to the witness.]
LAMMERS: I have seen Sauckel's program and also the regulations he drew up to enforce it. I did not have the impression that it was a program of slave labor. Sauckel was always very kind and very moderate in his views and he made every effort to recruit the necessary quotas of foreign workmen by means of voluntary enlistment.
MAJOR JONES: Are you suggesting that you thought that the millions of foreign workers that Sauckel dragged into the Reich came there voluntarily?
LAMMERS: They did not all come voluntarily. For instance, they came from France through a compulsory labor law introduced by the French Government. They did not come voluntarily but due to a measure decreed by the French Government.
MAJOR JONES: I want you to look at one of the first reports that you received from Sauckel on his labor program. It is Document 1296-PS, Exhibit Number GB-325. It starts with a letter from Sauckel to you dated the 29th of July 1942: "Dear Reich Minister, "I enclose for your information a copy of a report to the Fuehrer and to the Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich. Hell Hitler! Yours faithfully"-signed-"Fritz Sauckel."
LAMMERS: Yes, this report must have reached me.
MAJOR JONES: Yes. And you must presumably have examined it, did you not?
LAMMERS: Yes, not now; it was submitted to me for information.
MAJOR JONES: And you examined it at the time?
LAMMERS: I assume that I read it, that I glanced through it quickly. It was of no further interest to me.
MAJOR JONES: You will see in the first page of the report itself that it indicates, for instance, that in the period from April to July 1942, which was the first period of activity of Sauckel as Plenipotentiary General for Manpower, he had obtained a total of 1,639,794 foreign workers, and of those you see that 221,009 were Soviet Russian prisoners of war. You saw that, did you not?
LAMMERS: I probably read it. I had no reason to object to it. Sauckel was not under my orders. He was really under the Four Year Plan, as the signature here shows; but for all practical purposes he was immediately under the Fuehrer. He sent the reports straight to the Fuehrer, and the only reason why I myself did not pass this report on to the Fuehrer was because I knew that the same report had reached the Fuehrer via Reichsleiter Bormann. Otherwise I had nothing at ale to do with this matter.
MAJOR JONES: But you knew perfectly well that it was wickedly wrong, did you not, to compel soldiers that had been captured in battle to go to work against their own country?
LAMMERS: It was Sauckel's job to arrange that with the offices with which he worked. I never bothered about this question. That was a matter for Sauckel to arrange with the appropriate departments, with the Wehrmacht, and possibly, in respect to international law, with the Foreign Office. Moreover, I see no mention of prisoners of war here.
MAJOR JONES: I do not want to suggest that you are...
LAMMERS: I have not yet read anything about prisoners of war.
MAJOR JONES: Just look at the first page of the report. There is no mystery about this, you know. You can read German perfectly easily.
LAMMERS: Yes, but I cannot read reports of several pages in one minute.
MAJOR JONES: Just look at the first page of the report.
LAMMERS: Yes, now I see it.
MAJOR JONES: And you knew it at the beginning of the questioning of this matter... [The witness attempted to interrupt.] Just a minute, if you please. When I am speaking would you mind waiting until I have finished before you interrupt. Otherwise the translation machinery is not able to offer a prompt translation. You see from that report, quite clearly, do you not, that in the very first 4 months of Sauckel's career as a slave driver, he obtained Z1,009 Soviet prisoners of war to work in this labor machine?
LAMMERS: The details did not interest me. I had no authority to supervise Sauckel. A report was sent in stating how he had done this. As to whether he had a right to do it, that was a question which he had to settle in agreement with the appropriate departments. I did not investigate the matter because the report was only sent to me for information.
MAJOR JONES: You have testified on Sauckel's behalf that he resisted the suggestion that the SS should work in this sphere of labor personnel Did you not say that?
LAMMERS: No, I did not say that. I merely said that he did not want to have the SS alone, but that he wanted support from any executive authority which was available at the moment; it is obvious, of course, that in the partisan regions this would be mainly Police and SS.
MAJOR JONES: And quite simply, you knew that Sauckel was asking for more help from the SS to get more labor. That is what he was after, was it not?
LAMMERS: Yes. Otherwise he could not work in these regions, if order was not maintained.