dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SERVATIUS: No. On the Reich level there is only one Hoheitstrager and that is Adolf Hitler himself as the Fuehrer, whereas Reichsleiter are not Hoheitstr5ger since they themselves have no allotted territories. The Fuehrer, Hitler, requested that and that is how it was constructed-the Reich, the Fuehrer, and then come the Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, and Ortsgruppenleiter, and there it ends. There is no "Reich" for Block- and Zellenleiter. I continue with the last paragraph. Further instructions of the Party Chancellery were issued on 7 December 1943, in which the Block- and Zellenleiter were not counted among the Hoheitstrager (Document PL-24). But not only from the point of view of form, also from the point of view of their activity, the Zellen- and Blockleiter were not persons to whom special privileges and authority were granted; their activities have been described by witnesses examined before this Tribunal; it consisted of practical assistance. These Political Leaders were active in the administration of the Party or, during the war, to an ever-increasing degree, in carrying on social work to alleviate distress after air attacks, to which was added practical assistance in resettlement and the prevention of damage during air raid alerts. Self-sacrifice and strenuous work was demanded of these people. These Political Leaders did not occupy a particularly predominant position. Of interest in this connection is Document PL-9, the appendix to the announcement by the Deputy of the Fuehrer, dated 12 July 1940. It appears from this that, in contrast to the actual Hoheitstrager, the political reliability of Zellen- and Blockleiter had still to be established if they applied for a marriage loan or any other type of assistance. That such people could not be regarded as generally suitable for the duties of a spy is a certainty. It also becomes clear that they had no tasks of political leadership; they were mostly common people who lacked the time and the knowledge for such work.
DR. SERVATIUS: The fact that from certain more highly educated circles individual persons were appointed as Blockleiter also shows that it was not their political ability which was to be used. Particularly important in this connection is Document PL-24, regarding "Pointers on Leadership from the Party Chancellery." These "Pointers on Leadership" are issued, as is stated in the document, "for the immediate political -enlightenment of the Hoheitstrager (that is, the Gau-, Kreis-, and Ortsgruppenleiter) and for the support of their leadership work." In order to inform the junior leaders of the formations and affiliated organizations, the Hoheitstrager are, each in his own sphere, (Gau, Kreis, and Ortsgruppe) to acquaint the corresponding leaders of formations and affiliated organizations with these pointers on leadership. Block- and Zellenleiter, therefore, were neither the regular recipients of leadership instructions, nor were Ortsgruppenleiter allowed to acquaint them therewith. This proves that Zellen- and Blockleiter were excepted from the political instruction which was meant to be achieved by these leadership pointers, and that they had no tasks, or only very small ones, of a leadership nature, and that it was not considered essential to aid them by means of these pointers on leadership. The fact that, particularly during wartime, Zellen- and Blockleiter were simply appointed to. their offices also speaks against the political significance of their positions. The refusal, repeatedly made during the war, to accept such an office, also shows considerable pressure on the part of the Party to force acceptance of such a position. It has become clear, on the other hand, that the refusal did not take place because the. tasks which had to be fulfilled were considered criminal; it was the effort and the work involved, in addition to strenuous professional activity in wartime which were the cause for such refusal.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is an error of the Prosecution, arising from the Organization Book, if it is assumed that a Zellen- or Blockleiter had the power to issue orders or institute disciplinary action, or that he had powers similar to those of the Police. (See Official Party Information, Document Number 29.) It is furthermore not correct that he had the right to can upon the SA, SS, or the Hitler Youth to aid him. The evidence taken before the Commission has established this fact. I draw your attention to the examination of the witnesses Hirt, Engelbert, Schneider, and Kuhm. Additional affidavits confirm this fact. Everything corresponds to the official Party instructions, Documents Number 26 and 27. A Zellen- or Blockleiter, on the basis of his actual position, could have no knowledge of events which are criminal according to the Indictment; furthermore, general activity of that type cannot be proved. The knowledge of an ordinary Political Leader was no greater than that of ' every Party member. I draw your attention to Document PL-47. His duty to support the Party and the State was no greater than that of any civil servant (see Document PL-37). That there have been individual actions by Political Leaders which are very incriminating is something which everyone knows who has lived in Germany, but it is equally well known that this did not represent the typical attitude of the majority of Blockleiter. From the point of view of time, too, this group requires special examination. Until I December 1933, every Party member was under an obligation to the Party alone to comply with a request to take over an office in the Party. With the introduction of the Law for the Safeguarding of the Unity of Party and State on I December 1933 (1395-PS), this duty to co-operate, until then in the nature of a private contract, became a legal obligation toward the State.
DR. SERVATIUS: In Article 5 of this law, detention and arrest are threatened in the event of failure to comply with this duty, that is, penalties which according to German law could only be imposed in the event of violation of legal regulations. By Article I, Paragraph 1 of the Enactment Decree of the Law for Safeguarding the Unity of the Party and the State, the Statute of the NSDAP was given an official character. Thereby Article IV, Paragraph 2-b of the Statute was also given official character, which formed the basis for the obligation, previously based on private contract, to take over a function in the Party. That the law dated 1 December 1933 went into effect shows that the acceptance of an office in the Party became a lawful duty. The argumentum e contrario is demonstrated by a specific statement contained in Article 20 of the Reich Labor Law dated 26 June 1935 (1398-PS) where it is expressly stated that members of the Reich Labor Service are entitled to refuse the acceptance of an honorary function in the Party. No special legislation would have been necessary regarding the exception of Reich Labor Service members from the duty of taking over a function in the Party, had not the duty of co-operating in the Party been compulsory. In practice the duty to co-operate amounted to coercion. Anyone refusing to comply with instructions to take over an office would without a doubt have been ejected from the Party by the Party Court (see Documents PL-63, 64 and Number 8). Exclusion from the Party would have been equivalent to the loss of one's means of livelihood with all its consequences (Document PL-65). Apart from this, a Party member who refused to accept such a function could reckon with the loss of his liberty (Document PL-63). Therefore, the coercion to accept a function in the Party was simultaneously physical coercion. Anyone working in the Party before the seizure of power was probably doing so for idealistic reasons.
DR. SERVATIUS: Anyone who was given a function after the seizure of power probably accepted it in most cases without enthusiasm, particularly since he, as shown by the evidence, was taking upon himself a distasteful burden without reaping advantages in the process. Without doubt, however, almost without exception all who became Party officials after the beginning of the war accepted a Party function only on account of existing legal regulations. Those men not called up for the Armed Forces were either physically unfit or professionally so overburdened that they neither had the time nor the inclination to take over a function in the Party. This explains the fact that instructions from the Fuehrer and the Party Chancellery, in which the Party offices were instructed to call upon Party members for their co-operation, became more and more rigorous and even urged that Party Court proceedings be instituted against anyone refusing to collaborate in the Party (Documents 61 and 62). During the war the legal and physical coercion regarding co-operation in the Party existed not only on paper; indeed that this possibility was resorted to as far as possible is proved by Document Number 8. It can therefore be justly assumed that if anyone became a functionary and Political Leader during the war it was as a rule the result of legal prescriptions and the threat of being prosecuted by the Party Court. This applies in practice to all the Block- and Zellenleiter and members of the Ortsgruppen staffs appointed during the war. The Prosecution has asserted that, on the contrary, this compulsion to work in the Party was merely the result of a voluntary entry into the Party. This would lead to the conclusion that membership in the Party would in itself be punished; on the other hand, one cannot argue, as has been done, that the Party members concerned could have avoided the compulsion to collaborate in the Party, had they accepted a position in one of the affiliated organizations, for instance the NSV, in good time.
DR. SERVATIUS: The incorrectness of this conception becomes apparent once it is realized that in this way collaboration in the Party is being recommended, though in a different capacity. In the case of civil servants the further coercion existed of pressure exercised by the superior departments and ministries (compare Documents Numbers 67 to, 70). These decrees were the means by which civil servants could also be forced to work with the Party. If a civil servant refused to comply with this request, then he would have to reckon with dire consequences for himself; he would have had to fear that disciplinary action would be started against him by his superior department, which would lead to the loss of his livelihood and which could lead to starvation for his entire family. If, on the other hand, he wanted to escape this risk by first of al.1 leaving the Party, he would likewise suffer the loss of his livelihood (see Document Number PL-71). Civil servants therefore found themselves in a particularly difficult situation. In view of these circumstances, we cannot consider this group of people as a freely constituted body. The tasks of the Zellenleiter and Blockleiter, and therefore the importance of their positions, also varied according to the times. Whoever was a Zellenleiter and Blockleiter before the seizure of power in 1933 must certainly have been more active politically than the person who accepted these positions at a time when only practical tasks could be performed. During the war persons were employed in these offices as auxiliaries, who by reason of their age or their occupation had not been drafted for military service. It is obvious that these persons were not elite troops of the Party, destined to spread fear and dread, and who played at being little Caesars. If, in addition, one considers the difference between town and country, one cannot conclude that these 1,200,000 persons included in this group were essentially criminal. The Prosecution has excluded the members of the Ortsgruppen staff from the proceedings.
DR. SERVATIUS: The point of view is presumably that they, as honorary helpers of the Ortsgruppe, held a position of less importance. It would be well to examine whether the members of the Kreis and Gau staffs could be excluded on the same grounds. Their connection with the influential Hoheitstrager puts them under more serious suspicion. The nature of this connection must be examined more closely. The leading political offices of the staffs were the Staff Office, the Propaganda Office, the Training Office, the Organization Office, and the Personnel Office. Their personnel consisted of paid officials. The treasurer was another member of the staff. He was not responsible, however, to the Hoheitstr5ger but to the Reich Treasurer (Document PL-73). The Party financ6 administration had created an independent control and accounting system which functioned in a purely bureaucratic manner and was of a nonpolitical nature. It comprised about 70,000 Political Leaders. Besides the political offices, there were consultant Political Leaders. There were the four following categories: A representative of the different sections of the NS Women's Association, NS University Teachers' Association, and the NS Student Association, a representation of the Welfare Associations, NSV and NSKOV, the leaders of the professional organizations for teachers, civil servants, physicians, and members of the legal profession, and the representatives of the technical offices: DAF, industry and commerce, agrarian policy, et cetera. In order to gain an over-all impression of the dimensions of these offices, it must be pointed out that they generally had no staff of their own and very often no office space. Sometimes they were not even in the same building as the staff, but some distance away. There was little practical co-operation with the Gauleitung and Kreisleitung. A number of affidavits corroborate that these agencies were hardly ever visited by the Hoheitstr5ger (see Affidavit PL-39) and that they did not work with them (see Affidavits 48 to 50).
DR. SERVATIUS: During the war, some of these agencies -were dissolved because they had become superfluous, such as the Legal Office in 1942, and the Office for Civil Servants in 1943. The task of these offices was mainly technical, and their officials therefore received instructions not from the Hoheitstrager, but from the competent superior agencies (Document PL-72).' No direct accusations have been made by the Prosecution against the activity of these staff members. Physicians have been accused in connection with mercy killing and concentration camp atrocities, but these are not physicians of the Public Health Office. Agreements between the Reich Minister of Justice and Himmler and Goebbels regarding a special criminal law and extermination through labor have been mentioned. The Kreis and Gau legal offices for justice are in no way connected with this. These offices certainly represented~ the National Socialist ideology within the staff, for this was their task, but here it is important to establish how far the Political Leaders were concerned, outside their official activity, in a conspiracy aimed at a war of aggression or the commission of war crimes. One cannot declare them to be criminal on the grounds of a general supposition that they might have had some knowledge of these facts. First of all there exists for us the important task of verification, and it must not be passed on to a court sitting at a later date. The verdict of the Tribunal will aggravate threefold the sentence of any future court. It is to be feared that during the subsequent trials individual guilt may be too easily presupposed upon the assumption of their general guilt. In judging the technical offices, it must not be forgotten that about 140,000 persons are concerned who were employed in an honorary capacity.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the evidence for that statement that 140,000 persons were employed in an honorary capacity?
DR. SERVATIUS: These are the members in the technical departments, who worked on the various staffs of the Kreis, Gau, and Ortsgruppen. In the case of the Ortsgruppen, the Prosecution has left these people out of the proceedings. I want to establish that these people in the higher staffs were also honorary specialists who had no part in the crimes against peace or in the war crimes. They did not come under the Gauleiter, but received instructions directly from their respective technical representatives who were their superiors. Their activities appear rather intense in the field ...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you have not answered my question. What is the evidence for the statement, and I want to ask a second question, what do you mean by honorary capacity?
DR. SERVATIUS: By honorary capacity, I mean people who were not paid for their work. "Honorary" means without payment.
THE PRESIDENT: You said they were technical experts?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, they came from their organizations: jurists, doctors, and teachers, all were represented; or else they were the representatives of the welfare organizations or the Labor Front. Each one of these was an expert in his own field, who was consulted on a honorary basis.
THE PRESIDENT: Again I ask you, Dr. Servatius, what is the evidence that there were 140,000?
DR. SERVATIUS: That figure is carefully calculated on the basis of the Organization Book. I can supply more complete details later; it would take too long now and, besides, I am not at the moment in a position to present the figures. I have stated with respect to each subject how many people were concerned in order to give a general picture.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: We still have to examine the group of the real Hoheitstrager, who made up the nucleus of the Party. Their special position and their political authority set them apart from the other Political Leaders, but their positions vary considerably. Whereas the Ortsgruppenleiter is restricted in his sovereignty to the circle of his Ortsgruppe, the authority of the "Higher Party Leaders' ("Hohere Parteifuehrer") goes beyond Party limits, affecting the rights of those who do not belong to the Party. Only the Kreis- and Gauleiter have the right to pass political judgment upon outsiders and in that way determine the fate of those outsiders. At the same time they exert great influence on the life of all the people in this way. The decisions which they make are based on their own judgment. This fact is indicative of their personal responsibility. The Ortsgruppenleiter is only asked to furnish evidence for the judgment. He is only an organ of execution and a man without any independence. Externally the difference is indicated by the fact that the Ortsgruppenleiter acts only on an honorary basis, that is, without pay. His profession prevents him from concerning himself in a, comprehensive manner with all that is happening. This was especially the case during the war, when necessity directed all one's thoughts and powers towards one's own problems. The 70,000 Ortsgruppenleiter were members of the lower middle class who had not previously been active in politics and who lacked experience in this dangerous sphere. Most of the Ortsgruppen were in the country, where agricultural work and life went on as usual. The testimony given by witness Wegscheider before this Tribunal gave a true picture of the situation. The position of the Ortsgruppenleiter becomes particularly clear when we compare his responsibility with that of the Higher Party Leader, who was appointed by Hitler directly. Because of his connection with the highest leadership, the probability of wider knowledge is greater in the case of the Higher Party Leaders.
DR. SERVATIUS: This Trial has shown that the separation of departments and the artificial severance of administration and Police have played an important role. But,- because of the merging of many functions, and because many strings were gathered in one hand, at least the Higher Party Leaders could see when something was not as it should be on critical points. The question is whether a Gau- or Kreisleiter could set his mind at rest because everything was as it should be in his sector and the questionable incident was taking place outside his domain or his department. We shall have to answer this question in the negative. He had the duty to obtain such knowledge in view of his own sovereign rights, for he had-deprived others of the possibility of concerning themselves with these things. He had the right, entailing the obligation, to be active because of his office. He had become the sole politician and was therefore bound to concern himself with politics. Actually, those Gau- and Kreisleiter who were examined here did concern themselves with current happenings. They investigated the transporting of the Jews. They endeavored to get into concentration camps and they investigated the conditions of foreign workers. They voiced their misgivings and they made protests.- Did they fulfill their obligations in that way? In this connection we will have to examine the question of the sharing of responsibility. It is not possible for all to concern themselves with everything. The lowest offices have practical concern of a local nature, and they cannot be concerned with the problems found at the top level. Not every shock can be transmitted to the entire machine. The Kreisleiter who in a dictatorial state passes on reports upon individual incidents to .the Gauleiter must be credited with this distinction, but he must also concern himself with the results of his reports, and draw his own conclusions. This is all the more true of the Gauleiter, in view of-his superior position. There exists a limit where moral principles become involved and daily routine no longer matters.
DR. SERVATIUS: When one came up against Himmler's barriers, was one to be expected to proceed, regardless of what would happen? An answer to this question has already been attempted several times. Must one really demand action, immediately and without compromise? Is it really "all or nothing"? Can one afford to let things take their course, or is it "now or never"? Must one weigh guilt and merit, and can one hope for improvement? Is it sufficient to remain at one's post when one disapproves, or hopes to prevent worse by remaining, or does one become guilty even by remaining and keeping up appearances? Has he who "always takes pains to make an effort" any justification? Must he take up the struggle against adverse circumstances, even though his own life be uselessly jeopardized, or should he endure and bow to fate? "To be or not to be: that is the question." An answer cannot be found without thorough examination of the legal basis of guilt: knowledge, sanction, and criminal negligence. If the criminal nature of this group is to be established, these questions must first be decided upon. Such an examination can be carried out for individual cases only. It is practically possible in the case of a group of 2,000 Kreisleiter and Gauleiter. These persons are known, their actions took place in public and are not difficult to clear up. There remains the group of the Reichsleiter. The same views are applicable to them as to the Gauleiter. Himmler, who had only the rank of Reichsleiter, does not belong ,to this group (Document PL-59a). That position of the Reichsleiter, however, is of great legal importance to all Political Leaders. They include the principal defendants, in connection with whose actions, according to Article 9 of the Charter, the conviction of the group only can take place. The trial brief only mentions Rosenberg and Bormann. Only Annex B of the supplement to the trial brief added four more Reichsleiter, thus including the Gauleiter Sauckel and Streicher. Frick, too, held only the rank of Reichsleiter, which is in contradiction to the direct inclusion of his actions.