dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SERVATIUS: The accusation of the lynching of fliers who made emergency landings is the last war crime which particularly incriminates the Political Leaders. We are not concerned here with whether the attacks of fliers against the civilian population were admissible, or whether the rage of the population was justified, but only with the fact that the killing of such fliers by the population was permitted without previous judgment. It remains now to clear up the question...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you are passing from the treatment of foreign workers to another part of your speech. The Tribunal would like to know what your case is with reference to the treatment of foreign workers by the Political Leaders, and whether you contend that they did not assist in placing and controlling the laborers who were brought to Germany under the forced labor program.
DR. SERVATIUS: I deny that they participated in the rounding up and bringing in of these laborers. They only had the duty of supervising the welfare of these workers, and I assert that they carried out this duty of caring for the workers. -THE PRESIDENT: You agree then that they undertook the duty of supervision of the laborers?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. After all, for the case of Sauckel a number of Gauleiter were heard on the subject, all of whom have confirmed the fact that they were authorized to employ workers and that they took care of their welfare. That was dealt with in detail in the case of Sauckel. I am just given to understand that I did not understand your question. It is a question of guarding. Mr. President, should I have commented on the guarding of foreign laborers?
THE PRESIDENT: The words I used were whether you contended that they had not assisted in placing and controlling the laborers who were brought to Germany under the forced labor program.
DR.SERVATIUS: Then I understood you correctly, Mr. President, and my answer can stand as I gave it.
THE PRESIDENT: You do agree that, although you say they did not assist in the rounding up, I think that was the word you used, or the bringing in of the laborers to Germany, they did assist in the supervision and controlling of the laborers when they had been brought to Germany?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, and as the persons authorized for the employment of labor they had the duty of supervising. They had to check whether the Labor Front and the factory leaders were caring for the workers properly. They had no direct responsibility, only an additional duty as Sauckel's agencies. In this way Sauckel wanted to check whether his instructions were being carried out.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you contending that they did not know the laborers had come there involuntarily?
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not deny that they came because they were obliged to. I admit that the Gauleiter had to know and did know that the majority of the workers came on the basis of a compulsory service law.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I think you got to the bottom of Page 44 or near it.
DR. SERVATIUS: I was dealing with the question of lynch justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Top of Page 44, in the English.
DR. SERVATIUS: I was on Page 44. 1 said that we must still clear up the question of whether such war crimes were generally tolerated and approved of by the Political Leaders. The Prosecution has submitted 5 documents in this connection. Firstly, a directive of 13 March 1940, from the Deputy of the Fuehrer in the Party, Hess, Document 062-PS, USA-646. It concerns a secret directive regarding the behavior of the population towards shotdown aircraft and towards parachutists, and with reference to the latter it contains a directive that they are to be either arrested or "rendered harmless." In order to understand these words which are dubious today, one has first to consider that we are here concerned with enemy soldiers who have been set down for combat action. It is hardly possible for the civilian population to arrest them and- we therefore have to understand the expression to mean that other security measures have to be taken in order to avoid damage. For the purpose of explanation it is essential to note that during the year 1940, in view of the then prevailing air situation, one could only theoretically count on such things happening; it was a preventive measure which, according to the document itself, followed the French directives. The passage in the document asking for special secrecy can perhaps be explained by the fact that the civilian population had received a directive which might cause them to be combatants. Actually no events have become known from that time where a violation of international law was committed against fliers. Furthermore, the "Confidential Information of the Party Chancellery", of 4 December 1942 (PI-94), speaks clearly against such a measure. It specifically rejects a measure against fliers which was taken in Japan. The later documents, however, openly approving of and inciting war crimes, have to be judged differently. In this case an examination of the documents has to determine to what extent the Political Leaders had knowledge in general or were participants.
DR. SERVATIUS: Himmler's order, dated 10 August 1943, Document R-110 (USA-333), is addressed to the Higher SS and Police Leaders. According to this, the "competent Gauleiter" had to be. informed, but only those were competent who held official functions, that is, Reich Defense Commissioners and Reich Governors (Reichsstatthalter). Therefore this had nothing to do with activity in the political sector. The Party Chancellery would have been competent for such an incitement. Thus the conclusion is to be drawn that not all Gauleiter were informed and certainly no Kreisleiter nor subordinate Party offices. I draw your attention to the evidence of the witness Hoffmann during his interrogation on 2 July 1946. The other Gauleiter too have confirmed in this connection that they were informed of Himmler's directives to the police officers only in their capacity as Reich Defense Commissioners. Bormann's circular of 30 May 1944 (Document Number 057-PS) was intended to inform all Political Leaders that they should tolerate the lynching of fliers; it is the result- of Goebbels' press article of the previous day.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not quite sure that I understand what your argument is there. Is your argument that in Document 110 the "competent Gauleiter" does not include all the Gauleiter?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. Only those who were Reich Defense Commissioners. They received the information from the police agencies in their capacity as agents of the State, while the other Gauleiter who did not have State positions-and there were a number of them-were not informed. And another result is that a Gauleiter in his capacity as Reich Defense Commissioner did not inform his political subordinate, so that the Kreisleiter did not receive any information about this.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you say that the Gauleiter ceased to have control over their Gaue unless they were appointed Reich Commissioners and Reichsstatthalter?
DR. SERVATIUS: The offices were separated, and instructions only reached the Kreisleiter if they were Party instructions, so that in the prescribed official channels in any case, no ...
THE PRESIDENT: That is not the answer to my question. What I asked you was, are you saying that the Gauleiter who were not Reich Defense Commissioners or Reichsstatthalter had ceased to hold any authority in the Gaue of which they were Gauleiter?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, I do not mean to say that. I only want to say that these instructions did not pass through the usual channels. I have cited witnesses who testified that the Kreisleiter actually did not receive any knowledge of these instructions. It was different with the subsequent instructions. Later they could and should have received knowledge of these instructions, but not in the case of this directive of Himmler's.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is the next letter, Bormann's circular of 30 May 1944 (Document 057-PS) was intended to instruct all Political Leaders to tolerate the lynching of fliers. This is the result of Goebbels' newspaper article of the day before, in which he addressed the population directly. For the Defense it is essential to determine in which way the Political Leaders co-operated, and whether these war crimes were committed everywhere with the consent and general approval of the Political Leaders. The contrary seems to be the case. The three Gauleiter who testified before the Commission concurred in stating that they realized the effects which the circular might have, and that they did not forward it to the Kreisleiter, contrary to the orders given them. That is by the witness Hoffmann, the witness Kaufmann, and the witness Wahl, the three Gauleiter. The same was testified to by the Gauleiter of Mecklenburg, Weser-Ems, and Tyrol (Affidavits 61-E, 61-H, and 61-G). The fact that most of the Kreisleiter had no knowledge of the Bormann decree indicates that the same was done in other Gaue. So far as they received the decree, they did not put it into practice in their Kreis and did not-pass it on because of its dangerous nature. I cite the following witnesses in this connection: Meyer-Wendeborn for Kreis Oldenburg; KUM, Kreisleiter of Ost-Hannover; Biedermann for Gau Thuringen; Bruckmann, Kreisleiter of Hessen-Nassau; Naumann, Kreisleiter of Saxony; Eber, of Gau Westmark; Haus, Kreisleiter in Wetzlar. The above-mentioned witness Hoffmann belongs to those witnesses who confirmed that they did not forward the decree. An announcement concerning the admissibility of lynching was made in his Gau on 25 February 1945, that is, 9 months later. In connection with this matter it is worthy of note for the Political Leaders that this witness hesitated such a long time before acting according to the desires of Bormann and Hitler. During his testimony before the Commission the witness declared that he had withdrawn his draft, and that the announcement was made without his knowledge.
DR. SERVATIUS: In fact, in his Gau the order was never carried out (proved by affidavit of Scholtis). As to the testimony of the Gauleiter and Kreisleiter as a whole, it is to be remarked that only a few witnesses have been examined, and that only a few affidavits could be taken out of the mass of material available. However, it is established beyond doubt that in general the Political Leaders did not follow the criminal suggestion. In spite of bitterness, despair, and misery at the destruction of many human lives, violation of the rules of warfare was prevented. Affidavit 61 summarizes approximately 11,000 individual statements. These statements not only bear witness to a passive rejection of this dangerous method, but in many cases confirm positive steps taken to protect fliers against the excited population. Finally, the Political Leadership Corps has been accused by the Prosecution of having acted, through the Auslands-Organisation of the NSDAP, as a fifth column abroad. Evidence for this has been produced neither during the hearing before this Tribunal when the case of Hess was dealt with, nor during the hearing of evidence before the Commission. The Auslands-Organisation merely served to draw together the Party members of German citizenship abroad, and it was meant to keep alive in them an appreciation for Germanism. It was expressly prohibited for members of the Auslands-Organisation to make propaganda for the National Socialist ideology among the inhabitants of foreign countries, or to co-operate with political groups abroad even if those represented National Socialist or Fascist ideas (Documents PL-57, 58, 59). For that reason, it was also. forbidden for them to collaborate with the German-American -Bund; this prohibition was also strictly observed. (Proof: examination of the witness Von Roedern). On the strength of the experience the Germans living abroad  had had during the first World War they were, as testified by witness Von Roedern, against every policy of expansion.
DR. SERVATIUS: They had no other goal but that of maintaining peace by all means, and for that reason it was out of the question that they could be used for fifth column purposes. Members of the Auslands-Organisation were prohibited - from any collaboration with the German Intelligence Service by order of their Chief, Bohle. If individual members of the Auslands-Organisation infringed on this order, then they did not do so on behalf of the Auslands-Organisation, but against its explicit instructions. This becomes apparent from the fact that the foreign states concerned, for instance England, never prohibited the Auslands-Organisation in spite of such instances; on the contrary, the legal character of the Auslands-Organisation was repeatedly and expressly recognized by foreign states. Finally, that the Auslands-Organisation never acted as a fifth column becomes apparent from the fact that it remained operative in neutral countries until the end, even at a time when no difficulties of a diplomatic nature could have arisen for these states had they prohibited it. I have commented on the individual points of the charges, and the question now is: what over-all picture results? We must still examine whether the cases investigated were individual occurrences, or whether they were held together by a mutual bond, and thus indicate the criminal character of the Political Leaders. The Prosecution has pointed out that it has presented particularly extensive evidence. It must be conceded that on the basis of the occupation of all of Germany and by the activity of the authorities the last nook and cranny has been searched and the evidence brought here, but for that very reason the material surprises one, on closer examination, because of its scantiness; it is shown that the scope of the Prosecution's charge is not substantiated. Not fragmentary evidence, only systematic evidence can bring conviction that occurrences which happened once at one place necessarily happened constantly everywhere else.
DR. SERVATIUS: The individual occurrences might be summarized into a system only by the "conspiracy" which would demonstrate their criminal character, but it is exactly that conspiracy which ought first to be proved by the disassociated facts. The documents of the Prosecution are contradicted by the testimony of the Defense witnesses. The Prosecution has questioned the credibility of the witnesses on the grounds that they are all witnessed on their own behalf. They were reproached for having remained in office until the end. If one were to follow this line of thought, the possibility of legal hearing of the members as guaranteed by the Charter would be void of meaning. The witnesses are not appearing on their own behalf, but as witnesses with a general knowledge of occurrences and conditions which can only be cleared up through the members of the organization themselves. Their credibility must be shown by the uniformity of many testimonies. One cannot in general reject testimony when the express purpose of the proceedings is to eliminate~ evidence on these points in subsequent proceedings. There every individual would be able to bring witnesses for the correctness of his testimony, but too late. If specific testimony is said to be untrustworthy, this must be proved in each case; such evidence cannot, however, be produced by making a witness draw conclusions which he is unable to draw correctly due to lack of insight and knowledge. Only a few witnesses were heard before the Commission and the Tribunal. The testimony of individual witnesses is no criterion to establish the criminal character of an organization. The witness can generally give little testimony about conditions as a whole which are under examination. Even if he has an -extensive knowledge of things his testimony remains only fragmentary. Only a comprehensive inquiry can bring clarification. The Prosecution had a good opportunity for this in the camps.
DR. SERVATIUS: That all internees were examined is shown by the individual trials which were carried out as a result of this examination, but crime as a general phenomenon could not be established. The Defense for its part gathered together all available evidence by means of a sort of enquetes. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, enqu9tes were admitted on principle in the form of government reports. To prove general occurrences they in fact appear indispensable. The weaknesses of the enquetes are well known; their main danger lies in the choice of witnesses. In the present case, however, the circle of witnesses is limited to camp inmates. The submitted affidavits of approximately 58,000 persons are not a selection from the camps, but a digest. The second difficulty of the enquetes is the impossibility for outsiders to check the statements, because of their extent. Under the prevailing circumstances, however, this very checking is assured; the circumstances of all witnesses from the camps are known and confirmed by investigations. The statements of the witnesses can be checked at any time. That such an examination is possible is shown by the establishment of Denazification Courts. If one denies the evidentiary value of the testimony of witnesses and the affidavits in their totality, without having examined their real value, this Trial cannot lead to any real result. If the testimony of witnesses is given even a little evidential value, then the uniform picture is destroyed on which the Prosecution has based its plea. Another question is whether, through the responsibility of all Political Leaders based on their position or based on their knowledge and approval, a joint responsibility can arise. The practical question is whether a Kreisleiter in the country is jointly affected through occurrences in an Ortsgruppe in the city, and whether someone who was a Political Leader in 1930 is affected by events which have occurred during the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: The question is whether a Blockleiter is affected by the circumstance that, on the basis of secret instructions, human beings were removed by mercy killing. It appears obvious that differences must be considered here. First of all, a difference with regard to time. The conspiracy which connects individual actions, according to the statement of the Prosecutor of the Soviet Union, cannot be proved with certainty before the year 1935. According to Appendix A of the Indictment of the Organization, the Reich Government is held responsible for a conspiracy only after 1934. Only one of the documents used against the Political Leaders refers to the year 1933; it is 374-PS, and deals with a local Jewish boycott. All other documents concern events after 1938. The majority of documents only deal with wartime conditions. When establishing the incriminating period, an isolated case must not be decisive, but only happenings which at the time bore a general character. If the Prosecution maintain their Indictment as covering the entire period of the existence of the Party, I believe this position to be untenable. It is furthermore impossible to follow a train of thought according to which the honorary Blockleiter is supposed to be responsible on a par with a Reichsleiter or Gauleiter. A difference must be made according to the position held. A Gauleiter has other possibilities of gaining insight, and his knowledge and experience is greater than that of an Ortsgruppenleiter. The professional Political Leader must be judged differently from one who is acting in an honorary capacity. Only if proof of a joint conspiracy is furnished, could they be put on the same level. But that conspiracy in particular has yet to. be established. When examining the incriminating documents, the difference in this responsibility becomes evident.
DR. SERVATIUS: There are instructions given at the higher level, of which merely the smallest circle gained knowledge; there are instructions meant to be communicated generally to Political Leaders, which, however: did not pass through the entire chain of command; there are instructions which, issued independently in a certain part of the Reich, did not become known in other Gaue. There are measures, carried out by supreme Political Leaders, which were entrusted to them only because of special I State positions, and which therefore had no connection with the apparatus of the Party. The difference in position has in fact been recognized by the Prosecution in its Indictment of the Political Leaders, and accordingly the members of the Ortsgruppen staffs and the auxiliaries of the Zellen- and Blockleiter have been omitted from the proceedings. It is in accordance with this principle that in addition the degree of responsibility on the part of the remaining groups must be examined. That Zellen- and Blockleiter are still included in the proceedings, whereas members of the staffs of the Ortsgruppen who held a similar or even higher rank are not included, is due to the fact that in the organization manual they have. been described as "Hoheitstrager." The significance of the organization manual is misunderstood by the Prosecution. The book was a theoretical work which was described as such by the personal adviser of the Reich Organization Leader, Ley. The designation "Hoheitstr5ger" was given to Zellen and Blockleiter for merely constructive reasons, because in that way they could be included in the territorial organization. This interpretation leads to the conclusion that a Blockleiter appears as an important functionary whereas a Reichsleiter lacks this same characteristic; on the other hand, the Blockleiter, as a Hoheitstrager, falls into the same category as the Fuehrer himself, as a functionary of the Reich. I call your attention to Affidavit Hederich, Number 27, Affidavit Schmidt, Number 25, and Affidavit Fortsch, Number 26.
DR. SERVATIUS: These are witnesses who were active in the organization as organizational leaders. Accordingly, in the book by Oberbereichsleiter Dr. Lingg, entitled Administration of the NSDAP, which appeared in 1940, Zellen- and Blockleiter are not listed as Hoheitstrager. The designation Hoheitstrager only goes down as far as the Ortsgruppenleiter (Document PL-1). In the same manner a decree of the Party Chancellery, dated 8 October 1637, does not include the Zellen- and Blockleiter among the Hoheitstr5ger (Document Number 2). There only four spheres of official jurisdiction are mentioned, and they end with the Ortsgruppe. In addition there is an announcement by Hitler dated 23 April 1941 (Document PL-4) regarding authority to enter damaged property after air raids. There again Zellen- and Blockleiter are not listed amongst the Hoheitstrager. - Similarly, the periodical Der Hoheitstrager, submitted by the Prosecution, as Document 2660-PS, for the purpose of proving the special character of the Zellen- and Blockleiter, shows that the periodical was only delivered down to the Ortsgruppenleiter (Document PL-25).
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, are your pages in the German the same as the English pages or not?
DR. SERVATIUS: I have not been able to check them; they ought to be the same. I am now on Page 54.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I want you to go back to Page 53 for a moment. I did not understand your argument at the bottom of Page 53. This is what it says in the English: "The designation 'Hoheitstr5ger' was given to Zellen- and Blockleiter for merely constructive reasons..." I do not know what the word "constructive" means there; and it goes on: "...because in that way they could be included in the territorial organization. This interpretation leads to the conclusion that a Blockleiter appears as an important functionary, whereas a Reichsleiter lacks this same characteristic." Then on the next page, Page 54, you go on to say in the third paragraph: "In the same manner a decree of the Party Chancellery, dated 8 October 1937, does not include the Zellen- and Blockleiter among the Hoheitstrager (Document PL-2). There only four spheres of official jurisdiction are mentioned, and they end with !he Ortsgruppe." Well, that is equivalent to saying, is it not, that the Reichsleiter are Hoheitstr5ger?