dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody makes mistakes, and everybody is capable of having different opinions as to translations, but you and every other member of the defendants' counsel know that those mistakes, if they are mistakes, will be corrected, if it is possible, and they know the way that it can be done, and, therefore, as I said before, it is very improper for you to get up and allege that there are a lot of mis-translations. I do not want to hear anything more about it. The Tribunal will adjourn. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, have you any documents that you wish to offer in evidence?
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, with a letter dated 1 July 1946, I put in three affidavits, after having submitted them previously to the Prosecution. Those three documents will become Documents Keitel-23, Keitel-24, and Keitel-25. I beg the Tribunal to receive them, since the Prosecution, as Sir David has told me, does not object to their being offered in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: And they are at present being translated, or have they been translated?
DR. NELTE: They are in the process of being translated. I have merely submitted the originals to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well then, we will receive them in evidence and consider them.
DR. NELTE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann?
DR. KURT KAUFFMANN (Counsel for Defendant Kaltenbrunner): Mr. President, I have a few interrogatories which have been granted to me by the Tribunal. I have the originals here with me; they have been numbered, and I should like to submit them. The Translation Division has informed me that the translations are not yet at the disposal of the Tribunal, but I assume they will be in the hands of the Tribunal in the next few days.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I should like to state, in a few short sentences, what the contents of the documents are, if the Tribunal wishes me to do so. There are three documents which refer to the same subject: The testimony given by the President of the Red Cross at Geneva, Professor Burckhardt; the testimony given by Dr. Bachmann, who was the delegate of the Red Cross; and then there is Dr. Meyer's testimony, and he too was an official representative of the Red Cross. In these documents these witnesses deal with the discussions during March and April 1945 which they had with the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. They also show that agreements were reached on the strength of these discussions which made it possible for thousands of French, Belgian, and Dutch women and children to be returned to their home countries. Prisoners of war were also released under these agreements and internees from concentration camps were allowed to return. Another result was that Kaltenbrunner gave permission to visit the Jewish camp at Theresienstadt and took pains that other camps received medical supplies, food, et cetera . All that is contained in detail in these three documents.
THE PRESIDENT: What numbers are you giving them?
DR. KAUFFMANN: The Professor Burckhardt document will be Number Kaltenbrunner-3; Dr. Meyer and Dr. Bachmann, Numbers Kaltenbrunner-4 and 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KAUFFMANN: A further document is the interrogatory supplied by the former Gauleiter in Upper Austria, Eigruber. That is Exhibit Number Kaltenbrunner-6. Here again I should like to draw attention to one point. Among other things, this witness states that the concentration camp at Mauthausen was not set up by Kaltenbrunner, as has been alleged by the Prosecution and that he was 3 July-46 not responsible for the life there or the presence of the internees at the camp. That is stated here in detail and I do not propose to read it. The next document is the interrogatory of Freiherr von Eberstein, which is Number Kaltenbrunner-7. Again, I shall not read from it, but perhaps I may say, in just one sentence, that this witness is testifying that he knows that the concentration camp at Dachau and the two auxiliary camps belonging to Dachau were not, as has been alleged by the Prosecution, to be exterminated during the last months or weeks of the war, but that such a plan had been contemplated exclusively by the Gauleiter of Munich, Giessler. Then there is a further interrogatory, which is the testimony of the witness Wanneck. That will be Exhibit Kaltenbrunner-8. I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal particularly to this document. It is a lengthy document, and I- shall not read from it. However, I believe I can say that this man was particularly well acquainted with the defendant and the whole of his official activities in the course of many years. This witness held for years a leading position in the Foreign Intelligence Service.. He knows Kaltenbrunner's attitude regarding the executive and he confirms the fact that Kaltenbrunner agreed with Himmler at the time, that he, Himmler, would retain the executive powers while Kaltenbrunner would work mostly in the sector of the Intelligence Service as a whole. Finally, Mr. President, there are two documents which have not yet been discussed. Therefore, first of all, the Tribunal would have to decide as to the relevancy of the documents, and as to whether I shall be entitled to submit the documents.
DR. KAUFFMANN: They are two short letters which I have received. One is a letter from the mayor of the town of Dachau, dated 4 April 1946. The Tribunal may possibly remember that during the taking of evidence by the Prosecution it was frequently mentioned that the population in the vicinity had knowledge of the abuses. This man, who has now been instated by the American authorities, confirms his own experiences. In my opinion they do not bear out the thesis of the Prosecution. Immediately connected with this is the second letter, which is from the well-known Pastor Niemoller, and which is dated 17 April 1946. Niemoller had spent some time in Dachau.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, would it not be best if we were heard on the first affidavit before the Niemoller affidavit is taken up? We have objected to this affidavit by the mayor of, Dachau for the reason that it is simply a letter. We have had no opportunity to file any cross-questions or to ask any questions of the man at all. These letters come in here. If we are going to submit all the letters that come in-we have bales of them, actually. We do not like to object on purely technical grounds, if there is anything here that would really be helpful to the Tribunal. On the other hand, we do not feel that we should deny ourselves the opportunity to make clear the entire story by cross-questions of some kind.
THE PRESIDENT: That is with reference to Schwalber?
MR. DODD: Yes, Sir.
DR. KAUFFMANN: I did not quite understand what you said, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What Mr. Dodd said was that they objected to this document from Schwalber because they have not had any opportunity to put any questions to him, either by way of having him called as a witness or by a cross-interrogatory. Therefore, they object to the introduction of the document in its present form.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I understand. I know this is somewhat problematical, but the Tribunal will be able to assess the evidence value of the letters according to their own opinion. Perhaps I may submit these two short documents to the Tribunal. So far as I know, the Prosecution is acquainted with these two documents, because they have been in the Translation Division, and some time ago a representative of the Prosecution told me that very probably objections would be raised. That was why, at the beginning, I told the Tribunal it would first have to decide as to the relevancy of the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Kauffmann, the best way will be for the Tribunal to read the document and to consider it. We will do that.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you.
MR. DODD: I should also like to indicate to the Tribunal that we take the same position with respect to the Niemoller letter.
THE PRESIDENT: You consider them both, then? You are objecting also to the Niemoller letter?
MR. DODD: Yes, on the same grounds.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.
DR. OTTO PANNENBECKER (Counsel for Defendant Frick): Mr. President, the reply to the Messersmith interrogatory has not yet been submitted. The reply has been received in the meantime, and has been translated, too. I believe, however, that the Tribunal has probably not yet received it. THE PRESIDENT. Can you offer it in evidence and give it a number?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, Sir; I was going to. But I did not expect that it would come up today, and I have not the number which I shall give to the exhibit. May I be permitted to furnish the number later? Yes-I have it here, Mr. President, and I shall now submit it as Exhibit Number Frick-14. This is the reply to an interrogatory. The replies are in the same form as those which Mr. Messersmith gave in the interrogatories concerning other defendants. I shall refer to this interrogatory in detail during my final speech. Therefore I need not read it now. Then there is still one reply outstanding in an interrogatory of Konrad, and I beg to be permitted to submit it as soon as I receive it.
THE PRESIDENT: That has been granted, has it? And it is now before the witness?
DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius.
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel): Mr. President, several interrogatories have still to be submitted. First of all, I submit Exhibit Number Sauckel-15 to the Tribunal. That is a Darre interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Whose interrogatory was that? Whose interrogatory?
DR. SERVATIUS: Darre, the Minister for Food and Agriculture. This interrogatory deals with matters which have in part already come up at this Trial. I should like to draw your attention to a few points. There is the question of what was Sauckel's general attitude, particularly toward Himmler's views; and the witness stresses the fact there was considerable controversy between Himmler and Sauckel in this respect. He mentions one particular instance which he himself witnessed. He speaks about a factory in Thuringia which was directly under Sauckel's control and says that the workers there were so free that they hired themselves out to farmers during the day, which was rather too much of a good thing. He then talked about a clash between Sauckel and Himmler in the presence of the Fuehrer about the question of treatment, and he says that Himmler stated, "I am subordinate to the Fuehrer only, and for my official business I am under the Reich Marshal; and I do not have to justify myself to you." Then there is an interrogatory from Minister of Labor Seldte, which has been allowed by the Tribunal and which I shall submit as Exhibit Number Sauckel-16. I should like to bring out just a few points. The witness talks about Sauckel's functions and the functions of Dr. Ley, and he says that Sauckel carried out the functions of the state while Ley looked after the social welfare and social supervision. Then he goes on to talk about inspections and control, and he says that the offices for accident insurance, health, and factory inspection were in existence before and had continued to function under the responsibility of the Ministry of Labor. Then comes the interrogatory of Dr. Voss, which I submit as Exhibit Number Sauckel-17. I shall submit the original later. I am afraid I cannot find it at the moment. This doctor was medical officer in a camp, and he speaks of the conditions in the camps, particularly after air attacks, and about the activities and care of the Labor Front.
DR. SERVATIUS: He not only deals with the camps in which he was working but he knows a great deal generally about conditions in other camps. His statement is in contradiction to the testimony given by Dr. Jager. In the same way the following document, which I shall submit as Exhibit Number Sauckel-18 and which comes from Dr. Ludwig Scharmann, although dealing with another sector, contains similar statements, too, which are also in direct contrast to the testimony given by Dr. Jager. That completes the interrogatories which have been granted me. Now I have still another number of documents for which I have applied, but on which a decision has not yet been given. I do not know whether I should now submit them to the Tribunal. They are mostly concerned with laws and decrees and I would like to submit them in addition to what I have already submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal would like you to submit them now, because the Tribunal wishes to deal with the evidence on behalf of the Defense finally, now and today.
DR. SERVATIUS: There is a decree by Sauckel dealing with the return of sick foreign workers to their homes. It shows that workers who had fallen sick were sent back and that Red Cross employees had to accompany them. The actual decree is in the official collection of laws and decrees which has already been submitted. I shall ascertain my exhibit number presently. It will be Number Sauckel-99 in the supplementary document book. Then there is Document Number Sauckel-100, which comes from the Reichsarbeitsblatt , 1943, which has already been offered in evidence, too. This deals with the investigation of sanitary measures in camps, and it concerns the accusations which have been made with reference to these accommodation problems. Then there is Document Number Sauckel-101 which is a memorandum for French prisoners of war on leave regarding their improved status under the so-called `'transformation." I shall submit it and give the exhibit a number. For the moment it is Document Number Sauckel-101. Then come Documents 102 and 103. Both are laws contained in the official Reichspesetzblatt . They are "German Instructions Regarding Compulsory Labor Service." It is the Emergency Services Order which I submit as Document Number Sauckel-102. Then there is the Compulsory Labor Decree which will be Document Number Sauckel-103, in the supplement. Then I find that Document 4006-PS contains a number of important regulations, but I am told that the Prosecution is going to read them, and therefore I assume that I need not do so. Then I have received an affidavit from Count Spreti, who, from the beginning of the Eastern campaign, was active as a recruiting officer in the East. It deals with conditions, and it states particularly that Sauckel's activity had brought about a basic change in the general attitude. It is short and I consider that it is of particular importance, because up to now no recruiting officer has been heard on the subject. Then I was proposing to submit Document Number Sauckel-109, which will be a list...
COL. PHILLIMORE: My Lord, with regard to that affidavit I am told, the Prosecution having not seen it at all,' that that should be accepted with the same reservations as have been made in the previous cases.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. Was that affidavit you spoke of by Count von Spreti, S-p-r-e-t-i ?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
COL. PHILLIMORE: Yes, My Lord. ,
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I was going to submit a list of all of Sauckel's decrees as Document Number Sauckel-109 which will give an idea of the great care he took of all kinds of matters. This list will give the titles only.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you did not give a number to the affidavit of Count von Spreti.
DR. SERVATIUS: It will be given Number Sauckel-108 in my document book and then I shall give it an exhibit number later when I submit the numbers for the other documents. Then as Document Number Sauckel-110, 111, and 112...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, are you not giving us exhibit numbers now?
DR. SERVATIUS: I cannot do so at the moment because I have not got the originals with me and part of these are official records which have been submitted already.
THE PRESIDENT: But you see in the case of the Defendant Sauckel, as in the case of every other defendant, the exhibits put in on his behalf, the exhibits offered in evidence on his behalf should have a consecutive series of numbers and that is a consecutive series which is settled by the counsel himself who offers the documents in evidence. It does not depend upon whether he has the original before him.
DR. SERVATIUS: In that case I can give them exhibit numbers. Document Number-108 will be Exhibit Number Sauckel-18.
THE PRESIDENT: Which is that?
DR. SERVATIUS: Exhibit Number 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the most convenient way would be if you would carefully go through your exhibits and give the list to the General Secretary, giving the exact exhibit number of each document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Very well. Then Documents Number 110, 111, and 112, contained in the supplement, are three laws which deal with the position of the Reich Defense Commissioner who was mentioned in connection with the allocation of labor. The Reich Defense Commissioner is, of course, the Gauleiter who was mentioned during the case of Speer in connection with the armament industry. These are merely the basic laws, so as to have them at hand. After the case of Speer had been heard, I received an affidavit from the witnesses Hildebrandt and Stothfang, who had been examined here in Court. It deals with the question of how far Sauckel had to obey Speer's instructions and what the relations were between the two offices. The Prosecution have not yet defined their attitude and I think perhaps it would be best if...
MR. DODD: We will be glad to have this affidavit submitted, Mr. President. We have no objection whatever to it. As a matter of fact, if it was not submitted by Dr. Servatius, we intended to offer it ourselves.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Of course the Tribunal thinks it is irregular, really, that a witness who has been called and has given evidence, has been cross-examined-has been re-examined and cross-examined by any other counsel for the defense who want to-that he should be entitled to give any other evidence, but if you are both agreed that it is convenient in this case, as a special circumstance, we will admit it.
MR. DODD: I think-Mr. President, I, of course, recognize at once the Court's observation about submitting affidavits of witnesses who have been before the Tribunal. What happened here was that some rather material matters were not gone into when he was here, and I think the Tribunal will find them quite helpful in clearing up the situation about Sauckel and Speer with respect to their relative and individual responsibilities for this slave labor program. Other than that, I, of course, would not urge it at all. I think the Court will find it helpful.
DR. HANS FLACHSNER (Counsel for Defendant Speer): Mr. President, I would not make a formal objection against the admission of such an affidavit if I were not convinced, in this particular case, that with the admission of such an affidavit a series of questions will be opened up which will, in turn, necessitate further arguments. I saw the wording of this affidavit only this morning and I am convinced that at least further investigation of its contents will be necessary. I believe, therefore, that if this Trial is to be shortened, in the case before us as well, one ought not to depart from the general rule that affidavits from witnesses who have already appeared before the Tribunal should not be permitted. In this particular case, where there are references to the publication with which the affidavit deals, the case could be made quite clear if these publications were submitted and, therefore, the affidavit is not at all necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to say anything in answer to that objection?
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, this affidavit is, in fact, a supplementation of the instructions contained in Document 4006, which the Prosecution is proposing to submit; but I did not know that this was proposed. What we are actually concerned with here is a question which was opened up by Speer's examination, namely, the significance of Speer's Ministry as compared to Sauckel's office: Who, of the two, was the more powerful? Who 'could give orders? Who had to obey? I think the documents will make that clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you and the Prosecution had the opportunity of cross-examining Speer when he was in the witness box and you could then have elucidated anything you wanted to elucidate at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, only the circumstances were not known to me at that moment.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I do not wish to press this at all, and if the Tribunal has any doubt about it at all I will withdraw my position. I thought it might be helpful, but it really is not important and if there is any question I think it is better we let it go.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal think it is irregular to introduce new evidence by affidavits from a person who has already been called as a witness, and in view of the objection on behalf of the Defendant Speer, they cannot accept the evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS: In that case, I will withdraw it. That completes my statement of evidence. The only thing that is still outstanding is the witness Letsch's interrogatory, which has been granted, and the interrogatory of the witness Bichenbach. I have no hope of still receiving them.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Steinbauer?
DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant SeyssInquart): Mr. President, I have four documents which I beg to submit and which I have received through the General Secretary. The Tribunal has allowed them and the Prosecution know of them. Unfortunately, however, the translations have not yet been completed. The first document contains questions and answers from Director Dirk Hannema, director of the Bovymans Museum in Rotterdam, about the alleged plundering of art treasures. I shall give this document the Number Seyss-Inquart-108. I shall submit the English text and the Dutch original. The next document is an edition of the newspaper Nienwe Rotterdamsche Courant , dated 17 May 1942, of which I have the original and a German translation. It contains a warning regarding the shooting of hostages. This document I shall submit in the original under Document Number Seyss-Inquart-109. The following document is also an edition of the same newspaper; it is dated 10 August 1942, and it also contains an announcement regarding the shooting of hostages. In connection with this document I should like to draw your attention to the fact that this announcement was the result of an order from, the Military Commander in Holland, General Christiansen, and that the Senior SS and Police Leader, Rauter, signed it. I shall give it Document Number Seyss-Inquart-ll0. The next document I received only yesterday from the General Secretariat, and it is a copy of the interrogatory of General of the Cavalry Von Kleffel. From 27 March 1945 until 8 April 1945, he was Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the 25th Army in Holland. He confirms that Reich Commissioner Seyss-Inquart, in a letter to the Fuehrer, had requested that the fighting should cease, in order to save the country from being heavily damaged and also to prevent a famine. This document is Number Seyss-Inquart-111 in my document book. This document had been allowed by the Tribunal. I beg, therefore, that it be received in evidence. Today the General Secretary's office sent me two affidavits. One comes from the former commanders of the Defense District of Scheveningen. His name is Erwin Tschoppe.