dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SERVATIUS: On the last page, the last sheet on the right side. First, there are the food groups 1, 2, 3 on different pages; and then on the last page, on the right side next to Group 3, which concerns the Poles, there is a summary of calories for Eastern Workers, for Germans, and for Poles. If you compare the amounts of calories here in the columns, that should tally with what the witness has stated. He singled out the very heavy workers and said that the Germans received 5,000 calories; the table shows that they received only 3,839. He also says the Eastern Workers received 2,000 calories; whereas, according to the table, they received 2,900-that is, instead of a proportion of 5,000 to 2,000, it is from 2,900 to 3,800-in round figures about 1,000 calories and not, as the witness has said here, 3,000 calories. Is that correct? Do you stand on your statement? A distinction has to be made...
THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear the witness' answer.
MR. DODD: I think it would be more helpful to the Tribunal, and certainly to the Prosecution, if it were established who made up this chart, and whether or not the figures given here cover the camps where this witness had jurisdiction. From Coking it over I cannot tell where it was made up, except on the front page it says: "According to the food table by Dr. Hermann Schall, Medical Superintendent of the 'Westend' Sanatorium. Calculations of controlled foodstuffs for the camps of the firm of Krupp..." And so on. But these things can be made up by the bale and presented to witnesses. Unless there is some foundation laid, I think it is an improper way to cross-examine.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have an affidavit which can prove where that chart comes from.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you ever seen this chart before?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is the affidavit of the witness Hahn.
JAGER: Was a question put to me, please?
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness has the original. It is attached. May I ask the witness to return the document to me?
JAGER: I wanted to make a statement on this subject. At the beginning of my activity the Eastern Workers' food definitely differed from that of the German people, and also from that of the so-called western workers-the French, the Belgians, and so on. It can be seen from the figures that, even though it may not be stated exactly, at least there is a difference of 700 to 800 calories. In the beginning until, I believe, February or March 1943, the Eastern Workers received no additional rations for long hours, heavy work, or very heavy work. These additional quotas were given only after Sauckel had ordered it; and that was, if I remember correctly, at the beginning of 1943. At that time, as far as I remember, the Eastern Workers were put on an equal footing with the German workers as far as food was concerned; and they received additional rations for long hours, heavy work, and very heavy work, which they had not received at all before.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, if I understand you correctly, you want to say that this chart may be right but that in reality the workers did not receive what is listed on the chart. Did I understand you correctly?
JAGER: Even from this chart you can see the difference.
DR. SERVATIUS: It was a difference of 3,000 calories which you mentioned, whereas the table shows a difference of about 1,000 calories.
JAGER: I said before that there were individual categories of workers doing the heaviest type of work-such as stokers and miners-and that they received up to 5,200 calories. That, however, was not the rule. Only very special workers received up to 5,200 calories.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then what you say here is not correct, because you did not mention that. You say generally that, whereas the German worker who did the heaviest type of work received 5,000 calories, the Eastern Workers who did the same type of work received only 2,000 calories per day. That is, however, a general statement; and it does not show that you are referring to exceptional cases of individual groups of workers. Is that correct?
JAGER: That is the way I saw it, and I believe that you understand it as it appears here.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, where does this chart come from, and are you putting it in? Will you put it in?
DR. SERVATIUS: In the affidavit this assertion is made, and the witness said clearly at that time that the workers doing the heaviest type of work received 5,000 calories if they were German, and if they were Eastern Workers, they received only 2,000. That is a very clear statement in the affidavit, which is not in accordance with the chart.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering it in evidence?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What will it be? What number will it be?
DR. SERVATIUS: That will be Exhibit Sauckel-11.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the affidavit refer to the chart?
DR. SERVATIUS: I asked because I questioned the correctness of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I asked whether the affidavit refers to and identifies the chart, the chart which the witness has just had in his hand.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you have put in an affidavit by Walter Hahn. Does that affidavit mention the chart and say where the chart comes from and by whom it was made up and to what it refers?
DR. SERVATIUS: The affidavit which is here as Document Number D-288 does not mention the chart, but only the affidavit which I have submitted. Now I understand it is the affidavit by the witness Hahn, and the chart is attached; and it is covered by the affidavit made by the witness. That document I submit in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: I said the affidavit by Walter Hahn-does it identify and is it attached to the chart? What page? There are seven pages, you know. We cannot find it unless you tell us.
DR. SERVATIUS: In the German text on Page 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you mean where it says, "The amount of calories contained in this food can be seen from the calorie table made by me which covers the whole period of the war"? Is that what you mean? That is on Page 4 of our copy. It is under the heading "C": "Food Supply of French Prisoners of War and Italian Military Internees."
DR. SERVATIUS: It is there, as I have said before, on Page 4 of the German text, where it says that the rations were based on calories; and that the caloric content of the food can tee seen from the calculations made which cover the entire duration of the war. That is the document attached.
THE PRESIDENT: But it is all right to say that the document is attached, but it does not refer to it by any name.
DR. SERVATIUS: But the document is attached, so that it is obvious that it must belong to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I do not want to be contentious about this, but-maybe I do not understand-I think we ought to know when this schedule was made; by whom. This affidavit says it is an appendix. Maybe it was made by the man Hahn, but we do not know it yet; and this witness has not testified to it, and counsel has not told us.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, the position is this, is it not: The man named Walter Hahn made an affidavit annexed to this chart. That affidavit is dated, I imagine...
MR. DODD: Yes, 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: . . . after the affidavit had been made by this witness, and replies in detail to the evidence given by this witness.
MR. DODD: Yes. What I wanted to understand fully was that this schedule, concerning which this witness is being cross-examined, was apparently not made up at the time when he had responsibility for these camps; and so far it does not appear from the examination that that is so, and I think it would have great bearing on the weight of the evidence adduced through the cross-examination. I would like to point out that it was the defense of Sauckel that he had nothing to do with the feeding and care of these workers after they came into Germany, but that it was the responsibility of the DAN. I think it might be more helpful if counsel cleared that up, so that we would know whether he does admit responsibility after they came in and whether that is the purpose of this crossexamination.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. The Tribunal does not think that you need interrupt your cross-examination. You can go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: The Prosecution has just made that assertion as an accusation against Sauckel. If the Prosecution today is of the opinion that Sauckel was not responsible for the happenings in the factories but rather the works manager was responsible and that he was not responsible for prisoners of war but that the Armed Forces were responsible for them, then I do not need this witness
THE PRESIDENT: Go on with your cross-examination, please.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you have made some statements concerning the clothing of Eastern Workers. You said that they slept in the same clothes in which they had come from the East and that almost all of them had no overcoats and were therefore forced to use their blankets-even in cold and rainy weather-to carry their blankets in the place of coats. Was it always like that, or only for a time? Was that a general occurrence or only an individual case?
JAGER: In order to avoid another misunderstanding I have to state again: At the beginning of my activity I depended entirely on myself. There was no camp command. There was nobody else to work with me. The calorie tables as well as the clothing charts were not made until later. The camp management which existed, according to Hahn-if I remember correctly-was only until February or April 1943. The phase which I intended to describe, and have described here, refers strictly to the time when I started my work. At that time the conditions were actually as I have described them, and I had to go by that. That also included clothing, as I have confirmed. These people remained in the same condition as on arrival, as far as clothing was concerned, for quite a while; and as far as I know they did not receive anything at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was done about that?
JAGER: I reported these conditions as soon as possible. I do not remember when. As far as I could see, the intention was to establish tailor shops, shoe repair shops, and other work shops in the camps; and some of them were actually established.
DR. SERVATIUS: One question. Did things generally get much better in the course of your activities, or did they become worse?
JAGER: They did not become worse after 1943. After the first heavy air raids, of course, the confusion was always very great. A great deal was destroyed by fire. I recall that during one night 19,000 persons became homeless; and, of course, clothes and underwear were destroyed also It naturally took quite some time to make up these losses.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were these conditions caused by the firm of Krupp, or by lack of supervision on the part of the Labor Front?
JAGER: As I have said, I saw members of the Labor Front only once in a camp. Then that commission did actually criticize conditions. It was in the camp at Kramerplatz, and the firm of Krupp was fined at that time, because of the conditions. But that was the only time that I got in touch at all with the Labor Front.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the firm of Krupp object in any way to the improvements, so that the Labor Front had to intervene?
JAGER: That I cannot say. I had no influence in that respect and did not know anything about it, because I had to deal only with medical affairs, and did not participate in meetings of the firm of Krupp or the Labor Front. I could only make reports.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you also made statements concerning the conditions of health; and you said that the supply of medical instruments, bandages, medicines, and other medical equipment was completely inadequate in these camps. Is that true, or were those exceptional cases; or was it a condition which existed all the time?
JAGER: That was how I found the camps in October 1942, and slowly I had to clear up these conditions. Later, of course, there was an improvement.
DR. SERVATIUS: You say here that the number of Eastern Workers who fell sick was twice as high as the number of German workers; that tuberculosis was especially prevalent; and that the percentage was four times as high among the Eastern Workers as among the Germans. Is that correct?
JAGER: That was the case at the beginning when we received workers who had not had any medical examination at all. When I went through the camps, I heard from the camp doctors-and saw for myself on the occasion of inspections-that very many people were sick. The figure was considerably higher than among the Germans, as far as I could see at that time.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was done about that by the Krupp firm?
JAGER: After we had found out that it was tuberculosis we had to deal with, we made examinations in large numbers, even X-ray examinations. Then those affected with tuberculosis were separated from the others and put into the Krupp hospital for medical treatment.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then you mentioned typhus, and said that that was also widespread among the workers.
JAGER: I busied myself with that in particular, as we had about 150 cases.
DR. SERVATIUS: At what time?
JAGER: During the entire period from 1942 to 1945.
DR. SERVATIUS: How many workers did you have during that time?
JAGER: Oh, that varied.
DR. SERVATIUS: Give us some approximate figure.
JAGER: Well, if I remember correctly, there may have been 23,000 or 24,000; there may have been more. Later, there were about 9,000. But these figures varied.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you consider it correct, if 150 people out of such a large number are affected by typhus over such a long period of time, to say that it was very widespread among the workers?
JAGER: Yes, for we had no typhus at all among the German population. So that statement may be justified. If among a population of 400,000 or 500,000-such as there was in Essen at that time-there was no typhus at all, and if one then takes an average of 20,000, with 150 cases among the 20,000, then that statement can quite well be made.
DR. SERVATIUS: In other words, you maintain your statement, that it is a correct statement that typhus was widespread. You say, furthermore, that carriers of these diseases were fleas, lice, bedbugs, and other vermin which tortured the inhabitants of those camps. Was that true of ad the camps?
JAGER: It was the case in almost all the camps when I began my work. Then a disinfection station was set up by the firm of Krupp, which was hit in an air attack immediately. It was then rebuilt, and then destroyed a second time.
DR. SERVATIUS: You say that in cases of illness the workers had to go to work until a camp doctor certified that they were unfit for work. In the camps at Seumannstrasse, Grieperstrasse, Germaniastrasse, and Kapitan-Lehmannstrasse there were no daily consultation hours, and that at these camps the camp doctors appeared only every second or third day. Consequently workers were forced to go to work despite illness, until a doctor appeared. Is that correct?
JAGER: Naturally a worker had to work unless a camp doctor certified he was unfit. It was the same with the German population. I am a panel doctor myself and I know that in many cases a man had to go to work if he did not report himself sick; there was no difference in that respect.
DR. SERVATIUS: And you say that that was the case in the camps mentioned; that there was no real consultation hour, which meant that a man could not possibly report sick?
JAGER: But he could go to a doctor. Because there were no doctors there, I purposely arranged that whenever possible people should come to me during my consultation-to me personally.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you have said here. . .
THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better adjourn now. [A recess was taken.]
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you just said that the workers could report ill even when there was no doctor present, that there was some other provision for them. Here you say that these camps were visited only every second or third day by the competent camp doctors; that as a consequence the workers, despite illness, had to report for work until a doctor was actually there. Is that correct?
JAGER: That is wrongly expressed. If anyone reported ill he had to be taken to a doctor, or the doctor was notified.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I should like to return once more to the subject of the spreading of typhus. How many deaths resulted?
JAGER: Only about three or four cases of death resulted, and they occurred only because the case was diagnosed too late. I always 3 June took personal charge of the typhus cases and had them brought to the hospital immediately, for I was responsible for this.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then you say in another place, on Page 2: "The plan of supplies prescribed a little meat each week. Only Freibankfleisch could be used for this purpose, which was horse meat, meat infected with tuberculosis, or meat condemned by the veterinary." Does that mean that the foreign workers received bad meat?
JAGER: One must define the expression "Freibankfleisch." Thai was meat which was not released for general consumption by the veterinary but which, after being treated in a certain way, wet quite fit' for human food. Even in times of peace and afterwards, the German population bought this meat. During the war the German population received in return for their coupons a double quantity of Freibankfleisch.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then the veterinary allowed it for consumption?
JAGER: Meat which had been condemned at first was released for human consumption after it had been treated in a certain manner and was then not harmful.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then the expression "condemned by the veterinary" means that it was first condemned and then allowed?
JAGER: Yes, then allowed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, regarding the French prisoner-of-war camp in Noggerathstrasse you said the following: "This camp was destroyed in a bombing attack; and the inmates for almost half a year were housed in dog kennels, latrines, and old baking ovens." Is that correct?
JAGER: That is how I found this camp.
DR. SERVATIUS: And you saw that yourself for a half year?
JAGER: I was there only on three occasions. It was described to me in that way, and I found the camp in that condition. As far as I could determine at the time, it had been in that condition for about 4 months; then it was rebuilt.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, I am interested in the dog kennels. How many dog kennels were there? Were they really dog kennels, or was that only a derogatory remark about some other kind of billets?
JAGER: It was an expression of mine, because the inmates built and hammered these huts together themselves.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is the same true of the latrines, or what does that mean?
JAGER: That was the place where the doctor had his consultations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that a former latrine, or was it a latrine that was being used as such?
JAGER: A former latrine.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then it was a former latrine which had been rebuilt?
JAGER: It had not been rebuilt; it was just as it had been.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was this latrine then still being used?
JAGER: It was not being used.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then you say that there were no tables, chairs, or cupboards in this camp.
JAGER: That was also not the case.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, did you swear to this testimony which you have seen?
JAGER: Yes, to the one I saw before.
DR. SERVATIUS: Are you sure it is that testimony which you have just had in your hands?
JAGER: In my home in Chemnitz I crossed out various things in the record of the interrogatory which was submitted to me, and initialed these corrections...
DR. SERVATIUS: This very sentence, did you not . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Please do not interrupt him.
DR. SERVATIUS: Please continue.
JAGER: I must assume that this is that corrected record.
DR. SERVATIUS: But you have it before you?
JAGER: Yes, I have a record before me.
DR. SERVATIUS: Can you not determine which passages you crossed out? Were there many passages like that, or was it just single words?
JAGER: No, sometimes entire sentences.
DR. SERVATIUS: And you swore to that?
JAGER: Yes. After I had made these changes, I swore to this record.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that this statement was in the Krupp files at the beginning of the proceedings, and that it was considerably shorter, and that a number of sentences which the witness has sworn to here were lacking in that statement. I would suggest, therefore, that the Prosecution should submit the original, which the witness states he has altered, so that it can be seen just what he did write. As far as I know, he struck out at the time a few of those very statements which he has just repeated here. As an example, I mention that he stated that in this camp there were no chairs, tables, or cupboards. That is a sentence which was struck out. The witness thus had doubts at the time, and did not swear to these facts.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not know what you are talking about. We have before us what is called a sworn statement, which was put in evidence and which is signed by the witness. The witness is now saying that that statement is correct, subject to any alterations which you have extracted from him in cross-examination.
DR. SERVATIUS: He said it might be entire sentences. I should like to ask the Prosecution to produce the original document with the passages crossed out, because I have seen two statements: a brief one in which these passages are apparently left out, and a complete one, such as we have before us, and which the witness says had been cut short.
THE PRESIDENT: All that the witness is saying, is it not, is that it was originally submitted to him in a certain form? He made certain alterations in it. Then, when those alterations had been made-I do not know whether it was fair-copied or not-he then signed it and swore to it, and that is the document that we have.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, my contention is this: The document which we have before us does not show these crossings out. The words which were struck out are still contained in the document.
THE PRESIDENT: You may ask the witness any question you like about it.
DR. SERVATIUS: How did you mark your alterations?
JAGER: I crossed the passages out with ink and put my name next to the alterations. It is difficult, of course, and today I am not able to say what I did strike out at that time, as I did not retain a copy.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, if this document which we have before us were reproduced correctly these crossed-out passages would have to be shown, especially as the witness says that he put his initials in the margin.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you sign the document after it had been fair-copied? Witness, did you sign the document after it had been fair-copied? You know what a fair copy is, do you not?
JAGER: Yes. I must try to remember exactly. The document was submitted to me. I made the alterations, and then I signed three or four of these statements. Then these records were taken away; and on the same day or the following day, I was in Essen and swore to this record. Then I received a record which I read before the court.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was that a fair copy without any alterations?
JAGER: That was a fair copy. I do not remember exactly; I really cannot.
DR. SERVATIUS: And why did you make these alterations?
JAGER: The record came about in this way. Captain Harris came to me and interrogated me on these matters. Notes were taken; and then Captain Harris, I think, compiled this record and asked me to sign it.
DR. SERVATIUS: And why did you make these alterations?
JAGER: Because I could not swear to those things-the things that I struck out I could not swear to.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was it incorrect, or did it go too far?
JAGER: In part it went too far, I think I can put it that way; and in part it was incorrect-unintentionally, of course. But I had to make those changes, and I did make them.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, if I show you a document in which I mark in red the passages that you struck out, would you recognize those passages?
JAGER: That is very difficult, for I cannot remember that.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I have no further questions.
MR. DODD: I am not clear on this. I do not know whether counsel is claiming that we have another document, one which we have not submitted. I do not know of any such. We submitted the only one that came into our possession...