dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. SERVATIUS: Thus, you are not informed regarding the organization of this recruitment of workers?
ROSENBERG: No, I am informed as far as I have just told you, but I cannot give you exact information about the date of the foundation of this main department "Labor and Social Policy" in the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did labor offices for the Occupied Eastern Territories exist, which had their head in your ministry?
ROSENBERG: The work-yes, insofar as the Main Department of Labor and Social Policy did of course cooperate with the civil administration; that is, both Reich commissioners had continuous contact and had correspondence with the appropriate department, namely the labor office attached to the Reich commissioner. A correspondence with the lower agents, with the general districts, was naturally not carried on, but there was continuous consultation with the appropriate department attached to the Reich commissioner.
DR. SERVATIUS: In your letter you speak of "Sauckel offices." What offices do you mean by this?
ROSENBERG: Well, I mean, first of all, his immediate deputy Peuckert, who later, in order to guarantee smooth cooperation, formally took over the direction of this main department of "Social Policy." He was but very rarely at the Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories since he was officially working especially for Sauckel; and apart from that, Sauckel had a few other gentlemen with whom my main department negotiated continuously regarding the reduction of the quotas. . .
THE PRESIDENT: the witness Sauckel Will give all this information. What is the good of wasting our time putting it to Rosenberg?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is important in order to ascertain the responsibility. Later I cannot call on Rosenberg as a witness again; a number of questions will arise, to which I...
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, of course, but these are all details of Sauckel's administration which Sauckel must know himself.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, but I will have no opportunity later on to question the witness Rosenberg regarding the individual authorities within the organization, namely: Who was responsible, who had the right to supervise, who had the duty to intervene? Why were letters addressed to individuals? Why has he to answer them? One cannot understand that, if one does not ask the witness-if he is not first asked about it before. I would suggest that the witness Rosenberg should be called again in connection with Sauckel's case, after Sauckel has spoken; that would save time.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no issue with the Prosecution about it. If there is no issue with the Prosecution, then Sauckel's evidence about it will be quite sufficient.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the witness Rosenberg, in his letter-in a letter addressed to Sauckel-mentioned the fact that his of flees were using these objectionable methods. Since in my opinion such offices did not exist, and thus Rosenberg was addressing the wrong person, I must establish what of flees there really were. It is a complaint about conditions that were oppressive to Rosenberg and he addressed himself to Sauckel, instead of Koch.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask him some direct question, will you?
DR. SERVATIUS: What did Sauckel do upon receiving the letter you addressed to him?
ROSENBERG: I did not receive a letter in reply to it; but I heard that Sauckel, then at a meeting of his labor offices in Weimar, went into these complaints in detail and that he tried to do his best to remove the grounds for these complaints.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did not that meeting take place a fortnight later, that is on 6 January 1943, and were you not present also?
ROSENBERG: Possibly. I spoke at a meeting at Weimar once; whether or not it was this one, I am not able to say.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you hear Sauckel's speech at this meeting?
ROSENBERG: No, I have no recollection of it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you get the speech in writing later?
ROSENBERG: I cannot remember that either.
DR. SERVATIUS: Later on I want to submit the speech as a document in connection with Sauckel's case. I have a number of further questions. Did other departments, too, in the occupied territories, concern themselves with the recruitment of laborers?
ROSENBERG: Yes, I received indeed some reports that also, for its part, the so-called Tort Organization engaged workers for the carrying out of their technical tasks, and I think also the railway administration and other offices in the East were making efforts to get new workers for themselves.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is it not correct that the Armed Forces were demanding workers, that workers were demanded for road construction, were needed by the domestic industry, and that there was a general effort to keep manpower at home and not let them go to Germany?
ROSENBERG: That is correct, and it is a foregone conclusion that the Armed Forces, the Todt Organization, and other offices wanted to keep as many laborers as possible in the country for the growing amount of work there and they probably did not like to part with their workers. That goes without saying.
DR. SERVATIUS: Sauckel repeatedly pointed out that workers must be supplied under all circumstances and that all obstacles must be removed. Did that refer to the resistance of the local offices which did not want to give up these workers?
ROSENBERG: It certainly referred to this local manpower, and in a conference which I had with Sauckel in 1943 and which is also in evidence as a document here but which was not submitted today, reference was made to it. Sauckel stated that by order of the Fuehrer he would have to raise a large number of new workers in the East and that in this connection, I am thinking of the Armed Forces most of all who had been, as he expressed it, hoarding workers who might instead have been active in Germany.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did Sauckel have anything to do with the recruitment of workers, which took place in connection with the germanizing of the East?
ROSENBERG: I cannot quite understand this question. What do you mean in this case by "germanizing"?
DR. SERVATIUS: The SS undertook the resettlement in the East. In connection with this manpower was shifted. Was this manpower allotted to Sauckel upon his request?
ROSENBERG: First of all I do not know exactly which resettlement you are talking about.
DR. SERVATIUS: A report has been presented to me which concerns the Jews who were sent into Polish territory. I assume that they reached your territory, too. Do you not know about that?
ROSENBERG: Based on my own knowledge, I can say only that this concentration of the Jewish population from Eastern Germany, in certain cities and camps in the East, was carried out under the jurisdiction of the Chief of the German Police, who also had this assignment for the Occupied Eastern Territories. In connection with the resettlement in camps and with the concentrations in ghettos, there probably also developed a shortage of labor or something like that. I merely do not know what that has to do with Germanization.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Before we adjourn, I should like to know what the position is about the Defendant Frank's documents. Does anybody know anything about that?
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I wish to say that insofar as we are concerned, we have been in consultation with Dr. Seidl for the Defendant Frank as well as the representatives of the Soviet prosecuting staff. We are prepared to be heard at any time that the Tribunal would care to hear us on the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then, Dr. Thoma, how many more witnesses have you got and how long do you think you will be in the Defendant Rosenberg's case?
DR. THOMA: I have only one witness, Your Honors, the witness Riecke. I believe that as far as I am concerned, he can be examined in one hour at the most; I do not think it will take as long as that. After that, it depends on the crossexamination.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, yes; then you may finish the Defendant Rosenberg's case tomorrow?
DR. THOMA: It depends upon the crossexamination. Bran; PRESIDENT: Yes, of course. Then, Dr. Seidl, will you be able to go on at once in Frank's case? Supposing we finish Rosenberg tomorrow-tomorrow is Wednesday, is it not? Will you be able to go on on Thursday morning in Frank's case?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I can start with Frank's case as soon as Rosenberg's case is finished. As far as the documents are concerned, there was difficulty regarding only one document and I have foregone the presentation of this one document. But apart from that, these documents have for the greater part already been presented by the other side.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is only one document in question, we can hear you upon it now. As I understand you, you have only one document about which there is any difference of opinion.
DR. SEIDL: That has been settled already because I have given up presentation of this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. There is no further difference of opinion?
DR. SEIDL: There is no further difference of opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then you are perfectly ready to go on?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have the documents been translated yet?
DR. SEIDL: As far as I know, they already have been all translated.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you. [The Tribunal adjourned until 17 April 1946 at 1000 hours.]
MR. DODD: Just before recess yesterday afternoon the Tribunal inquired as to the status of the Frank Document Book, and where I informed the Tribunal that we were prepared to be heard Dr. Seidl advised that we had a pact to which we had agreed. I was not aware of that at the time. I think we were both a little bit in error. The situation is that last night about 6 o'clock we did reach an agreement so that there is no difficulty at all about the Frank books.
DR. THOMA: I would like to make a brief correction. Yesterday I spoke about the request for a document on the setting up of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg. My client has repeatedly asked me to bring in this document. However, there is a possibility that I confused this document with other documents which I requested, but which were not granted. I just wanted to make that correction.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. You do not want to do anything more than just make that verbal correction? Very well.
DR. THOMA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other defendant's counsel who wishes to ask any questions?
DR. HAENSEL: Witness, you were the Plenipotentiary of the Fuehrer for the ideological objectives of the NSDAP and its affiliated organizations. Are you of the opinion that what you did as Plenipotentiary of the Fuehrer in carrying out your duties and everything you said and wrote for these aims and for the systematic so-called ideological combating of Jewry may be considered as an official outline of the activity of the Party and its affiliated organizations?
ROSENBERG: If I may answer this long series of questions one by one I would like to say the following: My office, as far as ideological education was concerned, worked with the SS Main Office for Political Training. We were, of course, in constant contact with them. The so-called 'guiding pamphlets" of the SS, which appeared as an instruction periodical, were read in my office. I myself had it repeatedly in my hands, and during these years I found that in this Office for Political Training, in these periodicals, a great number of very valuable articles with mostly very decent ideas was contained. This is one of the reasons why, through all these years, I did not enter into any conflict with the SS. As far as the Jewish question is concerned, the objective as to this problem was expressed in the program of the NSDAP. That is the only official statement which guided the Party members. Anything which I said about it, and what others wrote about it, were just reasons that were set forth. Certainly much of that was accepted, but as far as the Fuehrer and the State were concerned these proposals were not binding rules.
DR. HAENSEL: Was the objective of your fight against Jewry limited? Did you envisage that the Jews were to be eliminated from economic and State administration, or did you from the first have a vague notion of stronger measures, such as extermination, et cetera? What was your objective?
ROSENBERG: In agreement with the Party program, I had the one objective in mind-to change the leadership in the German State as it existed from 1918 to 1933! That was the vital aim. As to elimination, even from economic life, we did not talk about it at that time; and yesterday I already referred to two of my speeches -which are available in print-in which I declared that after the end of this harsh political battle an investigation or examination of the problem would have to take place. There was even earlier tam about the demand for Jewish emigration from Germany, quite rightly. Later, when matters became more critical, I expressed this idea again in conformity with the proposals of very prominent Jewish leaders that German unemployed be deported to Africa, South America, and China.
DR. HAENSEL: Then, following your train of thought of yesterday and today, one could differentiate three kinds of measures against the Jews: First, until 1933-up to the seizure of power- were the propagandistic measures; second, after 1933, those measures which found their expression in the anti-Jewish laws; and then, finally, after the outbreak of the war certain measures which without doubt can be considered as Crimes against Humanity. Do you agree with this tripartite arrangement?
ROSENBERG: Yes, it is approximately right.
DR. HAENSEL: Then I would like to call your attention to Group 2, that is, to those measures which were instituted after the taking over of power, and which were laid down in laws against the Jews. Did you participate in the formulating of the laws?
THE PRESIDENT: You are counsel, are you not, for the SS?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What have those questions got to do with the SS?
DR. HAENSEL: The questions concern the SS in the following way: If the Party as a whole had the objective of a clearly formulated anti-Jewish legislation, which was in the beginning quite orderly, then the SS was bound to this objective and for the time being had none beyond that point. I wanted to establish when the legislation and the measures against Jews turned into criminal acts, and that up to that time the SS in no manner took criminal measures against the Jews.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he said already that the Jewish problem was contained in the Party program, and that is all that you want, is it not?
DR. HAENSEL: I wanted only to show that the fact that the Jewish problem was contained in the Party program does not prove that it was in the Party program as a Crime against Humanity. In the Party program there was simply a general sentence which I do not believe can be construed as a Crime against Humanity. In addition to that, there must be...
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter of construction of the Party program. It is not a matter for him to give evidence about. It is in a written document-the Party program is contained in the written documents.
DR. HAENSEL: But, in addition to the Party program, a great number of decrees and laws were issued later which expanded the Party program, and the question...
THE PRESIDENT: They are also documents which this Tribunal has to construe-not for this witness to construe.
DR. HAENSEL: The question is, insofar as the defendant can tell us, how far the SS participated in the carrying out of these regulations.
THE PRESIDENT: He can tell us the facts. He cannot tell us the laws or the interpretation of documents. If you are asking him about facts, well and good; but if you are asking him to interpret the Party program or to interpret the decrees, that is a matter for the Tribunal.
DR. HAENSEL: Very well. [Turning to the defendant.] In your books you advocated the objective that all Germans should be unified in a Greater Germany, and that point is also set down in the Party program?
ROSENBERG: Yes.
DR. HAENSEL: Did you believe that this was possible only through the preparation for a war, or did you believe that it was just as possible through peaceful means?
ROSENBERG: In the beginning of my testimony I referred to a speech of mine made before an International Congress in 1932. Here this proposal was expressly approved by the Fuehrer to the effect that the four great powers should investigate and examine the entire European problem. This proposal said that we would give up all claims to German colonies, to Alsace-Lorraine, to the Southern Tyrol as well as claims to the separated German...
THE PRESIDENT: We have heard all this before from the Defendant Goering and the Defendant Ribbentrop, and we said that we did not want to go into it again. In any event, it has nothing to do with the SS-nothing directly to do with the SS.
DR. HAENSEL: [To the defendant.] Just one more question. Do you know that the SS, as far as the Jews were concerned, followed secret aims and objectives, others than those that were published officially?
ROSENBERG: That I learned here.
DR. HAENSEL: You do not know that from your own knowledge?
ROSENBERG: No.
DR. STEINBAUER: Witness, I have one single question to put to you. Under Document 091-PS the Prosecution submitted a letter which you, as the Chief of the Einsatzstab Rosenberg, sent to Dr. SeyssInquart in his capacity as Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands. In that letter you demanded that the library of the so-called Social Institute at Amsterdam be handed over to you. I do not know whether you recall this library. It was rather voluminous and of Socialist-Marxist content. The Prosecution did not submit the answer given by my client. Therefore, I have to ask you: Do you remember this matter and what answer did SeyssInquart give you?
ROSENBERG: I remember this library very well, for I was told about it. To my knowledge it represented the establishment of a spiritual center of the Second International in Amsterdam, in which the history of social movements in various countries was to be summarized in a library, so that on the basis of this scientific material now a spiritual political fight, a scientific fight...
DR. STEINBAUER: Very well. We want to be brief, and you know what I am talking about. What answer did you receive? Did SeyssInquart permit this library to be transferred to Germany, or did he demand that it remain in Holland?
ROSENBERG: It was at first agreed that this library would remain in Holland, and that the cataloging and classifying of this collection, which was not yet classified, was to take place in Amsterdam. In the course of the next few years this took place in Amsterdam. Only in the year 1944, when either the invasion had already begun or was surely imminent, when bombing attacks also increased in this area, part of this library was taken to Silesia; the other part, to my knowledge, did not get through, but remained in Emden; and the third part, I believe, was not removed.
DR. STEINBAUER: Is it then correct that Seyss-Inquart prevented the taking away of this library from the Dutch working class?
ROSENBERG: Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
MR. DODD: Before we begin our discussion of some matters that we would like to go over, I wonder if you would be good enough to write your name a few times on these pieces of paper, both in pen and in pencil. [Paper, pen, and pencil were handed to the defendant.] Would you write "A. Rosenberg," please, with pen, and "Alfred Rosenberg" with the pen; and would you handwrite the first initial of your last name with a capital? Now, would you do the same thing with pencil on another piece of paper, "A. Rosenberg" in pencil, "Alfred Rosenberg," and the first initial of your last name? And then would you do one thing more, please. Would you print the first initial of your last name? [The signatures were passed to Mr. Dodd.] Now, yesterday afternoon, while you were on direct examination through your own counsel, you stated before the Tribunal that you did have a discussion with Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsfuehrer SS, about concentration camps, and if I remember correctly, you said that that was some time in 1938; is that so?
ROSENBERG: Yes. I testified that I discussed the concentration camps with him once, but I cannot say with certainty that it was in 1938, as I did not make a note of it.
MR. DODD: Very good. He offered to have you go through one or the other of these camps, Dachau or some other camp; is that so?
ROSENBERG: Yes, he then told me that I should take a look at the Dachau Camp.
MR. DODD: And you declined the invitation?
ROSENBERG: Right.
MR. DODD: And I understood you-if I recollect correctly, you said because you were quite sure that he would not show you the unfavorable things that were in that camp?
ROSENBERG: Yes, I assumed more or less that in case there really were unfavorable things, I certainly would not see them anyway.
MR. DODD: You mean that you simply assumed that there were unfavorable things; that you did not know there were unfavorable things?
ROSENBERG: I heard this through the foreign press and it is about. . .
MR. DODD: When did you first hear that through the foreign press?
ROSENBERG: That was already in the first months of 1933.
MR. DODD: And did you continuously read the foreign press about the concentration camps in Germany from 1933 to 1938?
ROSENBERG: I did not read the foreign press at all for unfortunately I do not speak English. I received only some excerpts from it from time to time, and in the German press there were occasional references to it with the strict declaration that these allegations were not true. I can still remember the statement by Minister Goering in which he said that it was beyond his comprehension that something like that could be written.
MR. DODD: But you thought they were true to the extent that there were unfavorable things in that place that Himmler might not show you.
ROSENBERG: Yes, I assumed that in such a revolutionary process surely a number of excesses were taking place, that in some districts also on occasion there might be conflicts, and that the fact that murders of National Socialists in the months subsequent to the seizure of the power continued most probably resulted in sharp countermeasures here and there.
MR. DODD: Did you think that was still going on in 1938, these measures against the National Socialists?
ROSENBERG: No. The chief reports upon the continuance of murders of members of the Hitler Youth, of the Police, and of members of the Party were made especially in 1943 and 1944, but I do not remember that many reports still were published about this in subsequent years...
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say 1943 and 1944 or 1933 and 1934? Which is it?
ROSENBERG: 1933 and 1934, excuse me.
MR. DODD: But, in any event, in 1938 you had some knowledge in your own mind which made you think that it would not be profitable for you to inspect these camps because some things were going on there that would not be shown to you. Now, that is so, isn't it?
ROSENBERG: No; but I said very frankly that under some circumstances excesses might be taking place, and I talked to Himmler about this matter so that he in any case knew that we were informed about such things from abroad and that he should watch his step. Only once did I receive a complaint directly myself.