dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I will ask you the question again. Was the Bauernfuehrer on the staff of the Gauleiter, Kreisleiter, and Ortsgruppenleiter one of the "nonpolitical" Political Leaders who were said to be merely expert advisers?
WEGSCHEIDER: Yes, the Ortsbauernfuehrer was only indirectly active in the Ortsgruppen staff.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Now, look at that document and explain to me the part that the so-called expert was playing in connection with slave labor. Do you see that document? It is document addressed to all Kreisbauernschaften. Do you see that?
WEGSCHEIDER: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And it would be the duty of the Kreisbauernfuehrer to bring any regulations he received in connection with foreign workers to the notice of the Kreisleiter, would it not? Witness, please be kind enough to answer my question. Would it be the duty of the Kreisbauernfuehrer to bring to the notice of his Kreisleiter, regulations and instructions which he received in connection with foreign labor?
WEGSCHEIDER: I do not believe so. I believe that was left to the discretion of the Kreisleiter of the Kreisbauernfuehrer and that things which could not be carried through were passed by.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Are you really saying to this Tribunal that that expert whose duty it was to advise his Kreisleiter and keep his Kreisleiter informed and who was continually conferring with his Kreisleiter, would never have drawn his Kreisleiter's attention to the instructions he had received about foreign labor?
WEGSCHEIDER: I must mention that I still hear very poorly.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: But I am sure you can hear well enough to answer me.
WEGSCHEIDER: Yes, now I can hear much better.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: We won't pursue that matter. We will just see the part that this so-called nonpolitical expert was expected to play himself. Do you see first of all that the: "... agencies of the Reich Food Estate, Baden State Peasants Association ... have received the result of the negotiations with the Higher SS and Police Leader in Stuttgart with great satisfaction." Do you see that?
WEGSCHEIDER: This point?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do you see that "the Baden State Peasants Association and the Reich Food Estate have received the result of the negotiations with the Higher SS and Police Leader in Stuttgart with great satisfaction!"?
WEGSCHEIDER: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Let us just see what these results are that the Reich's food association was receiving with such satisfaction. You see on that document that Poles are not allowed to complain- they have no right to complain, Number 2; 3 and 4 are not very important; 5, no form of entertainment; 6, no restaurants, no sexual intercourse, no use of public transport, is not allowed to change his employment. In no case may he be granted permission to leave his village and in no case may permission be granted if he wants to visit a public agency on his own, whether it is a labor office or the district peasant association. Why shouldn't he be allowed to visit the district peasant association?
WEGSCHEIDER: I see here that this letter comes from Karlsruhe. That is an entirely different Gau. These measures were not decreed in our region, or at any rate, not to such a large extent. As a matter of fact, the foreign workers during the summer had to be at home at 9 o'clock in the evening, and during the winter they had to be at home at 8 o'clock in the evening ...
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: We're really not interested in that. Are you telling us that the care of foreign workers was different in your Gau, to the Gau at Baden or Karlsruhe, and that the Bauernfuehrer had to carry out different tasks in the two different Gaue?
WEGSCHEIDER: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. Let us just see exactly what they were carrying out in Karlsruhe.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Griffith-Jones , is that already in evidence?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Yes. ITurning to the witness.]  I just want to put one new document to you. Will you look at Document D-894? That is a report from a Kreis leadership dated 23 September 1944, subject:, Foreigners. Polish youth in the Kali mining area, which has always shown an endeavor to stick particularly closely together, is being watched with especial care. The Ortsgruppenleiter reports that he noticed 13 young Poles who had left Buggingen without permission and who were in possession of medical certificates. He had 11 of these Poles arrested and taken to the Gestapo at Muelhausen for re-examination. I just want to ask you one question on that. Was it a recognized duty of Kreisleiter and Ortsgruppenleiter to hand over Polish workers to the Gestapo when they saw fit?
WEGSCHEIDER: I know nothing at all about such cases in Kreis Kempten-Land and in the town of Kempten.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Nothing like that happened in your Kreis at all?
THE PRESIDENT: Is that a new document?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: It is a new document and will be Exhibit GB-545. I have no further questions to ask this witness. Perhaps I might supplement my answer to the question raised, I think, by the American judge on the euthanasia point as to how it became a war crime. If I might refer the Tribunal to Page 31 of the document book which they have, which is the protest from Bishop Wurm to Frick and which is familiar to the Tribunal. If the Tribunal will look at the first paragraph of that letter it will be seen that the Bishop states that this action is taking place on orders from the Reich Defense Council. And again, if the Tribunal would turn to Page 36 of their document book, which is another letter which has, already been put in, it is a second letter that Bishop Wurm wrote to Frick, this time in September-the first in July of 1940-and now in September he writes again. And in the middle of the paragraph it will be seen he states, "If the leadership of the State is convinced that it is a question of an inevitable war measure, why does it not issue a decree with legal force?" I have no further questions.
THE TRIBUNAL (Major General I. T. Nikitchenko, Member for the U.S.S.R.): Witness, you were a member of the Nazi Party from 1933 on, is that correct?
WEGSCHEIDER: Yes, beginning with 1933.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Did you join the Party voluntarily or under constraint?
WEGSCHEIDER: I joined the Party voluntarily.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Were you well acquainted with the program of the Party, the tasks, the aims of the Party?
WEGSCHEIDER: Yes, in the course of the years I familiarized myself with the various points of the Party program.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): And did you completely agree with the program, the tasks, and aims of the Party?
WEGSCHEIDER: Well, perhaps not 100 percent on all points, but an the whole we have seen here that Hitler ...
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): What was the percentage of your agreement with the aims of the Party?
WEGSCHEIDER: Especially in this matter-that is, the way the Jewish question developed according to the program-it was then spreading, as I have already mentioned, and the people and I myself were no longer quite in agreement with this policy.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): It was only on the question of the persecution of the Jews that you did not agree with the Party, is that correct?
WEGSCHEIDER: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): And with all the rest you agreed?
WEGSCHEIDER: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): And now do you still have the same convictions that you had before? Do you agree with the aims and tasks of the Party?
WEGSCHEIDER: Yes. Of course, if action had always been taken in accordance with the program, then we surely would not have had the war. War of itself, which we had experienced as veterans of the first World War...
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): I did not ask you what it might not have come to. Did you understand my question? I am asking you: Do you still share the opinion of the Nazis?
WEGSCHEIDER: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): You renounce them?
WEGSCBEIDER: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): That is incomprehensible, you do not agree and you do not renounce.
WEGSCHEIDER: I beg your pardon.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): My question is quite simple and clear.  Do you still agree with the views of the Nazis?
WEGSCHEIDER: No, that is no longer possible.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): Why?
WEGSCHEIDER: Because the confidence of the people was abused in many respects.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): And now do you consider the program of the Nazi Party as correct or incorrect from your point of view? Did you hear the question?
WEGSCHEIDER: No, I did not hear it.
THE TRIBUNAL (Gen. Nikitchenko): I am asking whether now you consider the program and views of the Nazi Party correct or incorrect?
WEGSCHEIDER: No, not any longer.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you had a document from Karlsruhe, stating the effect of a certain decree with reference to Polish farm workers. You said that that decree had not been enforced in your Gau. But you said that certain decrees had been in force. To what degree were restrictions placed upon foreign workers in your district?
WEGSCHEIDER: Solely, as I have already mentioned, that in the summer they had to be at home at 9 o'clock in the evening, and in the winter at 8 o'clock. Any other restrictions were not imposed on them, for when I was mayor I received directives from the Landrat to designate a special inn in the community, where the Polish and Ukrainian farm Workers could gather in the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Could they have bicycles?
WEGSCHEIDER: Yes, in Allädu it is even necessary to have a bicycle. A large part of the meadows and farmland lay at quite a distance from the farmhouse and under these conditions it was not possible for the farmer and his servants to ride bicycles while Polish workers had to walk for perhaps an hour. Most of the Polish workers...
THE PRESIDENT: That is quite enough. Now you say that the only restrictions upon them were that they had to be in at a certain time at night?
VIEGSCHEIDER: Yes, because other matters and other directives were simply not carried through. Polish workers slept in the same rooms as the Germans, they ate at the family table, and they received much clothing from the farmers themselves, for they arrived in rags.
THE PRESIDENT: Who was it who decided where they had to be employed?
WEGSCHEIDER: The Labor Office.
THE PRESIDENT: And whom did the Labor Office communicate with?
WEGSCHEIDER: The Labor Office communicated with the Kreisbauernsdiaft and with the Bauernfuefirer.
THE PRESIDENT: So that the Labor Office communicated to you and to the Bauernfuehrer?
WEGSCHEIDER: In this matter chiefly with the Bauernfuehrer.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the Bauernfuehrer told the Labor Office how many laborers they wanted; was that the way it was done?
WEGSCHEIDER: Yes, that is the way it was done.
THE PRESIDENT: How did he allot them?
WEGSCHEIDER: This allotment was left to the Bauernfuehrer. The farmers in the district stated how many workers they needed and, depending on the allotments, they were supplied with workers.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the Bauernfuehrer subject to the orders of the Kreisleiter or the Ortsgruppenleiter?
WEGSCHEIDER: The Bauernfuehrer was subordinate only to the Reich Food Estate-that is the Kreisbauernfuehrer.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that he was not at all under the orders of the Ortsgruppenleiter?
WEGSCHEIDER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: But directly under the food office, was he?
WEGSCREIDER: Yes, he was under the Reich Food Estate.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may retire. IThe witness left the stand.]
DR.SERVATIUS: As my next witness, with the permission of the High Tribunal, I should like to call Dr. Hirt, a Bloddeiter. [The witness Hirt took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?
ERNST HIRT (Witness): Dr. Ernst Hirt.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I will speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. IThe witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.,
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, when were you born?
HIRT: On 25 June 1896.
DR. SERVATIUS: You are at liberty?
HIRT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: You are a Landgerichtsrat and during the war, from 1942 to 1945 you were Kriegsblockleiter here at Nuremberg?
HIRT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Outside of your block, did you know about the political activities and attitude of the Block- and Zellenleiter?
HIRT: Yes, I had contact with a number of other Block- and Zellenleiter and as a judge I had a further opportunity to get an insight into the activity of Block- and Zellenleiter.
DR.SERVATIUS: Witness, please pause a little between questions and answers so that the interpretation can follow.  In taking office as a Blockleiter during the war did you become a Political Leader through that step?
HIRT: No, I never became that. We were merely entrusted with tasks connected with this office.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were there many such Block- and Zellenleiter during the war who were not Political Leaders?
HIRT: The majority of the Block- and Zellenleiter who were appointed during the war were not Political Leaders, that is, they were not nominated or confirmed by the Kreisleiter, they received no certificate and had no right to wear a uniform.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the Block- and Zellenleiter take over their office voluntarily?
HIRT: The majority of the Block- and Zellenleiter during the war did not take over their office voluntarily.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how was it in peacetime?
HIRT: In peacetime I rather assume that the larger part of Block- and Zellenleiter took over this activity voluntarily.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was not each Party member obligated to take such an office, and do you understand by that that they did not come in voluntarily?
HIRT: Per se, each Party member was obligated to work in the Party or for the Party; but in peacetime it could readily be managed to avoid taking over office, while during the war, in the majority of the cases, this was quite impossible. A number of Block- and Zellenleiter had been called to the colors; the Ortsgruppenleiter ordered Party members who were still left to take over this or that office and it was impossible to refuse without running the risk of some serious consequences.
DR. SERVATIUS: Why did Party members frequently refuse to take over such offices?
HIRT: Well, an activity like that brought with it in many cases considerable work and during the war each man who was fit for work was already additionally burdened in his main occupation.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were not political reasons often the cause for refusal?
HIRT: Yes, a large part of the people who were supposed to take over an office like that were less and less in agreement with various measures taken by the Party and especially measures taken during the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the task of the Political Leaders?
HIRT: The tasks of the war Block- and Zellenleiter were first of all chiefly duties of a social nature. Aside from collecting money and running errands, the Blockleiter above all had to take care of the population as the misery due to the war grew greater, to carry out protective measures against air raids, to supervise collections for the needs of the Armed Forces, and perform other services for the common good.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the office which you took over correspond with your position as judge?
HIRT: In no way. I considered this work somewhat undignified, for the running of errands, the collection of funds, the systematic keeping of files and similar services were in no way commensurate with my training and with the profession.
DR. SERVATIUS: If you had been nominated a Political Leader then you would probably have been accorded a higher position?
HIRT: Yes, I must assume that, but as war Blockleiter I was not concerned with political activity in any way.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then it was just a matter of carrying out practical work?
HIRT: Yes, we war Block- and Zellenleiter did purely practical work as helpers in the Ortsgruppe.
DR. SERVATIUS: From what stratum of the population did the Block- and Zellenleiter come?
HIRT: The Block- and Zellenleiter, for a large part, were taken from the simple people, the working classes, among manual laborers and people who had rather insignificant positions.
DR. SERVATIUS: And what was the point of view according to which these people were chosen?
HIRT: It was important to find people of good character who were reliable, for money matters were involved, and the honesty of the person had to be beyond doubt.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the Block- and Zellenleiter not have a staff at their disposal, which would emphasize their importance as Hoheitsträger?
HIRT: I never knew about such a staff, but I do know from various conversations that I had with other Block- and Zellenleiter, people who were active in former years, that there were block helpers where large blocks were involved. I myself did not have a helper of that kind in my block. On the other hand, there was a so-called house warden in each house.
DR. SERVATIUS: And how about the title "Hoheitsträger"? What did it mean?
HIRT: The Block- or Zellenleiter, in any event, could not consider himself a Hoheitsträger, for he had no political authority to issue orders. In our opinion, a Hoheitstrdger started with the Ortsgruppenleiter.
DR. SERVATIUS: Conversations took place with the Ortsgruppenleiter. Did the Blockleiter receive directives at these conferences for the combating of political opponents?
HIRT: At these so-called conversational evenings, an assignment to combat question, or spy political opponents was never given.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, as a judge and because of your dislike for taking over this office, you probably looked at these things very critically.
HIRT: Yes, that is something I can say about myself.
DR. SERVATIUS: How about the spying upon people for the purpose of sending them to concentration camps. Did you receive directions along that line?
HIRT: At no time did such a directive go out. In my opinion, a Block- or Zellenleiter could not seriously.
DR.SERVATIUS: Witness, please pause longer; otherwise the interpreters will not be able to keep up with you.
HIRT: I shall repeat. Such a directive was never given to, us. In my opinion, a Block- or Zellenleiter could not, even on his own initiative, conceive of spying on the population or on individuals for the purpose of denunciation, for otherwise his entire position in the Block or in the Zelle, a position which presupposed and necessitated a relationship of confidence with the people, would have been rendered impossible immediately.
DR. SERVATIUS: In the Organization Book of the NSDAP it states that people spreading detrimental rumors were to be reported to the Ortsgruppe by the Blockleiter so that the competent authorities could be advised. Did you not act according to this book?
HIRT: The Organization Book of the NSDAP was as unknown to me in times gone by as it was unknown to the other Block- and Zellenleiter.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you realize that the Tribunal has got a very full summary of the evidence which this witness gave to the Commission. In addition to the actual evidence, we have got a summary, which consists of 6 pages of folio, and therefore I think it would be convenient to the Tribunal if you could summarize the evidence as much as possible and take it as shortly as you can, as we have the opportunity of seeing the witness and forming our opinion on the credence to be attached to him.
DR. SERVATIUS: . Mr. President, my examination will not take very long. [Turning to the witness.] Did not the Blockleiter keep files in whic h they recorded the names of those who were politically suspicious?
HIRT: Only a general card registration file was kept of the inhabitants. A special file for people who might be particularly suspicious, politically, is absolutely unknown to me.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the Blockleiter have police authority?
HIRT: In no wise.
DR. SERVATIUS: For what reasons did the Political Leaders in general join the Party?
HIRT: Well, at the assumption of power by the Party, there was widespread unemployment in Germany, which could be alleviated only in the course of years, but there were also other social needs, and most of the Block- and Zellenleiter with whom I had contact hoped by entering the Party to receive general support in their efforts to eliminate the German emergency. ,
DR.SERVATIUS: Now, Witness, wars actually were fought, which according to the Prosecution were wars of aggression. The persecution of the Jews is well known. The trade unions were dissolved. Did not the Block- and Zellenleiter have to recognize these incidents as aims of the Party which were set down in the Party program and in the book Mein Ka7npf?
HIRT: I consider that possible. I personally was more critical of all of these things than many others, -but the Party program, as well as the accompanying propaganda which was very strong in the press and over the radio, could not disclose to the German people the real aims and intentions Hitler had at the time he took over the power.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were not the things which are set up today as crimes under the Indictment so well and widely known that each Block- and Zellenleiter would of necessity have to know them?
HIRT: The Block- and Zellenleiter as such did not learn any more than any other simple German or member of *the Party could gather from the Fuehrer's speeches, from newspaper articles and publications, and from radio reports.
DR. SERVATIUS: You saw many mistakes and you rejected them. You saw the practices followed by the Party. Why did you remain in office?
HIRT: At that time I personally, as an official, could neither refuse to take over the office nor could I seriously consider resigning from/ my office later on. As enough examples have already shown, that would have meant for me the loss of my position, the end of my livelihood, and possibly something worse.
DR. SERVAT.TUS: I have no further question to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.] Afternoon Session
THE PRESIDENT: In accordance with the Tribunal's orders on procedure for the organizations entered on the 25th of July, several applications have been made to the Tribunal for an extension of time for the closing speeches by counsel for the organizations. These applications are made, the Tribunal thinks, under some misapprehension as to the meaning of the order of July 25. It is not intended that the closing speeches should deal at length with the documents. When offering the documents, or during the examination of witnesses, or at the conclusion of the evidence, as counsel prefers, he may make brief references to the documents to explain their nature and the points to which they refer. All the material matters will thus be before the Tribunal. This will enable the closing speeches to be devoted to summarizing the evidence and commenting on any matters of law, and one-half day will be ample for that purpose. That is all.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have a question on the ruling given. I submitted my documents and written evidence to the Court without comment, according to the ruling as I understood it. May I then comment on this written evidence at the end of the total admission of evidence, and ask the Court to look through the documents? It was not possible then, as they were not available.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS: Thank you.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Witness, I want to ask you one or two questions on general matters. Am I right in saying that in towns and villages in many parts of the country there were glass cases exhibiting Der Stuermer?