dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think it is impossible in this case, My Lord, to leave the witnesses without asking the Tribunal to take a glance at the documents, because the two are interrelated. There is an application for 97 sets of documents and in general they set out what we should call in England "allthe relevant statutory rules and orders," that is, the subsidiary legislation made with regard to the activities of this Defendant. And frankly, I must own to the  Tribunal that I have not had the opportunity of reading the original orders. I have only read the summary which Dr. Servatius has been good enough to provide in his application. But quite clearly, these documents cover again in the greatest detail the various problems with which the respective sets of witnesses to be called, deal, and in the submission of the Prosecution, they provide a good reason and a fair ground for some considerable limitation of the oral witnesses. There are certain of the documents to which my colleagues and myself take considerable objection, and I might just state two or three of these. No. 45 deals with the Reich law for sanitary meat inspection, and if the Tribunal will turn over, after No. 49, -- they will see a note -Document 45 is presented to prove especially that the German civilian population also received meat graded as inferior, which therefore could not be considered inedible meat. If one has not the compariosn of the caloric and other properties of the meat, it is going to be extremely difficult to get any value from the evidence, if one is going into that. It is terribly and unreasonably detailed for the inquiries before the Tribunal. And if the Tribunal would then turn to 80 and 81, Dr. Servatius wishes to prove certain Soviet orders, and apparently for the purpose of showing that the Soviet methods of mobilization were contrary to the Hague convention and are therefore evidence that the Hague Convention had become obsolete.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I submit that the two small examples of the evidence indicate that there would have to be extensive examination of the facts surrounding them and could not be the basis of a sound argument that a convention had been abrogated. It is possible that in rare cases international agreements may be abrogated by conquest -- not impossible -- although it is a very rare thing to happen. But evidence of that kind would in my respectful submission not be the basis of such an argument. Then Nos. 90 and 91, which are files of affidavits. There again it is very difficult, without serious and prolonged consideration of the circumstances under which that affidavit was made, to assess the values of bundles of affidavits of that kind. No. 92 is a film of foreign workers, and I would suggest that it would be  treasonable if the representatives of the Prosecution were shown that film first, before it is shown in Court. I think that was the course that was taken with regard to the concentration camp film. Because, of course, without going into argument at the moment, the question of propaganda is a serious one which the Prosecution are bound to consider. I have expressly refrained from further comment, but I think the Tribunal will see the point that is in my mind, and -- I hope -- consider that it is reasonable that we should see the film before we are asked to comment on it further. I have taken only certain examples in the documents because obviously they will have to be considered in detail when we see the text, and the Prosecution would have to reserve their rights as to objection. But I make the general point --and I hope the Tribunal will think that is is a fair point, -- and I hope Dr. Servatius will not think that I am decrying his work, I am only emphasizing the industry and care he has shown in doing it -- that with this immense body of careful documentation the witnesses in this case will take careful pruning. And that, as I have said, indicates our general view. (Dr. Servatius came to the lectern).
THE.  PRESIDENT: Before you deal with what Sir David said, Dr. Servatius, I ought to say for the information of other Defendant's Counsel and for other persons concerned, that the Tribunal proposed to adjourn today at 4 o'clock instead of 5 o'clock. And, Sir David, I wanted to ask you:  Throughout the discussion I think you referred to affidavits.  Did you mean to particularize an affidavit as opposed to an interrogatory?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord.  I did not.  I am sorry.  I really haven't made that distinction.  It is written evidence that I wish to refer to, either by affidavit or interrogatory, whichever Dr. Servatius wishes to have.
THE PRESIDENT: And one ether question:  In view of what you have said about the documents, wouldn't it be good thing for the Prosecution to have a little more time to consider the documents? And then perhaps they could give more help as to their view about the documents.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be so, My Lord, but Your Lordship willappreciate that wehave had a considerable pressure in the lastfew weeks and it is impossible to cover them all, but we should be glad of a little time to go into the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could see Dr. Servatius about them after the adjournment some time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And in the curse of a day or two, let us know.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, we could do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Servatius, will you deal with the  witnesses, then?
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Number One, Ambassador Abetz.  I name this witness for a subjective understanding of Sauckel regarding the reliability Arbeitseinsatz from the point of view of international law. One could assume, if no contradiction is made by the governments of various countries, that he was permissible.  I am, however, agreeable if the witness Stothfang is admitted who was deputy of Sauckel and repeatedly had negotiations with Laval.  If he is admitted, I would renounce the witness, Abetz.  I would forego Witness Number One if I am permitted Witness Number Nine.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see.  That is Two to Eight.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witnesses on the staff.  I have great  difficulty in foregoing any witness.  The practical execution of the orders that were given must be emphasized plasticly through a witness.  The Tribunal cannot read through this enormous number of laws except with great difficulty, and it is easier to hear witnesses on the basic problem than to listen to the reading of the laws.  The witness Timm is a most important witness. He led the so-called Europa-Amt and had charge of the division of the various labor forces.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Servatius.  First of all, you will, no doubt, be calling the defendant Sauckel himself?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I shall call him toward the conclusion.
THE PRESIDENT: These witnesses will be corroborating his evidence about his administration.  Under those circumstances, would not two of them, as Sir David suggested, out of eight and two more affidavits be sufficient?
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness Beisiegel will be on the subject of legislation, but the other witnesses are necessary because they can testify regarding the use of labor in the East except one.  This witness must, consequently, be able to say what the practical usages were.  The laws are simply dead things if we do not know how they were applied.   The witness Letsch can testify regarding the East.  The witness Hildebrandt is for the West and can testify how in France gradually the relationship developed. The witness Kaestner has not been found, and I will forego him. The witness Dr. Geissler is of vast importance because he was in charge of inspections. The great question is, if these workers were employed in Germany, how did Sauckel concern himself that his regulations were actually put into practice.  There were a whole series of inspections.  Number Seven was the leader of the inspections and was introduced into the government by Sauckel.  I do not believe that we can do without him.
THE PRESIDENT: Why are not Number Three and Number Eight cumulative?
DR. SERVATIUS: I named Number Eight because the question of wages seemed particularly emphasized.  So far the Prosecution has not become specific in individual points.  I can conduct my case on specific points only if I lay most emphasis on the question of wages.  It is only Witness Number Eight who can testify to this question.  Witness Number Three can make general statements regarding the general regulations and specifically that Sauckel made efforts to improve conditions and to the very conclusion, through laws, improved these conditions continually.  These facts are clear from the regulations on which witness Number Three will testify. Witness Number Nine, Dr. Stothfang, was Sauckel's plenipotentiary, a personal expert of Sauckel, and was in many negotiations, particularly in France.  Therefore, I have named him as a substitute for Number One, and then because of the limitations of the so-called Weisungsrecht, Sauckel's right to employ workers, it was to be seen at the very beginning of Sauckel's activity that no one who carried out any of Sauckel's orders could tolerate such behavior.  Witness Stothfang is to testify on thatsubject.
THE PRESIDENT: Why are Nine and Ten cumulative?
DR. SERVATIUS: I will forego Number Ten.  I might say something in a slightly different field.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Number Eleven was the press expert.  If I must forego any witness, I would forego him most willingly.  He knows exactly what the conditions were, wrote the book "Europe works in Germany" and can state that these pictures were not posed but were ordinary unposed photographs, which is important for a complete understanding of the book. The next witnesses belong to the Work Front, the Arbeitsfront. The Arbeitsfront was in charge of all the foreign workers,  just as it was in charge of German workers.  That situation persisted, and the witness can testify as to the individual carrying out of various 
     orders, the conditions of the camps, the clothing and the housing, everything that was done. Witness Number Thirteen would be the most important in this particular, but he has not been found.  Therefore, I lay particular value on Witness Number Fourteen, who was his collaborator. The witness Hoffmann was practically in charge and knows what conditions were in the camps. Those were the witnesses who worked in collaboration with Sauckel on the Arbeitsfront.  The practical work done by the Arbeitsfront is to be testified to by the other witnesses. The situation is this:  Dr. Ley, who is no longer represented here as a defendant -- the whole field of work of Ley is now incorporated into Sauckel's field, and he is now being additionally accused of things of which Ley is guilty unless this question is clarified.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the difference between Fifteen and Sixteen?
DR. SERVATIUS: Fifteen is a mistake.  It is identical -- a mistake on the part of the stenographer.  Fifteen is identical with Witness Twelve. Witness Sixteen, Mende, is particularly important to me because he was in charge of the organization of the Arbeitsfront.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean Fifteen comes out, does he?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Fifteen comes out.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Seventeen,Dr. Hupfauer, knows how the laws originated in a general way, and knows of Sauckel's tendencies.
THE PRESIDENT: Why is not he cumulative of Number Fourteen, whom you desire instead of Thirteen?  Both of them are relative against the charge of inhumanity, and Dr. Hupfauer is perfectly general.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Fourteen will treat of the practical side, and the Witness Seventeen will treat of the laws, the legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: There is nothing about that -- Yes, there is,
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Eighteen was in charge of the practical execution on the Arbeitsfront.   One must keep these various fields separate.  Sauckel had a small office.  It was transplanted to the Work Ministry.  He made the regulations with the aim of steady improvement, and the other side, of course, 
     is the practical execution that took place through the Arbeitsfront, or the recruiting in foreign countries. The next witnesses are from the special staff of Sauckel.  Witness 19, Goetz, Bank Director, who can testify that millions of wages were transferred to foreign countries for the workers. Witness  20, Beckurtz, was Director of the Gustav Plant and in the circle closest to Sauckel.  He will testify that  previsely in the Gustav Plant the treatment of workers was exemplary. Witness 21 shall testify about the distribution of authority between Dr. Ley and Dr. Sauckel.  It is of great importance whether Sauckel was personally responsible or whether some other office was practically in charge.
THE PRESIDENT: Why cannot we give him an affidavit or interrogatories?
DR. SERVATIUS: I should be satisfied here with an affidavit.  I have not yet spoken to the witness personally and that is the reason I had to list him as a witness. Witness 22, Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture.  He shall testify that Sauckel immediately after taking over made efforts to improve the conditions of the foreign workers and was particularly active in this field.  This witness will testify as to the reputation of the charge that the workers were ill treated. I shall here be able to prove that the foreign workers were in part -- I say in part -- better treated than German workers. Witness 23-
THE PRESIDENT: He has already been granted to another defendant.
DR SERVATIUS: Oh, I see.  Then I can forego him. The next witness has not yet been found.  He will testify regarding the exchange of war prisoners, particularly with France.  Reich Minister Lammers has already been approved  for other defendants. Witnesses 26 and 27 are important because they can provide information on the way  in which workers were recruited in the east area.  They can testify what powers Sauckel had, whether they were executive; what powers the police had. These are all essential things.  Witness 26 has not yet been found.  Consequently, I shall have to limit myself  probably to witness No. 27, Govenor Fischer, who has been found and approved.
THE PRESIDENT: What about  an affidavit for 27?
DR. SERVATIUS: I  do not believe that  I  can forego  calling  him as a wit 
     ness,  It is very important here to see the witness; a man who can speak about how these conditions in the east really were. Witness 28, Dr. Jaeger:  Here an exhaustive affidavit has been presented, but which has many lacuna in its exterior  form,  Document 288.  It has been submitted  and which I had in the German translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, was not it the proper course to cross-examine Dr. Jaeger when his affidavit was read?
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not know at that time the conditions in this field. I got information and, having ascertained that his statements were vastly exaggerated, I have about six sworn affidavits which had sixty camps concerned. There were three or four camps at the time when total war had reached its culmination, a fact which the witness did  not mention.  I believe I can easily prov that his statements are  incorrect.  I should like to ask to submit a number of affidavits and could be shown to the witness, if he is called here in person. made also the further application, which has not yet been acted on, to submit a number of medical reports that were made in this area and which tend to prove that Dr. Jaeger's testimony was incorrect.  It is very difficult for me to get possession of this evidence.  Consequently, my delay.  It is very important to me that Dr. Jaeger appears here as a witness. The next witnesses, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharmann.  They will speak on the same thing but each for a different area.  They visited our camps as doctors and can testify that the conditions there were unobjectionable and good.  I could name many such doctors if I had the opportunity to look them up.  I know both of these and they will corroborate exactly what the conditions were.
THE PRESIDENT: If that is so, why can they not both give an affidavit of it?
DR. SER VATIUS: They are in a camp.  It would be difficult for me to reach them.  If the witnesses Were brought here, it would be easier if Dr. Voss could appear or at least one of then The next three witnesses are named for this purpose.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, since I gave the explanation, I have had a chance of comparing the English  text  with the French text, and it would appear that I never had crept into the English text, which says: "He seemed to be impressed and he gave an explanation of the gravity of the communication Schichlowski had given. Schichlowski had given an order that no prisoner should remain in Buchenwald".  The French text is, if I may translate it: "He seemed very embarrassed and an explanation was given.  The Governor of Thuringia, Sauckel, had given the order that none of the detained persons should remain at Buchenwald." So that apparently when I told the Tribunal that we could not find this reference, I was dealing with the English text, and it appears that there was such a reference in the French text.  Since M.  Dubost was calling the witness, theprobability is that the French text is right, and as there is evidence that Sauckel had given this order, I think it is only fair that I should say that one witness should be permissible to deal with this point in the view of the Prosecution; it is, of course, a matter of the  Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: I am agreed with the Prosecutor.  I need only one of the three witnesses.  If  none of the witnesses should be found, then I have in the document book an affidavit of one of Sauckel's 
     sons who was also present at the conference. Witness 34, Skorzeny, shall testify regarding the general connections between the Gauleitung and the concentration camps; to what extent that the Gauleitung knew what went on in the concentration camps on the basis of its official position. Witness 35, Reich Treasurer Schwarz.  This question has been settled. I have received my interrogatory answered. Witness 36, Mrs. Sauckel, was previously approved by the Tribunal. I can see that there might be certain scruples but, however, the following is important:  The witness, among other things, repeatedly heard that the defendant Sauckel is accused, of havingtreated foreign workers too well.  That is one point.  The other point regarding the conspiracy that Sauckel, alone and also with other Party members, had very little connections but was more or less on his own and, consequently, did not know much about what went on in general policy. That concludes my remarks to the list of witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you probably realize that you have asked for a very much larger number of witnesses than any other counsel and I have, therefore, to ask you whom you regard as the most important witnesses.  It may be that it will be necessary to limit the number as you are aware that we are directed to hold an expeditious trial.  And so, if you would kindly give me the list of those witnesses whom you regard as the most essential.
DR. SERVATIUS: If I may reflect until tomorrow, I shall attempt to reduce the number.  It is difficult because the field is so large. I also did not receive any trial briefs for Sauckel in which the charges are particularized.  Consequently, I must regard the matters from all sides.  It is a question of wages; it is a question of vacation; it is a question of transportation; it is a question of sickness.  There are so many aspects according to which I must take the position.
THE PRESIDENT: You will not forget that many of the defendants are concerned in various aspects and they have not either asked for or 
     been allowed this very large number of witnesses.
DR. SERVATIUS: Shall I turn to the documents now?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I rather thought that perhaps Sir David was going to get in touch with you after the adjournment and perhaps you could then deal with the documents more successfully.
SIR MAXWELL DAVID-FYFE: I think that would be time usefully spent, My Lord, if the Tribunal would allow it.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I call on Dr. Exner on behalf of the defendant Jodl.
SIR MAXWELL DAVID-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Exner and Professor Jahrreiss were good enough to approach the Prosecution on this matter and put forward certain considerations, including the witnesses to whom they attached the greatest importance, and over a considerable part of the field there is no difference between us. On certain matters there is a difference of principle, which I shall point out to the Tribunal in a moment, but the effect is, if I might run through the application, that the Prosecution will not offer any objections to General Winter, who speaks as to the organization of the OKW and the respective duties of the defendants Keitel and Jodl. They will not offer objections to Major Professor Schramm, although the need for the evidence is perhaps not so obvious. On the other hand, with regard to No. 3, the evidence of Major Kipp, that the fettering, chaining of prisoners took place at the Dieppe and the cause of the shooting of the Kommando order, the Prosecution submit that these are irrelevant,  With regard to Major Beuchs, Dr. Exner tells me that he will be satisfied with interrogatories. The Prosecution do not object. With regard to No. 5, General von Buttler, Professor Exner suggests that he should to a witness, and the Prosecution do not object. With regard to No. 6, the Prosecution are content that there should be interrogatories. With regard to Vice Admiral Buerkner, the prosecution are prepared to take no objection. Than with regard to No. 8, General Buhle, a questionnaire has been sent off. With regard to No. 9, it is suggested that there should be interrogatories No. 10, interrogatories. With reference to 21, the Tribunal has allowed an interrogation in each case, and in many cases a questionnnaire has been sent off, and therefore the Prosecution could not object at this stage when action has been taken on the Tribunal's suggestion. That would mean that the defendant Jodl would have four oral witnesses, apart from the interrogatories which have already been largely approved by the Tribunal. The objection of the Prosecution to No. 3 is maintained.