dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
THE PRESIDENT: How many is it you are asking for? HERR BÖHM: Seven witnesses who are to be heard by the Commission-no, six witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: How many have you already had heard before the Commission? I am told it is 16; is that right? HERR BÖHM: Sixteen. I could not give the exact number just yet, but I am prepared to find out at once.
THE PRESIDENT: And how many have been brought to Nuremberg for the purpose of being questioned by you? HERR BÖHM: The witnesses who have come to Nuremberg to be heard here were primarily the wrong witnesses. A number of witnesses had to come two or three times until we got the right one, for instance the witness Wolff.
THE PRESIDENT: I asked how many. HERR BÖHM: Altogether, all the witnesses who have come only to give an affidavit, or just the witnesses who were heard by the Commission?
THE PRESIDENT: How many witnesses have been brought? How many persons have been brought to Nuremberg for the purpose of being questioned? HERR BÖHM: Mr. President, I believe there is a matter which has to be cleared up. Witnesses have been brought here in order to be questioned by the Commission or by the Tribunal. But witnesses have also been brought here merely to make an affidavit about a particular subject that appeared important, witnesses who would not necessarily have to be heard before the Commission or the Tribunal. These witnesses have been sent back after they had signed an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you how many. How many? Can't you answer? HERR BÖHM: Altogether? I would like to know whether the question is designed to mean the people who have been heard by the Commission, or all the witnesses who came here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, out of the people who have come here, some of them have been examined before the Commission and others have made affidavits, and possibly t here may be others who have done neither. I want to know how many in all. HERR BÖHM: I believe 16. 1 cannot give the exact figure because I did not question all of them. I would like permission to determine the exact number after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: I will deal first with the documents. The documents to which no objection has been made will be translated and will be admitted, subject to objections as to their admissibility. The documents to which objections have already been made, namely SA-236, 237, 242, 246, and 247, are all rejected and will not be translated. With reference to the witnesses applied for, the following witnesses who have been examined before the Commission may be examined before the Tribunal: The witness Schäfer, the witness Aittner, either the witness Bock or the witness Klähn according as counsel for the SA decides; and one out of the three witnesses, Waldenfels, Hauffe, and Gruss-to be examined before the Commission. Van den Borch is not allowed, but his evidence may be given by affidavit. With reference to the other six witnesses for whom application has been made, every effort is being made to trace them and if they arrive within a week from today, that is to say, on or before Tuesday of next week, they will be heard before the Commission. That is all. HERR BÖHM: Mr. President, may I make a brief explanation? The Court has just approved the witnesses Waldenfels, Hauffe, and Gruss to be examined before the Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: No, the witnesses Waldenfels, Hauffe, and Gruss have already been examined. before the Commission, have they not? HERR BÖHM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What I said was that you must choose one out of the three witnesses: Waldenfels, Hauffe and Gruss-after Gruss has been examined before the Commission. One out of the three, so that in all you will have four witnesses: Schäfer, Jiittner, one out of Bock and Klähn, and one out of Waldenfels, Hauffe, and Gruss, making' four. And you will have Van den Borch on affidavit. HERR BÖHM: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Barrington, with reference to the Reich Cabinet, I see there is one witness that has not yet been granted as a witness, and that is the witness Schlegelberger, who has not yet appeared before the Commission. Yes, Dr. Kempner?
DR. ROBERT KEMPNER (Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States): Schlegelberger was questioned before the Commission yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection...
DR. KEMPNER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, are there any other witnesses for the Reich Cabinet?
DR. KEMPNER: Not that I know of.
THE PRESIDENT: It would perhaps save time if we granted him now. Are there any documents not agreed on for the Reich Cabinet?
DR. KEMPNER: We already examined all the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: You agreed? Well, very well.
DR. KEMPNER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: And now we will hear the witnesses for the political leaders.
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party): Mr. President, according to the decision of 25 and 26 July, I am first to offer the documents and affidavits so that they may be incorporated into the record. Should I do that first or should I first examine the witness? According to the decision I should do it first and that is what I prepared.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, do it that way.
DR. SERVATIUS: According to the decision of 25 July, the evidence is first to be submitted. The evaluation of the evidence is to follow the final presentation, so that I will submit only the evidence now without any special comment. I act according to the decision. First, I present a list of the witnesses examined before the Commission which I submit in evidence. There are 20 witnesses. They are the following, if I may read the list. Does the Court consider it necessary for me to read the list of witnesses?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think you need read the names of the witnesses. If you would offer, formally, the transcripts of their evidence before the Commission, that will be sufficient.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, very well. I submit the copies of the records in evidence, the originals of which the Commission has. The record of the witness Mohr is still missing. He is Number 7 on the list. I have not yet received this record. I will submit it later.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the General Secretary will file the original of the transcripts.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you will give it some number, I suppose, some exhibit number?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I will adjust the exhibit numbers after consulting the General Secretary since it is not yet clear how the documents will be arranged.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I submit ...
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. You will adjust that with the General Secretary as to whether or not it is ne cessary to give these transcripts on evidence before the Commission an exhibit number or not?
DR.SERVATIUS: Yes, I will adjust it. Then I will submit a list of affidavits which have been approved by the Commission. There are 52 of them. The list contains those documents the translation of which was approved by the Commission and thought especially important. The affidavits themselves are in the hands of the Commission and I will discuss with the General Secretary in what form they should be submitted as an exhibit. According to the decision, I have summed up these affidavits in writing. If the Court wishes, I will read this summary which contains an explanation of this document, but I do not believe that it will be of great use at the moment; it will be better if it is read later in the proper connection.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I would like to submit further affidavits which are not yet available and which have not yet been dealt with before the Commission. There are 139,000 affidavits which are divided into definite groups. These groups have been gone over by members of the organizations who are in prison here, and one collective affidavit has been made for each group. Three especially important and typical affidavits have been added to these collective affidavits. I could submit the majority of the pertinent documents' to the Tribunal, and will offer them to the Court if I am given the opportunity. I would like to discuss with the General Secretary as to how they should be submitted. In effect, there are 12 different groups-that will be 12 affidavits with three appendixes to the most important ones: On the Church question, on the question of low-level flying, and on the question of concentration camps. Those are nine groups. Then I have two groups-that is to say, a survey of two camps in which there are many thousands, so that one can get a clear picture of the. opinion of the inmates of the camp. They are also summed up in an affidavit with a few appendixes. I have attempted to compile this great amount of material so that the Court will be in a position to take judicial notice of it, and I would like to submit it in its entirety so that the Court will perhaps be able to examine some picked at random and be convinced of its correctness.
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand it, there are 139,000 affidavits. You have divided them into 12 groups?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you have 12 collective affidavits for these 12 groups?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: To be appended to each of these 12 collective affidavits are two or three ...
DR. SERVATIUS: There are three. As I have just seen, a larger number is appended. I will go over them again and reduce them so that there will be no more than three to each group.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, then the Tribunal thinks that the whole 139,000 should be deposited with the Tribunal, and the 12 collective affidavits with the appended affidavits will doubtless be of great convenience to the Tribunal. The Commission will receive them and approve them, yes, and then they will be deposited before the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I have to submit the document books which the Tribunal has; I have the originals of the -documents here and I submit them. There are two documents which I cannot submit in the original-two, to be explicit, which are at the University of Erlangen. The first one, Document PL-15, is the book Die Amtstrdger der Partei (The Officials of the Party). And Document PL-78 is the book Das Recht der NSDAP (Law of the NSDAP) by Dr. Hein and Dr. Fischer. All the others I have submitted. A large part of the documents are taken from collections of documents and from books which are already in the library of the Prosecution. The title of these collections of documents is shown by the heading of the document concerned in the document book. I ask that these collections of documents and books, to be found in the library of the Prosecution, be designated as the originals.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, subject to any objections.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I have finished with the presentation of evidence submitted before the Commission, and now, with the permission of the Court, I shall call my witnesses. With the permission of the Court, I will call the witness Gauleiter Kaufmann. IThe witness Kaufmann took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?
KARL OTTO KURT KAUFMANN (Witness): Karl Otto Kurt Kaufmann.
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 in German.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you were a Gauleiter from 1925 to 1926 in the Gau Ruhr and from 1928 to 1945 in the Gau Hamburg?
KAUFMANN: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: How many people lived in these Gaue?
KAUFMANN: In the Ruhr about 7 to 8 million; in the Gau Hamburg about 1.8 million.
DR.SERVATIUS: Do you know anything about conditions in other Gaue?
KAUFMANN: More or less, yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: In 1921 you joined the Party and after the dissolution of the Party again in 1925?
KAUFMANN: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: And in the meantime you were a laborer, from 1921 to 1925, in the Ruhr district and in Upper Bavaria?
KAUFMANN: No, from 1923 to 1925.
DR. SERVATIUS: According to National Socialist terminology, when is a person a political leader?
KAUFMANN: A man holds this position when he has been nominated for it, when he is in possession of the appropriate documents and has the right to wear a uniform.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were Block- and Zellenleiter among the political leaders?
KAUFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, will you ask the date of the witness' birth?
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness, when were you born?
KAUFMANN: I was born on 10 October 1900.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were not the Block- and Zellenleiter a different type of political leader from the political leaders in higher position?
KAUFMANN: The Block- and Zellenleiter were small executive organs of the Ortsgruppenleiter.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was the activity of the Block- and Zellenleiter subordinate in significance to that of the Amtsleiter in the local groups, or in their staffs?
KAUFMANN: Under the Amtsleiter of the local groups'there were essential tasks and nonessential tasks. Those in charge of the essential tasks were more important than those in charge of the nonessential tasks.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were not the Block- and Zellenleiter officials and especially important political leaders? 	-
KAUFMANN: I have already said that they were officials, but only small executing organs of the local group leader.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom): My Lord, I wonder if I might make a suggestion for the consideration of the Court. I think it would be more helpful if the translator could use the German term, because we are all used to it in this context, and 'continue to use the Ortsgruppenleiter instead of "leader of a local group," because when we use a term like "local group" there may be some difficulty as to what the reference is. I just put it for a suggestion. Personally, it would be helpful to me. I don't know if the Court will agree.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the general practical activity of the political leaders? How was it before the war and how was it after the beginning of the war?
KAUFMANN: The activity of the political leaders was according to the office they held. There were political leaders who were purely technical experts and there were political leaders who had tasks of political leadership. The tasks before the seizure of power were, as in any party, essentially to make propaganda for the Party idea, to organize the Party, and in election campaigns to recruit votes among the p9pulation for the success of the Party. After the seizure of power, the essential activity of the political leaders consisted primarily in social welfare work for the population and in the realization of the social aims. In addition, there were organizational questions, training tasks, and propaganda questions. During the war these tasks were determined by the course of the war itself and in addition to the large social problems in peacetime we had the food and shelter problems brought about by the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: How large was the number of political leaders before the war and during the war?
KAUFMANN: I can only give figures from my Gau. I estimate the number of political leaders in the Gau Hamburg before the war at about 10,000, without auxiliary branches. The number was greatly curtailed by the fact that many were drafted during the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: How large was the percentage of political leaders in your Gau who were -drafted for military service?
KAUFMANN: Aside, from armament-for many political leaders were only honorary officials maximum of 10 percent of the Party were classed as indispensable at the beginning of the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: Who, therefore, remained in the Gau?
KAUFMANN: In 1944, in the age groups of 1900 and younger, there were 12 for the whole Party in Hamburg, with the exception of administration and armament.
DR. SERVATIUS: Do you mean 12 percent?
KAUFMANN: No, 12 men.
DR. SERVATIUS: And in percentage?
KAUFMANN: I estimate 6,000 political leaders.
DR. SERVATIUS: On the staffs of the Gau, Kreis, and Ortsgruppenleiter were also tie heads of the technical offices. Did these officials of the technical offices (Amtswalter) have political leadership tasks?
KAUFMANN: No. The great majority of political leaders in the technical offices were concerned exclusively with technical matters of their organizations.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the officials of the technical offices take part in all staff discussions or were there smaller and bigger staffs?
KAUFMANN: That depended on the subject of the discussion. If it was of general political interest a larger circle was included; if it was a discussion which concerned only special offices, the circle was limited to these.
DR. SERVATIUS: Was the office of political leader taken voluntarily, or as a duty, or on a compulsory basis?
KAUFMANN: Here again one must distinguish between two periods; before the seizure of power, of course, it was voluntary. After the seizure of power every Party member was obliged, as a matter of principle, to co-operate. I personally considered it important to maintain the principle of volunteer work in the Gau under all circumstances because, as you can understand, I did not expect any political success from forced co-operation. I know that the matter was dealt with in a similar way in other Gaue.
DR. SERVATIUS: Why did Party members refuse to take honorary offices as political leaders; was this done for political reasons or for personal reasons?
KAUFMANN: The reasons varied. Some refused because they were too busy in their occupation-that is especially true of many professions during the war; and others refused. because they did not want to expose themselves politically.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the activity of the Blockleiter?
KAUFMANN: T he Blockleiter were the assistants of the Ortsgruppenleiter. When it was necessary in peace and in war to approach the population, usually in the case of social measures, the Ortsgruppenleiter used the services of the Blockleiter. In the Gau Hamburg the Block and Zellenleiter as well as the whole Party, in war and peace, were primarily concerned with social work and welfare measures.
DR. SERVATIUS: From where did the Gauleiter get their instructions?
KAUFMANN: The Gauleiter received their instructions from the fuehrer. They were directly subordinate to the Fuehrer. Upon his order they received instructions from the Deputy of the Fuehrer and in some cases from the Party Chancellery on behalf of the Fhrer.
DR. SERVATIUS: Could the Reichsleiter also give instructions to the Gauleiter?
KAUFMANN: No, the Reichsleiter were limited to their specialized offices in the Gaue. The Gauleiter had the right to stop measures transmitted through this channel and originating from a Reichsleiter if he considered them inexpedient. In the case of differences, the Deputy of the Fuehrer or the Fuehrer himself decided.
DR. SERVATIUS: How were the Gauleiter instructed on political intentions and measures?
KAUFMANN: The basic political intentions and measures of the Fuehrer were known to us through the Party program and in part through his book Mein Kampf. Accordingly, the propaganda and practical training of our co-workers was effected. After the seizure of power, the Gauleiter were informed of intended political actions, especially foreign political ones, but also domestic ones, only after the action had taken place.
DR. SERVATIUS: Were there orders, instructions, or conferences? What can you say about that?
KAUFMANN: There were conferences which took place comparatively seldom.
DR. SERVATIUS: In which form did these conferences take place?
KAUFMANN: For the Party leaders, in the form of Reichsleiter and Gauleiter conferences. I must correct myself-not conferences but meetings.
DR. SERVATIUS: What is the difference between a conference and a meeting?
KAUFMANN: In a conference I see a possibility of discussion. This possibility of discussion in Fuehrer conferences existed without restriction up to the resignation of Strasser in 1932, in a limited form until the departure of Hess, but it altogether disappeared when Hess was no longer there. From this time on, the meetings consisted exclusively of the issuing of orders, at which there was no possibility for discussion or for inquiry. These meetings were directed by Bormann. The other way was through circular letters. Through circular letters, direct orders of the Fuehrer or orders in the name of the Fuehrer were transmitted to us-at first through the Deputy of the Fuehrer and later through the Party Chancellery. That was essentially the channel of command that was customary.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did conferences with the Reichsleiter take place?
KAUFMANN: I do not recall any conference at which all Gauleiter were present with all Reichsleiter.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did leading political leaders have special tasks outside of their activities as political leaders?
KAUFMANN: There were high functionaries of the Party who, besides their Party office, had State and other offices. There were also those who were limited exclusively to their Party office.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was the content of the instruction which the political leaders received through official Party channels? Must one make a distinction between various periods-up to the seizure of power, up to the war, and during the war?
KAUFMANN: I have already partially answered that question. I can sum up briefly: Before the war they were of an organizational and propagandistic nature and during the war they were determined by the tasks of war, in the main dealing with social measures.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did the political leaders receive instructions on Point I of the Party program, which in effect contained the Anschluss of Austria to Germany, and did such instructions refer to the preparation of war of aggression?
KAUFMANN: The political leaders were in no way informed about the Anschluss of Austria, the way in which it was done, or the time. The Anschluss of Austria was, of course, the goal of the Party, because Austria's desire for an Anschluss was known or became known to the political leaders from 1918 on, through the law of the then Chancellor Renner as a result of the plebiscite in 1921 of the Federal State of Salzburg and Tyrol, and later through Austrian reaction to the entry of German troops or to the Anschluss.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive instructions on Point 2 of the Party program which refers to the denunciation of the Versailles Treaty? Did these instructions refer to the preparation of a war of aggression?
KAUFMANN: The revision of the Versailles Treaty-and I emphasize revision-was an essential part of our political aims. The political leaders were, before the war and even before the seizure of power, of the firm conviction that this aim would have to be achieved by way of revision, that is, by way of negotiation. The political leaders never received any other instruction on methods by which to attain this goal in all the time before the war.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did you receive instructions on Point 3 of the program, which demands land for settlement? Did such instructions refer to the preparation for a war of aggression?
KAUFMANN: This point of the program -- I believe it is a point of the program -- was understood by the political leaders-and they were instructed to that effect-to mean the return of the German colonies. The discussions on other territories did not arise before the war, but only during the war. I emphasize, discussion.
DR. SERVATIUS: What instructions did you receive on the Jewish question, which is dealt with from Point 4 to 8 of the Party program? Did such instructions refer to the removal of the Jews because they would interfere with the war of aggression?
KAUFMANN: The program points on the Jewish question were definitely set up. The attitude on the Jewish question varied greatly. The political leaders with whom I was in contact were instructed by me, at least, that this question could be solved only in a constructive way, that is, by a basic change in the existing system. Training and propaganda on this point never had anything to do with wars of aggression.