dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MAJOR JONES: Just look at the Document 1292-PS, which is Exhibit USA-225 and RF-68. That is the report of a conference on the allocation of labor in 1944, the 4th of January, the minutes of which you wrote yourself, so that if anything you say is to be relied upon, that is your report. You will see that at that conference Hitler was there, Sauckel, Speer, Keitel, Milch, Himmler.
LAMMERS: The new work program for 1944 was made out and I was instructed to inform the departments concerned. 1 took part in Ibis conference only because it concerned a measure in which the respective fields of a number of offices had to be made known. Otherwise I would not have participated in this at all.
MAJOR JONES: And in that conference Hitler said that Sauckel must get at least another 4 million workers for the manpower pool, did he not?
LAMMERS: That is possible. The Fuehrer asked more of Sauckel than Sauckel thought he could provide.
MAJOR JONES: And Sauckel said that whether he could do that depended primarily on what German enforcement agents will be made available; his project cannot be carried out with domestic enforcement agents. And then your record goes on: "The Reichsfuehrer SS explained that the executives put at his disposal were very few in number but that he"-that is to say, Himmler-"would try to help on the Sauckel project by increasing their number and working them harder. The Reichsfuehrer SS immediately made 2,000 to 2,600 men from the concentration camps available for air raid precautions in Vienna." That is to say, it is clear from that report, is it not, that Sauckel was seeking more help from the SS and that Himmler was saying he would do his best to help him? Is that not so?
LAMMERS: There is no doubt of that, but Sauckel did not want to have help from the SS only, he wanted to get any help he needed in the country in question by the appropriate service, as I said before, the Feldcommandantur, for instance.
MAJOR JONES: There is a last document which I want to put to you on Sauckel. It is Document 3819-PS, Exhibit Number GB-306, a small part of which was read into the record by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. That is a report from Sauckel to Hitler, dated 17 March 1944. I take it that you probably saw a copy of that report, did you not?
LAMMERS: I do not know.
MAJOR JONES: Just look at it, because it is most illuminating on the attitude of Sauckel toward the assistance of the SS and the German Police.
LAMMERS: Yes; this is dated 11 July 1944. I have one here which is dated 11 July 1944.
MAJOR JONES: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Elwyn Jones, he is saying that he has in his hand a document of 11 July 1944. The document you referred to was 17 March, was it not?
MAJOR JONES: Yes. [Turning to the witness.] You
LAMMERS: There is a report attached here dated 5 April.
MAJOR JONES: I shall not proceed with that part of the document, My Lord. [Turning to the witness.]
LAMMERS: I was always a neutral agent. If there were any differences of opinion, I offered my service as go between.
MAJOR JONES: What were you neutral about, Witness?
LAMMERS: I was not in charge of an office. The other departments had their own departmental interests.
MAJOR JONES: You were not being an honest broker between Sauckel and Himmler, were you?
LAMMERS: I frequently had to try to effect a compromise between various people, including on occasion Himmler or Sauckel, when a dispute arose; and I think I need not blush to say that in that case I was an honest broker. I wanted to bring about an agreement between these two so that it would not be necessary to involve the Fuehrer in such differences of opinion.
MAJOR JONES: Just look at the manner in which you opened that conference. You said there-it is the second sentence under your name: "He limited the subject of the discussion to an examination of all the possible means of making good the present deficit of foreign workers." Then you say in the next question: "The question of whether and in what form greater compulsion can force people to accept work in Germany must remain in the foreground." The operative word is, you know, "compulsion."
LAMMERS: Yes; they were obviously thinking of female labor and of a reduction of the age limits set for juvenile workers.
MAJOR JONES: Just go on to the next sentence of your statement: "In this connection we must consider how the executives, whose inadequacy is the subject of strong complaints by the Plenipotentiary for Allocation of Labor, can be strengthened on the one hand by the exercise of influence on the foreign governments and on the other by the expansion of our executive forces and the intensified use of the Wehrmacht, the Police, or of other German services." That is how you opened that conference, you know.
LAMMERS: That is quite correct. These were the problems that had to be discussed.
MAJOR JONES: To produce more forced labor and discover by what terrorizing by the police and what pressures by Ribbentrop the results could be achieved? That was the object of the conference, was it not?
LAMMERS: No, our object was not to consider how we might terrorize people but how we could carry out official decrees with the necessary executive power to back them up. Surely no terrorist measures are implied in saying that something must be done in a matter. I could describe a case in France, for instance. The workers recruited by Sauckel in France were brought to the railroad station by French executives for transportation as prescribed by the French compulsory labor decree. Everything was in order...
MAJOR JONES: Just answer my questions, will you? You are going on to a different matter.
LAMMERS: I did not suggest terrorist measures. Some compulsion must be exercised by every state authority; but to talk of compulsion is by no means terrorism, or a crime, or violation.
MAJOR JONES: I just draw your attention to the contribution of General Warlimont in this discussion, where he said that: "The troops assigned to fighting the partisans will take over, in addition, the task of raising manpower in the partisan areas. Everyone who cannot account satisfactorily for his presence in these areas is to be seized." And you said: "On further inquiry by the Reich Minister, Dr. Lammers," -this is on Page 10 of the English record-"as to whether members of the population fit for employment could not be withdrawn along with the troops, Colonel Saas, Plenipotentiary for Italy, stated that Field Marshal Kesselring had already decreed that the population of an area extending to a depth of 30 kilometers behind the front was to be "captured'." The whole emphasis of that conference was on the use of force, was it not, and the collaboration of the executive agencies of the State to procure the necessary forced labor for the Reich?
LAMMERS: A certain degree of coercion was to be applied undoubtedly.
MAJOR JONES: There are only two more matters, My Lord, which I feel that it is my duty to put to the witness. [Turning to the witness.]
LAMMERS: Yes.
MAJOR JONES: You saved them from extermination, you meant, I take it?
LAMMERS: No. I merely saved them from evacuation and nothing else. I found out afterwards, of course-now-that in actual fact I really did save them from death. You have...
MAJOR JONES: You know you have testified - just a moment- you have testified to the Tribunal as to a conference which took place early in 1943 where you were invited by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt to send a representative to the conference dealing with the Jewish problem. Do you remember saying that to the Tribunal?
LAMMERS: Yes, the matter was discussed. It was a conference of experts.
MAJOR JONES: That was the famous conference which Eichmann presided over, do you remember?
LAMMERS: That I do not know. I did not attend it myself; I merely sent a subordinate.
MAJOR JONES: The invitation to attend the conference, that came from Kaltenbrunner, did it not?
LAMMERS: The invitation came from the RSHA.
MAJOR JONES: Not from Kaltenbrunner personally.
LAMMERS: I do not know.
MAJOR JONES: And you sent a representative to the conference, did you not?
LAMMERS: Someone had to go as my representative; and he had specific orders simply to listen and not to make any comments during the conference, because I reserved for myself the right to report this to the Fuehrer.
MAJOR JONES: Was your representative at this conference instructed by you to take no attitude? Was that what you said to the Tribunal?
LAMMERS: He was given express orders not to make any comments. My State Secretary, who gave him the instructions, can confirm this. He could not do so in any case, since no decisions were reached. But he was not to make any comments on his own initiative because I intended to discuss this question, which was at that time described as "the final solution of the Jewish problem," with the Fuehrer. For this reason, I deliberately gave the order, "No comments!"
MAJOR JONES: You sent Gottfried Bohle as your representative to that conference, did you not?
LAMMERS: I did not send him; my State Secretary sent him, and he was not even the competent expert, but was accidentally. . .
MAJOR JONES: Just answer my questions, briefly, won't you? Gottfried Bohle made a report to you, did he not?
LAMMERS: I received a short written report, not a verbal report.
MAJOR JONES: And did that report indicate to you that Eichmann was planning extermination?
LAMMERS: No, there was nothing about that; and we did not know about it. At least, I cannot remember that there was anything in it that would have caused me to take any immediate action.
MAJOR JONES: Yesterday you told the Tribunal that concentration camps were not mentioned in the Reich budget. Do you remember saying that?
LAMMERS: That what was included?
MAJOR JONES: Yesterday...
LAMMERS: I do not know. I did not find or read anything about it.
MAJOR JONES: Yesterday you told the Tribunal that nothing was mentioned in the Reich budget about concentration camps.
LAMMERS: I did not find anything and I did not read anything on that subject. I do not know anything about it. Such matters did not interest me much anyway.
MAJOR JONES: You are saying now that you do not know whether there were any references to concentration camps in the budget or not?
LAMMERS: I could not say for certain. I do not remember any specific mention of the concentration camps in the budget.
MAJOR JONES: Does it surprise you to know that for the 1939 budget for the armed SS and concentration camps in the Ministry of the Interior budget there was a sum of 104,000,000 marks and 21,000,000 marks set out as expenses for these items? Did you know that?
LAMMERS: I did not study every item of the budget drawn up by the Minister of the Interior. I did not read any budgets at all. I was interested only in my own budgets in the Reich Chancellery; I did not read those of other offices. I had no reason to do so.
MAJOR JONES: Did you know that there were over 300 concentration camps in Nazi Germany?
LAMMERS: No, I did not know that.
MAJOR JONES: How many did you, as head of the Reich Chancellery, know of the existence of?
LAMMERS: I only knew about a few.
MAJOR JONES: Only a few.
LAMMERS: Three at the most.
MAJOR JONES: Are you solemnly, on oath...
LAMMERS: But I did know that others existed.
MAJOR JONES: Are you solemnly, on oath, saying to the Tribunal that you, in the very center of the web of Nazism, did not know of the existence of more than three concentration camps?
LAMMERS: Yes, I do mean to say so. I was not in the very center of Nazism; I was the head administrative official who did administrative work for the Fuehrer. I did not concern myself with concentration camps. I knew of some concentration camps, that is of two or three; and it was clear to me that others must exist. I cannot say more under oath.
MAJOR JONES: I put it to you that you knew quite well of this regime of terror but continued to serve in it until the last. Is that not so?
LAMMERS: What regime of terror? The concentration camp system existed. I knew that; everyone knew that.
MAJOR JONES: But that did not trouble your conscience, I take it.
LAMMERS: That they existed? I submitted my proposals with regard to the concentration camps to the Fuehrer; and he excluded me from the entire question as early as 1934 after I had made suggestions to him about concentration camps, and turned the whole matter over to Himmler to whom I had to transmit all complaints about concentration camps. I had nothing whatever to do with concentration camps except when I received complaints which I considered as being addressed to the Fuehrer. I pursued them as far as was possible and had them remedied in part.
MAJOR JONES: You, of course, were an SS Obergruppenfuehrer. Perhaps you did not recognize terror when you heard and saw it.
LAMMERS: I was SS Obergruppenfuehrer, which was an honorary rank, just as I said before of SeyssInquart. I performed no official duties in the SS; I had no command, no authority, or anything.
MAJOR JONES: And you profited considerably, you and your Nazi colleagues, from this regime, did you not? You, as the Comptroller of the Reich Chancellery funds, can probably assist us in that matter.
LAMMERS: What did I have? Considerable what?
MAJOR JONES: Funds, money, marks, Reichsmark.
LAMMERS: Yes. I had an income, naturally.
MAJOR JONES: And you were responsible for distributing..
LAMMERS: Not as an SS Fuehrer.
MAJOR JONES: As Reich Chancellor you were responsible for distributing the largess of the Nazis among yourselves, were you not?
LAMMERS: I was in charge of the Fuehrer's funds; and on his instructions I made the necessary payments out of those funds. I could not spend money as I pleased.
MAJOR JONES: You, as Reich Chancellor, delivered a million Reichsmark to Dr. Ley, did you not?
LAMMERS: That was a donation that the Fuehrer specifically granted to Ley. I did not do that on my own initiative.
MAJOR JONES: And Ribbentrop was another recipient of a million, was he not?
LAMMERS: He received a million in installments, first one half and then the other.
MAJOR JONES: And Keitel was another millionaire, was he not? He received a million, did he not?
LAMMERS: He received a sum of money and an estate, because the Fuehrer renewed the practice of the old Prussian kings of granting land and money to his generals.
MAJOR JONES: And you yourself received 600,000 marks, did you not?
LAMMERS: I received 600,000 marks on my 65th birthday. I received this sum because I had never received anything in my previous positions, since I had never asked for it-also because I had twice been bombed out and had no house or property of my own. The Fuehrer wished me to buy a small house.
MAJOR JONES: That is all. If your Lordship will allow me to clarify the exhibit numbers of the documents I have put in: Document 3863-PS is Exhibit GB-320; 2220-PS is USA-175; 686-PS is USA-305; 865-PS is USA-143; 032-PS is GB-321; 871-PS is GB-322; D753(a) is GB-323; 3601-PS is GB-324; 997-PS is RF-122; 1296-PS is GB-325; 1292-PS was USA-225 and RF-68; 3819-PS was GB-306.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Elwyn Jones, have you put in the budget which shows the figures that you gave us?
MAJOR JONES: It is on Page 1394 of the 1939 budget. For the purposes of the record, it will be Exhibit GB-326 (Document 3873-PS).
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MAJOR JONES: The Prosecution will have an extract made from this vast volume, My Lord, for the purposes of the court document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well Colonel Pokrovsky, the Tribunal thought that there was going to be only one cross-examination of the witnesses who were not defendants.
COL. POKROVSKY: The Soviet Delegation wished to question the witness Lammers. It was suggested that the interrogation be split up into two parts, some of the questions to be asked by the British Delegation and the others by the Russian Delegation.
MAJOR JONES: If your Lordship pleases...
THE PRESIDENT: Was this the one case that was mentioned?
MAJOR JONES: This is the exceptional case, My Lord, and the agreement was made before the new regime of cross-examination was introduced. My colleague, Colonel Pokrovsky, and I did agree to share the work; and there are very few matters which Colonel Pokrovsky has indicated which he desires to put; and that was in agreement between the Prosecution. 1~; PRESIDENT: Very well.
COL. POKROVSKY: On 6 November 1945 you were interrogated by a representative of the Soviet Prosecution. Do you remember this interrogation?
LAMMERS: Yes, I do remember an interrogation by a representative of the Soviet Prosecution.
COL. POKROVSKY: You testified at the time that Hitler . . .
LAMMERS: Yes. I testified.
COL. POKROVSKY: You do not know what I am talking about, so do not hurry. Now, you testified that Hitler authorized you to render your help to Rosenberg. You remember that, do you not?
LAMMERS: Yes, Rosenberg was to take over the political work in connection with Eastern problems.
COL. POKROVSKY: That is correct. What was your help to Rosenberg?
LAMMERS: To begin with, it only meant that I had an interview with him at which he discussed his plans for a possible administration to be established. The Fuehrer had given him instructions to consider how, in the case of war with Russia, the country might be occupied and administered. For this Herr Rosenberg . . .
COL. POKROVSKY: Witness, wait a moment. I did not ask you what the Fuehrer asked Rosenberg to do. I am asking you, what did the Fuehrer authorize or ask you to do? You said, "To help Rosenberg." Exactly what form did your help to Rosenberg take? You assisted in... [The witness attempted to interrupt.] Wait a minute. Did you participate in the development-wait a moment, please listen to my question. Did you participate in working out a plan for the economic organization of the Eastern territories? Do you understand me?
LAMMERS: I did not take part in working out the organization of the economy.
COL. POKROVSKY: I want you to take a look at Document Number 1056-PS. Do you recall this document now? [The document was handed to the witness.]
LAMMERS: I must see it first.
COL. POKROVSKY: Yes, that is the reason why it was given to you.
LAMMERS: I do not seem to recognize this document, nor do I believe that I prepared it. It is obviously a plan drawn up by Herr Rosenberg.
COL. POKROVSKY: In other words, you affirm that you did not know anything; and you do not know anything at all about this document?
LAMMERS: It is possible that Herr Rosenberg handed me a plan of the kind, but at the moment I cannot say whether I ever had these 30 pages in my hands or not. I do not know.
COL. POKROVSKY: Yesterday you testified before the Tribunal -and your testimony was very detailed-in regard to the economic administration of Eastern territories. How could you give any truthful testimony if you did not know anything at all about this basic document? This particular document really defines and determines the structure of the administration in territories which were under Rosenberg. Do you understand me?
LAMMERS: I cannot give any opinion as to what is contained in this document. I cannot form an opinion of a document of 30 pages in one moment here. Please let me have the document so that I read the whole of it. I do not believe that I ever had this document in my hands. Rosenberg attended to organization in the East. I simply cooperated in a decree, a basic decree, in which Rosenberg was given the authority in the East. I was not at all interested in the details.
COL. POKROVSKY: If your memory is so weak in regard to this document, then would you please be good enough to look at another document? It is less than 30 pages long. Now, you will be shown a document signed by yourself. It deals with the question of the Soviet prisoners of war. It is Exhibit USSR-361. There is one passage marked in this document which says that the Soviet prisoners of war should not be treated according to general rules, but be put under the charge of the Ministry for the Eastern Territories. Have you found the place? [There was no response.] Witness Lammers, I am asking you . . .
LAMMERS: I have not found the place.
COL. POKROVSKY: Take a look at the second page.
LAMMERS: The appendix?
COL. POKROVSKY: Yes, yes, in the appendix. For your convenience, the place Is marked with a pencil.
LAMMERS: Not here. There is no marked passage in the one I have.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Pokrovsky, the document I have-if it is the same one, 073-PS is in paragraphs. Might you refer him to the paragraphs?
COL. POKROVSKY: Just a minute, please. Unfortunately the paragraph is not mentioned in the excerpt have. However, the exact place will be shown to the witness. The place in the document was indicated to the witness.] This place is really marked with a pencil. He simply did not notice it. [Turning to the witness.]
LAMMERS: Yes, I have it now.
COL. POKROVSKY: And now have you convinced yourself that it is marked with a pencil?
LAMMERS: Yes, the Foreign Office. .
COL. POKROVSKY: I am not asking you about that. I am interested in another place where it says, "The exception to this regulation is the Soviet prisoners. . ." Did you find it?
LAMMERS: Yes.
COL. POKROVSKY: "The exception to this regulation is the Soviet prisoners of war"-that is what I am interested in-"who are under the charge of the Minister administering Occupied Eastern Territories, since the general Geneva Convention does not..."-and so forth. Did you find the place?
LAMMERS: Yes, I have the place. COL. POKROVSKY Did you sign this document?
LAMMERS: I did not sign this document, because it has been drawn up by the Foreign Office. I simply signed a letter forwarding this memorandum from the Foreign Office to Minister Rosenberg for his information.
COL. POKROVSKY: Also, with a covering note. You also sent your letter...
LAMMERS: In this covering note I say that I am enclosing a memorandum from the Foreign Of lice, "The Foreign Of lice comments on your letter, et cetera; and I may inform you of this." I simply acted as intermediary and forwarding office. I did not draw up the memorandum or sign it.
COL. POKROVSKY: Then do I understand you, in this way, that you actually substantiated the authenticity of this document, the document that went through your hands?
LAMMERS: I do not know; I can only substantiate...
COL. POKROVSKY: How could you not say it? You told us you were forwarding it; you gave this document and forwarded it to somebody else. Did you send it to some address?
LAMMERS: I sent on the document signed. I signed the letter informing Herr Rosenberg of the attitude taken by the Foreign Of lice. Whether the enclosure is authentic or not, I do not know.
COL. POKROVSKY: I am quite satisfied with this answer. On 8 April, here before the Tribunal, you stated that the solution of the Jewish problem was referred by Hitler to Goering and Heydrich and later on to Heydrich's successor, Kaltenbrunner. Now, I want you to tell us exactly how Goering, Heydrich, and Kaltenbrunner participated in solving the Jewish problem.
LAMMERS: I only knew that a Fuehrer order was transmitted by Reich Marshal Goering to Heydrich, who was at that time head of the RSHA. I believe that it was then transferred to Kaltenbrunner's authority. This order was called, "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem," but no one knew what it dealt with or what the term meant. In the period which followed I made several efforts to clarify the real meaning of the term "final solution" and what was to happen. I attempted yesterday to explain this question, but I was not allowed to say all I wanted.
COL. POKROVSKY: Well, it is not sufficiently clear exactly through whom and how-in what way-you attempted to clarify the meaning of the expression, "final solution of the Jewish problem." To whom did you appeal? Whom did you ask?
LAMMERS: At first I appealed to Himmler and asked him what the meaning of it was. Himmler told me that the Fuehrer had ordered him to evacuate the Jews who were still in Germany, and this led to a number of problems referred to as the "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem." That is what I said yesterday.
COL. POKROVSKY: Witness, wait a minute. You said that Hitler charged Goering and Heydrich, and subsequently Kaltenbrunner, with the solution of this problem. Did you address yourself to Goering in regard to this? to Heydrich and to Kaltenbrunner? Did you ask them that question, the question in which you told me you were interested?