dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
LAMMERS: That referred mainly to the Russian territories, in which there were partisans, and Herr Sauckel thought that he could not be active there unless these territories were cleared up. Himmler, who was present, promised to do his best, but he had misgivings as to whether enough police battalions or other forces would be at his disposal
DR. SERVATIUS: Then it is right to say that it was a question of safeguarding the authorities, of safeguarding the territories, and not a transfer of the recruiting to the SS?
LAMMERS: A transfer of this recruiting to the SS, as such, was not provided. The German executive power demanded by Sauckel referred in every case to whatever executive power was available. In France, for instance, it was not the SS but the field command who had to look after that; and in Russia it was necessary, in part, for the police battalions to pacify the partisan regions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I have a question regarding the Leadership Corps. A document has been presented here under Number D720. It bears the signature of Gauleiter Sprenger and has no date, but it obviously dates from the spring or the beginning of 1945. In this letter there is mention of a new Reich health law, and it is supposed to contain a ruling on people suffering from heart and lung diseases, who are to be eliminated. It says that this law is to be kept a secret for the time being. On the strength of that law these families could no longer remain among the public and could not produce any offspring. Did you know anything about that law?
LAMMERS: I did not understand the word. Did you say insane or what sort of sick people?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is a Reich health law referring to people suffering from heart and lung diseases.
LAMMERS: I know nothing whatsoever about that law.
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not understand you.
LAMMERS: I know nothing about it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Would you have had to know about it?
LAMMERS: Yes, the Minister of the Interior would have had to know about it. Health matters were dealt with in his ministry. It never reached me.
DR. SERVATIUS: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): Witness, one day after the German troops marched into Austria a law was published-on 13 March 1938-which has the heading, "Law for the Reunion of Austria with the German Reich." Seyss-Inquart and his Government were surprised by the contents of this law. I now ask you whether you know the details as to how this law was decreed in Linz on 13 March 1938.
LAMMERS: Like every other radio listener I heard about the march of German troops into Austria through the radio. And since I assumed that I might be needed I went to Vienna. At that point the law had already been signed and published. I did not participate in the drafting of this law; the Minister of the Interior and State Secretary Stuckart drafted that law. I did not work on it at all, because I did not even know that this action was to take place.
DR. STEINBAUER: Did these gentlemen you just mentioned tell you, perhaps, why this law was published so precipitately?
LAMMERS: It was the wish of the Fuehrer.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you. At the same time Dr. Seyss-Inquart was named an SS-Obergruppenfuehrer, not an SS general, as the Prosecution have stated and in addition the Fuehrer promised him that within a year he would be made a member of the Reich Government. In 1939 he actually did become Minister without Portfolio. Did SeyssInquart in his capacity as an SS-Obergruppenfuehrer and as Minister without Portfolio carry out any functions of any kind?
LAMMERS: As far as I know, SeyssInquart did not become Obergruppenfuehrer but Gruppenfuehrer. That was merely an honorary rank which was given him. He had no authority in the SS and he never served in the SS, as far as I know. He merely wore the uniform and later he became Obergruppenfuehrer.
DR. STEINBAUER: In other words, this was purely an honorary rank, a matter of uniform, as you correctly say?
LAMMERS: Yes, a sort of honorary rank. DR, STEINBAUER: Thank you. One year later SeyssInquart was appointed Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands, and in the Law Gazette for the Netherlands Verordnungsblatt as well as in the Reichsgesetzblatt, this appointment was published. Do you know whether, apart from this published decree which appointed him Reichsstatthalter he was also given a duty within the framework of the Four Year Plan?
LAMMERS: From the moment of his appointment as Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands, SeyssInquart experienced the same limitations of authority as I described yesterday in connection with Herr Frank and Herr Rosenberg. In other words, certain powers were held in reserve for the Delegate for the Four Year Plan who everywhere exercised comprehensive command powers. To this extent his position was limited from the very beginning.
DR. STEINBAUER: What was the position of the German police in the Netherlands? Was the German police directly under the command of the Defendant SeyssInquart or was it under the Reichsleiter SS Himmler?
LAMMERS: The conditions here are exactly the same, or similar, as I described them yesterday in connection with the Government General. The Higher SS and Police Leader was at the disposal of the Reich commissioner but his technical instructions came from Himmler.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you. Do you, Witness, recollect that at the beginning of 1944 you forwarded to the defendant, in his capacity as Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands, an order from the Fuehrer according to which he should draft 250,000 workers in the Netherlands, and that Seyss-Inquart refused this?
LAMMERS: This is the letter which I mentioned previously when I was being asked questions in connection with Sauckel. It is a circular letter in which everybody was asked to support Sauckel's action and individual offices were given orders regarding the numbers of workers they were to supply. However, I cannot remember whether the number was 250,000 workers in Seyss-Inquart's case. But I do know that SeyssInquart told me that he had considerable misgivings about getting the number ordered of him. He wanted to take up these misgivings with the Fuehrer.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you. I have no further questions. DR. HANS LATERNSER (Counsel for the General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces): Witness, did Hitler come to power in 1933 with the help of the Reichswehr, that is, was there any military pressure employed at that time?
LAMMERS: I myself did not participate directly in the seizure of power. I cannot tell you, therefore, the exact details. At any rate, nothing is known to me about the Reichswehr's having had any influence on the seizure of power. I assume that if that had been the case one would have heard about it.
DR. LATERNSER: In 1934 there followed coordination of the offices of the head of the State and Reich Chancellor in the person of Hitler. Could the military leaders have refused to swear the oath of allegiance to Hitler without violating a law?
LAMMERS: The law regarding the head of the State was decreed constitutionally and thereby the Fuehrer became the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces. Any possibility of resisting did not exist. That would have been pure revolt; it would have been mutiny.
DR. LATERNSER: Did you ever hear that military leaders made proposals regarding the starting or the preparation of an aggressive war?
LAMMERS: No, not in the least.
DR. LATERNSER: It is well known that Hitler did not permit military leaders any influence upon his political decisions. Do you know of any statements made by Hitler in which he denied the generals the right to a political judgment?
LAMMERS: From the military point of view the Fuehrer praised the generals as a group and also individual generals very highly. As far as politics were concerned, he was always of the opinion that they knew nothing about politics and that one should, as far as possible, keep them away from a position where political matters had to be decided.
DR. LATERNSER: It is also known that Hitler would not suffer any contradiction. Was not that the real reason for Blomberg's dismissal and the dismissal of Fritsch and Beck-the fact that they repeatedly contradicted him?
LAMMERS: Yes, I could assume that such personal differences in the end did bring about the dismissal of Schacht, Blomberg, Neurath, and Fritsch. But I was never present at such conferences and I cannot therefore report what was said. But I do think that they often contradicted the Fuehrer.
DR. LATERNSER: Did Hitler distrust the generals, particularly those of the Army? LAMMERS. One cannot generalize about that. The Fuehrer was rather reserved in his behavior toward most people. He told each one only what actually concerned him. If you call that distrust, then this distrust was present in his relations with almost all ministers and generals, for nobody was told any more than the Fuehrer wanted him to hear.
DR. LATERNSER: Among the circle of persons who had Hitler's complete confidence was there any military leader?
LAMMERS: I do not believe so. I do not know of one.
DR. LATERNSER: Now one last question: What was the reason for putting most of the occupied territories under Reich commissioners and only a few of them under military administration?
LAMMERS: As a rule it was the Fuehrer's wish that occupied territories be administered by political leaders. He considered generals unsuited for that task, because he accused them-I might put it this way-of having no political instinct.
DR. LATERNSER: Was it not the plan to replace the military administration in Belgium by a civilian commissioner even before 1944?
LAMMERS: That had long been provided for. Preparations had already been made, but the Fuehrer could not decide to put it in force, because he had always been told that in the case of Belgium there were important military reasons for not establishing a civilian administration, since Belgium might possibly become again a zone of combat. So the decision was postponed a year and still longer.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
MAJOR F. ELWYN JONES (Junior Counsel for the United Kingdom): Witness, there is one matter upon which I want to ask you-as to the powers of Reich ministers under the Constitution of Nazi Germany. It appears, from your testimony, that they were men with very little authority, or jurisdiction, or power of command of any kind, that they were men of straw. Is that so?
LAMMERS: Well, to say no authority goes too far. I mean in respect to politics...
MAJOR JONES: But, they were of an extremely limited character. 'That is what you are saying to the Tribunal, isn't it?
LAMMERS: In the main they were administrative chiefs in their ministries. They were not political ministers who were consulted in regard to large-scale political matters.
MAJOR JONES: Less authority than the ministers of Germany had under the previous Constitution?
LAMMERS: That, beyond doubt, was the case, for under the former Constitution votes were taken and the minister could at least give expression to his authority by voting against something in the Cabinet.
MAJOR JONES: I am now going to put to you some observations which you yourself made in 1938 about the powers of ministers in the Fuehrer's State. I am referring to Document 3863-PS. This is your comment on the Staatsfuehrer in the Third Reich: "From this basic total concentration of supreme power in the person of the Fuehrer there results, however, no excessively strong and unnecessary centralization of administration in the hands of the Fuehrer. In my general elaborations on the basic concept of the Fuehrer State I have already pointed out that the respect for the authority of the subordinate leader" -Unterfuehrer-"by those beneath him forbids interference with every one of his individual orders or measures. This principle is applied by the Fuehrer in his governmental leadership in such a manner that, for example, the position of the Reich ministers is actually a much more independent one than formerly, even though today the Reich ministers are subordinate to the Fuehrer's unlimited power of command, in respect to their entire official sphere and in respect to every individual measure and decision on the most trivial matters. Eagerness to bear responsibility, resolution, energy, coupled with initiative and real authority, these are the qualities which the Fuehrer demands above all of his subordinate leaders. Therefore he allows them the greatest freedom in the execution of their affairs and in the manner in which they fulfill their tasks. He is far from exercising petty or even nagging criticism." That is a picture of the power of Reich ministers, which is very different from the picture you are painting to the Tribunal, is it not?
LAMMERS: In my opinion there is not the least contradiction. All I am saying here is that every minister normally had no say in respect to large-scale politics. In his own sphere however, he was the supreme administrative chief. I explained here that as a subordinate leader he had the widest powers, insofar as the Fuehrer had left him those powers, and that the Fuehrer did not narrow-mindedly interfere with these powers. He did not think of doing that. This concerns matters of second and third grade importance; large-scale politics were not discussed here.
MAJOR JONES: You see, your picture of the administration of this vast State of Nazi Germany is a picture of one man deciding all principal matters himself out of his own intuitive powers. Is that the picture you seek to present to this Tribunal?
LAMMERS: Yes. The Minister was the supreme leader in his own sphere and insofar as he was not limited, he had greater powers than any minister previously had had, because the Fuehrer did not interfere in small matters.
MAJOR JONES: In the case of the Defendant Funk, for instance, you say that he was a small man with no authority, with no influence upon the decisions of affairs. Is that so?
LAMMERS: Regarding the large scale political issues he had no authority. But within his department he had considerable influence. But those were matters of second or third grade importance.
MAJOR JONES: But decisions, but as to profound important economic questions like the amount of wealth that was to be extracted from the occupied territories, the Fuehrer's decisions were based upon the representations and recommendations of ministers like Funk, were they not?
LAMMERS: I do not know that. The finance policy in occupied territories was handled by the Minister for the Eastern Territories or the Reich commissioners together with the Reich Finance Minister.
MAJOR JONES: But as to decisions on economic matters concerned with the occupied territories, like recommendations as to occupation costs, as to the technique of purchasing on the black market, men like Funk had to give recommendations for determination of policy on these matters, did they not?
LAMMERS: He cooperated, yes, but he had no authority as Reich commissioner in the occupied territories. The Reich commissioner was directly under Hitler.
MAJOR JONES: All these ministers cooperated in their sphere and were indispensable to the running of this Nazi State, were they not?
LAMMERS: Yes, of course, cooperation was a necessity. This; does not mean that Funk had power to issue orders in the occupied territories. He certainly had none.
MAJOR JONES: You, so far as Funk is concerned, were concerned with making quite clear what his position was in the State. Do you recollect that you were concerned with clearing up the matter as to whether he, Funk, was directly subordinate to the Fuehrer or not? Do you remember that?
LAMMERS: Yes, of course Funk, as Minister, was under the Fuehrer.
MAJOR JONES: And he was advising the Fuehrer himself, was he not?
LAMMERS: He very rarely saw the Fuehrer.
MAJOR JONES: But, in the vital sphere of the financing of rearmament, for instance, he had important decisions to communicate to the Fuehrer and advise the Fuehrer upon, did he not?
LAMMERS: I do not know to what extent the Fuehrer sent for him for I was not present at conferences regarding armament credit and rearmament.
MAJOR JONES: I want to ask you one further question regarding ministerial matters. Ministers without portfolio did continue to receive communications as to the Reich Cabinet, did they not?
LAMMERS: They received texts of subjects up for discussions.
MAJOR JONES: The Defendant Frank, for instance, was a Minister without Portfolio?
LAMMERS: Yes.
MAJOR JONES: He continued to receive communications in his capacity as a Minister without Portfolio?
LAMMERS: He received all the texts which were received by other ministers, provided there was a general distribution.
MAJOR JONES: And indeed, when he was the Governor General of the Government General, he maintained a ministerial office to deal with the incoming matters of the Reich Cabinet?
LAMMERS: Who are you talking about? Frank?
MAJOR JONES: I am now talking about the Defendant Frank, yes.
LAMMERS: Frank had an office in Berlin where ministerial matters were delivered to him.
MAJOR JONES: So that the Reich Cabinet did not actually meet, but it continued to exist, did it not?
LAMMERS: The Reich Cabinet existed only for those legislative and administrative matters which could be handled in writing and by means of circulating letters.
MAJOR JONES: And the members of the Reich Cabinet, dike Frank, continued to receive communications as to the legislative tasks and performances of the Reich Cabinet, even though they were not available for conferences or meetings? LAMMERS: They got such communications.
MAJOR JONES: I think it is time to break off. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. [The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours] Afternoon Session
MAJOR JONES: Witness, I want to ask you some questions about the Defendant Frank. Frank is a friend of yours, is he not?
LAMMERS: Frank?
MAJOR JONES: Yes.
LAMMERS: No, I have no very close connection with Frank. Before answering this question, I would like permission to return to a document which you submitted to me previously, and which I have just now been able to finish reading. I would like to say just two sentences in connection with that document.
MAJOR JONES: If the Counsel for the Defense desire you to return to it, I have no doubt they will draw your attention to the matter in due course. Will you now deal with the question that I put to you on the Defendant Frank? You say he is not a friend of yours?
LAMMERS: I did not know him particularly well, and I had no closer relation to him than with any of the other people in the Reich Government.
MAJOR JONES: Would it be right to say, like yourself, he was one of the leading Nazi jurists?
LAMMERS: Well, I never really thought of myself as a leading National Socialist jurist.
MAJOR JONES: Are you saying that you were not a leading jurist, or that you were not a National Socialist?
LAMMERS: I considered myself in the first place as a lawyer, an expert on constitutional law, which I have been for many years, in fact, since the year 1920 and under other governments; then I joined the National Socialist Party and naturally in my position in the National Socialist State, I made every effort to propagate the National Socialist idea of law.
MAJOR JONES: And you have said that so far as Hans Frank was concerned, he was a jurist who opposed the arbitrary use of power by the Police.
LAMMERS: He did that in some of his speeches; and the Fuehrer did not approve of these speeches.
MAJOR JONES: He was a man who believed in fair trials, was he?,
LAMMERS: What kind of trials do you mean? I cannot hear you; there is such noise.
MAJOR JONES: Criminal trials.
LAMMERS: I did not hear the word.
MAJOR JONES: He was in favor of fair trials and he resisted the arbitrary power of the SS? That is your evidence, is it?
LAMMERS: He told me that repeatedly, and he frequently expressed this view in his speeches, too.
MAJOR JONES: And you say he was a man who favored a liberal administration in the territory of which he was Governor General? Is that so?
LAMMERS: I am sorry, but I cannot follow this. There is so much noise that I can barely hear half of what you are saying; the other half is completely lost.
MAJOR JONES: Well, we will try again. Did you ever hear of the "AB Action," for which Frank was responsible in the Government General?
LAMMERS: That is an action of which I know nothing at all. Someone mentioned this name to me about a week ago and said that Frank was accused of this AB Action. I do not know of any AB Action.
MAJOR JONES: You were getting frequent reports by Frank as to the administration of his territory, were you not?
LAMMERS: Reports were occasionally sent in.
MAJOR JONES: Are you saying that Frank never informed you about the AB Action?
LAMMERS: Yes. I do not know what the AB Action is.
MAJOR JONES: I will remind you. It was an action which resulted in the slaughter of the flower of the Polish race, of the Polish intelligentsia.
LAMMERS: I know nothing about such an action.
MAJOR JONES: If you will look at the Document 2233-PS which has already been exhibited as USSR-223, and which is Frank's diary, you will see the history of this action and perhaps you will then remember something of the circumstances of it.
LAMMERS: What page is that, please?
MAJOR JONES: On Page 8 of the annex to that text. You will see on that page that the action started on the 16th of May with a conference at which Frank, the Governor General, and Reich Minister Dr. SeyssInquart, Secretary of State Bubler, SS Brigadefuehrer Streckenbach, and a Colonel Muller were present. You will see there that Frank decreed, with immediate effect, that the task of carrying out an extraordinary pacification program be given to the Chief of the Security Police, to commence immediately. The more important details of the action were then discussed, and Brigadefuehrer Streckenbach was formally given the necessary authority by the Governor General. The Governor General ordered a detailed report to be made on the 30th of May. Then, I want you to look at Page 2 of that text, at a report of the conference on the 30th of May, where you, and what is more important, this Tribunal, may be able to judge what kind of jurisprudence Nazi jurists believed in. You will see, on Page 43 of the English text of 2233-PS, a report of the Police conference on the 30th of May, where Frank and Kruger and others were present.
LAMMERS: I was never present at these conferences of the Government.
MAJOR JONES: I want you to see how far removed Frank, the apostle of decency in administration, was from the true Frank that was Governor General of Poland. You will see there that Frank states, "If I had not the old Nazi guard of fighters of the Police and SS here in the country, with whom could we then carry out this policy"? The report, which the Tribunal is already familiar with, goes on to describe how, now that the German aggressions in the West were in full swing, it was possible for Frank to go through with this action against the Polish intelligentsia.
LAMMERS: If the entries in the Governor General's diary do not agree with what I gathered from the speeches which he made in public, I cannot make any comment. I do not know what he said about this. It may be that many of his speeches contradict other speeches which he made at a different time. What I said concerned only those speeches of which the Fuehrer disapproved, to which he objected, and which led to Frank's being forbidden to make speeches or to have them printed. I was referring to those speeches. I cannot say at the moment what other speeches the Governor General made and what he entered in his diary.
MAJOR JONES: Let us be quite clear. Do you know that the regime of Frank in the Government General was a murderous one?
LAMMERS: I never heard anything about that.
MAJOR JONES: Did you receive any reports from him, or from other sources, of misgovernment in the Government General?