Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-18/tgmwc-18-170.03 Last-Modified: 2000/09/11 THE PRESIDENT: Well - SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Dr. Siemers objected to its being described as a "diary" and said that it should have been described as an index. My Lord, I do not mind what it is described as. THE PRESIDENT: What does it matter? Let's call it an index then. Is that all your points? DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, this is important in so far as here in this Court many "Tagebucher" have been submitted under the designation of "diary", and these were really entries made at the time. THE PRESIDENT: Sir David says that he will withdraw the word "diary" and you may call it anything else you like. Really, it is only a waste of our time to make this sort of technical point. Sir David agrees with you, and he is prepared to withdraw the word "diary." DR. SIEMERS: Yes. THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then, let's not say anything more about it. DR. SIEMERS: I quite agree, Mr. President. Mr. President, I do not wish to take up the time of the Tribunal with all the other and very numerous errors in translation. My final speech will show how important this point was in connection with the Assmann document, and as suggested by the Tribunal I have called the attention of the General Secretary to the other errors in translation. THE PRESIDENT: If there are any errors in translation, that matter can be taken up through the General Secretary with the Translation Department. Dr. Siemers, it is very improper for a counsel in your position to make statements of that sort for which you have no proof at all. You know perfectly well that when there have been any alleged mistranslations, the matter has always been referred through the General Secretary to the Translation Department and then they have been corrected, and for you to get up at this stage of the trial and say that there are many mistranslations, without proof of it at all, simply upon your own word, is a most improper thing for counsel to do, and that is the view of the Tribunal. DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I apologise, but I think I did not express myself correctly. I am not making an accusation, but with so many documents, it is not surprising that these errors did occur. I, myself, make mistakes. I am sorry if my remarks should have been misunderstood. THE PRESIDENT: Everybody makes mistakes, and everybody is capable of having different opinions as to translations, but you and every other member of the defendants' counsel know that those mistakes, if they are mistakes, will be corrected, if it is possible, and they know the way that it can be done, and, therefore, as I said before, it is very improper for you to get up and allege that there are a lot of mistranslations. I do not want to hear anything more about it. The Tribunal will adjourn. (A recess was taken.) THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, have you any documents that you wish to offer in evidence? DR. NELTE (counsel for defendant Keitel): Mr. President, with a letter dated the 1st of July, 1946, I put in three affidavits, after having submitted them previously to the prosecution. Those three documents will become K-23, K-24, and K-25 I beg the Tribunal to receive them, as the prosecution, so Sir David has told me, does not object to their being offered in evidence. [Page 51] THE PRESIDENT: And they are at present being translated, or have they been translated? DR. NELTE: They are in the process of being translated. I have merely submitted the originals to the Tribunal. THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then, we will receive them in evidence and consider them. DR. NELTE: Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann? DR. KAUFFMANN (counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner): Mr. President, I have a few interrogatories which have been granted to me by the Tribunal. I have the originals here with me; they have been numbered, and I should like to submit them. The Translation Division has informed me that the translations are not yet at the disposal of the Tribunal, but I assume they will be in the hands of the Tribunal in the next few days. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. DR. KAUFFMANN: I should like to state, in a few short sentences, what the contents of the documents are, if the Tribunal wishes me to do so. There are three documents which refer to the same subject: The testimony given by the President of the Red Cross at Geneva, Professor Burckhardt; the testimony given by Dr. Bachmann, who was a delegate of the Red Cross; and then there is Dr. Meier's testimony, and he too was an official representative of the Red Cross. In these documents these witnesses deal with the discussions during March and April, 1945, which they had with the defendant Kaltenbrunner. They also show that agreements were reached on the strength of these discussions which made it possible for thousands of French, Belgian and Dutch women and children to be returned to their home countries. Also under these agreements prisoners of war were discharged and internees from concentration camps were allowed to return. Another result was that Kaltenbrunner gave permission to visit the Jewish camp at Theresienstadt and that other camps received medical supplies, food, etc. All that is contained in detail in these three documents. THE PRESIDENT: What numbers are you giving to them? DR. KAUFMANN: The Professor Burckhardt document will be Kaltenbrunner number 3; Dr. Meier and Dr. Bachmann, numbers 4 and 5. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. DR. KAUFFMANN: A further document is the interrogatory supplied by the former Gauleiter in Upper Austria, Eigruber. That is Exhibit Kaltenbrunner 6. Here again I should like to draw attention to one point. Among other things, this witness states that the concentration camp at Mauthausen was not set up by Kaltenbrunner, as has been alleged by the prosecution, and that he was not responsible for the life there or the entire stay of the internees at the camp. That is stated here in detail and I do not propose to read it. The next document is the interrogatory of Count von Eberstein, which is Exhibit Kaltenbrunner 7. Again, I shall not read from it, but perhaps I may say, in just one sentence, that this witness is testifying that he knows that the concentration camp at Dachau, or the two auxiliary camps belonging to Dachau, were not, as has been alleged by the prosecution, to be exterminated during the last months or weeks of the war, but that such a plan had been contemplated exclusively by the Gauleiter of Munich, Giessler. Then there is a further interrogatory, which is the testimony of the witness Waneck. That will be Exhibit Kaltenbrunner 8. I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal particularly to this document. It is a lengthy document, and I shall not read from it. However, I believe I can say that this man was particularly well acquainted with the defendant and the whole [Page 52] of his official activities in the course of many years. This witness held for years a leading position in the Foreign Intelligence Service. He knows Kaltenbrunner's attitude regarding the executive and he confirms the fact that Kaltenbrunner agreed with Himmler at the time, that he, Himmler, would retain the executive powers while Kaltenbrunner would work mostly in the sector of the Intelligence Service as a whole. Finally, Mr. President, there are two documents which have not yet been discussed. Therefore, first of all, the Tribunal would have to decide as to the relevancy of the documents, and as to whether I shall be entitled to submit the documents. They are two short letters which I have received. One is a letter from the Mayor of the town of Dachau, dated 4th April, 1946. The Tribunal may possibly remember that during the taking of evidence by the prosecution it was frequently mentioned that the population in the vicinity had knowledge of the abuses. This man, who is now employed by the American authorities, confirms his own experience. In my opinion they do not bear out the thesis of the prosecution. Immediately connected with this is the second letter, which is from the well-known pastor Niemoeller, and which is dated 17th April, 1946. Niemoeller had spent some time in Dachau. MR. DODD: Mr. President, would it not be best if we heard on the first affidavit before the Niemoeller affidavit is taken up? We have objected to this affidavit by the Mayor of Dachau for the reason that it is simply a letter. We have had no opportunity to file any cross-interrogatory or to ask any questions of the man at all. These letters come in here. If we are going to submit all the letters that come in - we have bales of them, actually. We do not like to object on purely technical grounds, if there is anything here that would really be helpful to the Tribunal. On the other hand, we do not feel that we should deny ourselves the opportunity to make clear the entire story by cross-questions of some kind. THE PRESIDENT: That is with reference to Schwalber? MR. DODD: Yes, sir. DR. KAUFFMANN: I did not quite understand what you said, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT: What Mr. Dodd said was that they objected to this document from Schwalber because they have not had an opportunity to put any questions to him, either by way of having him called as a witness or by way of a cross- interrogatory. Therefore, they object to the introduction of the document in its present form. DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I understand. I know this is somewhat problematical, but the Tribunal will be able to assess the evidential value of the letters according to their own opinion. Perhaps I may submit these two short documents to the Tribunal. So far as I know, the prosecution is acquainted with these two documents, because they have been in the Translation Division, and some time ago a representative of the prosecution told me that very probably objections would be raised. That was why, at the beginning, I told the Tribunal it would first have to decide as to the relevancy of the documents. THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Kauffmann, the best way will be for the Tribunal to read the document and to consider it. We will do that. DR. KAUFFMANN: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you. MR. DODD: I should also like to indicate to the Tribunal that we take the same position with respect to the Niemoeller letter. THE PRESIDENT: You object to them both, then? You are objecting also to the Niemoeller letter? MR. DODD: Yes, on the same grounds. [Page 53] THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. DR. PANNENBECKER (counsel for the defendant Frick): Mr. President, the reply to the Messersmith interrogatory has not yet been submitted. The reply has been received and has been translated. I believe, however, that the Tribunal has probably not yet received it. THE PRESIDENT: Can you offer it in evidence and give it a number? DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, Sir; I was going to. But I did not expect that it would come up today, and I have not the number which I shall give to the exhibit. May I be permitted to furnish the number later? Yes - I have it here, Mr. President, and I shall now submit it as Exhibit Frick 14. This is the reply to an interrogatory. The replies are in the same form as those which Mr. Messersmith gave in the interrogatories concerning other defendants. I shall refer to this interrogatory in detail during my final speech. Therefore I need not read it now. Then there is still one reply outstanding in an interrogatory of Konrad, and I beg to be permitted to submit it as soon as I receive it. THE PRESIDENT: That has been granted, has it? And it is now before the witness? DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes. THE PRESIDENT: Very well. DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius. DR. SERVATIUS (counsel for defendant Sauckel): Mr. President, several interrogatories have still to be submitted. First of all, I submit Exhibit 15 to the Tribunal. That is a Darre interrogatory. THE PRESIDENT: Whose interrogatory was that, whose interrogatory? DR. SERVATIUS: Darre the Minister for Food and Agriculture. This interrogatory deals with matters which have already come up at this trial. I should like to draw your attention to a few points. There is the question of what was Sauckel's general attitude, particularly toward Himmler's views; and the witness stresses the fact that there was considerable controversy between Himmler and Sauckel in this respect. He mentions one particular instance which he himself witnessed. He speaks about a factory in Thuringia which was directly under Sauckel's control and says that the workers there were so free that they hired themselves out to farmers during the day, which was rather too much of a good thing. He then tells about a clash between Sauckel and Himmler in the presence of the Fuehrer about the question of treatment, and he says that Himmler stated, "I am subordinate to the Fuehrer only, and for my official business I am under the Reichsmarschall; and I have not to justify myself to you." Then there is another interrogatory from Minister of Labour Seldte, which has been allowed by the Tribunal and which I shall submit as Exhibit 16. I should like to bring out a very few points. The witness talks about Sauckel's functions and the functions of Dr. Ley, and he says that Sauckel carried out the functions of the State while Ley looked after the social welfare and social supervision. Then he goes on to talk about inspections and controls, and he says that the departments for insurance against accidents, health and industrial supervision were in existence before and had continued to function under the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. Then comes the interrogatory of Dr. Voss, which I submit as Exhibit 17. I shall submit the original later. I am afraid I cannot find it at the moment. This doctor was medical officer in a camp, and he speaks of the conditions in the camps, particularly after air attacks, and about the activities and welfare efforts of the Labour Front. He not only deals with the camps in which he was working, but he knows a great deal generally about conditions in other camps. [Page 54] His statement is in contradiction to the testimony given by Dr. Jaeger. In the same way the following document, which I shall submit as Exhibit 18 and which comes from Dr. Ludwig Scharmann, although dealing with another sector, also contains similar statements, which are also in direct contrast to the testimony given by Dr. Jaeger. That completes the interrogatories which have been granted me. Now I have a number of documents for which I have applied, but on which a decision has not yet been given. I do not know whether I should now submit them to the Tribunal. They are mostly concerned with laws and decrees and I would like to submit them in addition to what I have already submitted. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal would like you to submit them now, because the Tribunal wishes to deal finally today with the evidence on behalf of the defence. DR. SERVATIUS: There is a decree by Sauckel dealing with the return of sick foreign workers to their homes. It shows that workers who had fallen sick were sent back and that Red Cross employees had to accompany them. The actual decree is in the official collection of laws and decrees which has already been submitted. I shall ascertain my exhibit number presently. It will be No. 99 in the additional document book. Then there is Document l00, which comes from the Reich Labour Gazette, 1943, which has already been offered in evidence. This deals with the investigation of sanitary measures in camps, and it deals with the accusations which have been made with reference to these accommodation problems. Then there is Document 101, which is a memorandum about French prisoners of war on leave and the improvement of their status under the so-called "transformation". I shall submit it and give the exhibit a number. For the moment it is Document 101. Then come Documents 102 and 103. Both are laws contained in the official Reich Law Gazette. They are "German instructions regarding Compulsory Labour Service". It is the emergency services order which I submit as Document 102. Then there is the compulsory labour decree which will be Document 103 in the supplement. Then I find that Document 4006-PS contains a number of important regulations, but I am told that the prosecution is going to read them, and therefore I assume that I need not do so. Then I have received an affidavit from Count Spreti, who, from the beginning of the Eastern campaign, was active as a recruiting officer in the East. It deals with conditions, and it states particularly that Sauckel's activity had brought about a basic change in the general attitude. It is short and I consider that it is of particular importance, because up to now no recruiting officer has been heard on the subject. Then I was proposing to submit Document 109, which will be a list -
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012