The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-20/tgmwc-20-190.09

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-20/tgmwc-20-190.09
Last-Modified: 1999/10/26

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal thinks, with reference to any
documents which you may have, perhaps it would save time, if they are
not documents made by the witness who is in the box, if you would just
put the documents in without cross-examination.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I will do it. It will save time. I will welcome
this. I will be glad to do as your Lordship suggests. It suits my
purpose much better.

DR. SFRVATIUS: Mr. President, the introduction of new evidence, unknon
to me, is, I think, inadmissible; I have no opportunity to comment on
these documents, since my own documentary evidence is completed. All my
material, affidavits and documents have been submitted, and my witnesses
have been examined. I do not know how I can reply to these new

THE PRESIDENT: I am sure Sir David will let the counsel for the defence
have the documents as soon as possible, and if it is impossible for the
counsel to re-examine them when he comes to them, he can reply on the
document later.

                                                              [Page 100]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: There are copies available and will be given to
Dr. Servatius right away. The next one I was going to refer to on the
question of Churches is Document D-901, which is a new document. That
contains four reports by Ortsgruppenleiter. It will be Exhibit GB 536.

THE PRESIDENT You gave a number to that other document, did you, the
other one you put in? Was there not another new document you put in,

SIR DAVID MAXELL FYFE: Exhibit GB 535, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, this document consists of four reports
from Ortsgruppenleiter and the comments made upon them by the
Kreisleiter. My Lord, I shall quote to the Tribunal only the first
sentence of the first two reports, which will show what they are.

The first is the Ortsgruppe Darmstadt-Schlossgarten, 20th February,
1939, "Point 9, Ecclesiastical questions." I quote:

     "As the caretaker of the communal building of the St. Martin's
     community, Blockleiter and party member Keil informs me that
     meetings of the Confessional Front are again taking place at the
     St. Martin's Institute, Muellerstrasse (Ortsgruppe Gutenberg), the
     public being excluded."

And then he makes his objection to the fact that the Bible class is
being carried on behind closed doors and he mentions the Gestapo.

The second one refers to a statement by an ecclesiastic. That is from
the Ortsgruppe Pfungstadt, 17th February, 1939.

     "'Whoever leaves the Church has different taxes imposed on him,' so
     our much discussed confessional Pastor Strack said once again on
     the occasion of a mothers' evening. This gentleman should really be
     rapped on the knuckles seriously for once."
And then the third one sends a poem of the Confessional Front and a
fourth deals with the continued existence of an Evangelical youth club.

My Lord, the comments of the Kreisleiter, which are on the third page --
I will just read 1 and 2.

     "1. The report of Ortsgruppenleiter Wimmer, St. Martin's parish.
     The SD, Gestapo and the competent Ortsgruppenleiter will be
     instructed by me.
     2. I shall request Ortsgruppenleiter Frick, who reports from
     Pfungstadt, to go to the Kreisleiter tomorrow and shall get him to
     name his witnesses. This will be notified to you and to the Gestapo
     (to the latter with a report of the case). The priest Strack is
     sufficiently well known and ripe for the concentration camp or the
     Special Court. His reported statement before fellow Germans
     constitutes an infringement of the law against malice. In any case,
     the fellow must disappear from the territory of the Kreis or Gau."

My Lord, I do not think I need trouble the Tribunal with any more. That
is the essential point.

Now, my Lord, I have two documents on slave labour which are also new.
My Lord, the first is 315-PS, which will become Exhibit GB 537. My Lord,
that is the minutes of a conference on the treatment of foreign labour,
on the 12th March, 1943.

My Lord, the object of this document is to show that it was a deliberate
and general change of policy and if your Lordship will look at the
middle of the second paragraph, your Lordship will find the sentence:

     "In this instance the hitherto prevailing treatment ." -- now that
     is the point I want to emphasize --
     "the hitherto prevailing treatment of the Eastern workers has led
     not only to a diminished production but has most disadvantageously
     influenced the political orientation of the people in the conquered
     Eastern territories and has resulted in the well-known difficulties
     of our troops. In order to facilitate
                                                              [Page 101]
     military operations the morale has to be improved by a better
     treatment of the Eastern workers in the Reich."

Now, my Lord, the importance of that is shown when you get that coming
into the Party channels, which is shown in the next document, Document
205-PS. My Lord, that will become Exhibit GB 538.

My Lord, you see, that is from a decree of the defendant Bormann. It
comes from the Party Chancellery and it says:

     "The Reich Propaganda Ministry and the RSHA have together issued a
     memorandum concerning the treatment of foreign labourers employed
     within the Reich.
     I request in the attached copy that the necessity for a firm but
     just treatment of the foreign workers be made clear to members of
     the party and the people."

And the distribution is to Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, Kreisleiter and

My Lord, on Page 2, number one, third paragraph begins:

     "Everyone, even the primitive man, has a sensitive perception of
     justice. Consequently, every unjust treatment has a very bad
     effect. Injustices, insults, trickery, maltreatment, etc., must be
     discontinued. Punishment by beating is forbidden. The workers of
     foreign nationality are to be correspondingly informed concerning
     the severe measures for insubordinate and seditious elements."

My Lord, the importance the prosecution attaches to this is the word "
discontinue " in that directive.

My Lord, as your Lordship sees the two documents together, the
connection shows that there is a definite change.

Now, my Lord, the third document is D-884, which will become Exhibit GB
539 and, my Lord, that is dated 28th March, 1944. It is a Party order,
issued in the Gau Baden-Alsace from Strassburg on 28th March, 1944, and
you will see it is headed "Gaustabsamtleiter " and is "Secret," and that
it deals with sexual intercourse between foreign workers and Germans.
And, my Lord, it explains the course that is to be taken with the
foreign worker and in the case of a child resulting from the intercourse
and, your Lordship, on the top of the second page of the document, it

     "The following principles exist with regard to sexual intercourse
     between German men and female foreign workers:
     Should the foreign female worker have been induced to sexual
     intercourse by the German man (for instance by taking advantage of
     a condition of dependency) she will be taken temporarily into
     protective custody and then sent to another place of work. In other
     cases, the foreign female worker will be sent to a concentration
     camp only after delivery of the child and the period of nursing.
     The treatment of the German man concerned is also the subject of
     special directives. If he has seriously violated his supervisory or
     disciplinary duties, female foreign workers will be taken away from
     him and no more sent to him in the future. Further measures,
     depending on the circumstances of the case, will be taken by the
     State Police."

It applies to the Polish race, people from the Government General,
Lithuania, former Soviet territory and Serbia.

And then paragraph 2 deals with the child and first of all your Lordship
will see at the end of the first paragraph that the heading is:

     "Regarding the treatment of pregnant foreign workers and children
     given birth to by them in the Reich."

The last sentence in the first paragraph says:

     "The procedure for an application for abortion is once more
     explained below--"
and then there are various health and racial investigations.

In paragraph 5 it says:

                                                              [Page 102]

     "If the investigations show that the progeny will be racially
     satisfactory and hereditarily healthy, they will, after birth, go
     to homes for foreign children to be looked after by the National
     Socialist Welfare Organization " (That is the Party organization)
     "or will be looked after by families. In negative cases the
     children will be lodged in Foreign Children's Nurseries."

And then the last paragraph:

     "I request the Kreisleiter to record immediately through the usual
     channels, in conjunction with the Kreisobmann of the German Labour
     Front and the Kreis peasant leader, all cases of pregnancy which
     have already occurred and all children already born. An
     examination, in accordance with the new directives, of all children
     of foreign female workers who were taken under the care of the NSV
     before the issue of the new instructions is also necessary."

Your Lordship will see the distribution. It is to Gauobmann of the
German Labour Front, that is the representative of the DAF in the Gau,
Gau propaganda chief, and Press chief, and then the Gauamtsleiter, the
person in the office of the Gau dealing with racial policy, national
health, the peasantry, national welfare, questions of race, the Gau
women's leadership and the Gau Labour Office and then Kreisleiter and
the Kreis of the DAF and the Kreis peasant leaders. It goes, also, my
Lord, to the Security Police and SD and theoffice of the Commissioner
for the Reich Commissar for the Consolidation of German Race.

My Lord, I am very grateful to your Lordship for that. It saves a
considerable amount of time.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I must raise a question with regard to the
evidence. Document 205, which has just been submitted, was a new
document; the witness was not questioned on it at all. I assumed that
the evidence was completed and that no new documents could be introduced
by the prosecution. I request therefore that this document be stricken
out. It should have been brought before the Commission, and shown to the
witness, then I would have had an opportunity of producing further

This is a fundamental question which will arise repeatedly. The document
was not submitted to the witness, its authenticity was therefore not

THE PRESIDENT: It was not submitted to the witness because of the order
that the Tribunal has just made. In order to save time, the Tribunal
suggested to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe that he should put the document in
in that way. I said -- I understood you to assent to it -- that the
document should be shown to you and that you should have an appropriate
opportunity to comment upon it.

DR. SERVATIUS: I know the document, but I would like to clarify whether
the evidence of the prosecution is closed or whether new documents can
still be introduced into the proceedings.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that the prosecution can certainly
call evidence and use documents if they wish to rebut the evidence which
has been called on behalf of the organization.

DR. SERVATIUS: Without showing them to the witness?

THE PRESIDENT: The only reason for not showing it to the witness was
that the document was not a document which the witness made, and in view
of that it appeared to the Tribunal to be a matter of comment upon the
document, and as you have got an opportunity to put the document to the
witness yourself or to comment upon the document, you have every
opportunity to deal with it.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I would also be permitted, if necessary, to submit a

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. You can ask this witness anything you
like about the document.

                                                              [Page 103]

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, at the end the witness was not asked about
facts, rather he was confronted with an argument, on which I think I can
comment in my final speech.

THE PRESIDENT: I did not quite understand what you said then about an

DR. SERVATIUS: The witness was asked about things which were unknown to
him. Examples were put to him of events in individual Gaue, of which he
knows nothing. He only had to draw conclusions as to what interpretation
was to be given to the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: On general principles, you can ask him anything in re-
examination which properly arises out of his cross-examination. If he
was cross-examined upon a document, or if the document was put in now,
in the way it has been, you can ask him any question upon the document
or upon his cross-examination upon the document.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes; I have a few questions.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© 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.