The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc//tgmwc-08/tgmwc-08-75.04

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08/tgmwc-08-75.04
Last-Modified: 1999/11/25

THE PRESIDENT: Very well: let us get on then.

                                                  [Page 188]

DR. SAUTER: Your Honours, I have then, in addition, under
No. 4, listed an affidavit by a witness, Maria Hoepken. I
shall submit this affidavit, which is already in my
possession, to the Tribunal and to the prosecution, along
with my document book, sufficiently in advance.

Then I have also affidavits in my possession, if I may
mention that now, from two witnesses: No. 9, Dr. Klingspor,
and No. 10, Dr. Roesen. The, same thing applies here. The
Tribunal and the prosecution will receive these two
affidavits in time, together with my document book.

Concerning No. 8, the witness Hoffman, the prosecution agree
to having him called as a witness since he is here in
Nuremberg. Therefore, I believe that I do not have to make
any detailed statements concerning him.

The same applies to No. 12 and No. 13. These are two
witnesses: one a Gauobmann Schneeberger from Vienna, who,
above all, is to inform us on the attitude of the defendant
on the question of foreign workers during the time of his
activity as Gauleiter in Vienna, and No. 13, Field-Marshal
von Blomberg, who is to inform us on the attitude of the
defendant von Schirach on the question of the pre-military
education of youth, on the question of physical training,
and on the question of patriotic education of youth. The
prosecution agree to interrogatories from these two
witnesses - which I have already suggested myself.

And now, your Honours, I come to the one witness on my list
who is closest to the heart of my client and myself. It is
No. 11, that is the application to examine a French woman by
the name of Ida Vasseau. Of this witness, Ida Vasseau, we
have heard in Court for the first time when the Soviet
prosecution submitted a commission report on the "Atrocities
of the fascist-German invaders in the Lemberg area," as the
title reads: Exhibit USSR 6.

This document contains a sentence to the effect that a
French woman, Ida Vasseau, who was working in a children's
home in Lemberg, had reported that the Hitler Youth had
committed special atrocities in Lemberg. It was alleged that
from the ghetto, small children had been sold; however, it
was not revealed by whom and to whom these children were to
have been sold; and yet, as a matter of course, it is the
Hitler Youth who are said to have committed these

Your Honours, we are fully aware that such happenings would
represent a quite extraordinary atrocity, and I can tell you
that none of all the presentations of the prosecution during
the last three months has physically so depressed the
defendant Schirach, as has this statement. The defendant
Schirach has always, even in his earlier interrogations,
maintained that he assumes full responsibility for the
education and training of the German Youth, as directed by
him; and that he is ready and willing, even as a defendant
here, to explain to the Tribunal what principles guided him,
what aims he had, and what successes he achieved. He has,
for instance, never denied that this youth training was
based on patriotism . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, you are only applying for
witnesses now, are you not? You see, you agree in your
application to an affidavit -

DR. SAUTER: I did not understand, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: What I was pointing out to you was that this
is only an application with reference to witnesses, and in
your application you say: "However, in consideration of the
far distance of the witness from Nuremberg, I agree that at
first an affidavit should be drawn up."


THE PRESIDENT: Sir David agreed that an affidavit should be
drawn up. So you are in agreement, and I do not understand
why we should be troubled with further application.

DR. SAUTER: However, Mr. President, I have added something
to my application. I have written that a personal appearance
of this witness before the Tribunal

                                                  [Page 189]

would be useful so that she can be questioned, because her
testimony is important for the judging of the Hitler Youth
as a whole. I have also added ...

THE PRESIDENT: Your application states that you reserve that
right. Well, you can prepare the affidavit and then send it
out to the witness, and then you can see whether you want
the witness for cross-examination. And Sir David agrees to
that course.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, my client attaches so much
importance to this particular case for the following
reasons: The HJ, that is, the Hitler Youth, which he led,
comprised about eight million members. It was, therefore,
larger than ...

THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, the Tribunal quite
understands why the defendant is interested in the matter.
But it seems to them it would be perfectly satisfactory if
an affidavit were drawn up and sent to the witness: and then
you can see whether you want the witness, whose present
location is unknown, brought here personally.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, my client noticed one thing in
particular, that is, that among eight million members only
one single case of atrocities occurred, of which he never
heard anything at all in the Reich Youth Leadership.
However, I agree to the obtaining of an affidavit for
reasons of expediency: but for just this case I must reserve
the right to have the witness called, if the affidavit
should be insufficient.

THE PRESIDENT: That deals with the witnesses, and we had
better adjourn now.

(A recess was taken.)

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with
regard to the documents for which Dr. Sauter asked, the
prosecution takes the usual line that there is no general
objection to extracts being used, but at this stage it
reserves its right to challenge admissibility of the
extracts on the grounds of relevance.

They will have to look particularly closely at No. 9, the
book entitled Look, the Heart of Europe and the commentary
on it by the late Lord Lloyd George, but they can see that
these are particularly matters which can be more
conveniently dealt with when they have seen the document
book and the extracts are before them.

DR. SAUTER (counsel for defendant Schirach): Mr. President,
I can state my position regarding the documents very
briefly. In the main, it is a question of books, speeches
and essays, by the defendant von Schirach. These literary
works are in my possession and I shall submit them to the
prosecution along with my document book. With the document
book I shall submit to the Tribunal and the prosecution the
individual extracts which I propose to use as evidence, so
that the prosecution will still be able to make any
statements it wishes with regard to the individual excerpts.

I believe that is all I have to say on that subject.

DR. SEIDL (counsel for defendant Hess): Mr. President, on
28th February I made a supplementary motion on behalf of the
defendant Hess. I should be grateful if the Tribunal would
inform me whether it wishes to hear the argument in regard
to this motion now or later, since I do not know whether the
Tribunal has a translation of my motion in its hands.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not seen the application
yet, so I think you had better postpone making the argument
until the Tribunal has seen the application.

DR. SEIDL: Very well, Mr. President.

                                                  [Page 190]

DR. SERVATIUS (counsel for defendant Sauckel): For the
defendant Sauckel I have suggested a number of witnesses and
in my preliminary remarks on the list I have divided them
into various groups.

The peculiarity of this evidence, as presented, lies in the
fact that in this case a mosaic of smaller facts has to be
clarified. In its case against Sauckel, the prosecution
confined itself to the production of incriminating material
generally, and did not work out the full details about SS
assignments carried out under the auspices of Arbeitdienst
(Labour Service) and similar matters.

Very few facts have been established at all with regard to
Sauckel's sphere of activity generally. I am compelled, in
consequence, to present his staff, his collaborators and
their spheres of activity. At first sight, my list of
witnesses may appear cumulative, but closer inspection shows
that they represent different fields. Some of them are
experts on Eastern affairs, others dealt with the West or
South. There is the question of direction of man-power,
supplies, housing and the authority exercised by
individuals. The recruitment of workers in foreign countries
comes under' another head; and witnesses must be heard on
this subject, too.

In Sauckel's case, the question of man-power is all-
important and that of conspiracy is a secondary matter. I
believe I can rely to a very great extent on the statements
which may be expected from others among the accused and from
their witnesses.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the
prosecution has endeavoured to follow Dr. Servatius in
considering the suggested witnesses under various heads.

The first witness, Ambassador Abetz, falls into a class by
himself. The defendant's counsel wishes to call this witness
on the question of agreements between him and Laval. The
prosecution submits that that cannot affect the position
over, certainly, occupied France, and they suggested that
this witness is really irrelevant to the main charges which
have been made against the defendant. My French colleagues
will, however, if Dr. Servatius desires it, let him know the
effect of an interrogation of Ambassador Abetz with regard
to this subject. I do not want to comment on it at the
moment, because it is obviously a matter which Dr. Servatius
should consider before any comment is made on it in Court,
But, if he will allow me to say so, I think it would be
useful if he considered that point before any decision was
come to.

Then, the next group are the witnesses 2 to 8. They all come
from the Reich Ministry of Labour, and they are called to
speak generally as to the defendant's attitude, the
limitations on him as regards recruiting, and his personal
dealings with offenders. The prosecution suggests that it
will be reasonable for Dr. Servatius to select the two best
out of eight for oral testimony, and two more to give

The next three, Nos. 9, 10, and 11, were members of the
defendant Sauckel's staff, who are sought to be called to
give evidence as to his efforts to obtain good conditions.
Again, the prosecution suggests a selection, and puts
forward one witness and one affidavit.

No. 12, the witness Hoffman, is called for the purpose of
saying that the DAF, the Deutsche Arbeiter Front, looked
after the welfare of foreign workers by agreement with the
late Dr. Ley. The prosecution submits that that witness
would be cumulative, and object to him, as that subject is
already covered.

Then there are a series of witnesses, Nos. 13 to 18, who
deal with the relations and liaison between the defendant
Sauckel and the DAF. These are substantially still on the
same point and the prosecution suggests that one witness and
one affidavit out of that  group would be sufficient.

The next witness, No. 19, Karl Goetz, bank director, deals
with the question of wages, and also of the transmission of
money to their homes by foreign workers.

                                                  [Page 191]

The prosecution suggests that that is the sort of material
which might conveniently be dealt with by an affidavit or an
interrogatory, according to Dr. Servatius' wishes.

No. 20, Beckurtz, deals with the special conditions of
foreign workers at Gustloff. That subject has been
thoroughly covered in general by previous witnesses, and the
prosecution suggests that this particular witness is

With regard to Franz Seldte, from the Reich Ministry for
Labour, he deals with the division of authority between
Sauckel and Ley, and the contention that Sauckel had nothing
to do with labour from concentration camps. Again, the
prosecution suggests that an affidavit would show how far
the witness Seldte is speaking merely of routine matters,
such as orders and the like, and how far he is dealing with
individual or personal matters. If he does in fact deal with
individual and personal matters and interviews, then I
suggest that Dr. Servatius could resume his application on
that point.

The witness Darre, who was the former Reich Minister for
Food and Agriculture, is sought in order to speak as to the
defendant's efforts to get higher food rations for foreign
workers, especially in Eastern areas. The prosecution
suggests that this witness also is cumulative, and it will
indicate a number of other witnesses and documents which
deal with this point.

As to No. 23, General Reinecke, there is no objection.

No. 24, Colonel Frantz, is sought for to say that French
prisoners of war were exchanged against voluntary workers.
The prosecution object on the ground of irrelevance.

As to No. 25, there is no objection to Dr. Lammers, who is
being called by, I think, every defendant, or practically
every defendant.

The next, No. 26, the witness Peukert, again deals with the
administrative position and executive apparatus of Sauckel,
which has already been treated by witnesses at considerable
length, and the prosecution objects to this as cumulative.

No. 27, Governor Fischer, Chief of Labour in the Government
General, is called to say that Sauckel had made arrangements
with the SS in regard to resettlement. Again, if he is
speaking as to rules and orders that were laid down, we
suggest an affidavit.

As I understand it, the next witness, Dr. Wilhelm Jaeger, is
asked for cross-examination on his affidavit. That is
Exhibit USA 202, and the references in the transcript are
Pages 319-323, Part 2 and Page 437, Part 4. No request was
made at this time, and I leave it to Dr. Servatius to
explain his position before dealing with this point.

The next two, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharman, deal with the
public health aspect of foreign workers. They deal with
different districts. The prosecution submit that that
question could be dealt with by one affidavit.

As to the next three witnesses, Nos. 31, 32 and 33, I think
the position is that Dr. Servatius wants one of the three to
dispute certain evidence given by M. Dubost on 28th of
January, that the defendant authorized the evacuation of
Buchenwald. I have looked at Pages 207 to 222, Part 5, of
the transcript, but I cannot find the evidence which Dr.
Servatius has in mind, and perhaps he would be good enough
to indicate it to the Tribunal.

With regard to No- 34, Skorzeny, who is called to prove that
the defendant, as Gauleiter, had nothing to do with
concentration camps, we make no objection.

With regard to Schwarz, to prove that the chart of the Party
produced before the Tribunal was incorrect in one respect,
we suggest that that be allowed.

With regard to Frau Sauckel, who is desired in order that
she may speak as to the defendant's charitable disposition,
irrespective of the Party, the prosecution suggests that is
irrelevant to the issues before the Tribunal.

I think it is impossible in this case, my Lord, to leave the
witnesses without asking the Tribunal to take a glance at
the documents, because the two are interrelated.

There is an application for 97 sets of documents and, in
general, they set out what we should call in England all the
relevant statutory rules and orders, that is, the

                                                  [Page 192]

subsidiary legislation made with regard to the activities of
this defendant. Frankly, I must say to the Tribunal that I
have not had the opportunity of reading the original orders.
I have only read the summary which Dr. Servatius has been
good enough to provide in his application. But, quite
clearly, these documents cover again in the greatest detail
the various problems with which the respective sets of
witnesses to be called deal, and, in the submission of the
prosecution, they provide a good reason and a fair ground
for some considerable limitation of the oral witnesses.

There are certain of the documents to which my colleagues
and myself take considerable objection, and I might just
state two or three of these.

No. 45 deals with the Reich law for sanitary meat
inspection, and is presented to prove especially that the
German civilian population also received meat graded as
inferior, which, therefore, could not be considered inedible
meat. If one has not the comparison of the caloric and other
properties of the meat, it is going to be extremely
difficult to get any benefit from the evidence, if one is
going into that. It is unreasonably detailed for the
inquiries before the Tribunal.

If the Tribunal would then turn to Nos. 80 and 81, Dr.
Servatius wishes to prove certain Soviet orders, apparently
for the purpose of showing that the Soviet methods of
mobilization were contrary to the Hague convention, and are,
therefore, evidence that the Hague Convention had become
obsolete. I submit that the two small examples of this
evidence indicate that there would have to be extensive
examination of the facts surrounding them, and they could
not be the basis of a sound argument that a convention had
been abrogated. It is possible that in rare cases
international agreements may be abrogated by conquest. But
evidence of that kind would, in my respectful submission,
not be the basis of such an argument.

Then come Nos. 90 and 91, which are files of affidavits.
There again it is very difficult, without serious and
prolonged consideration of the circumstances under which
each affidavit was made, to assess the values of bundles of
affidavits of that kind.

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.