The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/tgmwc-02-17.02


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/tgmwc-02-17.02
Last-Modified: 1999/09/16

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and you were telling us how the
defendant Rosenberg was implicated.

                                                  [Page 292]

MR. DODD : Yes. On the last page of that document, the
original bears a note in ink, and in the mimeographed copy
it is typewritten:

   "Regarding the above Obergruppenfuehrer Berger received
   the memorandum on 14th June. Consequently the Reich
   Minister has approved the action."

One page back on that same document, from the first
paragraph, four sentences down, the sentence begins:

   "The Minister has approved the execution of the high
   action in the Army Territories, under the conditions and
   provisions arrived at in talks with Army Group Centre."

The purposes of the Slave Labour Programme which we have
just been describing, namely the strengthening of the Nazi
war machine and the destruction or weakening of peoples
deemed inferior by the Nazi conspirators, were achieved, we
repeat, by the impressment and deportation of millions of
persons into Germany for forced labour. It involved the
separation of husbands from their wives and children from
their parents, and the imposition of conditions unfit for
human existence, with the result that countless numbers were
killed.

Poland was the first victim. The defendant Frank, as
Governor of the Government General of Poland, announced that
under his programme 1,000,000 workers were to be sent to
Germany, and he recommended that police surround Polish
villages and seize the inhabitants for deportation.

I wish to refer to Document 1375-PS, which is Exhibit USA
172. This document is a letter from the defendant Frank to
the defendant Goering and it is dated the 25th January,
1940. I wish to quote from the first page of the English
text, starting with the first paragraph, and in the German
text, again, it appears at Page 1 of the first paragraph,
and, quoting directly:-

   "In view of the present requirements of the Reich for
   the defence industry, it is at present fundamentally
   impossible to carry on long term economic policy in the
   Government General. Rather, it is necessary so to steer
   the economy of the Government General that it will, in
   the shortest possible time, accomplish results
   representing the maximum that can be obtained from the
   economic strength of the Government General for the
   immediate strengthening of our capacity for defence.
   
   In particular the following performances are expected of
   the total economy of the Government General."

I wish to pass on a little bit in this text to the second
page and particularly to Paragraph (g) of the English text.
In the German text, the same passage appears on Page 3 in
Paragraph (g). I am quoting directly again:-
   
   "Supply and transportation of at least one million male
   and female agricultural and industrial workers to the
   Reich - among them at least 750,000 agricultural workers
   of whom at least 50 per cent. must be women - in order
   to guarantee agricultural production in the Reich and as
   a replacement for industrial workers lacking in the
   Reich."

The methods by which these workers were to be supplied were
considered by the defendant Frank, as revealed in the
document to which we now refer.

It is an entry in the defendant Frank's own diary, to which
we have assigned our Document 2233-PS-A, and which we offer
as Exhibit USA 173. The portion which I shall read is the
entry for Friday, 10th May, 1940. It appears

                                                  [Page 293]

in the document book as 2233-PS-A, on the third page, in the
centre of the page. Just above are the words "Page 23",
Paragraph 1, to the left, just above it:-

   "Then the Governor General deals with the problem of the
   Compulsory Labour Service of the Poles. Upon the demands
   from the Reich it has now been decreed that compulsion
   may be exercised, in view of the fact that sufficient
   manpower was not voluntarily available for service
   inside the German Reich. This compulsion means the
   possibility of arrest of male and female Poles. Because
   of these measures a certain disquietude had developed
   which, according to individual reports, was spreading
   very much, and which might produce difficulties
   everywhere. General Field Marshal Goering some time ago
   pointed out in a long speech the necessity to deport
   into the Reich a million workers. The supply so far was
   160,000. However, great difficulties had to be overcome.
   Therefore it would be advisable to consult the district
   and town chiefs in the execution of the compulsion, so
   that one could be sure from the start that this action
   would be reasonably successful. The arrest of young
   Poles when leaving church service or the cinema would
   bring about an increasing nervousness among them.
   Generally speaking, he had no objections at all if the
   rubbish, capable of work yet often loitering about, were
   snatched from the streets. The best method for this,
   however, would be the organisation of a raid, and it
   would be absolutely justifiable to stop a Pole in the
   street and to question him what he was doing, where he
   was working, etc."

I should like to refer to another entry in the diary of the
defendant Frank, and I offer in evidence an extract from the
entry made on 16th March, 1940, which appears in the
document book as 2233-PS-B, and it is Exhibit USA 174. I
wish particularly to quote from the third page of the
English text:-

   "The Governor General remarks that he had long
   negotiations in Berlin with the representatives of the
   Reich Ministry for Finance and the Reich Ministry for
   Food. An urgent demand was made there that Polish farm
   workers should be sent to the Reich in greater numbers.
   He has made the statement in Berlin that he, if it is
   demanded from him, could naturally exercise force in
   such a manner as to order the police to surround a
   village, and get the men and women in question out by
   force, and then send them to Germany. One can however
   also work in another way, besides these police measures,
   by retaining the unemployment compensation of those
   workers in question."

THE PRESIDENT: Why is it that this document is dated the
16th March, 1943

MR. DODD: That is clearly an error in the translation - I am
sorry, your Honour. It is the 16th March, 1940. It is a
mistake in the mimeographing.

The instruments of force and terror used to carry out this
programme reached into many phases of Polish life. German
labour authorities raided churches and theatres, seized
those present and shipped them back to Germany. This appears
in a memorandum to Himmler, which we offer in evidence as
Document 2220-PS, and it becomes Exhibit USA 175. This
memorandum is dated the 17th April, 1943, and it was written
by Dr. Lammers, the Chief of the Reich Chancellery, and
deals with the situation in the Government General of
Poland.

                                                  [Page 294]

DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for defendant Sauckel): I should like
to call the attention of the Court to the fact that the last
three documents which have just been read were not made
available to me beforehand. They did not appear in the
original list of documents, and when checking the later list
I could not find them either.

I therefore request that the reading of these documents be
held in abeyance until I have had an opportunity to peruse
them, and to discuss the matter with my client.

Perhaps I may, at the same time, lodge an additional
complaint. I received some interrogation material in German
the day before yesterday. My client, when asked, told me
that they are not transcripts of the interrogation in the
real sense of the word; that he was interrogated in German;
that an interpreter translated his
deposition into English, and that this was taken down.

THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear what you said last. I heard
what you said about the three last documents not being
available to you, and you went on to say something about
interrogations.

DR. SERVATIUS: With regard to the interrogation document -
as I shall call it - which was submitted to me I should like
to make the following complaint. These documents cannot have
the value of evidence as they were not presented to the
defendant for approval; he did not sign them, nor were they
read to him. They are transcripts in English, a language
which the defendant understands but little or not at all.

I have also ascertained that another interrogation document,
concerning the defendant Speer, contains statements
detrimental to my client's interests, statements which are
evidently incorrect too, as I established after talking to
him.

I should like to have an opportunity of discussing the
matter with the representatives of the prosecution, in order
to clear up these differences and to decide whether I can
agree to the use of these documents. For the time being I
must object to use being made of these documents, which are
to be presented by the prosecution today, or tomorrow at the
latest.

THE PRESIDENT: As I understand it, you said to us that the
last three documents were not available to you and that they
were not in the original list. Is that right?

DR. SERVATIUS: Not available so far. I should like to have
an opportunity to peruse these documents beforehand. They
are being read here prior to my even having seen them.

THE PRESIDENT: And then you went on to deal with the
interrogations which have not been put into evidence.

DR. SERVATIUS: It is, however, probable that the material
will be put into evidence today, and I wish to take the
opportunity of calling the Court's attention to the fact
that I wish to discuss the matter with the prosecution
beforehand, in case the material should be used during
tomorrow's proceedings. Meanwhile I must object to this
material being used as evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, do you know what the circumstances
are about these three documents which have not been
supplied.

MR. DODD: I do not, your Honour. They have been placed in
the defendants' Information Centre and they partly have been
in the information list. It may be that through some
oversight these entries of this diary were neglected.

                                                  [Page 295]

DR. SERVATIUS: I have these documents in my hand; they are
not numbered. The first document concerning Sauckel begins
on Page 10, question and answer on Pages 11, 12. It is,
therefore, not a coherent document, but consists of
fragments of a transcript, the origin of which I should like
to investigate.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the prosecution will supply you
with these documents at the adjournment this afternoon. With
reference to the interrogation, if they propose to use any
interrogation in the trial tomorrow, they can also supply
you with any documents which are material to that
interrogation.

DR. SERVATIUS: I agree to that.

MR. DODD: I believe I was referring to Document 2220-PS.

THE PRESIDENT: That is right. You have not begun to read it
yet.

MR. DODD: I propose to read from the fourth page of the
English text, Paragraph 2 at the top of the page,
particularly the last two sentences of the paragraph; and in
the German text the passage is found in Page 10, Paragraph
1. Quoting directly, it is as follows:-

   "As things were, the utilisation of manpower had to be
   enforced by means of more or less forceful methods, such
   as the instances when certain groups appointed by the
   Labour Offices caught churchgoers and cinema audiences
   here and there, and transported them into the Reich.
   That such methods undermine the people's willingness to
   work and the people's confidence to such a degree that
   it cannot be checked even with terror, is just as clear
   as the consequences brought about by a strengthening of
   the political resistance movement."

That is the end of the quotation. We say that Polish
farmland was confiscated with the aid of the S.S. and was
distributed to German inhabitants or held in trust for the
German community, and the farm owners were employed as
labourers, or transported to Germany against their will. We
refer to Document 1352-PS, which becomes Exhibit USA 176.
This document is a report of the S.S., and it bears the
title "Achievement of Confiscations of Polish Agricultural
Enterprises with the Purpose to Transfer the Poles to the
Old Reich and to Employ Them as Agricultural Workers."

I wish to read from the first page of the English text
beginning with the fifth paragraph; and in the German text
it appears on Page 9, Paragraph 1. Quoting:-

   "It is possible without difficulty to accomplish the
   confiscation of small agricultural enterprises in the
   villages in which larger agricultural enterprises have
   been already confiscated, and are under the management
   of the East German Corporation for Agricultural
   Development."

And then passing down three sentences, there is this
statement which I quote:-

   "The former owners of Polish farms, together with their
   families, will be transferred to the old Reich by the
   employment agencies, for employment as farm workers. In
   this way many hundreds of Polish agricultural workers
   can be placed at the disposal of agriculture in the old
   Reich in the shortest and simplest manner. In this way
   the most pressing shortage, that which is now felt
   especially in the root-crop districts, would be
   overcome."

                                                  [Page 296]

Pursuant to the directions of the defendant Sauckel, his
agents and the S.S. men deported Polish men to Germany
without their families, thereby accomplishing one of the
basic purposes of the programme, the supplying of labour for
the German war effort, and at the same time, weakening the
reproductive potential of the Polish people.

I wish to refer directly to Document L-61, which becomes
Exhibit USA 177. This document is a letter from the
defendant Sauckel to the Presidents of the "Landes"
Employment Offices. It is dated 26th November, 1942, and I
want to read from the first paragraph of that letter, which
states as follows:-
   
   "In agreement with the Chief of the Security Police and
   the S.D., Jews who are still in employment are, from now
   on, to be evacuated from the territory of the Reich and
   are to be replaced by Poles, who are being deported from
   the Government General."

Passing to the third paragraph of that same letter, we find
this statement.

   "The Poles who are to be evacuated as a result of this
   measure will be put into concentration camps and put to
   work whether they are criminal or asocial elements. The
   remaining Poles where they are suitable for labour will
   be transported without family into the Reich,
   particularly to Berlin, where they will be put at the
   disposal of the labour allocation offices, to work in
   armament factories instead of the Jews who are to be
   replaced."

THE PRESIDENT: Who is the Chief of the Security Police,
mentioned in the second paragraph?

MR. DODD: The Chief of the Security Police was Heinrich
Himmler. He was also the Reichsfuehrer of the S.S.

DR. SERVATIUS : I would like to add something with regard to
this document. The defendant Sauckel denies knowledge of it,
and the place of issue, not mentioned during the reading of
this document, is relevant. This document, according to its
letterhead, was written at 36 Saarland Strasse, a place
which has never been the office of defendant Sauckel.

The second point is; this document was not signed by the
defendant Sauckel, and contrary to the statement in the
document list classifying it as an original letter, it is
merely a copy marked "Signed Sauckel". The usual
certification of the signature customary for all documents
is missing. I should like the prosecution to take note of
this, so that I can refer to this document in the defence
later.

THE PRESIDENT : If the procedure which the Tribunal has laid
down has been carried out, either the original document or a
photostat copy will be in your Information Centre, and you
can then compare or show to your client either the photostat
or the original.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have done this, and only object to the fact
that this document is being read with the exclusion of some
parts which I consider important. If this letter is being
read here it will have to be read in its entirety, and with
parts considered essential by me, and, of course, we also
attach importance to the kind of signature.

THE PRESIDENT : Will you repeat that.

DR. SERVATIUS: I beg that the letter be read in its entirety
if it is to be used here; namely, with its complete heading
and the signature of the


                                                  [Page 297]

defendant, such as it is. The certification of the signature
is missing, a fact from which my client draws certain
conclusions in his favour.

THE PRESIDENT: You will have an opportunity, after
adjournment, of seeing this document, and you have been told
already that you can refer, when your turn comes to present
your defence, to the whole of any document. It is
inconvenient to the Tribunal to have many interruptions of
this sort, and if you wish to refer to the whole document,
you will be able to do so at a later stage.

DR. SERVATIUS: I draw the conclusion therefrom that it is
admissible to present parts of a document instead of a
complete document. Do I understand the Court correctly ?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. You can put in a part or the
whole of the document when your turn comes. We will adjourn
now; but, Mr. Dodd, you will satisfy this counsel for the
defence as to the reason why he had not got these documents.

MR. DODD: Yes, I will.

THE PRESIDENT: And you will make them available to him and
ensure that he has an opportunity of seeing the original of
this document so that he can check the signature.

MR. DODD: We will have and furnish a photostat of the
document, and I will see that the original is available to
him.

THE PRESIDENT: All right, we will adjourn now.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours, on 12th December,
1945.)



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.