The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-205.10


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-21/tgmwc-21-205.10
Last-Modified: 2000/12/04

DR. SERVATIUS CONTINUES:

40 per cent industrial workers, 20 per cent small farmers,
20 per cent members of professions and civil servants. He
then deals with the tasks involved; issuing of food cards
was the most important task. As far as the organization book
is concerned, he said that it was merely a routine
compilation.

Affidavit No. 24, made by Karl Hederich, has been
translated. It deals with the matter of the number of the
political leaders, which I touched upon when I submitted my
documents.

This witness was in the Reich leadership of the Party and he
was the deputy chairman for the examination of documents. He
dealt with statistical material and he had to summarize it.
Therefore, he is well informed as to the questions which he
treats in his affidavit. In his affidavit he shows that the
number of the political leaders was not only 600,000 but in
reality it was at least one and one-half million. He
emphasises in this connection that this figure is set very
conservatively and that he had taken into consideration that
one person might have had more than one office.

Affidavit No. 25 is in Commission Report No. 1, Page 3602.
It deals with the significance of the organization book, the
terminology of which is of fundamental importance in these
proceedings. He says that he had talked this matter over
repeatedly with the expert assistance of the author of the
book, that is the witness Mehnert, who stated that the book
did not show the actual circumstances but that it was hoped
to do so in the future.

Then Affidavit No. 26, made by Foertsch. He is the former
Gau Organizationsleiter of Munich-Upper Bavaria. He, too,
says that the book was a theoretical work.

Affidavit No. 27 is a second affidavit by the same Hederich
of the Reichsleitung just mentioned, in which the
significance of the organization book is described in
detail, based on personal knowledge of its production.

                                                  [Page 251]

Affidavit 28 is a second affidavit by the Gau organization
leader of Munich-Upper Bavaria, Foertsch, wherein he defines
his attitude to the question, "What is the Corps of
Political Leaders?" He states that one should clearly
differentiate between official position (Dienststellung) and
official rank (Dienstrang). He says that only a fraction of
those people who had an office in the Party were also
appointed "political leaders." As an instance, he estimates
that in the Gau Munich-Upper Bavaria about 20 per cent of
the people who held Party offices were "political leaders,"
the remaining 80 per cent were never appointed political
leaders; therefore, considering its legal aspect, a
considerable reduction in numbers must be made. Then he
points out that the granting of the title "political leader"
and the instalment in office was carried out by different
agencies.

Affidavit 29 was sworn by the witness Davidts and states
that the speakers, Reich speakers, Gau speakers and Kreis
speakers, did not themselves have the rank of political
leaders.

Then follows Affidavit No. 30, which is a document by Alfons
Schaller, Kreisleiter at Cologne. He deals with the well-
known card index which was in use in the Gau Cologne-Aix-la-
Chapelle and explains its existence by local circumstances,
viz., that as the large card indexes had been destroyed by
air raids, they were to have been compiled afresh in the
lower offices, but he says these card indexes were in
practice not re-established.

Affidavit 31 is made by a Richard Schaller and deals with
political appreciations. He states that the offices below
the Kreis leadership could not issue any such appreciations.

Then we have a document by Gauleiter Sprenger, which has
been submitted by the prosecution, Document D-728. At the
time, I disputed the authenticity of the document, and
various witnesses testified about it. Here we have an
affidavit made by a man who was the adjutant to the
Gauleiter and worked with him as Gau manager for years. He
says, according to his personal knowledge, that judging by
the nature of these letters they could not come from the
source to which they are attributed, and he adds to his
affidavit the statements of other people who told him so,
too.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL. FYFE: My Lord, I am very anxious that the
prosecution's case should rest on documents which are
unchallenged as far as it is humanly possible. Therefore,
rather than have any dispute on the document, the
prosecution will not rely on that document which is dealt
with here.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, if I understand correctly,
this Document D-728 by Sprenger is being withdrawn. Is that
correct?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I will omit Affidavit 33, which deals
with the Sprenger document.

Affidavit 34 is sworn by an Oberlandesgerichtsrat
(provincial judge), who presided over one of the high Party
Courts, and he states his opinion that Party judges were not
"political leaders," but that later, in 1943, a certain
change was made in the organization book, according to which
they were drawn closer to the Party.

Mr. President, may I refer once more to the document which
has been withdrawn, D-728, and ask that the excerpt recorded
from that document be stricken from the record.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I make no objections, my Lord. When
I withdrew the document, I withdrew it entirely from the
record. Certainly.

DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I shall turn to the various departments
(Fachamter).

THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Servatius.

                                                  [Page 252]

DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I shall turn to the affidavit dealing
with the expert appointments in the staffs of groups in the
Hoheitstrager. In the Hoheitstrager's staffs there were
various groups of offices, which were regular political
leadership offices, Party administration offices, and
finally professional and specialists' offices. These
specialists' offices were a body and for discipline
subordinate to the Hoheitstrager, but they received their
instructions directly from the Reichsleiter.

I shall begin with Affidavit 35, deposed by Schoen, a Gau
training leader in Mainfranken. He deals with the training
material for the schools and also with the problem of
severing the connection with the Church. In this connection
he says that it was prohibited. He says further that he
never in any way participated in the planning of any war
crimes or crimes against humanity. He testifies as to the
activities of his office.

Affidavit No. 36 is made by Dr. Schulz, chief leader for
education of the Gau propaganda office in Gau Lower Silesia.
He states in detail what kind of information was received
concerning the start of the war, and that everything
happened very rapidly and surprisingly. He further talks
about the setting up of the DAF and its propaganda
activities. He states that it is essential to note that only
four per cent of the people in office were paid officials
and 96 per cent of them were honorary officials, also that
70 per cent belonged to the Christian denominations.

The next group of affidavits deals with the Party
administration.

We have Affidavit No. 37, given by Paul Kuenzler, who was in
the finance administration. He confirms the exclusive
activities in finance and technical administrative matters,
and how the personnel were kept away from all political
tasks.

The third group of expert offices are composed as follows:
They are the expert liaison agents between the Party
branches. Then the professional representatives, the general
expert counsellors and offices, and finally the office of
welfare and public care. To the liaison experts belonged the
Women's League (Frauenschaft), the Lecturers' League and the
Students' League. They are independent organizations, which
have no connection with the Hoheitstrager through an office
in their staffs. Only the local leaders were the liaison
with the Gau- and Kreisleiter. Here before the Commission
there were two female witnesses from the Women's League
(Frauenschaft), Westermacher and Paul, and from the
Lecturers' League, Dr. Kutover.

As Affidavit No. 38 we have an affidavit made by Frau
Kuenast, Gau service department leader in the Berlin
Mothers' Service (Muetterdienst). It says that she had no
connection with the Gauleiter or one of his collaborators,
and that she was directly subordinate to the Women's League
Gau leadership.

As Affidavit No. 39 a lady physician, Dr. Hildegard Brauns,
testified as to the activity of the Women's League district
leaders in Wesermuende and the manner in which conferences
were carried out; she also says that at conferences which
did not deal with purely feminine matters the women had to
leave the room, and they were never called in for political
work.

The professional group, which came next, was composed of
teachers, civil servants, technicians, physicians and
lawyers. For the educators and teachers, I cannot submit an
affidavit as yet. For technical reasons it is impossible for
me to do so.

Concerning officials, I have Affidavit No. 40, made by Dr.
Schenk, who also confirmed that at conferences of
Hoheitstrager with their staff officers these groups did not
participate, and he says that since 1943 the office for
officials was closed down, for its work was considered
insufficiently important.

Dealing with the offices, district and Gau offices, for
technical science I have one affidavit given by Schoenberger
(district technical office leader), of Cologne, who
describes his activity, which was purely technical, in
connection with electric

                                                  [Page 253]

power, building, transport, and so on. He says that he was
called in only for practical work of a technical nature.

Affidavit 42 is from the Gau technical office leader for
Pomerania, Mackels; he makes statements on the same lines as
the previous witness; and says that all work had to be done
without pay, and outside of his usual occupation.

Then follows the Office of Public Health. Here Affidavit No.
43 applies, which was sworn by a Dr. Sasse, head of the
district public health office in Iserlohn. He says that the
local leaders of the National Socialist Physicians' League
were at the same time leaders of their respective Gau
offices for public health. He states that he was consulted
as far as professional work was concerned, but that at the
inner staff conferences the physicians however were not
admitted, so that they were not informed along political
lines.

Then follow the tasks of the legal offices. Affidavit No.
44, by a district legal office leader, Dr. Steinhauser of
Augsburg. He deals with the task of the Lawyers' League and
he says that the legal offices which were attached to the
staff had no political significance, since in 1942 they were
dissolved as being non-essential to the war effort.

The further group are expert offices and expert advisers,
the DAF foremen, representatives of handicrafts and
commerce, the office for agrarian policy, the office for
communal policy, the economic consultants, and delegates for
racial questions. In this connection, I should like to
submit Affidavit No. 45, made by a district foreman of the
DAF, from Neuulm, whose name is Haller. He describes in
detail just what the DAF men had to do, what their position
was, and emphasises that exclusively social work represented
the only activity which was carried on in his sphere.

For the office of trade and commerce I cannot give you any
affidavits, for I have no witness at my disposal.

Then follows Affidavit No. 46, made by the former Reich
Minister for Food and Agriculture, Reich farmers' leader
Darre. He deals extensively with the development of the
Reich Food Administration and clarifies how far a farmers'
leader can be active in the Party or how far he can belong
to the Reich Food Administration, and shows that the Reich
Food Administration was very independent of the Party and
was an independent professional organization which, until
1942, succeeded in keeping to a great degree independent of
the Party. He expresses his views on various questions in
detail, particularly as regards the attitude of the Reich
farmers' organization toward the Church.

Then I shall turn to the Office for Communal Politics. I
have two affidavits; one made by Dr. Plank, of the Office
for Communal Politics in Nuremberg. He says that the Party
concerned itself with the so-called human leadership,
whereas expert legal and administrative questions

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, I do not know whether Sir
David Maxwell Fyfe was going to refer us to these passages
in Goering's evidence this evening; maybe he was. Perhaps we
had better break off now because we may not be able to
finish the whole of this affidavit summary. Were you, Sir
David?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I was going to inform your Lordship
of the fact that we had not been able to find any passages
in the examination of the defendant Goering. It extends over
certain ones. I hoped we had not missed them but we have
been through them and cannot find them.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, then -

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that leaves the application
of Dr. Stahmer in this position. The document that reference
is made to is No. 008, which is a letter of the witness
Sievers' and it contains the sentence:

  "As I have informed you, the direction for carrying out
  the experiments is in the hands of the Director of the
  Hygienic Institute of the Reich

                                                  [Page 254]

  University of Strassburg, Professor Dr. Haagen, Major in
  the Medical Corps, and consulting hygienist to an air
  fleet, who was commissioned with this task by the
  Reichsmarshal, the President of the Reich Research
  Councils ..."

That, my Lord, is the effect of it. The position is that
when Field-Marshal Milch was giving evidence, letters were
put to him, on Document 343-PS, the second of which, under
date of 31st August, said that he had heard with great
interest of the reports of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg:

  "I am informed about the experiments. I shall ask the two
  gentlemen to give a lecture combined with the showing of
  films to my men in the near future."

Then your Lordship may remember that Field-Marshal Milch
said that he was only acting as the signatory for his own
medical inspection in the air force when he signed these
letters and he could not remember anything about them. My
Lord, that was the way the evidence was left. As to the
rulings of the Tribunal, there are two that seem to be
applicable. One was that when the Tribunal decided that the
order should be final speeches of the defendants before the
taking of evidence of the organizations, the Tribunal
stated, on 31st May, that the defendants will be allowed to
call to the attention of the Tribunal any circumstance
developed in the hearing of the organizations which is
thought to be helpful to their defence; and, my Lord,
previously the Tribunal had laid down the general ruling
that certain sub-paragraphs of their ruling of 23rd February
do not limit the power of the Tribunal to allow a defendant
to be recalled for further testimony in exceptional cases
if, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the interest of justice
so requires. My Lord, the prosecution feel naturally
reluctant even to suggest to the Tribunal what is an
exceptional case, and what are the interests of justice in a
particular case but, my Lord, they do want to make two
points - one particular to this application and one in
general. The point particular to this application is that it
was known, of course, when the defendant Goering went into
the witness box, that there were these letters in existence
and that his second-in-command, Field-Marshal Milch, had
said that the medical inspectorate of the corps of the air
force were dealing with these experiments and in touch with
the SS on them. My Lord, as far as we can find, the matter
was not pursued after that, therefore, at that time, the
defendant had notice of the general position although not -
I quite agree with Dr. Stahmer - with these particular
experiments dealing with spotted fever. My Lord, the general
point - the prosecution desire to emphasize this, that this
procedure ought to be confined to exceptional cases where
the interest of justice requires this course very clearly.
It would be unfortunate if this procedure of recalling were
to become common or were to be dealt with on any points
which are not of primary importance. Your Lordship, of
course, remembers that the English rule is that the
procedure is used only for matters which are strictly ex
improviso. As I say, the prosecution here cannot say that
the particular point of spotted fever is not ex-improviso,
but the general position of experiments was brought to the
defendant's attention before he gave his evidence and
therefore does not arise as an unforeseen point. I do not
think that the prosecution can help the Tribunal further
regarding this matter.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.

On Monday the Tribunal will sit until one o'clock. After one
o'clock they will sit in closed session.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I am much obliged.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 19th August, 1946, at 1000 hours.)

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.