The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08//tgmwc-08-75.05

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08/tgmwc-08-75.05
Last-Modified: 1999/11/25

[Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe continues]

No. 92 is a film of foreign workers, and I suggest that it
would be reasonable if the representatives of the
prosecution were shown that film first, before it is shown
in Court. I think that was the course that was taken with
regard to the concentration camp film; because, of course,
without going into arguments at the moment, the question of
propaganda is a serious one which the prosecution are bound
to consider. I have expressly refrained from further
comment, but I think the Tribunal will see the point that is
in my mind, and will, I hope, consider that it is reasonable
that we should see the film before we are asked to comment
on it further.

I have taken only certain examples in the documents because
obviously they will have to be considered in detail when we
see the text, and the prosecution have to reserve their
rights as to objection. But I made the general point - and I
hope the Tribunal will think that it is a fair point, and I
hope Dr. Servatius will not think that I am decrying his
work, I am emphasizing the industry and care which he has
shown in doing it - that with this immense body of
documentation the witnesses in this case will want careful
selection. That, as I have said, indicates our general view.

THE PRESIDENT: Before you deal with what Sir David said, Dr.
Servatius, I ought to say, for the information of other
defendants' counsel and other persons concerned, that the
Tribunal proposes to adjourn today at 4 o'clock instead of 5

Sir David, I wanted to ask you: Throughout the discussion I
think you referred to affidavits. Did you mean to
particularize an affidavit as opposed to an interrogatory?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: No, my Lord, I did not. I am sorry.
I really have not made that distinction. It is written
evidence that I wish to refer to, either by affidavit or
interrogatory, whichever Dr. Servatius wishes to have.

                                                  [Page 193]

THE PRESIDENT: And one other question: In view of what you
have said about the documents, would it not be a good thing
for the prosecution to have a little more time to consider
the documents? And then perhaps they could give more help as
to their-view about the documents.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: That would be so, my Lord, but your
Lordship will appreciate that we have been under
considerable pressure in the last few weeks and it is
impossible to cover them all, but we should be glad of a
little time to go into the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could see Dr. Servatius about
them after the adjournment some time.


THE PRESIDENT: And in the course of a day or two, let us

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, we could do that.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Servatius, will you deal with the
witnesses ?

DR. SERVATIUS: Witness No. 1, Ambassador Abetz. I name this
witness in order to clarify Sauckel's personal conception of
the admissibility of the Arbeitseinsatz from the point of
view of International Law. On the basis of what was said in
Court, and in the absence of any protest from the
governments of other countries - notably France - he was
entitled to assume that it was legitimate. I am, however,
willing to admit the witness Stothfang, who as Sauckel's
deputy repeatedly negotiated with Laval. If he is admitted,
I would renounce the witness Abetz. In other words I will
forgo witness No. 1 if I am permitted witness No. 9.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. What about witnesses 2 to 8?

DR. SERVATIUS: Witnesses from Sauckel's staff. It is
difficult to dispense with any witness; as witnesses are
absolutely necessary for the graphic illustration of the way
in which orders were carried out in practice. The Tribunal
would find it very difficult to read through this enormous
number of laws, and it is easier to hear witnesses on the
essential points than to undertake the amount of reading
involved. The witness Timm is the most important, as for all
practical purposes he was in charge of the so-called Europe-
Amt which was responsible for the actual distribution of the
labour forces.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Servatius. First of all, you
will, no doubt, be calling the defendant Sauckel himself?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I should like to call him last.

THE PRESIDENT: These witnesses will be corroborating his
evidence about his administration. Under those
circumstances, would not two of them, as Sir David
suggested, out of eight, and two more affidavits be

DR. SERVATIUS: From a legal point of view, the witness
Beisigel can be dispensed with, but the other witnesses are
necessary because they have actual knowledge of the use of
manpower abroad. So far, I have only one witness who can
really speak on the use of manpower in the East. This
witness should be able to describe the actual procedure
followed; for laws have little meaning in themselves, if we
do not know how they were applied. For the East, we have the
witness Letsch - a highly important witness-and for the
West, the witness Hildebrandt, who can testify how
conditions gradually changed in France in consequence of the
resistance movement.

The witness Kaestner could not be found, and I will dispense
with him.

Witness No. 7, Dr. Geissler, is of the greatest importance
because he can testify regarding inspections. The main point
is at what period these workers were employed and what
provision was made by Sauckel for their well-being in
Germany. To ensure that Sauckel's regulations - which, I
maintain, were models of their

                                                  [Page 194]

kind - were actually put into practice, a series of
inspectorates existed. Witness No. 7, Geissler, was in
charge of the Reich inspectorate, a branch established by
Sauckel. I consider him indispensable.

THE PRESIDENT: Why are not No. 3 and No. 8 cumulative?

DR. SERVATIUS: I named No. 8 in order to give special
emphasis to the wage question. So far the prosecution has
not treated individual points in any very great detail.
Otherwise, I should find myself in difficulties owing to
lack of evidence when the emphasis is transferred later to
the question of wages. Only witness No. 8 can testify to
this question. Witness No. 3 can testify regarding the
regulations generally and in particular that Sauckel
constantly improved conditions to the last, so that the
situation of all foreign workers was considerably improved
by legislation and continued to improve. This can be seen
from all the regulations, which I have carefully collected
for the purpose.

Witness No. 9, Dr. Stothfang, was Sauckel's consultant, his
personal adviser, and conducted many negotiations,
particularly with France. For this reason I have named him
as a substitute for witness No. 1, Abetz. In particular he
conducted negotiations over the restrictions of the so-
called Weisungsrecht, the restriction, i.e., Sauckel's right
to recruit workers. From the very start ,of Sauckel's
activities, it was clear that no official administering a
zone would tolerate interference of this kind on Sauckel's
part, that from a practical point of view it was impossible
to tolerate it and that his recruiting powers were promptly
curtailed through negotiations. Witness Stothfang will
testify on that subject.

THE PRESIDENT: Why are 9 and 10 not cumulative?

DR. SERVATIUS: I will forgo No.10. I wish to say something
on a rather different subject.


DR. SERVATIUS: Witness No. 11 knows the conditions. He was
the Press expert, and if I must forgo any witness, I would
dispense with him rather than anyone else. He really does
know, however, exactly what conditions were like. He wrote
the book Europe Works in Germany, and made the film, and can
say that these pictures were not faked but are genuine
photographs. For this reason he is important, as his
testimony is supplementary to the book and the film.

The next witnesses belong to the Labour Front
(Arbeitsfront). The Arbeitsfront was responsible for the
welfare of all foreign workers, as well as for that of
German workers. The situation never changed in that respect;
and the witnesses can testify now to the way in which the
regulations were carried out in different cases, with regard
to the construction of the camps, supplies, clothing and
everything else that took place.

Witness No. 13 would be the most important witness, but he
has not been found. For this reason I attach special
importance to witness No. 14, who worked with him. The
witness Hoffmann was practically in charge and knows what
conditions were in the camps.

Those were the witnesses who worked with Sauckel in liaison
with the Arbeitsfront. The other witnesses will testify as
to the practical work done by the workers themselves.

The situation is this: Dr. Ley no longer appears here, so
that the whole of Ley's field now becomes part of the case
against Sauckel and forms a further charge against Sauckel
unless the question is clarified. There were a good many
charges and they must be clarified.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the difference between 15 and 16?

DR. SERVATIUS: 15 is a stenographer's error. 15 is identical
with witness 12. Witness 16, Mende, of the head office, is
particularly important because he had to look after the
organizations within the Arbeitsfront.

                                                  [Page 195]

THE PRESIDENT: You mean 15 comes out, does it?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, 15 comes out.


DR. SERVATIUS: Witness 17, Dr. Hupfauer, can testify as to
the origin of the code of regulations in general and about
the direction in which Sauckel worked.

THE PRESIDENT: Why is not he cumulative with No. 14, whom
you wanted to have instead of 13? The charge of inhumanity
applies to both of them.

DR. SERVATIUS: Because witness 14 deals with the practical
side, and witness 17 deals with the legislative side.
Witness 18 was responsible for the practical application
within the Arbeitsfront. One must keep these various fields
distinct from each other. Sauckel had a small office, which
was incorporated into the Ministry of Labour. He issued
regulations with the aim of steadily improving matters.

I offer evidence that they were of social value and will
prove on investigation to be irreproachable.

We then have to consider the other side of the question -
the practical application, for which the Labour Front was
responsible, and the recruitment. I have special witnesses
to deal with these heads as well.

The next witnesses are members of Sauckel's specialist
staff. Witness 19, Bank Direktor Goetz, can testify that
billions of marks were transferred to foreign countries for
workers' wages.

Witness 20, Beckurtz, was manager of the Gustloff works and
one of Sauckel's closest collaborators. He will confirm that
the treatment and housing of workers in this very Gustloff
factory was exemplary.

Witness 21 will testify as to the degree of authority
exercised by Ley and Sauckel respectively. It is of great
importance to know whether Sauckel himself was responsible
or whether some other office was in charge of the practical

THE PRESIDENT: Why cannot this be dealt with by an affidavit
or interrogatories?

DR. SERVATIUS: I shall be satisfied here with an affidavit.
I have not yet spoken to the witness personally and for that
reason I had to list him as a witness.

Witness 22, Reich Minister for Food and Agriculture. He will
testify that from the moment Sauckel took up his
appointment, he made every effort to improve conditions for
foreign workers, and that he continued to pay special
attention to this point. That is of particular importance in
view of the accusation that the foreign workers had been
starved. Through him I shall be able to adduce evidence that
the foreign workers were in part - I say in part - better
off than German workers.

Witness 23 . . .

THE PRESIDENT: He has already been granted to another

DR. SERVATIUS: Oh, I see. Then I can forgo him.

The next witness has not yet been found. He will testify
regarding the exchange of prisoners of war for French
workers. I understand that Reich Minister Lammers has
already been approved for other defendants.

Witnesses 26 and 27 are important because they can furnish
information on the way in which workers were recruited in
the Eastern territories. They can testify to the extent of
Sauckel's powers, whether they were executive or otherwise,
to the authority given to the police, and to what extent the
organization was distinct from the SS. Witness 26 has not
been found. Consequently, I shall have to confine myself to
witness No. 27, Governor Fischer, who has been found and

                                                  [Page 196]

THE PRESIDENT: What about an affidavit for 27?

DR. SERVATIUS: I do not consider that I can forgo calling
him as a witness. It is of the utmost importance to have a
witness who can say what conditions in the East actually

Witness 28, Dr. Jaeger. We have a detailed affidavit: but it
is extremely inaccurate. It has been submitted as Document
288-D, Exhibit USA 202. I have also received the German

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, was it not the proper course
to cross-examine Dr. Jaeger when his affidavit was read?

DR. SERVATIUS: I assumed that it was accurate, as at that
time I was not acquainted with conditions in the district in
question. I have since made inquiries and can bring evidence
to show that his statements were not only very much
exaggerated but in many cases actually false. The truth
emerged by degrees on studying in detail some half-dozen
sworn statements which I obtained. Krupp had sixty camps.
The witness deals with three or four of them at a time when
the air war was at its peak - a fact which he does not
mention. I do not anticipate much difficulty in proving his
statements incorrect. I should like to reserve the right to
submit further affidavits with which the witness can be
confronted if he appears here in person. I also made an
application which has not yet been granted, for leave to
make use of a number of medical reports made in these very
factories which in themselves prove that Dr. Jaeger's
testimony is inaccurate. My chief difficulty was to obtain
possession of this evidence, hence the delay. Otherwise I
should have submitted it sooner. I attach great importance
to Dr. Jaeger as a witness.

The next witnesses, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharmann, will testify
on the same subject, but each in connection with a different
area. They have attended the camps as doctors and can
testify that the conditions there were irreproachable and
good. I could name many such doctors if I had the time and
opportunity to look them up. I know both of these and they
will confirm what conditions were really like.

THE PRESIDENT: If that is so, why can they not both give an
affidavit about it?

DR. SERVATIUS: They are in a camp. It is difficult for me to
contact them; it would be easier to bring the witnesses
here. Perhaps Dr. Voss can appear here so that one of them
can be heard.

The next three witnesses are named for this purpose. . . .

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, since I gave the
explanation, I have had a chance of comparing the English
text with the French text, and it would appear that an error
has crept into the English text, which says:

  "He seemed to be impressed and he gave an explanation of
  the gravity of the communication Schichlowski had given.
  Schichlowski had given an order that no prisoner should
  remain in Buchenwald."

The French text is, if I may translate it:-

  "He seemed very embarrassed and an explanation was given.
  The Governor of Thuringia, Sauckel, had given the order
  that none of the detained persons should remain at

So that apparently when I told the Tribunal that we could
not find this reference, I was dealing with the English
text, and it appears that there was such a reference in the
French text. Since M. Dubost was calling the witness, the
probability is that the French text is right, and as there
is evidence that Sauckel had given this order, I think it is
only fair that I should say that one witness should be
permitted to deal with this point in the view of the
prosecution; it is, of course, a matter for the Tribunal.

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.