The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)
Nuremberg, war crimes, crimes against humanity

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
16th April to 1st May, 1946

One-Hundred-and-Tenth Day: Wednesday, 17th April, 1946
(Part 13 of 13)

[Page 96]

COLONEL POKROVSKY: There is going to be no further information regarding it. Our position has been defined in detail in this document signed by General Rudenko, and if you have this document before you now I have nothing more to add regarding it.

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, on 13 April I made a written motion to be permitted to submit a documentary supplement as Exhibit Hess-17. I submitted six copies of this document with the request to have it translated. The following documents are included:

(1) the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August, 1939, which was submitted by the prosecution as Exhibit GB-145 ;

(2) the related supplementary protocol of the same date

(3) the German-Soviet Friendship and Frontier Pact of 28 September, 1939;

(4) the Secret Supplementary Protocol of the same date which is related to it, and

(5) the second affidavit by Ambassador Dr. Gauss, mentioned before.

Furthermore, on 15 April I made the motion to call the witness Dr. Gauss who is in Nuremberg here before this Court if the Tribunal does not consider the affidavit sufficient. I ask the Tribunal to make its decision about these motions.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider the matter.

Now, with reference to von Neurath.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, this is an application for a witness Dieckhoff, in regard to whom interrogatories have already been granted. As I understand, the reason is that the witness Torpke has been found to have retired from the German Foreign Office some eighteen months earlier than was thought. Baron von Luedinghausen has suggested that, to balance the calling of Dieckhoff as a witness, he will give up the calling of the witness Zimmermann and have an affidavit of interrogatory instead. My Lord, that seems to the prosecution a very reasonable suggestion and we have no objection.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, no objection to Dieckhoff as a witness and Zimmermann for an affidavit or interrogatories?



SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that is all with regard to the defendant von Neurath.


SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Then, with regard to the defendant Schacht,

[Page 97]

it is only the petition of the witness Hilger, and the prosecution does not really mind whether Dr. Dix calls him or puts in an affidavit. I think that it is only a question of whether the witness will be available to come here from Hamburg and, if he is available, we have no objection to him being called as a witness.


SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Then, my Lord, the next one on the list is an application on behalf of the defendant Sauckel, withdrawal of interrogatories for Mende granted on 23 March, as the prospective witness is not located, and interrogatories for Marenbach, who can give the same testimony. Dr. Servatius believes that Marenbach is located at the Garmisch internment camp. The prosecution have no objection to that.

My Lord, I think there was a formal one from Dr. Thoma with regard to the use of the sworn statement by Professor Denker, but there is no objection to that.

THE PRESIDENT: We have already allowed that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: You have already allowed that, this is only the formal application.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. Then we will consider those matters. There are a number of documents, for the production of which the defendant Sauckel's counsel is applying.


THE PRESIDENT: It has been suggested to us that counsel for the defendant Sauckel and counsel for the prosecution could help us over that matter.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, my friend, Mr. Roberts, has been dealing with Dr. Servatius upon this point, so, perhaps, he could help the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, will it take a long time for that or not?

MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I do not think so. The Tribunal, I understand ...

COLONEL POKROVSKY: I should like to inform the Tribunal that the Soviet Prosecution did not receive any documents regarding which the British prosecutor just spoke, and we ask that there shall be no discussion of these documents until the moment when we shall have the opportunity to get acquainted with them.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand that these documents have not been translated yet. The question really is the preliminary one as to which documents should be translated, and we were only going through the documents in order to see which documents were sufficiently relevant to be translated, so that it would not be -


MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, the Tribunal, I understand, has made a preliminary order for striking out the documents which Dr. Servatius and I agreed should not be presented. My Lord, that leaves a very large number of documents, of which I think the Tribunal has a list. My Lord, the first sixty- eight documents, or rather documents 6 to 68, are regulations dealing with the conditions of the employment of labour in Germany. My Lord, I have seen Dr. Servatius' proposed Document Book, and he has marked certain passages which he desires to read and which would have to be translated, my Lord, and that does cut down the bulk of the documents very considerably.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course, we have not read all these documents yet, as they are not translated. Can you indicate to us whether you have any objection to them being translated?

[Page 98]

MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I do not think I could object to those first documents from 6 to 68. The passages marked are being translated because from their description they appear to be relevant.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, 6 to 68.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean the passages which are actually marked?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Then will you go on?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: 69 to 79 he has already struck out.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, my Lord. My Lord, 80 and 81 I object to. They are documents making allegations of the breach of the Hague Regulations by the Soviet nation. My Lord, I submit that that is not relevant.

THE PRESIDENT: The allegations of illegal acts by the Soviet Government with reference to individuals?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, my Lord. My Lord, I submit that that could not be relevant at all.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and 82 and 89; you do not object to these?

MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, I do not object to these, the passages as marked.


MR. ROBERTS: Dr. Servatius promised, as far as he could, to cut down the passages which were going to be marked.

My Lord, 90 and 91 I objected to. Dr. Servatius wants to put in, under the description of documents, a large number of affidavits, the number of which I think is not yet ascertained; affidavits by various persons as to the conditions of labour and the conditions under which foreign workers were employed. My Lord, the defendant Sauckel has been allowed a certain number of witnesses and also affidavits or interrogatories from other people. My Lord, I submit that this application under 90 and 91, two files of affidavits, is not really an application for documents at all, and it should be disallowed.

My Lord, No. 92 ...

THE PRESIDENT: 92 he has struck out.

MR. ROBERTS: 92 has been struck out.

My Lord, 93 is, in fact, a book which was referred to by the French prosecutor, and, therefore, of course, Dr. Servatius would be entitled to refer to it in his case.

THE PRESIDENT: Are the passages marked in that or not?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, he has not marked any as yet. There are some pictures my Lord, of -

THE PRESIDENT: He only wants the pictures?

MR. ROBERTS: I think so, my Lord, showing the cherubic happiness of the foreign workers in Germany.


MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, 94 is an affidavit of Sauckel's son. It is only required, I understand, if one of three other witnesses, who have been allowed, is not available. My Lord, it is to deal with the allegation that Sauckel ordered the evacuation of Buchenwald and, my Lord, I cannot object to this very short affidavit, if Dr. Servatius cannot produce one of the three witnesses who have been allowed to him.

[Page 99]

My Lord, 95 are Sauckel's speeches, and Dr. Servatius again has promised to cut down the passages which he has marked. It is difficult to object to that in view of the allegation of conspiracy.


MR. ROBERTS: My Lord, 95 and 97 are books in which there are very short extracts which have been marked, and, again, as it deals with a relevant period of the alleged conspiracy, my Lord, I do not see how I can object to that.

THE PRESIDENT: In the same category, yes. Does that meet with your views, Dr. Servatius?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I discussed the matter with a representative of the prosecution and we were of the same opinion. However, I would like to add something with reference to two documents, namely, documents 80 and 81. One is the photostat copy of the deportation order affecting the city of Oels, the other an affidavit concerning forced labour in Saatz. I need the first document in order to prove that the Hague Regulation for Land Warfare was obsolete, as instanced by the fact that before the armistice, while fighting was still going on, a large part of the population of the Eastern German provinces was sent to Russia for forced labour. I supplemented the motion orally at that time, because I considered the proof for the deportation of a large part of the population for forced labour obtained by questioning the mayors of cities from Upper Silesia to East Prussia as too meagre. I believe that this is of great importance for the defence of my client, as it proves that the Hague Regulations for Land Warfare were considered non- existent in the East.

Document 81 deals with a condition after the armistice, but one which appears only as a continuation of that which previously occurred in the Eastern Territories, and confirms the fact that, under the occupation of the Soviet Army, such conditions generally continued to exist, namely, the recruitment of the population for work, not in the sense of the Hague Convention for the repair of local roads, for instance, but also for the purpose of working in industry and for activities outside the framework of the Hague Convention. I do not think that I ought to be refused this evidence.

Now as to Documents 90 and 91; their contents have already been presented. They are two folders with a collection of affidavits. The attempt is made to bring evidence in refutation of charges which are the subject of a government investigation which we are facing here. We have received reports from the Soviet and French Prosecution, we have received reports from Czechs, all of which constitute a huge quantity of material of mosaic-like pattern that can only be dealt with in this manner.

I once before explained that I do not have a government at my disposal which could prepare a suitable report, and so I suggest bringing a collection of affidavits. Now I do not intend to read every one of these affidavits here. My motion is that the Tribunal should appoint a deputy who would study that folder and prepare a brief report about it to present to the Tribunal. A similar problem will arise later when questions concerning the political organisations are dealt with, namely, the problem as to how this wealth of material can be presented to the Tribunal.

If I bring one witness, one witness only, it will be said, "Well, one witness cannot cover the entire ground." On the other hand, I can not have a hundred or more witnesses. So this would be a middle way, that a person appointed by the Tribunal should study these affidavits and then give a report on the contents of these two folders.

THE PRESIDENT: How many affidavits have you in mind or have you obtained?

[Page 100]

DR. SERVATIUS: So far I have received very few. It appears that those who could give some information are very reticent, because they are afraid that they might be prosecuted on that account. But I hope to be able to make a selection of reasonable statements, which I believe will amount to about 20 or 30 affidavits. I would limit it to that, because I do not care to take up the Tribunal's time with unnecessary work, dealing with these affidavits. Judging from the present state of my collection I may even have to consider withdrawing my motion altogether, because I have to admit that the amount of material coming to me is very small. But I ask to be given another chance and at the appropriate moment I shall present the case to the Court again.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Is that all you want to say?

DR. SERVATIUS: There is still Document No. 93, the illustrated booklet, "Europe Works in Germany. " I should like ...

THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution object?

DR. SERVATIUS: No, the prosecution does not object. I should like to project some pictures on the screen for the purpose of showing under what conditions these people arrived from the East and what their condition was later, in so far as it can be shown in a recruiting pamphlet.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.

MR. ROBERTS: There was one other point which I ought to mention. Perhaps Dr. Servatius would be good enough to listen.

My Lord, Dr. Servatius has applied in writing to the Tribunal, by letter, dated 5 March, 1946, for all medical reports of Dr. Jaeger, who was a chief camp doctor at Krebs- Essen. Secondly, all monthly reports of a man called Groene, who was a colleague of Dr. Jaeger. Thirdly, all minutes of monthly conferences which the chief camp leader held with his subordinate camp leaders at Krebs.

My Lord the position is this: That the French put in - oh, I think our American colleagues put in an affidavit of Dr. Jaeger, and Dr. Jaeger himself has been granted as a witness for Sauckel, and so he will be seen in the witness box.

My Lord, the prosecution have no objection to Dr. Jaeger being asked, I suppose, to bring his reports with him if they are available. We haven't got them, and I don't think we know where they are.

THE PRESIDENT: But the witness is being called.

DR. SERVATIUS: I have received a portion of these documents already, and I assume that the rest may also reach me. I believe the material which I have now is sufficient for my purposes, so that it is not necessary to bother the prosecution any more.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean we need make no order?

DR. SERVATIUS: It is not necessary.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 18 April, 1946, at 10.00 hours.)

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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.