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

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
29th July to 8th August 1946

One Hundred and Ninetieth Day: Tuesday, 30th July, 1946
(Part 9 of 11)

[Page 99]

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, the Tribunal thinks, with reference to any documents which you may have, perhaps it would save time, if they are not documents made by the witness who is in the box, if you would just put the documents in without cross-examination.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I will do it. It will save time. I will welcome this. I will be glad to do as your Lordship suggests. It suits my purpose much better.

DR. SFRVATIUS: Mr. President, the introduction of new evidence, unknon to me, is, I think, inadmissible; I have no opportunity to comment on these documents, since my own documentary evidence is completed. All my material, affidavits and documents have been submitted, and my witnesses have been examined. I do not know how I can reply to these new documents.

THE PRESIDENT: I am sure Sir David will let the counsel for the defence have the documents as soon as possible, and if it is impossible for the counsel to re-examine them when he comes to them, he can reply on the document later.

[Page 100]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: There are copies available and will be given to Dr. Servatius right away. The next one I was going to refer to on the question of Churches is Document D-901, which is a new document. That contains four reports by Ortsgruppenleiter. It will be Exhibit GB 536.

THE PRESIDENT You gave a number to that other document, did you, the other one you put in? Was there not another new document you put in, 1507-PS?

SIR DAVID MAXELL FYFE: Exhibit GB 535, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, this document consists of four reports from Ortsgruppenleiter and the comments made upon them by the Kreisleiter. My Lord, I shall quote to the Tribunal only the first sentence of the first two reports, which will show what they are.

The first is the Ortsgruppe Darmstadt-Schlossgarten, 20th February, 1939, "Point 9, Ecclesiastical questions." I quote:

"As the caretaker of the communal building of the St. Martin's community, Blockleiter and party member Keil informs me that meetings of the Confessional Front are again taking place at the St. Martin's Institute, Muellerstrasse (Ortsgruppe Gutenberg), the public being excluded."
And then he makes his objection to the fact that the Bible class is being carried on behind closed doors and he mentions the Gestapo.

The second one refers to a statement by an ecclesiastic. That is from the Ortsgruppe Pfungstadt, 17th February, 1939.

"Whoever leaves the Church has different taxes imposed on him,' so our much discussed confessional Pastor Strack said once again on the occasion of a mothers' evening. This gentleman should really be rapped on the knuckles seriously for once."
And then the third one sends a poem of the Confessional Front and a fourth deals with the continued existence of an Evangelical youth club.

My Lord, the comments of the Kreisleiter, which are on the third page -- I will just read 1 and 2.

"1. The report of Ortsgruppenleiter Wimmer, St. Martin's parish. The SD, Gestapo and the competent Ortsgruppenleiter will be instructed by me.

2. I shall request Ortsgruppenleiter Frick, who reports from Pfungstadt, to go to the Kreisleiter tomorrow and shall get him to name his witnesses. This will be notified to you and to the Gestapo (to the latter with a report of the case). The priest Strack is sufficiently well known and ripe for the concentration camp or the Special Court. His reported statement before fellow Germans constitutes an infringement of the law against malice. In any case, the fellow must disappear from the territory of the Kreis or Gau."

My Lord, I do not think I need trouble the Tribunal with any more. That is the essential point.

Now, my Lord, I have two documents on slave labour which are also new. My Lord, the first is 315-PS, which will become Exhibit GB 537. My Lord, that is the minutes of a conference on the treatment of foreign labour, on the 12th March, 1943.

My Lord, the object of this document is to show that it was a deliberate and general change of policy and if your Lordship will look at the middle of the second paragraph, your Lordship will find the sentence:

"In this instance the hitherto prevailing treatment ." - now that is the point I want to emphasize -

"the hitherto prevailing treatment of the Eastern workers has led not only to a diminished production but has most disadvantageously influenced the political orientation of the people in the conquered Eastern territories and has resulted in the well-known difficulties of our troops. In order to facilitate

[Page 101]

military operations the morale has to be improved by a better treatment of the Eastern workers in the Reich."
Now, my Lord, the importance of that is shown when you get that coming into the Party channels, which is shown in the next document, Document 205-PS. My Lord, that will become Exhibit GB 538.

My Lord, you see, that is from a decree of the defendant Bormann. It comes from the Party Chancellery and it says:

"The Reich Propaganda Ministry and the RSHA have together issued a memorandum concerning the treatment of foreign labourers employed within the Reich.

I request in the attached copy that the necessity for a firm but just treatment of the foreign workers be made clear to members of the party and the people."

And the distribution is to Reichsleiter, Gauleiter, Kreisleiter and Ortsgruppenleiter.

My Lord, on Page 2, number one, third paragraph begins:

"Everyone, even the primitive man, has a sensitive perception of justice. Consequently, every unjust treatment has a very bad effect. Injustices, insults, trickery, maltreatment, etc., must be discontinued. Punishment by beating is forbidden. The workers of foreign nationality are to be correspondingly informed concerning the severe measures for insubordinate and seditious elements."
My Lord, the importance the prosecution attaches to this is the word " discontinue " in that directive.

My Lord, as your Lordship sees the two documents together, the connection shows that there is a definite change.

Now, my Lord, the third document is D-884, which will become Exhibit GB 539 and, my Lord, that is dated 28th March, 1944. It is a Party order, issued in the Gau Baden-Alsace from Strassburg on 28th March, 1944, and you will see it is headed "Gaustabsamtleiter " and is "Secret," and that it deals with sexual intercourse between foreign workers and Germans. And, my Lord, it explains the course that is to be taken with the foreign worker and in the case of a child resulting from the intercourse and, your Lordship, on the top of the second page of the document, it says:

"The following principles exist with regard to sexual intercourse between German men and female foreign workers:

Should the foreign female worker have been induced to sexual intercourse by the German man (for instance by taking advantage of a condition of dependency) she will be taken temporarily into protective custody and then sent to another place of work. In other cases, the foreign female worker will be sent to a concentration camp only after delivery of the child and the period of nursing. The treatment of the German man concerned is also the subject of special directives. If he has seriously violated his supervisory or disciplinary duties, female foreign workers will be taken away from him and no more sent to him in the future. Further measures, depending on the circumstances of the case, will be taken by the State Police."

It applies to the Polish race, people from the Government General, Lithuania, former Soviet territory and Serbia.

And then paragraph 2 deals with the child and first of all your Lordship will see at the end of the first paragraph that the heading is:

"Regarding the treatment of pregnant foreign workers and children given birth to by them in the Reich."
The last sentence in the first paragraph says:
"The procedure for an application for abortion is once more explained below - "
and then there are various health and racial investigations.

In paragraph 5 it says:

[Page 102]

"If the investigations show that the progeny will be racially satisfactory and hereditarily healthy, they will, after birth, go to homes for foreign children to be looked after by the National Socialist Welfare Organization " (That is the Party organization) "or will be looked after by families. In negative cases the children will be lodged in Foreign Children's Nurseries."
And then the last paragraph:
"I request the Kreisleiter to record immediately through the usual channels, in conjunction with the Kreisobmann of the German Labour Front and the Kreis peasant leader, all cases of pregnancy which have already occurred and all children already born. An examination, in accordance with the new directives, of all children of foreign female workers who were taken under the care of the NSV before the issue of the new instructions is also necessary."
Your Lordship will see the distribution. It is to Gauobmann of the German Labour Front, that is the representative of the DAF in the Gau, Gau propaganda chief, and Press chief, and then the Gauamtsleiter, the person in the office of the Gau dealing with racial policy, national health, the peasantry, national welfare, questions of race, the Gau women's leadership and the Gau Labour Office and then Kreisleiter and the Kreis of the DAF and the Kreis peasant leaders. It goes, also, my Lord, to the Security Police and SD and theoffice of the Commissioner for the Reich Commissar for the Consolidation of German Race.

My Lord, I am very grateful to your Lordship for that. It saves a considerable amount of time.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I must raise a question with regard to the evidence. Document 205, which has just been submitted, was a new document; the witness was not questioned on it at all. I assumed that the evidence was completed and that no new documents could be introduced by the prosecution. I request therefore that this document be stricken out. It should have been brought before the Commission, and shown to the witness, then I would have had an opportunity of producing further evidence.

This is a fundamental question which will arise repeatedly. The document was not submitted to the witness, its authenticity was therefore not tested.

THE PRESIDENT: It was not submitted to the witness because of the order that the Tribunal has just made. In order to save time, the Tribunal suggested to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe that he should put the document in in that way. I said - I understood you to assent to it - that the document should be shown to you and that you should have an appropriate opportunity to comment upon it.

DR. SERVATIUS: I know the document, but I would like to clarify whether the evidence of the prosecution is closed or whether new documents can still be introduced into the proceedings.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that the prosecution can certainly call evidence and use documents if they wish to rebut the evidence which has been called on behalf of the organization.

DR. SERVATIUS: Without showing them to the witness?

THE PRESIDENT: The only reason for not showing it to the witness was that the document was not a document which the witness made, and in view of that it appeared to the Tribunal to be a matter of comment upon the document, and as you have got an opportunity to put the document to the witness yourself or to comment upon the document, you have every opportunity to deal with it.

DR. SERVATIUS: Then I would also be permitted, if necessary, to submit a counter-document?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. You can ask this witness anything you like about the document.

[Page 103]

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, at the end the witness was not asked about facts, rather he was confronted with an argument, on which I think I can comment in my final speech.

THE PRESIDENT: I did not quite understand what you said then about an argument.

DR. SERVATIUS: The witness was asked about things which were unknown to him. Examples were put to him of events in individual Gaue, of which he knows nothing. He only had to draw conclusions as to what interpretation was to be given to the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: On general principles, you can ask him anything in re- examination which properly arises out of his cross-examination. If he was cross-examined upon a document, or if the document was put in now, in the way it has been, you can ask him any question upon the document or upon his cross-examination upon the document.

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes; I have a few questions.

[ 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.