Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/623, document No. 964.
Communication from the Foreign Ministry, Wagner, to Mueller,
dated 14 December 1943, about a discussion between
Bosshammer, Dannecker and von Thadden. The result of the
discussion can be seen in the middle of page 2. It reads:
“Having regard to the lack of zeal shown in recent months by
the Italian authorities for implementing the anti-Jewish
measures ordered by the Duce, the Foreign Ministry considers
as urgently desirable that the implementation of the
measures against the Jews should be continuously supervised
by German officials from now on. It would therefore appear
expedient and necessary for part of the personnel currently
serving with the Special Operations Unit for Italy to be
incorporated into the Italian apparatus, under the guise of
advisers. The Special Operations Unit for Italy should
therefore be notified accordingly, and Hauptsturmfuehrer
Dannecker should be asked immediately to contact the Reich
Plenipotentiary, Ambassador Rahn, or his representative,
with regard to such possible incorporation of advisers.”
The next exhibit is T/617, document No. 299. A memorandum
drawn up by Ambassador Wagner of the Foreign Ministry on 22
October 1943. It concerns the attitude of the Italians in
the so-called recently-occupied areas in Southern France.
This topic was dealt with generally under France. Here I
shall refer to one or two documents only. By way of
introduction it says here:
“On 16 October 1943, Legation Councillor von Thadden,
in accordance with instructions, went to see
Gruppenfuehrer Mueller about the technical
implementation of the Jewish Question in the recently-
occupied areas, and indicated that, after the
experience in Denmark, the Foreign Ministry was
particularly interested in ensuring that action against
Jews in other areas would be carried out with
sufficient means and sufficient preparation, in order
to avoid as far as possible serious political
It goes on to say: “With regard to various countries,
Gruppenfuehrer Mueller made the following points,” and on
the last page, under Italy: “He did not belittle the
argument of the Foreign Ministry here in particular,
especially in view of the fact that the position of the
Catholic Church speaks in favour of action at one sudden
blow.” Then it says: “However, available personnel is not
sufficient for carrying out such an action throughout Italy.
Therefore, necessarily, a start will have to be made in
putting the Jewish Question on the agenda directly behind
the front line, and then the cleaning-up operation will be
pursued gradually northwards.”
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, if it is convenient for you,
we shall now recess. Twenty minutes recess.
Presiding Judge: Please proceed, Dr. Servatius.
Dr. Servatius: I should first like to hand in the two
documents I submitted earlier. They have no T number as
yet. One was police document No. 149, and the other was No.
Presiding Judge: That has already been marked, and I shall
return your copies to you later. They were N/59 and N/60.
Prosecution document No. 149 is N/59 and No. 195 is N/60.
Dr. Servatius: I come now to document No. 726, not yet
presented, and I submit the document. This is a
communication from Ambassador Schleier in Paris to the
Foreign Ministry, dated 23 January 1943. It concerns the
Jews in the area still occupied by the Italians, and at the
end it reads:
“However, there is agreement between the embassy and
the Security Police that it will only be possible to
thoroughly clean up the Jewish Question in the new area
of occupation, if we manage to bring the Italians round
to our way of thinking about anti-Jewish measures.”
Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/62.
Dr. Servatius: I should like to submit another document,
No. 456, as evidence. This is a communication from
Ambassador Mackensen in Rome to the Reich Foreign Ministry,
dated 18 March 1943, on his intervention concerning the Jews
in the area of France occupied by the Italians. In the
first line it reads: “Assignment with the Duce carried out
this evening.” On page 2 it says: “He asked me – that is to
say, the Duce asked me – to thank the Reich Foreign
Minister,” and then he went on to make detailed observations
which are summarized as follows: “Our basic attitude with
regard to the absolute need for drastic measures against
both the Jews and the British and American persons still
present in the occupied areas, was crystal clear and
Presiding Judge: I mark this N/63.
Dr. Servatius: This brings me to the end of the Italian
chapter. However, I should like to ask how evidence is to
be taken now. For example, Kappler’s testimony – how is this
to be included in the proceedings, and when will it be dealt
Presiding Judge: As far as I know, the record of this
testimony has not yet been received here.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, this is really a question of
principle – how are the results of the testimonies taken to
be introduced as evidence? Are they to be considered as
evidence called by the Court, since the Court also requested
them to be taken, or are they to be presented by the
Prosecution or the Defence?
Presiding Judge: The witnesses are the witnesses of the
Prosecution or the Defence, so that for witnesses whose
statements were submitted by the Prosecution, the oral
testimony is considered to be a supplement to those
statements. As for those witnesses from whom the
Prosecution has not submitted any statement, these are
considered to be witnesses for the Defence. Let us take
this Kappler, for example: As far as I remember, the
Prosecution did not submit any statement or declaration by
this witness, and so he is to be considered a witness for
the Defence, whose testimony was taken abroad. Once the
record of his testimony is received here, it will become
part of the evidence for the Defence, and the
representatives of the parties may then request that those
parts of the testimony which are of importance for them be
read out in Court.
Dr. Servatius: I see. The only question is when such parts
should be read out. Would it be convenient to deal with
these witnesses together after the end of the examinations,
so that both sides could ask the Accused any questions they
have in direct relation to these depositions, or is there
some other suggestion?
Presiding Judge: Would the Attorney General care to comment
on this matter?
Attorney General: If it please the Court, I wish to suggest
that the documents first be numbered, so that we can somehow
refer to them.
Presiding Judge: Which documents?
Attorney General: The documents sent from abroad, the
evidence taken abroad on commission. As for testimony taken
as a result of Prosecution evidence, I think Counsel for the
Defence is right when he wishes to find a way for putting
questions to the Accused with regard to such testimony.
After all, if such testimony had been taken here, then it
would already be before the Court at the end of the case for
the Prosecution. He can, therefore, definitely refer to it
and ask questions about it.
On the other hand, the witnesses for the Defence would not,
in the ordinary way, be heard until after the Accused is
examined. It is only by chance, where testimony has been
taken abroad and not given before this Court, that such
testimony is in the file. I do not believe that there is
any procedure under which the Accused can be called to the
stand again as standard practice without special
authorization, in order to react to the testimony of
witnesses he has called in his defence. Consequently, I do
not think that Counsel for the Defence can, when questioning
the Accused, rely on these depositions, as he has suggested,
that is to say on witnesses whom he has called. Thus I
would distinguish between these two sets of witnesses.
Judge Halevi: Perhaps, before we make any such distinction,
I could point out that it is not usual to ask one witness,
even the Accused as a witness, what he thinks about the
testimony of another witness. Each testimony stands by
Attorney General: I understood that Counsel for the Defence
wishes to question the Accused about what the witnesses have
said as a result of statements by them which we have, and
this he is entitled to do.
Judge Halevi: He can ask directly, without referring to a
particular person’s testimony about the matter.
Attorney General: But in my opinion he cannot in any way do
so as regards his own witnesses. It is pure chance that
these testimonies are already available to him.
Presiding Judge: But as my Honourable Colleague has pointed
out, the testimony is based on facts. And he can always
refer to these facts which have been mentioned, even those
which are in the testimony which either by chance – as my
colleague has said – or in the circumstances of the case
have reached him earlier. What happens in other criminal
proceedings? In other criminal proceedings, too, Counsel
for the Defence generally knows what his Defence witnesses
are going to say, and he directs his examination of the
Attorney General: Of course.
Presiding Judge: Very well. Dr. Servatius, do you wish to
add anything? Then we will see what is to be done.
Dr. Servatius: It is my opinion that the special nature of
these hearings abroad dictates a special deviation from the
norm, in order to allow the Accused to give his reaction. If
there is something special to be said about the depositions,
how is that to be done? Probably not as witness testimony
but as a statement regarding the facts.
Presiding Judge: With regard to testimony resulting from the
submission of statements by the Prosecution, we shall
somehow include these in our record at the first
opportunity, as the Attorney General has proposed. We can
do this tomorrow morning. That will mean that these
testimonies will be submitted formally, and then, at that
time, both sides will be able to refer to those passages in
these testimonies which are important to them. As far as I
remember, the only missing testimony is that by Hoettl from
Austria. We already have Becher’s testimony. I would,
therefore, ask you to go through these testimonies by way of
preparation for tomorrow morning, in order to refer to those
passages which you would like to have read into the record.
Naturally these depositions in their entirety are part of
Attorney General: At what stage does the Court wish to do
Presiding Judge: Tomorrow morning. As the Attorney General
has already pointed out – it was you who made the point, Mr.
Hausner, quite rightly – this is a supplement to testimony
already given. We shall do this at the first available
opportunity. To do so, we shall interrupt the direct
examination of the Accused.
With regard to testimonies taken abroad by a witness for the
Defence, these will be formally submitted at the end of the
Accused’s testimony. However, Dr. Servatius may first ask
the Accused questions arising from these testimonies which
are actually known to him. I do not believe that this will
give rise to any practical difficulties. He can refer to
the facts mentioned in such testimonies and question the
Accused about such facts. Let us take a practical example.
We have not yet received Kappler’s testimony, but if we had,
Counsel for the Defence could say: “Kappler testifies to
this or that fact: As Accused, what do you have to say about
that?” I see no objection to that.
Dr. Servatius: Certainly that is a practical procedure. As
long as the Accused is still on the stand, I shall introduce
these depositions as documents.
Presiding Judge: I made a distinction here. These
depositions are not documents either, but rather records of
testimonies, and so it is of no importance for the purpose
of examining the Accused, whether they have been previously
submitted or not.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, it is really a formal question.
How are these depositions to be included in the record?
Presiding Judge: Where witnesses for the Defence are
concerned – Kappler, Novak, Slawik – if these witnesses had
appeared before the Court, they would have given their
testimony after the Accused, and therefore, instead of
hearing them here in Court, their testimonies will be
formally submitted at the appropriate stage. But that does
not prevent you from making any appropriate reference to the
content of these testimonies prior to their submission, just
as if you had already heard statements by these witnesses in
your chambers, so that you already know what the witness is
going to say, and now you ask the Accused questions about
the statements by the witness which are known to you in
advance. Is that clear to you now?
Dr. Servatius: That is quite clear. Just one last
question. These depositions must at some stage be included
in the proceedings. Is this to happen after the
examination? When and how will this be dealt with?
Presiding Judge: Apparently the translation is not clear.
We shall divide these testimonies into two parts.
Testimonies which complete the evidence of Prosecution
witnesses will be submitted tomorrow – as far as they are
available – apart from the testimony of Hoettl, which has
not yet arrived. As for witnesses for the Defence, these
will be submitted formally after the Accused completes his
evidence. The reason is that we wish to make these
proceedings, to the extent possible, similar to proceedings
in which all witnesses would have given their evidence viva
voce before the Court.
Dr. Servatius: Yes, I shall proceed accordingly.
Presiding Judge: In that case you may now continue. I
gather that you are now going to deal with the chapter on
Dr. Servatius: Yes, I now come to the chapter on Slovakia.
I would like first to submit a diagram.
Witness, is this diagram drawn according to the information
you supplied, and is it correct?
Accused: Yes, it is drawn according to my information,
and it is correct.
Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/64.
Dr. Servatius: The first document I wish to present here
has not yet been submitted, document No. 1266. This is a
communication from Ambassador von Killinger to the Foreign
Ministry, dated 25 September 1940. It states that,
according to the estimates of highly-placed Slovak
officials, there are some ninety thousand Jews in Slovakia.
The measures against Jews adopted after the independent
state was established have not caused migration, since the
Jews did not believe that these were serious measures and in
the prevailing circumstances emigration was impossible,
since other European states would not accept the Jews. At
the end it reads: “Material about total Jewish assets in
Slovakia is currently being collected by the Slovak
authorities and will be submitted later.”
Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/65.
Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/1075, document No.
1267. This reads: “To the Foreign Ministry, Berlin.” It
indicates that the Adviser on Jewish Affairs, Wisliceny, and
an Adviser on Social Policy, Smagor, are to visit the Jewish
Labour Camp in Upper Silesia, together with a representative
of the Hlinka Guard – here it says H.G. The legation is
very much in favour of the visit.
Next exhibit, T/1076, document No. 1268. Ambassador Ludin
reports to the Foreign Ministry on 22 October 1941 that the
Slovak Ministry of the Interior has made arrangements for
Jews to be settled together at certain points in Slovakia,
and for the capital to be evacuated. At the end it says:
“These measures mean the setting up of ghettos according to
the model in the Generalgouvernement, as proposed by the
Next exhibit, T/1077, document No. 1269. This is a
communication from Wisliceny to the German legation, dated
24 January 1942. “I enclose a schematic representation of
the assets and property of the Jews of the above-mentioned
nationality.” The reference at the top of the letter
indicates precisely which Jews are meant.
Witness, what did your Section have to do with recording
assets, and were you also concerned with the matter on which
Wisliceny is reporting here?
Accused: As to whether Wisliceny was instructed by the
Head Office for Reich Security to deal with these matters,
or whether he dealt with them in accordance with the
instructions of the head of his mission, I have no idea
today. This file does not give any indication about it either.