Dr. Servatius: The date?
Presiding Judge: Which page?
Dr. Servatius: Page 12.
Attorney General: In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I
should like to say that I gather that the entire document
has been submitted as an exhibit – that is, that document
known as No. 49. It is now an exhibit before the Court, not
just the passages which Dr. Servatius wants; I cannot agree
to provide just choice morsels.
Presiding Judge: Do you want some more morsels?
Attorney General: I want the whole of it.
Presiding Judge: It seems to me that what you want is
already so in fact.
Attorney General: That is what I wish to clarify – that this
is the fact.
Presiding Judge: Yes, yes. In any case I have already
marked this N/94, and Dr. Servatius can now quote from it
whatever he wishes to quote.
Dr. Servatius: I also understood that, where exhibits were
concerned, this was always the procedure.
The task of this judge was to follow up instances of
corruption within the SS. He visited various camps in order
to ascertain such matters, and in so doing came across the
entire matter of extermination… He heard that “this
involved what was called an impenetrable or special camp
near Lublin. I located this camp and its commander. This
commander was Kriminalkommissar Wirth.” At the end of the
paragraph is another sentence:
“Wirth then revealed to me that, on the Fuehrer’s
orders, he was to carry out the extermination of the
Jews.”
On page 15, replying to a question, Morgen says:
“When Wirth took over the extermination of the Jews, he
was already a specialist in the mass destruction of
people, having previously carried out the assignment of
eliminating incurable mental patients. For this
purpose, acting on the orders of the Fuehrer himself,
transmitted to him through the Fuehrer’s Chancellery,
he had at the beginning of the War set up a commando of
various officials of his own.”
He then describes in detail what happened with the mental
patients, how they were transferred from one institution to
another, until they eventually finished up at an
extermination institution.
On page 16, it then says:
“This system which deceived the institutions and made
them into accomplices, innocent accomplices, this
system which enabled him with very few staff to kill
large numbers of people – this was the system which
Wirth now applied to exterminating the Jews, with a few
modifications and improvements. He again received the
order for the extermination of Jews from the Fuehrer’s
Chancellery.”
Then, towards the bottom of page 17, he says:
“Those who were involved can be counted on one’s
fingers – the names can be counted on one’s fingers. I
remember the name Blankenburg in Berlin, Blankenburg,
Fuehrer’s Chancellery.”
On page 30 he is asked: “Did you also hear the name Hoess
from Wirth?”
Answer: “Yes, Wirth called him his untalented pupil.”
It continues: “Compared with Wirth, Hoess basically applied
totally different methods. I think that the best way for me
to illustrate this is when we come to talk about Auschwitz.”
The examining attorney then asks: “Did the name Eichmann
also come up at that time?”
Morgen answers: “I do not remember that at that time the
name Eichmann already came up, but I did come across it
later.”
Then, on page 36, the lawyer asks, at the bottom:
Question: “Under normal circumstances, witness, what
should you have done, having found out about all these
dreadful things?”
Answer: “Under normal circumstances, I should have
arrested Kriminalkommissar Wirth and Commander Hoess
and charged them with murder.”
Question: “Did you do so?”
Answer: “No.”
Question: “Why not?”
Answer: “The answer is clear from the way the question
is phrased: During the War in Germany there were no
longer normal conditions in terms of constitutional
guarantees. “Another thing must also be taken into
account. I was not simply a judge; I was a judge
within the framework of military criminal jurisdiction.
And no military court anywhere in the world could place
in the dock before it, its army supreme commander, let
alone the head of state.”
Further down it says:
Question: “So what did you do?”
Answer: “I realized, given these insights, that
something had to happen here, i.e., an immediate halt
to this operation. Hitler had to be prevailed upon to
cancel his orders, and in the circumstances only
Himmler could do this, in his capacity as Minister of
the Interior and Minister of the Police.”
At the top of page 38 Morgen continues:
“I, therefore, first went to my immediate superior, the
Chief of the Reich Criminal Police Bureau, SS
Oberfuehrer Nebe. I also went to the Chief of the Head
Office SS Courts – that was Obergruppenfuehrer
Breithaupt, and I also took steps with Kaltenbrunner
and with the Gestapo Chief, Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, and
with Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl of the Economic-
Administrative Head Office, and with the Reich
Physician, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz.”
He goes on to say that he followed further tactics by
breaking the top echelons and the main members of this
extermination system, one by one, using the system’s own
measures, that is to say, by initiating legal proceedings
against those persons referred to there.
He then describes in more detail how this might have
developed and what results he expected – all that one can
read in detail in the document.
On page 51, Morgen is asked by another defence attorney:
“Did you wish to execute a warrant from the SS Court for the
arrest of Eichmann?”
Morgen:
“I applied to the Berlin SS Court to carry out an
investigation of Eichmann based on my information. At
which point the Berlin SS Court submitted to the Chief
of the Head Office for Reich Security – SS
Obergruppenfuehrer Kaltenbrunner – in his capacity as
the highest judicial authority, a warrant for the
arrest of Eichmann. Dr. Bachmann reported to me that,
when this was presented, there was a dramatic scene.”
It goes on:
“Kaltenbrunner immediately called in Mueller, and the
judge was told that under no circumstances could there
be an arrest, as Eichmann was carrying out a secret
special assignment, of the utmost importance, on behalf
of the Fuehrer. When was that? That was in mid-1944.”
The next document is No. 50, a sworn affidavit by Morgen,
dated 19 July 1946. As far as I can see, this has not yet
been submitted.
Presiding Judge: No, we do not have anything by Morgen.
Dr. Servatius: In this, there is also comment on the facts
with reference to Wirth, the Reinhardt Action, and also
about Eichmann’s position.
Presiding Judge: I mark this exhibit N/95.
Attorney General: The Prosecution has no objection to the
previous Decision being extended to cover all of Morgen’s
statements.
Presiding Judge: The previous Decision will cover all of
Morgen’s statements.
Dr. Servatius: At the beginning, on page 1 – the heading
here is SS Sturmbannfuehrer and SS Judge (Res.) Dr. Konrad
Morgen. He says that he has heard from various sources
regarding those who gave the orders for the organization of
mass destruction. And then, under point 1:
“Reichsarzt SS (Reich Physician SS) SS Gruppenfuehrer
Dr. Grawitz, who also played a role in the euthanasia
affair, told me that Hitler himself gave the order for
the extermination of the Jews.”
Point 2:
“Historically, the extermination of the Jews began with
the destruction of the eastern Jews in Poland. This
was carried out by the same methods – gassing – and by
the same commando which earlier carried out the
destruction of the incurable mental patients in
Germany. I had several detailed conversations with
this commando and its chief, Kriminalkommissar Wirth.”
At the top of page 2: His assignment was initially “mass
extermination of the mentally ill.” After that there was
the assignment concerning the Jews. He was to set up the
technical organization and the apparatus, and to keep the
whole operation concealed from the outside world. It then
says (leaving out a sentence):
“Wirth chose his own assistants. The operation was not
implemented through any SS organization or office. He
had his permanent headquarters in the Fuehrer’s
Chancellery in Berlin in the Tiergartenstrasse. That
is where Wirth received his instructions and where he
reported.”
Page 3, point 2:
“Hoess entered the arena of mass extermination much
later, with Auschwitz. Hoess only exterminated the
Jews who were not able to work. Because of the way he
worked, Wirth called him his untalented pupil. I know
that Hoess, together with Bormann, spent many years in
jail for what were called the `assassinations by way of
retaliation,’ and it is from this period that the
staunch friendship between the two originated. Hoess
could go and see Bormann at any time, and therefore
could influence Hitler. That must be the reason why
Hoess was always handled with kid gloves by Himmler and
by Pohl.”
The last paragraph, under 3, reads:
” Separate from these commandos there was the Eichmann
organization, whose task was merely to transport the
Jews of Europe into the concentration camps or the
extermination camps.”
The next exhibit is another statement by Morgen, dated 13
July 1946 – document No. 48. I submit it as evidence.
Presiding Judge: I mark this statement N/96, and Decision 90
shall apply to this statement as well.
Attorney General: To complete the picture, I hope that Dr.
Servatius will be ready to state here that Dr. Konrad Morgen
appeared before the International Military Tribunal as a
witness for the defence of the SS organization.
Dr. Servatius: I assume – the documents must show – I
believe that this is demonstrated by the fact that he was
examined by the defence witnesses – the defence lawyers. I
am sure that the Prosecution would not have produced him.
Presiding Judge: We can look at the Nuremberg records, in
order to find out.
Judge Raveh: Apparently he was not even cross-examined, as
can be seen from the last page of N/94.
Dr. Servatius: There was no cross-examination.
Judge Halevi: This is somewhat difficult for us – this
question of the absence of any cross-examination in
Nuremberg. As far as I can see – and I believe that this
can also be seen from the volumes of the Nuremberg Trials –
the reason why he is not cross-examined is because it is
argued that he is not credible, that there are so many
testimonies in conflict with his own that there is no point
in examining a single witness whose version is totally
opposed to the testimony of all the other witnesses, and
which was not accepted by the Court. I do not know to what
extent this Court can draw any conclusions from that.
Attorney General: If Your Honour is addressing me…
Judge Halevi: The absence of cross-examination was in a
particular context here.
Attorney General: That point was made explicitly by Sir
David Maxwell-Fyfe.
Judge Halevi: He did not say that he was not examining him
because he accepted what he said as true – on the contrary.
Presiding Judge: We shall in any case see what appears in
the record. The record also shows that the Presiding Judge:
was extremely impatient, and this may also have influenced
Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe.
Attorney General: I am already sitting down, Your Honour.
Last-Modified: 1999/06/10
