Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-12/tgmwc-12-110.13
Last-Modified: 2000/01/22

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: Yes, my Lord.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

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

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

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.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

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.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes,

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 -

COLONEL POKROVSKY: Very well.

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.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

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.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

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.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

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.)

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor