Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-18/tgmwc-18-170.03
Last-Modified: 2000/09/11

THE PRESIDENT: Well -

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Dr. Siemers objected to its being
described as a "diary" and said that it should have been
described as an index. My Lord, I do not mind what it is
described as.

THE PRESIDENT: What does it matter? Let's call it an index
then. Is that all your points?

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, this is important in so far as
here in this Court many "Tagebucher" have been submitted
under the designation of "diary", and these were really
entries made at the time.

THE PRESIDENT: Sir David says that he will withdraw the word
"diary" and you may call it anything else you like. Really,
it is only a waste of our time to make this sort of
technical point. Sir David agrees with you, and he is
prepared to withdraw the word "diary."

DR. SIEMERS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then, let's not say anything more
about it.

DR. SIEMERS: I quite agree, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I do not wish to take up the time of the
Tribunal with all the other and very numerous errors in
translation. My final speech will show how important this
point was in connection with the Assmann document, and as
suggested by the Tribunal I have called the attention of the
General Secretary to the other errors in translation.

THE PRESIDENT: If there are any errors in translation, that
matter can be taken up through the General Secretary with
the Translation Department.

Dr. Siemers, it is very improper for a counsel in your
position to make statements of that sort for which you have
no proof at all. You know perfectly well that when there
have been any alleged mistranslations, the matter has always
been referred through the General Secretary to the
Translation Department and then they have been corrected,
and for you to get up at this stage of the trial and say
that there are many mistranslations, without proof of it at
all, simply upon your own word, is a most improper thing for
counsel to do, and that is the view of the Tribunal.

DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I apologise, but I think I did
not express myself correctly. I am not making an accusation,
but with so many documents, it is not surprising that these
errors did occur. I, myself, make mistakes. I am sorry if my
remarks should have been misunderstood.

THE PRESIDENT: Everybody makes mistakes, and everybody is
capable of having different opinions as to translations, but
you and every other member of the defendants' counsel know
that those mistakes, if they are mistakes, will be
corrected, if it is possible, and they know the way that it
can be done, and, therefore, as I said before, it is very
improper for you to get up and allege that there are a lot
of mistranslations. I do not want to hear anything more
about it.

The Tribunal will adjourn.

(A recess was taken.)

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte, have you any documents that you
wish to offer in evidence?

DR. NELTE (counsel for defendant Keitel): Mr. President,
with a letter dated the 1st of July, 1946, I put in three
affidavits, after having submitted them previously to the
prosecution. Those three documents will become K-23, K-24,
and K-25 I beg the Tribunal to receive them, as the
prosecution, so Sir David has told me, does not object to
their being offered in evidence.

                                                   [Page 51]

THE PRESIDENT: And they are at present being translated, or
have they been translated?

DR. NELTE: They are in the process of being translated. I
have merely submitted the originals to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then, we will receive them in
evidence and consider them.

DR. NELTE: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kauffmann?

DR. KAUFFMANN (counsel for defendant Kaltenbrunner): Mr.
President, I have a few interrogatories which have been
granted to me by the Tribunal. I have the originals here
with me; they have been numbered, and I should like to
submit them. The Translation Division has informed me that
the translations are not yet at the disposal of the
Tribunal, but I assume they will be in the hands of the
Tribunal in the next few days.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I should like to state, in a few short
sentences, what the contents of the documents are, if the
Tribunal wishes me to do so.

There are three documents which refer to the same subject:
The testimony given by the President of the Red Cross at
Geneva, Professor Burckhardt; the testimony given by Dr.
Bachmann, who was a delegate of the Red Cross; and then
there is Dr. Meier's testimony, and he too was an official
representative of the Red Cross. In these documents these
witnesses deal with the discussions during March and April,
1945, which they had with the defendant Kaltenbrunner. They
also show that agreements were reached on the strength of
these discussions which made it possible for thousands of
French, Belgian and Dutch women and children to be returned
to their home countries. Also under these agreements
prisoners of war were discharged and internees from
concentration camps were allowed to return.

Another result was that Kaltenbrunner gave permission to
visit the Jewish camp at Theresienstadt and that other camps
received medical supplies, food, etc. All that is contained
in detail in these three documents.

THE PRESIDENT: What numbers are you giving to them?

DR. KAUFMANN: The Professor Burckhardt document will be
Kaltenbrunner number 3; Dr. Meier and Dr. Bachmann, numbers
4 and 5.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. KAUFFMANN: A further document is the interrogatory
supplied by the former Gauleiter in Upper Austria, Eigruber.
That is Exhibit Kaltenbrunner 6. Here again I should like to
draw attention to one point. Among other things, this
witness states that the concentration camp at Mauthausen was
not set up by Kaltenbrunner, as has been alleged by the
prosecution, and that he was not responsible for the life
there or the entire stay of the internees at the camp. That
is stated here in detail and I do not propose to read it.

The next document is the interrogatory of Count von
Eberstein, which is Exhibit Kaltenbrunner 7. Again, I shall
not read from it, but perhaps I may say, in just one
sentence, that this witness is testifying that he knows that
the concentration camp at Dachau, or the two auxiliary camps
belonging to Dachau, were not, as has been alleged by the
prosecution, to be exterminated during the last months or
weeks of the war, but that such a plan had been contemplated
exclusively by the Gauleiter of Munich, Giessler.

Then there is a further interrogatory, which is the
testimony of the witness Waneck. That will be Exhibit
Kaltenbrunner 8.

I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal
particularly to this document. It is a lengthy document, and
I shall not read from it. However, I believe I can say that
this man was particularly well acquainted with the defendant
and the whole

                                                   [Page 52]

of his official activities in the course of many years. This
witness held for years a leading position in the Foreign
Intelligence Service. He knows Kaltenbrunner's attitude
regarding the executive and he confirms the fact that
Kaltenbrunner agreed with Himmler at the time, that he,
Himmler, would retain the executive powers while
Kaltenbrunner would work mostly in the sector of the
Intelligence Service as a whole.

Finally, Mr. President, there are two documents which have
not yet been discussed. Therefore, first of all, the
Tribunal would have to decide as to the relevancy of the
documents, and as to whether I shall be entitled to submit
the documents. They are two short letters which I have
received.

One is a letter from the Mayor of the town of Dachau, dated
4th April, 1946. The Tribunal may possibly remember that
during the taking of evidence by the prosecution it was
frequently mentioned that the population in the vicinity had
knowledge of the abuses. This man, who is now employed by
the American authorities, confirms his own experience. In my
opinion they do not bear out the thesis of the prosecution.

Immediately connected with this is the second letter, which
is from the well-known pastor Niemoeller, and which is dated
17th April, 1946. Niemoeller had spent some time in Dachau.

MR. DODD: Mr. President, would it not be best if we heard on
the first affidavit before the Niemoeller affidavit is taken
up?

We have objected to this affidavit by the Mayor of Dachau
for the reason that it is simply a letter. We have had no
opportunity to file any cross-interrogatory or to ask any
questions of the man at all. These letters come in here. If
we are going to submit all the letters that come in - we
have bales of them, actually.

We do not like to object on purely technical grounds, if
there is anything here that would really be helpful to the
Tribunal. On the other hand, we do not feel that we should
deny ourselves the opportunity to make clear the entire
story by cross-questions of some kind.

THE PRESIDENT: That is with reference to Schwalber?

MR. DODD: Yes, sir.

DR. KAUFFMANN: I did not quite understand what you said, Mr.
President.

THE PRESIDENT: What Mr. Dodd said was that they objected to
this document from Schwalber because they have not had an
opportunity to put any questions to him, either by way of
having him called as a witness or by way of a cross-
interrogatory. Therefore, they object to the introduction of
the document in its present form.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes, I understand. I know this is somewhat
problematical, but the Tribunal will be able to assess the
evidential value of the letters according to their own
opinion. Perhaps I may submit these two short documents to
the Tribunal. So far as I know, the prosecution is
acquainted with these two documents, because they have been
in the Translation Division, and some time ago a
representative of the prosecution told me that very probably
objections would be raised. That was why, at the beginning,
I told the Tribunal it would first have to decide as to the
relevancy of the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Kauffmann, the best way will be for
the Tribunal to read the document and to consider it. We
will do that.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Very well, Mr. President. Thank you.

MR. DODD: I should also like to indicate to the Tribunal
that we take the same position with respect to the
Niemoeller letter.

THE PRESIDENT: You object to them both, then? You are
objecting also to the Niemoeller letter?

MR. DODD: Yes, on the same grounds.

                                                   [Page 53]

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well.

DR. PANNENBECKER (counsel for the defendant Frick): Mr.
President, the reply to the Messersmith interrogatory has
not yet been submitted. The reply has been received and has
been translated. I believe, however, that the Tribunal has
probably not yet received it.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you offer it in evidence and give it a
number?

DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes, Sir; I was going to. But I did not
expect that it would come up today, and I have not the
number which I shall give to the exhibit. May I be permitted
to furnish the number later? Yes - I have it here, Mr.
President, and I shall now submit it as Exhibit Frick 14.
This is the reply to an interrogatory. The replies are in
the same form as those which Mr. Messersmith gave in the
interrogatories concerning other defendants. I shall refer
to this interrogatory in detail during my final speech.
Therefore I need not read it now.

Then there is still one reply outstanding in an
interrogatory of Konrad, and I beg to be permitted to submit
it as soon as I receive it.

THE PRESIDENT: That has been granted, has it? And it is now
before the witness?

DR. PANNENBECKER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. PANNENBECKER: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius.

DR. SERVATIUS (counsel for defendant Sauckel): Mr.
President, several interrogatories have still to be
submitted. First of all, I submit Exhibit 15 to the
Tribunal. That is a Darre interrogatory.

THE PRESIDENT: Whose interrogatory was that, whose
interrogatory?

DR. SERVATIUS: Darre the Minister for Food and Agriculture.
This interrogatory deals with matters which have already
come up at this trial. I should like to draw your attention
to a few points. There is the question of what was Sauckel's
general attitude, particularly toward Himmler's views; and
the witness stresses the fact that there was considerable
controversy between Himmler and Sauckel in this respect. He
mentions one particular instance which he himself witnessed.
He speaks about a factory in Thuringia which was directly
under Sauckel's control and says that the workers there were
so free that they hired themselves out to farmers during the
day, which was rather too much of a good thing. He then
tells about a clash between Sauckel and Himmler in the
presence of the Fuehrer about the question of treatment, and
he says that Himmler stated, "I am subordinate to the
Fuehrer only, and for my official business I am under the
Reichsmarschall; and I have not to justify myself to you."

Then there is another interrogatory from Minister of Labour
Seldte, which has been allowed by the Tribunal and which I
shall submit as Exhibit 16. I should like to bring out a
very few points. The witness talks about Sauckel's functions
and the functions of Dr. Ley, and he says that Sauckel
carried out the functions of the State while Ley looked
after the social welfare and social supervision.

Then he goes on to talk about inspections and controls, and
he says that the departments for insurance against
accidents, health and industrial supervision were in
existence before and had continued to function under the
responsibility of the Minister of Labour.

Then comes the interrogatory of Dr. Voss, which I submit as
Exhibit 17. I shall submit the original later. I am afraid I
cannot find it at the moment. This doctor was medical
officer in a camp, and he speaks of the conditions in the
camps, particularly after air attacks, and about the
activities and welfare efforts of the Labour Front. He not
only deals with the camps in which he was working, but he
knows a great deal generally about conditions in other
camps.

                                                   [Page 54]

His statement is in contradiction to the testimony given by
Dr. Jaeger. In the same way the following document, which I
shall submit as Exhibit 18 and which comes from Dr. Ludwig
Scharmann, although dealing with another sector, also
contains similar statements, which are also in direct
contrast to the testimony given by Dr. Jaeger.

That completes the interrogatories which have been granted
me. Now I have a number of documents for which I have
applied, but on which a decision has not yet been given. I
do not know whether I should now submit them to the
Tribunal. They are mostly concerned with laws and decrees
and I would like to submit them in addition to what I have
already submitted.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal would like
you to submit them now, because the Tribunal wishes to deal
finally today with the evidence on behalf of the defence.

DR. SERVATIUS: There is a decree by Sauckel dealing with the
return of sick foreign workers to their homes. It shows that
workers who had fallen sick were sent back and that Red
Cross employees had to accompany them. The actual decree is
in the official collection of laws and decrees which has
already been submitted. I shall ascertain my exhibit number
presently. It will be No. 99 in the additional document
book.

Then there is Document l00, which comes from the Reich
Labour Gazette, 1943, which has already been offered in
evidence. This deals with the investigation of sanitary
measures in camps, and it deals with the accusations which
have been made with reference to these accommodation
problems.

Then there is Document 101, which is a memorandum about
French prisoners of war on leave and the improvement of
their status under the so-called "transformation". I shall
submit it and give the exhibit a number. For the moment it
is Document 101.

Then come Documents 102 and 103. Both are laws contained in
the official Reich Law Gazette. They are "German
instructions regarding Compulsory Labour Service". It is the
emergency services order which I submit as Document 102.
Then there is the compulsory labour decree which will be
Document 103 in the supplement.

Then I find that Document 4006-PS contains a number of
important regulations, but I am told that the prosecution is
going to read them, and therefore I assume that I need not
do so.

Then I have received an affidavit from Count Spreti, who,
from the beginning of the Eastern campaign, was active as a
recruiting officer in the East. It deals with conditions,
and it states particularly that Sauckel's activity had
brought about a basic change in the general attitude. It is
short and I consider that it is of particular importance,
because up to now no recruiting officer has been heard on
the subject.

Then I was proposing to submit Document 109, which will be a
list -

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