Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-18/tgmwc-18-169.08
Last-Modified: 2000/09/11

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the witness Puhl during his
examination in the French camp also had the questions of the
cross-examination submitted to him which the prosecution
asked for and they were answered by him. Therefore, he was
not only interrogated about the points which I raised, but
also about the questions put in the cross-examination by the
prosecution. Therefore, I take the liberty of submitting
this document, which is an interrogatory of Emil Puhl,
Document Book 3, Supplement No. 3, and to which is assigned
exhibit No. 17.

This witness Puhl, who was the vice-president of the
Reichsbank, in this interrogatory deals solely with matters
entirely different from the matters dealt with here in his
examination, namely, the preparations which the Reichsbank
President, Dr. Funk, made in the event of war; that is
question No. 1. The handling of the clearing debts is
question No. 2.

The question of the higher valuation of the Danish currency
-

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks you need not read the
interrogatory but the Tribunal will allow it to go in in
this case.

DR. SAUTER: Thank you, Mr. President. I only wanted briefly
to sketch the contents of this testimony.

Then I submit additional testimony given by a witness which
has been granted by the Tribunal; it is the testimony given
by the witness Heinz Kallus, to be found in Document Book
Walter Funk, Supplement 4, and is assigned exhibit No. Funk
18. I also submit this testimony to the General Secretary
and I should like to ask, in order to save time, that the
Tribunal take judicial notice of its contents.

As my fourth and last document there is an affidavit
subscribed by Mr. Messersmith, a supplement to a previous
statement which has been submitted to the Tribunal. This is
very brief, in fact it is but one sentence and it may be
found

                                                   [Page 32]

in the Document Book Walter Funk, Supplement No. 5, with
Exhibit No. 19. I also submit this document. And now I have
arrived at the conclusion of my report, Mr. President. Thank
you very much.

DR. THOMA (counsel for defendant Rosenberg): Mr. President,
I should like to submit to the Tribunal the testimony of the
witness Dr. Beil. Up to now I had received this testimony
only in English. I have obtained it from the Translation
Division so that I could submit it as Exhibit 50. In this
connection I have another request. This interrogatory
contains important questions dealing with the attitude
adopted by the Eastern Ministry in the matter of allocation
of labour, and it is of such importance that I ask the
permission of the Tribunal to have it read. Since I am not
entirely conversant with the English language, I should like
to ask to have an interpreter read this interrogatory.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, has this document been offered in
evidence before? It was granted by the Tribunal, was it not,
this interrogatory?

DR. THOMA: Yes, it has already been granted by the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to read it? Cannot you submit
it in evidence and the Tribunal will consider it?

DR. THOMA: I leave that of course to the Tribunal to decide.
I wanted to point out only that this is very important and
decisive testimony in regard to the question of manpower in
the Eastern Ministry. However, I shall leave that to the
judgement of the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Cannot you summarize it?

DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I have only received an English
translation, and I do not wish to attempt to do anything
with it but I believe there are only two pages. The
interpreter will read that in no time at all.

THE PRESIDENT: Let the interpreter read it then.

(English interpreter reads the document as follows):

  "Copy-RO Exhibit No. 50.
  
  Completed interrogatory of Ministerialrat Dr. Beil, in
  behalf of Rosenberg.
  
  The witness having been duly sworn, states:
  
  Q. Were you the permanent official (Sachbearbeiter) in
  the East Ministry (Ost Ministerium) in charge of the
  questions of labour and social policy?
  
  A. Yes, I was one of ten permanent officials. We
  originally started with 52, but as the East Front
  receded, the staff was finally reduced to ten. I was in
  charge of the administration side of the labour and
  social policy. The head of the department was
  Landesbauernfuehrer Peukert.
  
  Q. Was the East Ministry in favour of voluntary
  recruiting of workers in the east?
  
  A. Yes, of voluntary recruiting only, my instructions
  being that it should only be carried out on this basis.
  
  Q. Are any results known?
  
  A. Yes, but the results were not as great as anticipated,
  only some 300,000 to 400,000 volunteers and most of these
  were from the Ukraine, Lithuania and Estonia.
  
  Q. Were there any negotiations about decreasing the
  quotas ordered by the GBA?
  
  A. Yes, negotiations for decreasing the quotas took
  place, but broke down owing to Sauckel demanding
  something like a million workers to be transferred to the
  interior.
  
  Q. Who was responsible for the care and control of the
  east workers (Ostarbeiter) in the Reich?
  
  A. The German Arbeitsfront and the Reichsnahrstand were
  responsible for the care of the east workers, the former
  for workers in munitions and heavy industry and the
  latter for agricultural workers.
  
  Q. What was the point of view of the department, ASO - "

                                                   [Page 33]

DR. THOMA: ASO, if I may interrupt, is the Labour, Social
and Political Department of the East Ministry.

(Interpreter continuing):

  "Q. What was the point of view of the department, ASO,
  concerning the treatment of the east workers in the
  Reich?
  
  A. The view of my department, ASO, was that the voluntary
  recruiting of workers on a free movement basis, thus
  taking them out of the barbed-wire enclosed factories,
  would be the best method of treatment. We also advocated
  the removal of the arm badges, worn originally on the arm
  and later on the left wrist, which bore the word 'East'
  so as to distinguish them from workers from the west, who
  never at any time wore badges. The wording being later
  changed to 'Greater Russia ', 'White Russia' and
  'Ukraine', the people from the Baltic States did not wear
  the arm badge. Certain Russians, small groups of
  Cossacks, Tartars and one or two others were not
  compelled to wear the arm band, as they were anti-
  Bolshevistic and pro-German and a certain proportion of
  these were eventually called up into the German Army.
  Some 7,000 youths from Ruthenia were called up by ASO and
  these were apprenticed at Junkers Works.
  
  Q. Is the Central Office (Zentralstelle) for the Eastern
  People (Ostvolker) at the East Ministry known to you? How
  is this organized?
  
  A. Yes, it was considered to be a consulate for the east;
  members of the Staff were partly Germans and partly local
  employees from the east, who were considered suitable for
  such employment. Some of the foreign employees were
  placed at the disposal of the country offices to look
  after the interests of their fellow countrymen working in
  the countries. At the Central Office were instituted
  offices for each of the Eastern States, each office being
  controlled by a German, some of whom had originally come
  from these States. There was also a welfare branch which
  was run by persons from these Eastern States, to look
  after the comfort, etc., of their individual countrymen;
  there was also a religious branch which was run by clergy
  from these countries, but this branch was not very
  successful as there was a lack of priests.
  
  Q. Now, with the help of the DAF, were the complaints
  followed up?
  
  A. The interests of foreign workers were always looked
  after; missions were sent to the various concentrations
  of east workers to find out how they were progressing and
  what kind of treatment they were receiving. These
  missions dealt with complaints submitted to them on their
  visits, but the Central Office had to deal also with
  written complaints received through the post.
  
  Q. , Do you know of a printed circular to the authorities
  in the country, that ordered just treatment? Did it give
  details? What was the story about the families who were
  evacuated by the Army Group Centre and about the children
  ten to fourteen years old?
  
  A. Yes, there was a circular issued, dealing with this
  question, and it gave details at great length for the
  just treatment of the eastern workers. This circular was
  issued at the request of the Ministry of the East,
  through Sauckel. A second circular was issued by
  Rosenberg dealing with the just treatment of workers from
  the east only. I have no knowledge of this story, as it
  was dealt with entirely by the Army Group Centre.
  
  Q. Does the witness know the pamphlet issued by the East
  Ministry to the managers of enterprises concerning the
  nations of Eastern Europe and the attitude towards them?"

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, this affidavit does not seem to be
short at all. It all seems to be cumulative. Every word of
it is what we have heard before, and heard not only once,
but over and over again.

THE INTERPRETER: Dr. Thoma has just said that the last
sentence is coming up.

                                                   [Page 34]

DR. THOMA: There are two more short sentences.

THE INTERPRETER:

  "A. There were two pamphlets issued; one issued by
  Sauckel, and the other issued in conjunction with DAF and
  Sauckel and the Ministry for the East.
  
  Q. Has he one handy?
  
  A. I have not got a copy of this pamphlet.
  
  (Signed) Beil."

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, the Tribunal rely on counsel, you
know, and when you tell us that this is an important
affidavit, we rely on what you tell us. In the opinion of
the Tribunal, the reading of the affidavit was an absolute
waste of the Tribunal's time.

DR. THOMA: I should like to put another request to the
Tribunal. I have asked that I be granted an interrogatory
for the Reichhauptstellenleiter Dr. Oepper of the office of
the Delegate of the Fuehrer, for the entire Spiritual and
Ideological Training of the NSDAP under Rosenberg's office.
This affidavit has not bee granted to me, but I already have
it on hand.

THE PRESIDENT: Has the prosecution seen it?

DR. THOMA: No, Mr. President, I do not think so. I submitted
an application to the General Secretary. Whether this
request has already been transmitted to the prosecution, I
do not know.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the only application that we have got,
as far as I can see, is an interrogatory to Dr. Koppen in
lieu of Dr. Stellbrecht. Is that the one that you are
speaking about now?

DR. THOMA: No, Mr. President, I was granted permission to
interrogate Dr. Koppen instead of Dr. Stellbrecht, and the
interrogatory has already been sent off. This, however, is a
new application regarding Dr. Oeppert and has not yet been
decided upon.

THE PRESIDENT: You had better submit it to the prosecution
and see whether they have any comment to make on it, and we
can take it up tomorrow.

DR. THOMA: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

DR. KUBUSCHOK (counsel for defendant von Papen): In the case
of Papen there are six interrogatories which have not been
disposed of. Three of them have been returned in the last
few days and are in the stage of being translated. I ask,
when I receive my last interrogatory, to be allowed to
submit all six at one time to the Tribunal.

Then, without my taking any steps to get it, I received an
affidavit three days ago from a foreign journalist,
Rademacher von Unna, from Milan, Italy. This affidavit at
present is being translated. I submitted it to the British
prosecutor, and he does not object. I ask to be allowed to
submit this affidavit later with the remainder of my
documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly you may submit it. We shall
then pass opinion upon it as to its admissibility.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you, Mr. President.

DR. SEIDL (counsel for defendants Frank and Hess): Mr.
President, I ask permission to submit at this time the
answers to the interrogatories from the witnesses which have
not yet been submitted. As Exhibit 19 for Frank I submit the
answers to the interrogatory given by the witness Dr. Ernst
Boepple. Boepple was State Secretary in the Government
General, and he has answered forty-one questions in all.

As Frank No. 20, I submit the answers to an interrogatory
given by the witness Max Meidinger. Meidinger was chief of
the Chancellery of the Government General. He has answered
forty-three questions.

                                                   [Page 35]

This interrogatory, as well as the first interrogatory by
Boepple, as far as I could make out, have not been
translated yet, although I handed these interrogatories in
to be translated about ten days ago. However, with the
interrogatory there is an English translation which was made
during the interrogation.

As Frank No. 31 I submit the answers given by the witness
Gassner, who answered forty-nine questions. Gassner was
Press Chief in the Government General. Frank No. 22 will be
the interrogatory deposed by the witness Dr. Stepp, who was
President of the Oberlandesgericht. He was mainly concerned
with the efforts made by the defendant Frank in the years
1933 and 1934, in his capacity as Bavarian Minister of
Justice, for the dissolution of the concentration camp at
Dachau.

I should also like to take this opportunity, Mr. President,
of pointing out an error of translation which does not refer
to the documents of Frank but to a document which was
submitted on behalf of the defendant Hess. This was not used
by the prosecution, with regard to the personal
responsibility of Rudolf Hess. However, it is found in the
document book, and the document concerned is 062-PS, Exhibit
USA 696. That is a directive of 13th March, 1940, the same
directive which was mentioned last Saturday in the case of
the defendant Bormann, on which occasion the President
himself read figure 4 of this directive, which was submitted
as an appendix to this directive of 13th March. There is a
very serious error in translation, which completely distorts
the sense of the directive and which, I must say, can have
very dangerous consequences.

Under figure 4 the words "unschadlich gemacht" ("made
harmless") were translated as "liquidated".

THE PRESIDENT: If there is an error in the translation, you
had better apply to the General Secretary, and he will have
the matter gone into by the Translation Division.

DR. SEIDL: Yes, Mr. President, but the matter does not seem
to be as simple as that. The translator obviously had the
feeling himself that his translation was not reproducing the
sense quite accurately, because in parentheses he added
"unschadlich gemacht". In my opinion this sentence must be
translated as follows:

  "Likewise, enemy parachutists are immediately to be
  arrested or made harmless."

The sense was obviously that the parachutists -

THE PRESIDENT (interposing): I dare say, Dr. Seidl, but we
have not got the document before us and we do not all of us
understand the German language. Therefore, it had better be
referred to the Translation Division. It is no good
referring it to us.

DR. SEIDL: Then I shall put a written application to the
General Secretary, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Have the prosecution any objection to these
interrogatories which Dr. Seidl has been dealing with? Have
the prosecution had the opportunity of putting cross-
interrogatories if they wanted to do so?

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: My Lord, I am told that we think so,
with the possible exception of the last one. Perhaps I could
look into it overnight.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

COLONEL PHILLIMORE: I will look into that point and let the
Tribunal know.

My Lord, the prosecution have a few documents to put in. I
have eight, and I think my friend Mr. Dodd has three. I
could do it very quickly, but it might be more convenient to
do it tomorrow morning.

                                                   [Page 36]

THE PRESIDENT: We will go into all these documents tomorrow
morning. There will be some others on behalf of some of the
other defendants. We will also hear the witnesses Kempka and
Walkenhorst, I believe it is, whom Dr. Bergold wishes to
call.

The Tribunal desires Dr. Bergold to be here tomorrow morning
in order to be able to examine these witnesses.

The Tribunal will now adjourn.

(A recess was taken until 3rd July, 1946, at 1000 hours.)

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