The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)
Nuremberg, war crimes, crimes against humanity

The Trial of German Major War Criminals

Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany
9th August to 21st August 1946

Two Hundred and Fifth Day: Friday, 16th August, 1946
(Part 9 of 10)

[Page 246]


In Document No. 70 the Reich Minister for Finance makes promotion dependent upon collaboration within the Party.

Document No. 71 deals with departure and exclusion of officials; it says that they cannot remain officials after they have left the Party. The least that the official can expect is that his promotion will be deferred. Bormann asks that he be notified at the same time of the decision concerning the exclusion of the member from the Party.

Then Document No. 72 deals with the experts' offices. Here it is emphasized that the experts' offices attached to the staff of the Hoheitstrager are to be run on non-political lines.

Document No. 73 sets aside from the various staffs the officials of the Reich Treasury who deal with financial control and accounts.

Document No. 74 again shows the separate development of the financial system apart from the regular political system.

Document No. 75 orders the separation of the Party's financial and political administration and the dismissal of finance experts from the staff of the Gau leadership.

Document No. 75 also lays down that the treasurers are responsible only to the Gau treasurer and must follow the instructions.

Document No. 76 deals with prosecution which the finance department can demand against any member of the political staffs.

Document No. 77 shows the organization of the various offices in the staff. The distinction is made here between political leadership, administration and Party Courts.

Document No. 78 again deals with the separation of the Gau treasurers and cashiers.

Document No. 79 deals with the subject of the organization within the staff in the various spheres of responsibility.

Document No. 80 prohibits the interference of Party offices with Party Court proceedings.

Document No. 81 is of significance in so far as the Party Courts are put outside the Party organization and are made independent. As a result, Party judges are not "political leaders."

[Page 247]

Document 82 defines the position of the Party judge. It says: "He is subordinate only to the Fuehrer," and he is therefore not a "political leader."

The next few documents deal with the Church problem. First of all, we find the commentary given by Feder with reference to the Party's programme. As far as cultural policy is concerned, it is stated that attacks on Christianity are to be avoided because they are clumsy and tactless; and at the end he emphasises that "the Party is based on Christianity."

Document No. 84 is of significance for it emphasises in detail as a Party commentary what practical attitude is to be taken towards Church matters. Under points 27 and 29 it mentions full religious freedom and liberty of conscience, protection of the various confessions, repression and elimination of theological dogmas which are contrary to the German sense of morality, and so forth.

In Document No. 85, the Party turns against the so-called "Wotan Cult" and rejects it emphatically.

Document No. 86 prohibits interference by the State in Church discussions; it specifically says that any police interference, such as protective custody, confiscation and the like, is forbidden. This document dates back to the year 1933.

Document No. 87 was issued in conjunction with a declaration of Reich Bishop Mueller forbidding spiritual coercion. It is a directive of Hess dating back to the year 1933.

In the year 1935 a directive was issued by Hess which was also opposed to interference in Church matters. It states that they are to abstain entirely from intervening in those questions and that isolated actions against Churches are prohibited.

Document No. 89 is a circular letter taken from the Party Regulations of the year 1937. It states that all denominations are to be treated alike and it decrees that the Party will remain aloof from all denominational groups. It rejects the creeds known as "Deutsche Glaubensbewegung" (German Faith Movement) and "Deutsche Gotterkenntnis" (German Theology).

Document No. 90 deals with "National Socialist celebrations," and it condemns the attempt to bring about a substitute for religious services by means of certain celebrations of their own.

The next document, No. 91, deals with the practical results of the fact that when someone assumes a Church office, he cannot be called to account for his actions, but has to be left unmolested.

Document No. 92 deals with the Reich Labour Service and it states that the individual may not be stopped in any way. It merely opposes that members, as a body, should favour a particular creed. Then we come to the treatment of theology students and the avoidance of polemics on Church matters in the Labour Service.

Document No. 93 deals with the book The Myth. When looking at it carefully, it is evident that it did not receive the Party's official seal of approval.

Document No. 94 deals with lynching. It refers to the Japanese measures concerning the sentencing to death of airmen who had taken part in air raids there. The document condemns a similar attitude in Germany. This is in the year 1942.

Document No. 95 deals with the treatment of prisoners of war. It states that they were to receive sufficient food and that their treatment, although strict, should not be rough, and it must be just and decent.

Document No. 96 deals with the employment of Eastern workers. This is a circular by the Reich Propaganda Leadership, which was also sent to political leaders. It says that the workers were to be reasonably treated, and therefore would have to be properly fed, and that "They must not be confused with prisoners of war."

Document No. 97 deals with the religious needs of the Eastern workers, and it says that Orthodox clergymen may be appointed.

[Page 248]

Document No. 98 deals with the question of the interruption of pregnancies of female Eastern workers. This is a confidential communication by the Party Chancellery, which states that it is only with the consent of the worker concerned that such an interruption of pregnancy may be carried out. It is only at the request of the pregnant woman that the pregnancy may be interrupted.

Document No. 99 deals with protective custody. This most severe measure can only be taken when the facts of the case and the question of guilt have been thoroughly investigated, and it was expected that it would be asked for only in really urgent and well-founded cases. This circular is addressed to the Kreisleiter.

Document No. 100 deals with the care of families of political prisoners and of the prisoners themselves after their release. The peculiar fact arises that the relatives of the political prisoners who are in concentration camps are taken care of as far as both their economic and their political needs are concerned, and then, after their return, the internees released from concentration camps have to receive economic care only.

Document No. 101, on the Jewish question, condemns rumours and states:

"Terror actions against Jews are to be avoided as provocations, so that it will be possible to counteract the foreign propaganda about atrocities and boycotting and brand it as lies."
The next document is of significance in so far as the prosecution has stressed the consumer co-operative associations which were convicted together with the trade unions.

Document Book 2 has now been discussed in detail. Certain other applications have been granted me.

Document No. 59-A has been admitted. It states that Himmler had only the Party rank of a Reichsleiter, but that he was not actually a Reichsleiter, and this may be of legal significance.

Then we have another document which has been admitted, taken from a Leitz filing cabinet in the Gestapo office at Dusseldorf, dealing with the ill-treatment of foreign workers. In that document beating, detention and ill- treatment are prohibited, and a Special Court sentence is mentioned according to which the guard personnel of a camp were sentenced to imprisonment for not less than four months for having deprived people of liberty and caused them grievous bodily harm.

Thus, Mr. President, I have submitted all the actual documents. I shall now turn to the affidavits which have been granted me.

THE PRESIDENT: You are going to deal with your affidavits now?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Mr. President.

The Tribunal has before it a list showing these 64 affidavits which are granted to me. I should like to proceed now according to that list.

Affidavit No. 1 has been translated, and I shall submit it to the Tribunal. Up till now we have only had this document in English.

This is an affidavit furnished by a 60-year-old Landgerichtsdirektor (judge) in Ratisbon, who had been a block leader. He states how he had to take over this office and says in detail what the work consisted of. He mentions the significance of the organization book, which is of some importance in so far as many conclusions are drawn from it concerning the size of the organization and the activity of the various members. It is frequently repeated that this book was only a draft and was to be a working basis rather than a final official Party solution.

Document No. 2 has not been translated. It may be found in the transcript of 16th July, 1946, before the first Commission, Page 3227 of the German text. This is the testimony of a Kriminalobersekretaer (secretary of criminal police) of Munich, who shows how his application was received; at first he was turned down

[Page 249]

as unreliable for the post of block leader, but later on was installed nevertheless. The gist of the matter is to show that these were not important political offices which could only have been carried out by a so-called "Hoheitstrager." The witness answers the various questions.

Affidavit No. 3 was taken in the same session of the Commission, Page 3229. This is a commercial employee who was a block leader for eight years.

Then we turn to Affidavit No. 4, to be found on the same page. This is sworn by a head dairyman who for ten years was a block leader in a small country town, and who was a former member of the trade unions. He deposes on the question of spying and informing. He also deals with the card index which was kept of the inhabitants and the orders and instructions that he received.

Affidavit No. 5 emanates from a Wiesbaden locksmith who is 72 years old, who for many years was a block leader and then later a cell leader. He deals with the question of spying and says that it was unwise and that it created ill-will and mistrust. He also mentions the reason for his joining the Party and he describes the type of people from whom the block and cell leaders were taken; innkeepers, tailors, locksmiths, master carpenters, and similar people.

Now I shall turn to Affidavit No. 6, which has been translated. This is the testimony given by a State office employee from Stuttgart. He gives information about conditions before the war and gives a detailed statement on the various points which are of importance in connection with the matter of block leaders.

Affidavit No. 7 has not been translated. It may be found in the transcript of the Commission, Page 32/33. This witness was a war-time block leader and a certificated engineer. He defines his attitude towards the well-known card-index system and describes impressively what a block leader had to do in his area. He mentions everything from the collection of Party subscriptions to the sweeping away of snow and whatever work in which he had to assist in the general interest.

Document No. 11 is the testimony of a bricklayer's foreman, who deals with the relationship with the Church in the district of Cologne, and says that at the foundation of this cell they were all strictly orthodox members of the Evangelical Church; that the parson was a member of the Party and that in the neighbourhood theologians appeared as speakers; however, all that was changed in the year 1935 with the beginning of the German Christian movement.

Document No. 11 has also been translated. It comes from a Kreisamtsleiter - that is a professional official in the district of Cologne and Euskirchen. He deals with the card- index system.

I have omitted Document No. 9. It comes from Brake in Oldenburg and deals with general matters.

Now I should like to refer to Affidavit No. 16 and must make a correction. I have repeatedly referred to these affidavits as "documents," which may bring about confusion. Documents are in the document book whereas the affidavits have been numbered separately.

Affidavit No. 12 was made by an engine fitter who was a member of the Metal Workers' Union and who knows 200 Blockleiter. He deals principally with the question of nomination to and confirmation in the position of political leaders and he says that this hardly ever happened.

Then Affidavit No. 18 was sworn by a Zellenleiter in Bremen who was Verwaltungsoberinspektor (senior administrative inspector). He deals with the question of accepting office under coercion. He says that he had to fill in questionnaires which were added to his personal file.

Affidavit No. 19 was sworn by a Block- and Zellenleiter at Hamburg, who deals with the question of whether a functionary is a Hoheitstrager or not, and he gives a detailed statement of facts which may be of service for judging this matter.

Affidavit No. 20 comes from Berlin and it describes activities in the metropolis; the collection of winter relief and other contributions, the distribution

[Page 250]

of pamphlets, collections and so forth. It also deals with the question of obtaining information on individuals and the procedure followed, if negative reports were returned which had been asked for through official channels. Then an extensive investigation from above would have taken place in order to check. the correctness of the accusation.

Affidavit No. 12 comes from Berlin-Hessenwinkel, which is in the Soviet Zone. This is a publisher who gives a clear survey of conditions that prevailed in his area.

Affidavit No. 17 comes from Dresden and enumerates the activities of Blockleiter in simple matters and non- essential things. He compares the members of the Ortsgruppen staffs with the Block- and Zellenleiter and concludes that the Block- and Zellenleiter were less influential than the members of the Ortsgruppen.

Finally we have Affidavit No. 21 which comes from Eisenach and which also deals with the question of the treatment of the population: winning of confidence, exemplary behaviour, no chicaneries, spying prohibited.

Affidavit No. 13 comes from the Gau organization leaders of the Gau Munich. Upper Bavaria, and deals with the evidential value of the organisation's book which I mentioned previously; it deals therefore with the question of Hoheitstrager and the authority of the individuals. It says that a passage of the book is particularly exaggerated: the one dealing with the opinions and plans about Block- and Zellenleiter who are named for propaganda reasons as the Party's most important people.

Three more affidavits follow, dealing with Block- and Zellenleiter which, are Affidavit No. 14, the statement of an Amtsgerichtsrat (judge), who deals with the question of authority. Then there is a peasant from Westphalia who was elected Mayor. He also states, in connection with sovereignty rights, that they did not exist in the case of Block- and Zellenleiter, and that spying activity never did take place nor any activity connected with a conspiracy.

Affidavit No. 15 is the affidavit of a full-time Kreisleiter at Nortingen. He gives a survey of the Block- and Zellenleiter in his district and how they were composed:

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.