THE PRESIDENT: I din't hear the witness' answer.
DR. SERVATIUS: A difference has to be made here -
MR. DODD: I think it would be more helpful to the Tribunal and certainly to the Prosecution if it was established who made up this chart and whether or not the figures given here cover the camps where this witness had jurisdiction. From looking it over I can't tell where it was made up, except on the front page it says: According to food Schedule by Dr. Hermann Schall, Medical Superintendent of the Sanitarium West End. Calculations of controlled victuals for the community camps of the firm Krupp.
And so on. But these things can be made up by the bale and presented to witnesses. Unless there is some foundation laid, I think it is an improper way to cross examine.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have an affidavit here which explains to the Tribunal where that table comes from.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you ever seen this chart before?
DR. SERVATIUS: It is the affidavit of the witness Hahn.
THE WITNESS: Was a question put to me, please?
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness has the original. May I ask the witness to return the document to me?
THE WITNESS: I wanted to make a statement. At the beginning of my activity, the Eastern worker's food definitely differed from that of the German population and also that of the so-called Western workers, the French and Belgiums and so on. It can be seen from the figures that, even though it might not be in thousands, at least there is a difference of 700 to 800 calories In thebeginning -- until I believe February or March 1943 -- the Eastern workers received neither additional rations for long work, heavy work or heaviest work. These additional quotas were given only after a decree by Sauckel, and that was, if I remember correctly, at the beginning of 1943. At that time, if I remember correctly, the Eastern workers were put on an equal footing with the German workers, as far as food was concerned, and they received quotas for long work, for heavy work and for heaviest work, additional quotas that they had not received before. BY DR. SERVATIUS: table may be right but that, in fact, the workers did not receive that which we find listed on the table. Did I understand you correctly? table shows a difference of about 1,000. workers, of workers doing the heaviest type of work, such as miners, and that they received up to 5,200 calories, but that was not general. There were only special workers, specially skilled workers up to 5,200 calories. that. You say generally that, whereas the German worker who did the heaviest type of work received 5,000 calories, the Eastern workers who did the same type of work received only 2,000 calories per day.
That is a general statement, is it not, and it can not be seen therefrom that you are referring to exceptional cases of individual types of workers.
Is that correct? way.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, where does this chart come from, and are you putting it in? Will you put it in?
DR. SERVATIUS: In the affidavit the following assertion is made, and the witness has said clearly that at that time the workers doing the heaviest type of work, if they were German, received 5,000 calories, and if they were Eastern workers, received only 2,000. That is a very clear statement in the affidavit, which is not according to the table.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you offering it in evidence?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What will it be? What number will it be?
DR. SERVATIUS: That wall be Exhibit No. 11.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the affidavit refer to the chart?
DR. SERVATIUS: I asked concerning the affidavit whether it is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I asked whether the affidavit refers to and identifies the chart, the chart which the witness has just had in his hand.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, you have put in an affidavit by Walter Hahn. Does that affidavit mention the chart and say where the chart comes from and by whom it was made up, to what it refers?
DR. SERVATIUS: The affidavit which is here as document D-288 does not mention the chart, but the affidavit which I have submitted -
Yes, now I have understood. That is the affidavit by the witness Hahn, and the chart is attached and it is covered by the affidavit made out by that witness. That document I submit in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: I said the affidavit by Walter Hahn--does it identify and attach to the chart? What page is it? There are seven pages, you know. we can not find it unless you tell us.
DR. SERVATIUS: In the German text on page four.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you mean where it says, "The percentage of calories contained in this foodstuff results from the calorie schedule covering the whole war time appendix"? Is that waht you mean?
That is on page four of our copy. It is under the heading "C","Food Supply of French Prisoners of War and Italian Military Internees."
DR. SERVATIUS: That is there where I have said before, on page four in the German text, which says that the nutrition quotas were established according to the calories, and the calories can be seen from the calculations which I have made and which cover the entire duration of the war, and that is the document attached.
THE PRESIDENT: But, it is all right to say that the document is attached, but it does not refer to it by any name.
DR. SERVATIUS: But the document is attached, so that it can be seen that it must belong to it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD: Mr. President, I do not want to be contentious about this, but--maybe I do not understand--I think we ought to knew when this schedule was made, by whom. This affidavit says it was an appendix. Maybe it was made by the man Hahn, but we do not know it yet, and this witness has not testified to it, and Counsel has not told us.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Dodd, the position is this, is it not: The man named Walter Hahn made an affidavit, annexted to this chart. That affidavit is dated, I imagine-
MR. DODD: Yes, 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: -- after the affidavit had been made by this witness and replies in detail to the evidence given by this witness.
MR. DODD: Yes. What I wanted to understand fully was that this schedule, concerning which this witness is being cross examined, was apparently not made up at the time when he had responsibility for these camps, and so far it does not appear from the examination that that is so, and I think it would have great bearing on the weight of the evidence adduced through the cross-examination. he had nothing to do with thefeeding and care of these workers after they came into Germany but that it was the responsibility of the DAF. I think it might be more helpful if Counsel cleared that up so that we wouldknow whether he does admit responsibility after they came in, and whether that is the purpose of this cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President -
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. The Tribunal does not think that you need interrupt your cress examination. You can go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the Prosecution has just made that assertion as an accusation against Sauckel. If the Prosecution today is of the position that Sauckel wasnot responsible for the happenings in the industries but the management of the industries was responsible, and that he was not responsible for prisoners of war but that the armed forces were responsible, then I do not need this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on with your cross examination, please. BY DR. SERVATIUS: made some statements. You have said that they slept in the same clothes in which they had come from the East and that almost all of them lacked overcoats and were therefore forced to use their blankets and to carry their blankets in the place of coats in cold and rainy weather.
Was it always like that? Was it a general occurrence or only an individual observation? I have to state in the beginning of my activities I depended entirely upon myself. There was nobody else to work with me. rectly--only after April 1943. The phase which I intended to describe and have also described in my statements is always at the time when I started to work. At that time the conditions were in fact as I have described them, and I had to so something about it. It was also so concerning clothes, as has been stated here. as far as clothing was concerned, for quite some time, and as far as I could see, they did not receive anything at that time.
Q What was done about that?
A I reported these conditions. I do not remember when. As 1 could see, the intention was to establish tailor shops and shoe shops in the camps, and some of them were established.
Q One question. Did things get generally better in the course of your activities, or did they become worse?
A They did not become worse. After 1943, after the first heavy air raids, of course the confusion was very great. A great deal was burned up, and I may recall that during only one night, 19,000 persons lost their housing; and of course, clothes and underwear burned also, and their losses took quite some time to replace. supervision on the part of the Labor Front?
AAs I have said, I met the Labor Front only once in a camp. At that time, that commission, indeed, criticized conditions. It was in the camp at Kraemerplatz, and they wanted to have the firm of Krupp fined because of the conditions, but that was the only time that I got in touch with the Labor Front.
Q. Did the firm of Krupp object to the improvements so that the Labor Front had to do something about it?
A. What I could not say. I had no influence and didn't know about it because I only had to do with medical affairs and did not participate in meetings of the firm of Krupp or the Labor Front.
Q. Witness, you also made statements concerning the conditions of health, and you said that the supply of medical instruments, bandages, drugs, and other articles was quite unsatisfactory in these camps. Is that true or were those exceptional cases, or was it a condition which existed all the time?
A. That was the way I found the camps in 1942, and I tried to improve it. Later, of course, there was such an improvement.
Q. You are saying here that the number of eastern workers who fell sick was twice as high as the number of German workers, that tuberculosis was especially prevalent, and precentagewise there were four times as many people among eastern workers affected with tuberculosis as among Germans. Is that correct?
A. That was so in the beginning because we received the workers without any physical examination. When I went through the camps, I heard from the camp doctors, and saw for myself on the occasion of inspections, that many people were sick. The figure was considerably higher than among the Germans as far as I could see at that time.
Q. And what was done about that?
A. Then, after we found out it was tuberculosis, we were confronted with, we made examinations in large numbers, group examinations, and those affected with tuberculosis were separated from the others and put into hospitals.
Q. Then you mentioned typhus, and said that that was also widespread among the workers.
A. I said specifically that we had about 150 cases of typhus.
Q. In what period?
A. During the entire period from 1942 to 1945.
Q. How many workers did you have during that time?
A. Oh, that varied.
Q. Approximately, Give us some approximate figure.
A. Well, if I remember correctly -- but I have to make certain limitation because I don't know exactly -- there may have been 23,000, 24,000; there may have been more. Later, there were about 9,000 but these figures varied.
Q. Do you consider it correct, if 150 people of such a large bumber are affected by typhus over that period of time, to say that it was widespread among the workers?
A. Well, we had none at all among the German peopulation. Then, of course that statement was justified. If, out of a population of 400,000 or 500,000, such as it was at Essen at that time, there was no typhus at all, and if -let's take an average figure of 20,000 -- among the 20,000 we had about 150 cases, then we can say that.
Q. In other words you maintain that statement is a correct statement, that typhus was widespread. fleas and other vermin that tortured the ibhabitants of those camps. Was that true about all the camps?
A. It was the case in almost all the camps at the beginning of my work. Later on, on institution for disinfection was established by the firm of Krupp which was destroyed immediately when it started. It was rebuilt and destroyed again.
Q. You say that in cases of disease, the workers had to go to work until a camp doctor made out a certificate that they were unable to work, that in the camps at Seumannstrasse, Griperstrasse, Germaniastrasse, and KapitaenLehmannstrasse, there was no daily sick call, and at these camps the doctors not appear for two or three days; that as a consequence, workers were forced to go to work despite illness until a doctor appeared. Is that correct?
A. A worker had to work unless a camp doctor certified he was unfit for work. It was the same with the German population. I know that in many cases, if a man did not report sick he had to go to work, but there was no difference there.
Q. And you say that that was the case in the camps mentioned, that there was no daily sick call and it meant that a man could not possibly report sick?
A. Oh yes, he could. He could go to a doctor. If there were no doctors there, I had arranged that wherever possible these people should come to me in my office, to me personally.
Q. You have said here -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): I think we had better adjourn now.
(A recess was taken) BY DR. SERVATIUS: ill even when there was no doctor present, that there was another means at their disposal. You said, in this connection, that these camps were visited only every second or third day by the regular doctor. As a consequence, the workers, despite illness, had to report for work until the doctor was actually there. Is that correct?
A That is not expressed correctly. If anyone reported himself ill, he had to be taken to a doctor, or the doctor was notified. spreading of typhus. How many death cases resulted? where the case was diagnosed too late. These people who had typhus were brought into the hospital immediately, and I was the person who was responsible for their being taken to the hospital. to the regular allotment there was just a little meat prescribed, such as horse m eat or meat which was diseased or was not considered good by veterinary. Does that mean that the foreign workers received spoiled meat?
A You have to define the expression "meat that was given cut." The meat which was not given out in the regular allotments by the veterinary-- after this meat had been treated in a certain way it was entirely suitable for human consumption. Even in time of peace, and afterwards, the German population used this meat for food. During the war the German population received the same kind of meat, and they received a double allotment.
Q Then it was used as the regular allotment?
A Yes, after it had been treats. Meat which had been condemned at first, after it had been treated, was used for human consumption; and it was quite suitable.
Q Then the expression "condemned by the veterinary" means that it was used later on?
A Yes; you would have to carrect the statement to say that it was condemned in the beginning.
Street, you said the following: "This camp had been destroyed through a bombing attack and the inmates, for almost half a year, were housed in old baking ovens, in dog houses, reservoirs, and so forth." Is that correct?
Q And you saw that yourself for a half year?
A I was only there on three occasions. It was pictured to me in that way, and I found the camp in that condition, as far as I could determine at that time--it had been about four months after the destruction-it was rebuilt.
Q Witness, I am interested in the dog houses. How many of those dog houses were there? were they real, honest-to-goodness dog houses, or was that only a derogatory remark about some other kind of billets?
Q Was there a pissoir? active use?
THE PRESIDENT: We cannot understand; will you kindly go slower? BY DR. SERVATIUS?
Q Then it was a former pissoir which had been rebuilt?
A It had bot been rebuilt; itwas used just the way it had been.
Q Was this pissoir, or this latrine, still being used? robes in this camp.
A That was not the case? there were none. swear to that? was just submitted to you?
home in Kemnitz. I made some alterations, and then signed my name to this testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: please don't interrupt him. BY DR. SERVATIUS: record.
Q Do you have it before you?
Q Can you determine which places you scratched out? Were there many places like that which you scratched out, or were there just a few points?
Q And you attested to that? You swore to it?
A Yes. After I had made these changes I swore to this record.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I should like to call the attention of the High Tribunal to the fact that this testimony which we have before us now has not been sworn to. However, a statement was present at the beginning of the document, which was much shorter than this, and a number of sentences which the witness just mentioned here are lacking in the statement. I would suggest, therefore, that the prosecution be charged with the task of producing the original, or have the original submitted to the prosecution, so it can be determined and proved just what he did strike out. So far as I know, he struck out a few sentences dealing with matters which he had just testified to here before the Tribunal. were no chairs, tables, or wardrobes. That is a sentence which was struck out I should like to call your attention to the fact that at that time the witness had misgivings and he did not swear to these facts.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know what you are talking about. We have got before us what is called a sworn statement, which was put in evidence and which is signed by the witness. The witness is now saying that that statement is correct, subject to any alterations which you have extracted from him in cross-examination.
DR. SERVATIUS: He said it might be entire sentences, your Honor. I should like to ask the Prosecution to produce the original document, because I have seen two statements, one of which is a brief one, with some of these passages struck out, and the other is a complete one, such as we have before us, and about which the witness says that it has been abbreviated and sentence, struck out.
THE PRESIDENT: All that the witness is saying, isn't it, is that, it was originally submitted to him in a certain form? He made certain alteration in it. Then, when those alterations had been made -- I don't know whether it was fair-copied or not -- he then signed it and swore to it, and that is the document that we have got.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, my assertion is this: The document which we have before us does not have those sentences struck out; that is, the words which were struck out are still contained in the document.
THE PRESIDENT: You may ask the witness any question you like about it BY DE. SERVATIUS:
Q How did you make your alterations known? alterations. Of course, it is difficult, because today I am not able to say just what I did strike out at that time since I did not retain a copy of this material.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr.President, if this document which we have before us were reproduced correctly, these struck-out passages would have to be shown, especially since the witness said that he made these changes and put his initials next to the struck-out passages.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you sign the document after it had been fair-copie Witness, did you sign the document after it had been fair-copied?
You know what a fair copy is, do you not?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I will try to remember exactly, your Honor. upon three or four of these statements were signed by me. Then these records were taken away and, on the same day or the following day, I was at Essen and swore to these statements.
BY SERVATIUS:
Q Was that without any changes?
A That was without any changes. I don't exactly remember. I'm sorry.
Q And what was the cause? why did you make these alterations? interrogated me on these matters. Notes were taken and thereupon Captain Harris -- I believe it was -- compiled this record and asked that I sign it.
Q And why did youmake these alterations these strikings-off?
A Because I could not swear to those things; the things that I struck out I could not swear to.
Q Was it incorrect or was it too far afield or too extensive?
AAt that time these matters were too far afield.** I think I can put it that way. And in part, incorrect. Of course, unintentionally. But I had to make those changes, and I did make them. red the passage that you struck off, would you recognize the passage that you struck off?
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I have no further questions.
MR. DODD: I am not clear on this. I don't know whether Counsel is claiming that we have another document, one which we haven't submitted. I don't know of any such. We submitted the only one that came into our possession -
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got that original or is it with -
MR. DODD: There were a number of these made up and they were all signed as originals. The first was the copy made with the typewriter, the others carbon copies. It was a joint British-American team that interrogated the witness and this one copy was turned over to us and we submitted it. That is the only one we have ever seen.
THE PRESIDENT: I see in the certificate of translation it refers to a certificate dated 14-10-45, signed by Captain N. Webb -
MR. DODD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You will find that at the end of the document, I think.
DR. BALLAS (former Counsel forKrupp von Bohlen): As former Counsel for the defendant Krupp von Bohlen, I wish to make a statement or explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. What have you pot to do with it? We are now considering the suggestion made by Dr. Servatius that this document which we are now considering -
DR. BALLAS: I am sorry. I didn't quite follow you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We are now considering the document, D-288. You haven't anything to do with that document.
DR. BALLAS: Yes, Mr. President, it does deal withthis document.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. What right have youto speak about it? You are only a former Counsel to Krupp.
DR. BALLAS: I want to give an explanation. I want to assist with an explanation. At present I appear for Dr. Siemers, Counsel for Grand Admiral Raeder -
THE PRESIDENT: But how can youhelp us about the framing of the affidavit of this witness by the Prosecution? You can't do anything about that.
DR. BALLAS: I think I can explain the different versions of the document. shorter than the document, 288, in the case of Sauckel, which has been submitted by the Prosecution. At that time I called the attention of Dr. Servatius to this divergence and we determined point by point just how far the deviation went. There are two documents -- the original, which was submitted in the Krupp file, which is a diversion from the document whichis being presente d in the case of Sauckel.
THE PRESIDENT: But this document was signed by this witness. There may have been some other document signed which was put in the Krupp file but this witness has said that he signed this document. Therefore, it doesn't seem to me that it is material.
DR. BALLAS: It is possible, your Honor. I just wanted to call your attention to the fact that there are two different documents under the number, 286.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other member of the Defense that wants to ask questions of this witness?
(There were none.)
Then, Mr. Dodd, do you want to re-examine him?
MR. DODD: He, sir -- except that; I would like to say with respect to the Tribunal's question concerning this certificate of translation where the none, "Captain N. Webb," appears: I am informed that refers to a certificate which is attached to allBritish documents, and that is a certificate which goes along for the purpose of the translators. Undoubtedly, that is what it is. However, will have a search made in the Document Room and clear it up. It is hotter that way, but my British friends say that is so: they do send a certificate, and the only possible explanation is that it is the certificate, with a mistake in the date. But in any event, I will look into it.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the witness had the original of that affidavit put to him?
MR. DODD: I believe he has. I understood he had the one which is before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Has he acknowledged the signature?
MR. DODD: Well, I so understood. I can inquire. BY THE COURT:
Q Witness, you saw the signature ?
Q Is it your signature? BY MR. DODD: you told me that this was a statement you gave. Do you remember that? Do you recall when you and I talked, end you told me this was your statement; you looked it over and read it?
Q You read English as well as German, don't you? You have some knowledge of English. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, the document is being handed to you. It is in German, isn't it?
Q And it is signed by you, is it?
Q Is there any passage in it which you want to strike out of it?
A May I read the document first, your Honor?
A Yes (reading the document.)
Mr. DODD: While the witness is reading the document, I should like to inform the tribunal that we made a call to the Document Room and have been told by the officer there that there is only one D-288 and this is it; there is no duplicate signed, an Counsel for Krupp stated.
A (Continuing -- answering question put to him ) Yes; here there is an alteration which is set down in pencil. That is on page 2. And I struck out that. That was not written down by me.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I submit the document which the Defense Counsel for Krupp received in the beginning? This is an English document, 288 - and the passages which allegedly were crossed off are marked off by me in red. If I am permitted to submit this document, I believe it might assist in the clarification of this matter. In this version there are many strikeoffs.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, that is a different document, as I understand it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't need that. We have this document before us, signed by the witness, and we have asked him whether he has anything in it which he thinks did not form part of the original document which he signed.
A (Continuing further) Then on page 1 it says, "Conditions in all of these camps were extremely bad." I would like to limit this statement -
Q Wait a minute. Witness, we don't want to know whether you think you expressed yourself too strongly. We only want to know whether the document represents the document which you signed -- accurately represents the document which you signed. If there is anything which you want to change now, you can say what it is.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Just one or two questions I want to ask you. Were prisoners of war employed at Krupps during the time you were supervising those camps?
A Supervising the prisoner of war camps? No, I did not. That is a wrong expression. I received the permission; the prisoner of war camps were under the jurisdiction of the Wehrmacht. I received permission to visit the prisoner of war camps, and they were working for Krupp. mentioned in this, prisoners of war?
Q What sort of work was it?
A These things were not under my jurisdiction. It depended on their trade. There ware many auxiliary workers but I am not able to give you any details for I was not concerned with those matters. I was only active in my capacity as a doctor and had my commitment with the people in that capacity only.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. DODD Mr. President, I have found that certificate and it is as I described it for the Tribunal, and it is a certificate by Captain Weber of the British Army service and that he received a copy of this document from the American team; and signed by him, Captain H. Weber, IMT Corps, British Army, European sector.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that your case then,Dr. Servatius?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. There are two more witnesses, Biedermann and Mitschke. I will dispatch with both of these witnesses, Your Honor.
Then there is lacking affidavits, interrogatories, by Dr. Voss, Dr. Scharmann, and a witness by the name of Marnbach, and the witness Letsch who was an expert worker in the office of Sauckel. We have received interrogatories from the witnesses from the witnesses Darre' and Seldte but these have not been translated as yet.