"Regarding the treatment of pregnant foreign workers and children given birth to by the same in the Reich." The last sentence in the first paragraph says:
"The procedure for an application for abortion is once more explained below--" and then there are various health and racial investigations.
In paragraph 5 it says:
"If the investigations show that the progency will be racially satisfactory and hereditarily health, they will, after birth, go to homes for foreign children to be looked after by the National Socialist Welfare Organization (that is the party organization) or will be looked after by families.
"In negative cases the children will be lodged in Foreign Children's Nurseries."
And then the last paragraph:
"I request the Kreisleiters to record immediately through the usual channels, in conjunction with the Kre**obmann of the German Labor Front and the Kreis peasant leader, all cases of pregnancy which have already occurred and all children already born. An examination, in accordance with the new directives, of all children of foreign female workers who were taken under the care of the NSV before the issue of the new instructions, is also necessary."
Your Lordship will see the distribution. It is to Gauobmann of the German Labor Front, that is the representative of the DAF in the Gau, Gau propaganda chief, press chief and then the Gauamtsleiter, the person in the office of the Gau dealing with racial policy, national health, the peasantry, national welfare, questions of race, the Gau women's leadership and the Gau Labor Office and then Kreisleiters and the Kreis of the DAF and the Kreis peasant readers. It goes, also, my Lord, to the Security Police and SD and the Office of the Commissioner for the Reich Commissar for the Consolidation of German Race.
My Lord, I am very grateful to your Lordship for that. It saves a considerable amount of time.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have a question on the evidence. The last document, 205, which was submitted here, was introduced anew. The witness wasnot questioned on it at all. I had assumed that the taking of evidence had been closed and that no new documents could be introduced by the Prosecution. I ask that this document be stricken out. It should have been brought before the Commission, shown to the witness and discussed, and then I would have had an opportunity for further evidence.
It is a fundamental question which will come up repeatedly. It was not submitted to the witness to test his credibility.
THE PRESIDENT: It was not submitted to the witness because of the order that the Tribunal has just made. In Order to save time, the Tribunal suggested to Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe that he should put the document in in that way. I said -- I understood you to assent to it -- that the document should be shown to you and that you should have an appropriate opportunity to comment upon it.
DR. SERVATIUS: I knew the document, but I would like to clear up the basic question of whether the taking of evidence, the submission of evidence by the Prosecution, is closed or whether here during the trial new documents can be introduce.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal considers that the Prosecution can certainly call evidence and use documents if they wish to rebut the evidence which has been called on behalf of the organization.
DR. SERVATIUS: Without showing them to the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: The only reason for not showing it to the witness was that the document was not a document which the witness made, and in view of that it appeared to the Tribunal to be a matter of comment upon the document, and if you have got an opportunity to put the document to the witness yourself or to comment upon the document, you have got a full opportunity to deal with it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I would also, if necessary, be permitted to submit a counter-document?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. You can ask this witness anything you like about the document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the witness was at the end asked less about facts, but there was an argument. I believe I can comment on that in my final statement.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not quite understand what you said then about an argument.
DR SERVATIUS: The witness was asked about theings which he himself does not know, and the example was told him of events in individual gaus, of which he knows nothing, and he was to draw conclusions as to what interpretation was to be given to the document.
THE PRESIDENT: On general principles, you can ask him anything in reexamination which properly arises out of his cross-examination. If he was cross-examined upon a document, or if the document was put in now, in the way it has been, you can ask him any question upon the document or upon his crossexamination upon the document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes; I have a question. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, the document was shown to you, the order of the Deputy of the Fuehrer, Hess, of 13 March 1940. That is in the German Document Book on page 43. This is the instructions to the civilian population on their conduct at the landing of enemy planes or parachutists on German Reich territory. Then you were referred to Number 4, where it says that enemy parachutists are also to be arrested and made harmless immediately. Did you observe that the letter is of the year 1940, and what was the situation in the air of Germany at that time?
A. I no longer have the letter at the moment, but I remember that it was from 1940. In my first answer to this question, I wanted to say that the air situation and the whole war situation would justify only a humane interpretation of this term, as far as mistakes are possible.
Q. Was it not the case that there was a danger that planes would land for espionage purposes and that the words "to make them harmless" were in connection with that?
A. In the air war various types of people parachuted -- fliers in emergencies, sabotage agents, agents in civilian clothers, and so forth. To what group this is supposed to refer is not clearly shown by the text.
Q. May I call your attention to the following: In Number 2 it says that fliers are to be arrested immediately and that resistance or burning of the planes is to be prevented. Number 4 says that enemy parachutists are also to be arrested and made harmless. Does not the term "likewise" show that it deals primarily only with arrests?
A. I repeat that the term "unschaedlich", in 1940 in view of the war situation at that time, I would have interpreted to mean only to make them defenceless but in no case to mistreat them or to kill them.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions to put to the witness. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, were these Political Leaders paid, paid salaries by the Party?
A. Quite a small percentage -- less than 0.1 per cent were, according to my estimate, paid officials. The majority of them were honorary officials, without pay.
Q. That applies to all the ranks of the Party officials, does it?
A. No. Some of the tasks in the high offices made the free time insufficient to fulfill the necessary tasks in an honorary capacity while at the same time carrying on professional activity.
Q. Were all the Gauleiters paid?
A. After the seizure of power, yes; that is, gauleiters insofar as they did not hold a state office.
Q. And what were they paid -- how much?
A. I myself never received a salary as Gauleiter. Up to 1928 I earned my expenses myself. From 1928 on I was a parliamentary delegate, and from 1933 I was Reich Governor. The cases of most of my comrades were similar.
Q. You mean from 1933 on most of them had state offices which carried salaries?
A. Yes.
Q. And what about the Kreisleiters?
A. Up to the seizure of power, all Kreisleiters were, on principle, honorary officials without pay.
Q. And after?
A. And later the same was true for years. I estimate that the majority of them, with exceptions, from 1937 or 1938 on became officials and received salaries.
Q. Became state officials you mean?
A. No, not state officials -- Party employees.
Q. And received salaries; I see. And the lower ranks, the Ortsgruppenleiters and the Block leiters?
A. No. From Kreisleiters down they were all honorary officials.
Q. Even after 1933?
A. Yes.
Q. And after 1937?
A. Yes. The most important members of the staff were, in part, paid. The majority of the Kreisleiters' associates were honorary officials. From Ortsgruppenleiters down, including Ortsgruppenleiters, all were honorary, without pay.
Q. From what source were they paid, when they were paid?
A. By the Reich Treasurer of the Party.
Q. And from what source did he get the money to pay them?
A. From the contributions of members of the movement.
Q. The fuuds of the party were kept separate, were they?
A. The Reich treasurere had a completely separate administration of funds.
Q. Were the accounts of the party published?
A. No. I only know that occasionally at meetings the Reich treasurer occasionally made a brief report. This was not published.
Q. Was there any reference to party funds in the state budget or the state accounts?
A. No. On the contrary, I had the impression that the Reich treasurer, from the Reich insurance, from the dues of members had extremely extensive funds.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you call your next witness, Dr. Servatius?
DR. SERVATIUS: With the approval of the Court, I shall call the witness Kreisleiter Willi Meyer-Wenderborn. follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you state your full name?
A. Willi Meyer-Wenderborn.
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me: pure truth and will withhold nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
THE PRESIDENT: Sit down. BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, when were you born?
A. 24th of June 1891.
Q. You were a Kreisleiter in Cloppenburg (Oldenburg) in Gau WeserEms for twelve years?
A. Eleven years in Cloppenberg (Oldberg).
Q. That was from 1934?
A. To 1945.
Q. And you repeatedly directed the neighboring Kreis Vechta?
A. Yes.
Q. You were one and one half years Ortsgruppenleiter previously?
A. Yes.
Q. Beyond these Kries did you have any insight into conditions in other districts? Speak slowly. You must make a pause.
A. As Ortsgruppenleiter, and later as Kreisleiter I could do that, because I repeatedly met with the political leaders and with the Kriesleiters.
Q. Were you, as Kriesleiter, employed for a salary or on an honorary basis? You must make a pause and then answer.
A. The first half on an honorary basis, and later for salary.
Q. What other political leaders in the Kreisleitung recieved a salary?
A. The Kries fuhrer, manager, the propaganda leader, the training director, and the head of the treasury.
Q. Did the paid political leaders inthe Kries receive special secret instructions?
A. No. Never.
Q. Did they have a better insight into conditions?
A. The got around more than the others, and heard more.
Q. Of what persons was the Kreisleitung made up?
A. First, the main or leadership offices. These were organization, propaganda, training and personnel, and afterwards the social care and technical offices such as the Kreis peasant leader, the Obmann of the DAF, the head of the NSV, the head of the office for educators, and the head of the office for civil servants.
Q. Were the numbers of the Kreisleitung, did they become with t heir appointment members of a corps of political leaders?
A. There was not corps of political leaders. If the party member in question was appointed, when he was appointed he became a political leader.
Q. Do you know of an order from Hess according to hich the designation "political organization" or "corps of political leaders" was forbidden?
A. The designation "political organization" was forbidden by the deputy of the Fuhrer.
Q. As Kreisleiter, you held conferences in the Kreisleitung. Who took part in these conferences?
A. There were two kinds; one, in the narrow circle, that was the Kreis staff, and one in the larger framework, in which representatives of the officials took part and men who were interested in bringing up special matters.
Q. Were the contents of the conference of a purely economic character, or were political questions also discussed?
A. Primarily there were questions of social care for the inhabitants of the Kries. At the end, I mostly give a brief survey of the last few weeks.
Q. Were not critical political questions discussed and instructions given on them which made reference to the removal of resistance against the waging of a war of aggression, for example, instructions on the Jewish question, and the Church question, the union question, and the arrest of political opponents?
A. Special instructions I did not have to give. It was strictly forbidden to carry on out own politics. We hever heard anything about preparations for war. If any measures were to be taken against political opponents that was the affair of the state.
Q. What instructions were given on the Jewish question and what was the aim?
A. On the Jewish question, which did not have any great significance with us in a country Kreis, we dealt primarily with the basic subject, that is, reducing the Jewish influence to a number of Jews corresponding to their total strength in Germany. The struggle against Churches was forbiddne on principle. I did not need to give any instructions on that subject, for my men were all Catholic and had remained in the Church.
Q. How about the Jewish drives on the 9th and 10th of November 1938? What instructions were given in that case?
A. I recieved no instructions, and I faced the accomplished fact.
Then together with the Landrat I immediately freed Jews who had been arrested, and subsequently I recieved strict prohibition from my Gauleiter to employ political leaders or Party members anywhere, and that was not done by us.
Q. What instructions were give on the question of the unions, and what was the aim there?
A. This measure of the Reichsleiter on the first or second of May was a complete surprise to us, and we ourselves as politicla leaders had nothing to do with it, and no instructions were issued.
Q. What instructions did you as Kriesleiter give regarding political opponents?
A. The treatment of political opponents was primarily the task of the state organizations. If I suspected anyone of being an opponent, I brought about a discussion with him, and as a result I had to take a few measures.
Q. Was there not, in fact, such a close relationship between the state police and the Kreisleiter that, in effect, it could at any time arbitrarily carry out the arrest of political opponents?
A. It would have been good, and when I repeatedly suggested that to the Gaulieter, the Gaulieter Karoew* said that these were state measures which were not out business as poli tical leaders.
Q. Witness, you did not understand me. I wanted to ask whether you did not have the possibility to have arrests made on the basis of your close relationship with the state police.
A. No, I could not do that. I had no close relationship with the state police.
I never had occasion to have these people arrested.
Q. On the orders of the Superior Party Officers, was not a card index of opponents kept ?
A. No; we never kept such a card index.
Q. Did the Gestapo keep such a card index, and did you help them ?
A. I cannot tell you. They never told me about it. I do not know. In any case, I did not help with it.
Q. Didyou not as Kreisleiter demand reports and political judgments on the basis of a domestic card index registration file, and were these not reports of spies ?
A. There was no domestic card index registration file in my Kreis. It was intended to set oneup, but it was never done. I never demanded spy reports, and I would not have received the,. But I asked for reports on the feelings on the effective measures of the States and of the Party.
Q. And what was the purpose of these reports ?
A. We wanted to know what the effect of the new orders on the great mass of the people was.
Q. How did you receive your instructions to the Gauleiter ?
A. I received my instructions in wirting, and also orally.
Q. Did the Kreisleiters take part in conferences with the Gauleiters, and who was present at such conferences ?
A. We did not always take part; only when something was being discussed that especially interested our own particular Kreis. At the conferences of the Gauleitung, the Gauleiter and consultants took part.
Q. What was the content of these conferences ? Did that correspond to what you said a while ago about the Kreisleiter conferences ?
A. It was about the same, only on a larger scale affecting the whole of our Gau.
Q. How were the Ortsgruppenleiters instructed by you ? Was that done in the sense of the conferences in the Gau with Kreisleiters, or were false reports passed on ?
A. After conferences with the Gauleitung, I regularly informed my men about what I had heard there, and I passed that on as my Gauleiter told it to me.
Q. How was the cooperation of the SS? Were they represented in the Kresileitung ?
A. I permitted the SA to take part in our conferences. The local leaders came occasionally and listened to what we were discussing, in general.
Q. Could you give orders to the SA ?
A. I could not give any orders to the SA. I could only ask for its aid through its superior officers for any propaganda measures, labor measures,and so forth.
Q. What cooperation was there with the General SS ? Was it represented in the Kreisleitung ?
A. We had no SS fuehrer. The SS did nothing on its own initiative to be represented in the Kreisleitung.
Q. Didyou have any insight into the measures which the SS took with regard to protective custody and concentration camps ?
A. No, I had no insight into that.
Q. Did you ever attempt to obtain such insight ?
A. Yes. It was about 1935, but I did not succeed in obtaining this insight. A visit to a concentration camp, which I did not want to visit because I expected any atrocities but because it was newto me, was refused.
Q. And what reason was given ?
A. I was to get permission from the Reichsicherhietshauptamt. I told the Gauleitung that because I was not permitted to contact the Reichsicherheitshauptamt personnally. The Gauleitung then advised against it because that would be very complicated.
Q You do not know whether the Reichsicherheitshauptamt was com-
petent ? to the lynching of fliers who had made emergency landings?
A We had many emergency landings. I never is sued any instructions; I never needed to issue any instructions regarding them. which deal with this question? Did you not learn of these as Kreisleiter?
A I did not receive the Bormann letter. On the other hand, on the radio I heard the article of the Reich Propaganda Minister.
Q And then what happened in your Kreis? Was any action taken according to what Goebbels said on the radio? the men who landed there were all treated very well. That lies in the character of the whole population. prisoners of war or foreign workers, or did you permit such mistreatment?
A I could not issue instructions for prisoners of war. That was the department of the Wehrmacht. But I saw to it that foreign workers were well treated. And if a beating or some such incident occurred, then I immediately asked for the workers to be removed by the competent agency. did not reach you?
A No. On the contrary, I was asked to see to it that they were well treated. of political crisis an exception, or was that the attitude outside your Kreis, as far as you can judge? Was it generally true? even during the war. And while I was in the Fallingbosten Camp, when I helped to obtain affidavits, I reached the final conviction that what I am telling you here was generally true for those thousands.
Q You inspected and collected the affidavits?
Q Did you not reject unfavorable ones?
A No, I never did that. There were no unfavorable ones. to the church question, the Jewish question?
A We never knew of the extent of these matters; and what I did learn was not very much. It did happen that when another man had not forgotten some experience from the struggle period, and he misunderstood instructions, he performed sme act out of the ordinary, in a hot-headed manner. But in general we did not experience these incidents, and knew nothing about them.
Q Then none came to your knowledge? allow you admission to the concentration camps cause any misgivings? Certainly there were rumors about these concentration camps? to conceal crimes, but in view of the character of the SS, I assumed that it was a form of self-clarification, and they thought, "This is our business and not the business of the political leaders."
Q Did you approve the actual practice of the Party on all points? with my own Gauleiters.
Q. Did you have any serious objections ?
A. No, there were no serious objections, but after this Jewish matter in November, I had to point out what effect they would have for these abroad. I had heard that men in high positions did not approve of that at all. That gave me courage to say something myself.
Q. Did you not consider whether you should continue in your office or whether you should resign ?
A. If I had resigned I would not have improved anything. The situation world have became worse for after I had been in the Kreis for 20 years my successor would not have known my men as well, and asit was I could recogni mistakes and I could compensate for them.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you want to ask ?
DR. SERVATIUS: One or two more questions in the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal will adjourn. (The Tribunal adjourned until 1000 hours, 31 July 1946.)
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Do you consider the Blockleiter and the Zellenleiter as "Hoheitstraeger", dignitaries?
A. No.
Q. Do you know if in the organization book of the Party, the Blockleiter and the Zellenleiter are designated as dignitaries?
A. I read that but I was never able to follow it because the organization book went on assumptions which were not given. It did not exist in fact.
Q. What do you understand under the term dignitary?
A. The dignitary is the first representative of the movement within his sphere. He is entitled to give orders to his subordinate political leaders and to party members. Furthermore, his official and private conduct is to be adjusted at alll times so that non-party members and State agencies will respect him and will listen to him without legal obligations to do so.
Q. You spoke of the rights which the political leaders have. Do these Blockleiters and Zellenleiters also have these rights?
A. They didn't have them and they didn't want them.
Q. Did the Blockleiters and Zellenleiters have the power to give orders to the SA and the SS?
A. No.
Q. Then the Blockleiters and the Zellenleiters were only assistants to the Ortsgruppenleiter and had no powers of their own?
A. The Blockleiters and the Zellenleiters were the non-commissioned corps of the Ortsgruppenleiter.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions to put to this witness.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: I have some certain new documents, two or three pages, in connection with other matters. If the Tribunal wishes it I could present these documents quickly in the way the Tribunal indicated to Sir David or I could put it in the form of cross-examination. Whatever the Tribunal thinks most convenient.
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Jones, if it does not interfere with your case or cross-examination, perhaps it would be better to put the documents in, simply indicating the page or subject.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: That will be done.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is anything particular with this witness you may have.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: The first matter with which I was intending to deal is the action taken by the Leadership Corps in connection with elections, and I would refer the Tribunal to document D-43 which will become GB-540 document. I understand the Tribunal has copies of that document. That is a letter from the Kreis Organising Manager, dated 26 May 1936 and addressed to Kreisleiters and Organisationleiters. It is from the NSDAP Bremen District, and translated from the German. It refers to the Reichstag elections on 29 March 1936 and stated that in pursuance of an inquiry from the Reich Minister of the Interior, party member Dr. Frick, a report is to be made on any civil servants who did not record their votes on the 29th of March 1936. As far as such cases are know within your Ortsgruppe or your Stutzpunkt, you will report these names by the 3rd of June at the latest, of 1936. The expression, "Stutzpunkt section", this is a smaller organization than an Ortspruppe and was eventually abolished but in 1936 still existed.
"You will report them to me by name at the latest by the 3rd of June of this year. The information will have to be correct under all circumstances."
"This circular has to be destroyed immediately after this matter is settled." that is a document in connection with theplebiscite of 1938. The first point I make on that is that it shows that the activity referre to in the letter I have just mentioned was not an isolated case. cooperation between the SEcurity police and the political leaders. from the Security Service of the Reichsfuehrer SS at Erfurt, which is in Thuringia, the Gau of which Sauckel was Gauleiter. It is a "top secret", strictly confidential", addressed to all heads of sections and to Stuetzpunkleiters.
"Stuetzpunkleiters are to report not later than 1800 hours on the 7 April, 1938, all persons in their district about whom it is safe to assume (with 100% probability) that they will vote 'no' at the impending plebiscite. Do not forget the International Jehovah witnesses.
"Heads of Sections are to support the Stuetzpunkleiters locally as mcuh as possible in this matter.
"This matter is also to be carried out in closest collaboration with the Ortsgruppenleiters of the Party. The Ortsgruppenleiters will be instructed by the Aussenstellenleiter (head of the branch office) personally after 1800 hours on the 5th of April, 1938."
I think I can omit the next paragraph and then I go on:
"The tremendous responsibility which the Stuetzpunkleiters have, in particular with regard to this report, is stressed once more. The Stuetzpunkleiters must clearly understand the potential consequences for the persons contained in their report. It must be particularly strongly considered whether the persons who impart such information to the Stuetzpunkleiters and from the Stuetzpunkleiters make their inquiries are not motivated by personal reasons; even political leaders are not excepted from this.
"The confidential nature of this order is again emphasized.
"The order is to be minutely memorized and there after destroyed immediate ly. Every Stuetzpunkleiter is personally responsible to me for the complete destruction of this order." documents. On page 2 there are set out certain sections of the population about whom inquiries have got to be made and who have to be particularly watched. It will be seen in the first paragraph:
"Increased attention is to be devoted to participation in and the results of the plebiscite on 10 April, 1938, particularly in small towns and villages. It must, above all, be ascertained whether the opponents are to be sought in Marxist idealogical or opposition circles."
Then under the heading "Catholicism", I draw the attention of the Tribunal to number 2.
"Was any attitude expressed during church services and similar meetings."
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will, if it is convenient to the officers of the court, not have any further recess before one o'clock.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: My Lord, I had reached paragraph number two under "Catholicism" on the second pare of Document D-897. "Was any attitude expressed during church services and similar meetings." Perhaps I might be allowed to ask one question of the witness upon that. BY LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES:
Q. Withess, when the Ortsgruppenleiter is charges with making the report on these matters, would it be the Block end Zellenleiters that he would ask for information as to what was expressed in the various church services throughout his Ortsgruppe?
A. No.
Q. Who would it be, if it would not be the Zellenleiters?
A. For confidential information, if it had been asked, for, the Ortsgruppenleiter would have obtained for himself.
Q. The Ortsgruppenleiter would not be able to attend every church servic in hip Ortsgruppe himself. Do you think that is physically possible for any Ortsgruppenleiter?
A. No, they would not have been able to do that, but for such information they would always have had special men from whom they would have obtained advice and information.
Q. Those special men who provided them with advice and information are the Zellen and Blockleiters, are they not?
A. No, they were not.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: Very well. Well, we will leave that. The next heading is "Protestantism". I again draw attention to Paragraph 2 under that heading, "Was any attitude expressed about the Ahschluss or the Plebiscite during services?" And the next paragraph, "What comment did the Church press make?" And again the next paragraph, "Were the bolls of all religious communities rung on the evening of the 9th following the Fuehrer's speech in Vienna?"
BY LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES:
Q. witness, would it be the Block and Zellenleiters who would report whether the church bells were rung on that evening in their districts?
A. They would have been able to say that, for it they would have been rung, the Block and Zellenleiters would have heard them.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: I turn to the next page of the document, the next to the ultimate paragraph: "It is suggested that the election officials are contacted in a suitable manner where necessary. The exertion of any kind of pressure must, however, be desisted from." report from the branch office of the Security Service of Weissensee dated the 25th of April, and we begin to see how the instructions regarding the election were carried out.
"Prior to the election, Party Member Paul Fritsche completed a register of all persons suspected of voting 'No', On the election day every person included on this list received from a specially selected official a voting paper which was marked with a number imprinted by means of a colorless typewriter." Then it describes how the procedure worked.