That was a circular letter 31 July A LJG 13-3 of the Gau Cologne-Aachen, 1941.
That was the speech in which a card index of households was mentioned. Do you know whether in your sphere such card indexes of households were kept of the some content that was mentioned here?
A I know only card indexes of all inhabitants. And inhabitants were listed according to name, family status, birth, profession, and membership in the Party or branch. Other essential questions were not asked and not answered on these cards. exaggeration?
A Up to now, I have no knowledge of this order. If it had been general for all Ortsgruppen in Germany, it would have had to be announced and carried out by us, too. As such an excessive order was issued in the Gau of Cologne-Aachen, it was only the Gauleiter or the Gau organizational leader who was responsible for that, and it was certainly an exaggerated interpretation of the situation on his part. of Pettau of the 30 the of April, 1942. It was addressed to all Ortsgruppenleiters and came from the Kreisfuehrer. It concerns the removal of Yugoslavian signs. Did you have any knowledge of such things abroad? city, and only after 1918 became part of Yugoslavia?
Q Pottau. You cannot answer?
Q Then there is a speech by Dr. Prick to Reichstatthalter Rainer. It refers to conditions in the now border Gau. Were you informed about these circumstances:
of Gauleiter Ueberreither, which also refer to the border Gau 31 July A LJG 13-4 and Yugoslavia which borders on it.
What can you testify on these things?
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions to put to this witness. BY THE PRESIDENT: foreign labor?
Q Who did?
Q Did you not know anybody who was employing slave labor? Germany, was there not?
A Certainly. There were many foreign workers in Germany who were occupied in factories.
Q And also in private houses? homes as maids.
Q. What I asked you was, did you have anything to do with the placing of that foreign labor within factories, or in offices, or in workshops, or in private home?
A. I had nothing to do with it in any sense.
Q. Do you know what officials did have to do with the placing of such labor
A. I do not know that. I was never interested in it.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness can retire.
DR. SERVATIUS: With the permission of the Court, I will call the last witness Hupfauer. He is for the technical offices, especially the German Labor Front.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?
WITNESS: Dr. Thee Hupfauer.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me. pur turth, and will with hold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. SERVATIUS
Q. Witness, when were you born?
A. On July 17, 1906
Q. You were, for 8 years, from 1936 to 1944, a political leader in the Supreme office of the D.A.F., the German Labor Front, the Central Bureau with Dr. Ley, and after that, up to 1945 you were liaison man between the Armament Ministry of Minister Speer and the German Labor Front, is that correct? lated the question.
A. Up to 1944, I was Office Chief Am*---*ter for the German Labor Front.
Q. And as such a political leader?
A. As such a position leader up to by appointment.
From 1942 on, I was liaison man of the German Labor Front to the armament ministry and from the end of 1944, I was chief of the Central Bureau in the Armament industry.
Q. Was the German Labor Front an organization affiliated to the Party for the political leadership was through the Party itself, wasn't it?
A. The German Labor Front was an organization with organizational, financial, and personnel, independence. It was annexed to the Party. The tasks of the Political Leadership were up to the Party itself.
Q. Did the leaders of the D.A.F. who were political leaders have political tasks and were they Political leaders for that reason?
A. The leaders of the D.A.F. had purely political tasks. Those leaders of the D.A.F. were political leaders who were appointed as such.
Q. The German Labor Front was represented in the Gau. Kreis, and Ortsgruppen by so-called Obmaenner. Were these Obmaenner connected with the Party Staff Political Leaders?
A. These Obmaenner were political leaders only insofar as they were appointed as such.
Q. Were there, in the German Labor Front, political leaders who were not active in the Party staff?
A. In the Party Staff only the local Obmaenner were active. All functionaries of the D.A.F. who were political leaders had no office in the Party.
Q. Was the number of those who had no office but were nevertheless political leaders in the D.A.F. very great?
A. The majority of the functionaries who were political leaders held no office in the party/
Q. Can you estimate approximately how many people there were?
A. I cannot give a figure nor can I give a percentage, but in the office which I had charge of, it was by far the majority.
Q. What was the activity and the task of these political leaders who were on the staff?
A. The political leaders who were not on the Party Staff had the same tasks as these who were on the Party Staff, especially these with the socially political technical tasks.
Q. Persons who had an office in the D.A.F. were called Amtswalter, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Were all of these Amtswalter at the same time appointed as political leaders?
A. No, only part of the Amtswalter were appointed. For example, it could happen and it did happen that if there were two functionaries who directed equally important offices, one was a political leader and the other was not. It also happened that the superior did not have a rank of a political leader and his subordinate was a political leader.
Q. What was the purpose of the appointment as political leaders of such officials? Did they receive special tasks and special rights?
A. With the appointment as political leader special tasks and special rights were not connected.
Q. What was the sense of appointing them?
A. That was essentially for representational purposes and, in effect, it was connected with the authority of the Party toward the economy and the State but was not connected with the office, as such.
Q. What was the activity of the political leaders as Obmaenner in the Party staff?
A. The Obmaenner who were political leaders in the Party staff, in their own specialized fields, had to advise the Hoheitstraeger.
Q. What was the numerical relationship of the political leaders of the D.A.F. to the total number of all political leaders. Did the constitute a considerable part?
A. The D.A.F. was an organization including about 20,000,000 people. The organization, therefore, went down to the Ortsgruppen and to the factories and therefore it had a large number of functionaries and therefore a large part of these functionaries were political leaders. This explains the fact that the majority of all the political leaders belonged to the D.A.F.
Q. The D.A.F. was a so-called affiliated formation. Are you in a position to give information on the position of the political leaders in other organizations in other groups?
A. As Amtsleiter to the D.A.F., I of course was in contact with the functionaries of other organizations. I can therefore, not in detail but basically, give information on these organizations.
Q. Was the position of the political leaders in these professional and technical organizations and in the social organizations regulated in the same way as in the D.A.F.?
A. It was essentially organized in the same way; that is, the local leaders of these formations were also anchored in the Party. They had no tasks of political leadership, but as leaders of organizations they had to represent the interests of their members.
Q. Within this specialized formation, were there political leaders who were not active in the Party agencies, for example, in the N.S.V.?
A. There also there were political leaders who were not on the Party staff.
Q. Can you give the most important of these specialized formations, professional organizations, and the corresponding offices in the Gau, Kreis and Ortsgruppenleitung?
A. The following formations and their corresponding offices I recall: The N.S.V. was the office for Peoples' Welfare; the League of Teachers was the office for education; the League of German Technicians was the office for technique; the League of Lawyers was the legal office.
Q. These offices which you have added in each case are established in the Party Staff?
A. These offices are established in the I Party staff and were, as a result, directed by the local leader of the organization as the attached organization.
Q. What were the tasks of these political leaders?
A. The tasks of these political leaders were also specialized tasks and not political leadership tasks. They were to represent the interests of their members.
Q. What was the numerical relationship of these politicsl leaders of the specialized groups, those who sat on the Party staff as heads of these offices, including those who were in theformation? Was that also a great number?
A. The number depended essentially on the size of the organization.
Q. What was probably the greatest of those mentioned?
A. Of the organizations which I mentioned, a section of D.A.F. the greatest was the N.S.V.
Q. Did the German Labor Front, in the year 1933, destroy the trade unions?
A. On the 2nd of May, 1933, the German Labor Grant did not exist at all. There were functionaries of the National Socialist, Betriebszellen, organization called N.S.B.O., which did not destroy the unions at that time but took over the leadership of the unions and continued their work.
Q. What was the purpose of this measure, to break the resistance of the workers against the Party and to remove internal opposition to the policy of a war of aggression?
A. In May, 1933, the first visible effects for the German worker were felt in the removal of the unemployment of millions. The situation was that the German workers were again sure of getting work and broad. Therefore, there can be no question of any resistance of these workers against the party. The foundation of the D.A.F. was for the following purpose: In the first place, it was necessary to be able to carry out economic reconstruction without interference and to regulate the labor market and interference by the labor struggles which interfered with social economy, such as strikes and shutouts. Therefore, it was necessary to adjust the interests of employees and employers. This was best done in a joint organization of employers and employees. time?
A. The employers' organizations were also dissolved with the purpose of the creation of a joint organization to remove the class struggle and best to create the essential prerequisites for the establishment of a really socialistic order.
Q. Were not the unions taken over by force with the use of the SA, SS and Police, and were not the union leaders arrested?
A. On the 2nd of May, through Police, or auxiliary police measure in which SA and SS men and Stahlhelm men participated, for a short time union leaders were arrested. This measure was for the purpose, at this moment, of preventing misuse of the still existing union funds, so that work could be carried on in these organization.
Q. Did the National Socialist N.S.B.O. organization then claim the funds which were confiscated for itself and what did it do with it?
A. These union funds were not confiscated for purposes of the N.S.B.O. This organization financed itself from the dues of its members. The funds of the unions were used in order to carry on the social work, and it was furthermore used in order to preserve the long-standing legal claims of the union members; that is the invalids, sick, deaths, support, and so forth, it continued to be paid to these union members.
Q. Did the unions have extensive funds at that time?
A. In '33 was the end of the economic crisis which began in 1930. This economic crisis, of course, had a negative effect on the unions. It is certain that, because of the unemployment of millions, the recruitment of union members was constantly becoming loss and old members of these unions were becoming unemployed in greater numbers so that a great percentage of them could no longer pay their dues; also, a great percentage of them had to draw upon the funds of the union, which depleted the funds.
Q. Did not Dr. Ley himself admit that he used the funds of the unions illegally and had one foot in prison if the ?Fuehrer did not give legal sanction to the confiscation of the funds?
A. If I recall correctly, Dr. Ley made the statement at a Party rally here in Nurnberg, in a report on the achievement of the German Labor Front. He wanted to express it by saying this, that he was interested in having this confiscation of the funds, which took place in the course of a political action, sanctioned legally.
In the same speach, he speaks of the recruitment of the German Labor Front which had already bear shown and proved that these funds were used in the interest of the German workers. Front not to obtain an instrument to fight against the peace will of the workers?
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't this all contained in the summary?
Dr. SERVATIUS: I did not see this summary; I do not know it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it extends over six or seven pages.
Dr. SERVATIUS: I did not see it.
THE PRESIDENT: No, but at any rate, isn't it all gone into in the evidence the witness gave before the Commission?
DR. SERVATIUS: Only partially; it is unavoidable that certain things had to be brought out here again. I have endeavored to summarize them, to give an overall picture. In a few more minutes I will be through with the union and then I will come to the subject of the care for foreign workers. BY DR . SARVATIUS: through the DAF; did they not protest against the change? that the German Labor Front worked in the interest of its members and of German workers as a whole. a war of aggression?
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness cannot hear.
THE WITNESS: I did not hear the question. BY DR. SERVATIUS: a a war of aggression?
instructing the DAF in any way in connection with the war of aggression. caring of foreign workers? as 1939 voluntarily took over the care of foreign workers. those foreign workers who camt to Germany during the war and particularly those who came compulsorily. care of all foreign workers.
Q What was the task of the DAF? Ported the work of the factory managers who, according to law, had to care for their workers. Furthermore, through its own measures, tried to lighten the task of the factory manager.
Q Did the Labor Front fulfill this duty? difficult, especially in those districts which were the targets of enemy bombers but I can explain that the German Labor Front did everything humanly possible to care for those workers. raids on the Rhur, you mere employed there, especially by the Labor Front, in order to carry out the difficult special-care measures; is that correct? the Ruhr myself so that in spite of the air raids, the production of industrial workers would be maintained for this is purpose--I was to support the competent local agencies. Krupp firm in Essen?
Krupp's but I can give information about the essential things since, I, myself, visited the Krupp concerns in part two or three times during this period. the whole?
A. On the whole, there were two things that had to be taken care of, food and lodging of the workers; since Krupp as well as the City of Essen were repeatedly attacked by bombers with serious damage, this concern was working under extraordinaril difficult conditions. It was often necessary through institutions beyond the concern; that is, the DAF, the Provisional Economic Office and such, to help the concerns.
Q A report of Dr. Jaeger was shown you in the Commission a document D-288, and mistreatment of workers is indicated there. Does this report correspond to the facts as you found them? extent this report of Dr. Jaeger corresponda to the facts. On the basis of my own experience, however I had the impression that in many points things were presented with some exaggeration certainly by Dr. Jaeger, with the good intention of influencing the agencies which were to help him. I recall that Dr. Jaeger once said that the foreign workers received only a thousand calories. I can say one thing. Even during the war in Germany, even for normal consumers there was no ration of only a thousand calories a day.
Q Can the conditions which Dr. Jaeger describes of a few camps be extended to all the camps of the Krupp firm?
A Dr. Jaeger, as far as I recall, describes two camps and describes only individual occurances in those camps. Conditions were difficult at Krupp's. These cases cannot be applies to all camps. If Dr. Jaeger points out that in one barracks in prticular it rained in for weeks, I can only say that in the City of Essen it rained for weeks and into thousands of houses and the people were happy there; people were lucky who had any shelter at all even if the rein bothered them a little.
regarding the treatment of the workers at Krupp's. Do these give an approximate picture of conditions throughout the Reich?
A I have the following to say to that. In the Reich we had tens of thousands of medium-sized and large concerns. The conditions found in Essen, even if they are true, cannot be considered in general as a norm for the treatment of foreign workers in Germany.
Q. Were security measures taken so that no unsuitable elements would be cared for by the German Labor Front?
A. The German Labor Front from the Reich level as well as the Gau level and in the Kreis level, had an office that was the Office Labor Commitment which dealt exclusively with these questions of foreigners. All orders direct to the agencies and to the concerns by this office repeatedly deal in some form with the necessity for correct and just treatment for reasons of humanity as well as for reasons of production. I would like to add something. To prevent men who had in any wasy misused their powers, who should not come into contact any more with the foreign workers, this Office Labor Commitment had a so-called card index of the camp, to warn camp leaders, which were issued to the Kreises and Gaus. This list contained the names of all men who had misused their powers. It also listed the punishment which they had received for doing so and it said that they were no longer to be used as camp leaders.
Q. And were orders issued, ordering correct treatment and, for example, prohibiting punishment by beating? Does this not show that such orders were necessary and mistreatments general?
A. In every organization there are social elements. I do not deny that here and there a functionary of the German Labor Front misused his powers. This fact was the occasion for such an order. On the other hand, this order is to be considered a collection of all the many decrees which had been issued up to that time. One can say the following about that: In every cultured state there are laws prohibiting murder, robbery and so forth.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to go into all these details?
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, it is only because this question was repeatedly asked the witness in the Commission. That is why I wanted to present it to the Court once. I do not see what great interest the prosecution has in this question but it repeated it many times. Then I shall go on to the next question.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. What happened to the guards supervising and executing the orders about social care?
A. Aside from the Office Labor Commitment which was responsible for the care of these workers, which I have already mentioned, D.r Ley, within the German Labor Front, set up a so-called camp inspectorate which was under the direction of a DAF functionary and had the task outside the jurisdiction of the Labor Commitment Office to inspect the camps of foreigners and to maintain order if there was any disorder. This arrangement served the tactic purpose of preventing other organs aside from the DAF in dealing with this question.
Q. Were you yourself able to observe anything about the inhumane treatment of workers, or were any such mistreatments reported to you? You travelled, around to the different places. What was your total impression?
A. These things were not reported directly to me since I was not the competent office chief for these matters, but as deputy for the German factori I was in hundreds of factories and camps. I must say that aside from individual cases, things were in order there.
Dr. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I have no more questions to put to this witness and I have examined all my witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken) BY LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES:
Q. Witness, I want to ask you one question on the expert staff Officers of the Gau, Kreis, and Ortsgruppenleiters. Do they come under their respective Hoheitstraegers on the matters of discipline? Did you hear that question?
A. Yes, I did. Each of the functionaries of the German Labor Front had to obey the orders of his immediate superior as well as discipline. I personally was out side the DAF. I was subordinate to the leader of the German Labor Front. He was the only one who could call me in the office or remove me from office.
Q. The expert, for instance the DAF representative, on the Gau Staff, received his professional technical instructions from his DAF superior, is that correct? Is it not?
A. I personally, as well as the others, received the directions and instructions from the superiors.
Q. I am sure you can answer my question yes or no. The point I am putting is this. Although you received your professional or expert instruction from your DAF superior, you were also subordinate, were you not, to the Hoheitstraeger of your staff in all matters on discipline and matters connected with the party?
A. If anyone was a political leader, he of course was subordinate to the party discipline, and he only concerned himself with those things which belonged to his sphere of activity.
Q. One question about the political leaders of the DAF. A political leader in the DAF, was he sworn in as a political leader in the same way as any other political leader was sworn in?
A. A political leader of the DAF took his oath to the Fuehrer.
Q. Did he also receive a special certificate or identity card which was issued to all other political leaders?
A. Yes, he did, he received a certificate stating his rank.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: This witness was cross-examined before the commission, and I would like to draw the Tribunal's attention to one new document which was not put to him, and two others which deal with the DAF particularly. The first one is a new document, D-338, which will be handed up to the Tribunal. It is a report of the conditions in the sick bay hut in one of the Krupp Camps. My purpose in putting it in is that it is addressed to the KVD and the Gauamstsleiter Doctor Heinz.
Q. Witness, is the KVD the association of Doctors and Physicians?
A. That is an Association of physicians - a panel - but the organization for the physicians was the Aerstebund League of Physicians.
Q. It is an association of doctors. Is theGauamstsleiter, Doctor Heinz, would you presume from that document, that he was an expert nonpolitical political leiter on the Gau staff concerned with medical matters?
A. The position that he held is not noted here, but I assume it was the some person, yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH_JONES: My Lord, the Tribunal will find --
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number?
LT. COL GRIFFITH JONES: I beg your pardon - GB-547. The next document will be found on page 19 of the Tribunal document book. It is a document which has been put in and I am not certain whether or not it was read to the Tribunal, and I would particularly refer to the penultimate paragraph on the first page which is of considerable importance in connection with the DAF.
It is a report by one of the Krupp officers. It is an original German document and it refers to a discussion which that gentleman had with three members of the DAF in connection with the food which he was trying to get for the starving Russian Prisoners of War and Russian laborers.
but perhpas I may be allowed to read the one paragraph describing that point
THE PRESIDENT: The Document has been read.
LT COL GRIFFITH JONES: I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the decree for Ensuring the Discipline and Output of Foreign workers, which had been passed by the DAF, it will be found on pages nine and ten - Document D-226 -US 697, perhaps I might ask the witness one question on this. BY LT COL GRIFFITH JONES:
Q. Witness, will you look at that document and the covering letter, which is dated November 10, 1944. Is this letter signed by yourself ?
A. Yes.
Q. On page 10, it will be seen that it is a covering letter, enclosing a decree on the employment of foreign labor, in which it says :"It is of particular importance that not only the present good out put should be secured, but also that further working reserves should be freed, which, without doubt, can still be obtained from these millions of foreign workers.
It then goes on to say in paragraph 2 :"All men and women of the NSDAP, its subsidiaries and affiliated bodies in the works, will, in accordance with instructions from the Kreisleiters be warned by their Ortsgruppen leaders, and be put under obligation." the Party, the State and Industry, with departments of the Secret Police is absolutely necessary for this purpose.
I now read the last three lines of paragraph 2-b :"Party members, both men and women, and members of Party organization and affiliated bodies must be expected more than ever before, to conduct themselves in an examplary manner."
At the bottom of the page will be seen :"The Gau Trustee of the DAF will issue detailed instructions in cooperation with the Gau Propaganda leader an the lader of the Gau department for Social Questions." of cooperation between the political leaders, the Kreisleiters and the Gestapo.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are who further questions, the witness may retire.
Dr. Servatius, you may make such comments as you wish on your documents
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I do not have the documents at hand and they have not been translated; therefore, they cannot be presented to the Tribunal. I would suggest that first of all the witnesses be examined and then the Documents will be ready and I will submit them at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: We have the books ourselves.
DR. SERVATIUS: It is not only the Document books that we are concerned with, but the affidavits are not at hand. I do not have them myself and they have not been translated. That is the way I interpreted the decision and I shall take care of the matter in the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be convenient to submit some of these documents in these two document books now and leave the affidavits until later on ?
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not have the affidavits with me and I have not prepared myself on this matter. It would not be an orderly presentation and I should prefer to submit them some other time.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, the Tribunal will go on to the evidence for the next organization.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, when shall I sumbit this matter ? After the evidence for the next organization, or after all witnesses have been heard ?
THE PRESIDENT: After the next one, I should tink.
DR. SERVATIUS: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the next organization we will deal with ?
DR. MERKEL: On behalf of the Secret State Police - the Gestapo.
Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal, first of all I should like to submit my two document books, one containing numbers one to thirty and the other containing thirty one to sixty two.
Mr. President, shall I confine my point of view to the individual documents now or after the witness is heard ?