The following is said here, "In order to be able to oppose the formation of any kind of rumors in this connection, which often have a distinctly marked tendency, the following statements on the present state of affairs are made:"
On the next page a statement is made of what is intended. First, to force the Jews out of the individual fields of life of the German people. Second, the effort to expel the enemy completely from the Reich territory.
The next document is No.50. It deals with the idea of conspiracy. Here the well known Fuehrer principle is shown.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: I am sorry to interrupt, but before Dr. Servatius leaves that document, I wish to say something. The Prosecution attached considerable importance to document in the book. It is on page 54. Part way down in paragraph two, it says the elimination of the Jews is no longer possible by emigration. I particularly draw the attention of the Tribunal to the last sentence on the following page which is in "It is in the nature of the matter that these partly very difficult problems will in the interest of the final protection of our people only be solved with ruthless severity." the "Remarks" column "Open only for G. and K." Dr. Servatius will correct me if I am wrong. I presume that means for Gau and Kreis.
DR. SERVATIUS: I assume that the note "Open only for G. and K." means what the Prosecutor has said, Gau and Kreis, but now I should lake to read the whole document since only then can the complete sense be shown. If it is said that there is no longer any possibility for emigration, the document shows that a settlement area in the East is to be created.
of removal should be carried out with ruthless severity. that they are to be exterminated. is the correct interpretation of the meaning. Fuehrer was entirely in charge; that measures which seemed peculiar to every German, the giving up of southern Tyrol were permitted as no objection was permissable.
Document 51 on page 57 is to the same effect. It is a cirdular issued by the Party Chancellery of November 1942. It states that there can be "only one binding party opinion" and refers to the earlier decree.
Document 52 on page 58 is to be understood in the same sense. It states that the Hoheitsraeger are to act in accordance with the directives received from the Fuehrer.
Document 53 on page 60 deals with the position of Bormann. It is stated here and I quote:
"For years the Fuehrer has customarily empowered the Reichsleiter Martin Bormann with current special commissions of the most different kinds which do not fall into the regular field of Reichsleiter martin Bormann's activities in his capacity of Chief of the Party Chancellery but which concern affairs outside of the Party's framework in regard to which instructions and opinions of the Fuehrer have to be transmitted in the Fuehrer's name to various leading personalities of the state and governmental agencies." capacity as secretary of the Fuehrer, for example the subject of euthansia. as to differences of opinion among the leading Party members, as to the formation of cliques, if such, and how they are to be prevented. explains the next document. This explains document 56, wherein the Hoheitstraegers are classified but in a somewhat different way since they do not have any territory of their own and they are only given the rank of deputy Gauleiter.
It is the same with the Kreisleiter. Ortsgruppen and Stuetzpunkleiter. socialism is no export commodity. It says that it cannot be a task that it be transmitted to foreign nations indiscriminately. the year 1942. It says the following:
"Any communications of members of offices of the movement here or abroad with political or allegedly non-political groups of other states is determined exclusive by the relation of those groups to their own governments with whom the German Reich entertains friendlt relations. Any communication with such groups has to be discontinued without any exception if they do not support their official government or even cause it difficulties. This is also valid when these groups call themselves National Socialist or Fascist." 4 November, 1942 by Hitler. It says the following; that the bringing together of peoples demands factual consideration of their natural qualities.
"The NSDAP and its organization, therefore, have not to fulfill any European or world-wide missionary task."
THE PRESIDENT: perhaps that would be a good time to break off.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal appreciates the way in which you are dealing with these documents; but, at the same time, aren't you going ever some ground which you will have to cover in your final speech?
DR. SERVATIUS : Its, Mr. President; but in my final summation I shall not touch upon these questions, for first of all they have to be submitted and it has seemed to be very useful.
THE PRESIDENT : So far as the formal submission or offering of evidence is concerned, that can be done more shortly If you are going to deal with the substance of the documents in your final speech, it isn't necessary to take up time and give us the substance of the document when you offer them in evidence. If you are going to deal adequately with it subsequently for your own purposes in your final speech, it means that you will do it twice ever.
DR. SERVATIUS : Yes, Mr. President, The same questions will reappear once more with the affidavit that I am going to present when I complete them as the discussion of these matters, for in my final summation I am to be very brief and refer only to them with a certain few words.
THE PRESIDENT : I expect you to offer the documents now in evidence without dealing with the substance of them and then to deal with the substance in your final speech.
DR. SERVATIUS : Mr. President, in my final summation speech, it has been completed already and these matters are very brief. Considering the fact that I would perhaps be able to submit the material now in the beginning, I hold a different view at that time when it was established that the documents were to be introduced; and to refer to them in the final summation, in that case my final summation would have been built up in a different way from the way in which I developed it now.
THE PRESIDENT : You will try to help the Tribunal, am sure, by being as short as you can.
DR. SERVATIUS : Yes indeed. Document Book Number 2, begins with Document Number 68 and concerns itself first of all with the question of coercion to assume an office. First of all, there is a complete directive, with which every member of the party is compelled to collaborate. question, and Document No. 62 has again confirmed the fact that in the profession activity you are obligated to work for the Party and in the main members of the Party who without giving sufficient reason, refuse to take party office in that way are acting contrary to the interests of the party and are to be punished by prosecution in court. consolidation of state and Party, this refusal will be punished by the state. In paragraph 5 it says in addition to the regular punishment arrest may be made and applied. Here physical coercion in the form of arrest begins. tion of the party to be public law. This is Document No. 63. On page 77 the practical conclusion is drawn, that whoever acts contrary to the best of these endeavors can be expelled from the party for lack of interest place where someone did not wish to take over an office. In Page 82, dismissal has been mentioned, There was an appeal in this matter. Document 64 contains a judgment of the highest party court where someone was expelled from the party for he deliberately carried his office through poorly in order that he would be dismissed from his post.
Of special significance is Document 65. There it is expulsion from the Party as the highest punishment; and it says, "The Reichsleiter Buch has repeatedly emphasized that among certain circumstances this means the loss of all means of existence and of prestige"; and especially everyone knows that a certain, definite punishment of a certain duration will come to an end; but that also means that he will be an outcast, together with his work, together with his family, and that he can no longer work.
In Document No. 66 conclusions are drawn for officials who were expelled. Their appointments can be nullified. Then there are several documents dealing with the coercion exerted on officials and employees. This document is 67, which is given by the Bavarian State Government, saying what will happen in case a person refuses an office.
Document No. 68 is a copy of a directive given out by the Ministry of the Interior: and this follows the same line as approval, Where he was active and what he did for the party and how he was active politically. State Ministry for Education and Culture, dealing with upper Franconia and middle Franconia, teachers here to be mentioned by name whose conduct is unpleasant. a collaboration and work in the party. Document No. 71 deals with officials; and it says that they can no longer remain an official after they have left the Party. The least that the official can count on is that his promotion will not be carried through, and it states that he be notified about the decision of the exclusion from the party.
Then Document No. 72 deals with professional coordination Were it Is emphasized that the chief offices are subordinate to the functionary of the party. Document 73 segregates certain officials who deal with the party treasury.
Document 74 again shows the segregated development of the finance system from the regular political system. finance and political finance administration, and the dismissal of finance exports from the staff of the Gau leadership. In Document 75 it sets down that the treasurers of the party are round follow the instructions of the Gau treasurer and are only responsible to him.
Document No. 76 deals with offenses involving Party property. Document No. 77 shows the organization of the various offices in the staff. Here the political leadership, administration and party courts are separated according to this document. Document No. 78 again deals with the separation of the Gau treasury leaders. Document No. 79 again deals with the topic of the organization within the staff in the various spheres of responsibility. proceedings. Document 81 is of significance in so far as the party courts are put outside the party organization and are independent due to the fact that the party judges are not political leaders. Document 82 deals with the position of the party court and judge. It says here that he is only subordinate to the Fuehrer and his in therefore not a political leader. First of all, we find the commentary given by Feder with reference to the party's program. There as far as cultural policies are concerned, it is stated that attacks on Christianity are to be avoid because they are to be considered blunt and tactless; and at the end it is emphasized that the party is holding its stand on the basis of Christianity.
tail as a party commentary It emphasizes how the attitude is to be taken towards church matters, practically under points 27 and 20, "full religious liberty and freedom of conscience, special protection of the Christian confession, the elimination of theological documents which would be contrary to the German moral and so forth.
In document 85 the Party turns against the so-called "Votan Kult" and turns it down. of opinion of the church, and it specifically says that any political or police interference is to be dispensed with. This is a document dating back to the year 1933. Bishop Mueller. This is a directive of Hess dating back to the year 1953, according to which freedom of conscience is advocated. opposed to interference in Church matters. It states that they are to stay out of these church problems and that no isolated actions are to be taken against churches. 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 certain creeds, Deutsche Glaubensbewegung, and Deutsche Gotterkenntnis (Haus Luddendorf). against the attempt to bring about a substitute for religious services by means of certain celebrations of their own. who assumes a church office cannot be called to account for his actions, but rather, he has to be left alone and unmolested. individual may not be stopped in any way, but that only in a body can church questions be dealt with. Then We come to the treatment of theology students and that any polemic on church problems is to be avoided in line with the Labor Service.
Document 93 deals with the book "The Myth". There was no special stigma attached to it.
Document 94 deals with the lynching problem. Here the Japanese measures are referred to where fliers were sentenced to death -- that is, fliers who had carried out bombings there. The fact is rejected that a similar trend of thought would apply in Germany.
This is the year 1942.
Document 95 deals with the treatment of prisoners of war. It states that they were to receive sufficient food and that their treatment would have to be severe but not brutal, that it would have to be just and decent. Germany. This is a circular, which was given out by the Reich Party Leadership to those various offices. It says that they were to be fed properly, would have to be treated properly, and that they could not be confused with prisoners of war. and it deals with the problem or whether their own clergymen could be used. pregnancies of female Eastern workers. This is confidential information given out by the Party Chancellery, and it states that only with the approval of the worker employed may an interruption of pregnancy like that be carried out; that is, only at the express wish of the pregnant woman may the pregnancy be interrupted.
Document 99 deals with custody. There must be conformity with the general interest, and it is to be considered only in the severest cases. This is a circular addressed to the Kreisleiters. families, and the prisoners themselves, after their release. The curious fact is shown here that the families of the political prisoners who are in the concentration camps are taken care of as far as their economic needs are concerned, as well as their political needs. Then, after their return, the economic care of the inmates released from concentration camps is a matter that has to be taken care of. that terror actions against Jews are to be avoided as provocations for matters like this being used abroad raid having to be called lies. stressed those matters in connection with trade unions. applications have been granted me.
Document 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. of the Gestapo at Dusseldorf, dealing with the mistreatment of foreign workers. In that document all abuses are prohibited, and a special court is mentioned according to which the guarding personnel were punished if they deprived people of liberty and mistreated them.
Thus, Mr. President, I have submitted all the 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, sir. these 64 affidavits which are granted to me. I should like to proceed new with that list. to the High Tribunal. Up until now we have only had this document in the English language. who had been a Block Leader. He deposes on the subject of how he had to take over this office and what was to be done there. He gives particulars, and he mentions the significance of the organization book, which plays a part in so far as many conclusions are drawn about the size of the organization and about the activity of the various members. This book was only a draft, and was to be a working basis rather than a final Party solution.
Document number 2 has not been translated. It may be found in the transcript of 16 July 1946 before the first Commission hearings, page 3227 of the German text. This is the testimony of a Kriminalobersekretaer of Munich, who mentions how he was taken over and then turned down as unreliable, but later on used 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 political dignitary, Hoheitstraeger. That answers various questions.
3229. This is a personal employs who was a Block Leader for eight years.
Then we turn to Affidavit No. 4 to be found on the same page. This is deposed by a man who was active in a small city for ten years as a Block Leader and who was a former member of the Trade Unions. He deposes on NSDAP activity. Be also deals with the card index system which was kept of the inhabitants and he deals with the orders and instructions that he received.
Affidavit No. 5 emmanates from a man 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 made, restaurant keepers, inn keepers, tailors and so forth.
Now I shall turn to Affidavit No. 6, which has been translated. This is the testimony given by an official from Stuttgart. He Heals with conditions before the war and defines the views held by a Block Leader and his attitude in that connection.
Affidavit No 7 has not been translated. It may be found in the transcript of the Commission, page 3233. This witness was a war Block Leader and a graduate engineer. He defines his attitude on the card index system and, in a picturesque way, describes how a Block Leader in that region acted. He mentions everything from the collection of Party dues to the removal of snow and covers the entire sphere of activities with which he had to be familiar.
No. 10 is the testimony of a Zellenleiter, who deals with the relationship with the Church in the district of Cologne, and says that at the erection of this Cell they were all members of the Evangelical Church; that his father was a member of the Church and that in the neighborhood theologians appeared as speakers; however, that everything changed with the year 1935 with the origin of the German Christian movement.
Document 11 has been translated. It comes from a Kreisamtleiter -- than is some professional man, professional official with the district of Cologne. It deals with the card index system.
I omitted Document No. 9 -- I skipped it before. It comes from Prague and Oldenburg and deals with matters generally.
Now I should like to refer to Affidavit No. 16 and must make a correct I repeatedly refer to these documents as "documents", which may bring about arrant confusion. Documents are in the document book whereas the affidavit have been numbered separately and specially.
Affidavit No. 12 was made by a toolmaker who was organized in a toolmakers' union and who knows 200 Block Leaders. Above all, it deals with the question of the nomination and confirmation of a political leader, that this hardly took place.
Then Affidavit No. 18 was deposed by a Cell Leader in Bremen who was a higher inspector. He deals with the question of coercion as to the taking over of office. He says that the had to fill out questionnaires which were incorporated into his personal files and records.
Affidavit No. 19 was deposed by a Block and Cell Leader at Hamburg and he deals with the question of whether functionary is a Hoheitstraeger on and in detail concerns itself with these facts which led to make up the judgement.
Affidavit No. 20 comes from Berlin and it shows the activities there in the metropolis; the collection of winter health contributions, other contributions, the distribution of pamphlets, and so forth. It also deals with the question of information about certain individuals and the carrying through if negative reports were given in which had been asked for in office channels, that an extensive investigation from above would have taken place in order to check the authenticy or reliability of the accusation.
Affidavit No. 12 comes from Berlin, Hessenwinkel, which is in the Sow Zone. This is a publisher who gives a clear picture about conditions that obtained in his sector.
Affidavit No. 17 comes from Dresden and ennumerates the activities of Block Leaders, just purely non-essential things. He deals with the meeting of the members of the various staffs in the party and ascertained that the Block and Cell Leaders were less influential than the members of the Ortsgru Finally we have Affidavit No. 21 which cones from Eisenach and which d with the question of the treatment to the population : Spying is prohibited treat them decently.
Affidavit No. 13 comes from the Gau organization leader of the Gau of Munich, Upper Bavaria, and deals with the evidential value, public value of organization's book; the question of functions of Hoheitstraeger and the authority of the individuals. He says that the opinions and plans about Block and CELL Leaders which are set forth for propaganda reasons, that these concepts are highly exaggerated. which are Affidavit No. 14, which deals with an Amtsgerichtsrat, who deals with the problem of authority. Then there is a farmer from Westphalia who was elected Mayor. He also states, dealing wit the sovereignty rights, that the did not exist with the Block and Cell Leaders and that spying activity never did take place.
Affidavit No. 15 is an affidavit deposed by a Kreisleiter at Moettling He gives a survey about the Block and Cell Leaders in his district and how to were comprised 40 per cent adjusted workers, 20 per cent small farmers, 20 percent members of the various professions. He deals with the tasks involved in the giving out of food cards, that was the main point, and as far as the organization book is concerned, he said that that was just written down.
Affidavit No. 24, given by Karl Hederich, has been translated. It deals with the problem of the number of the political loaders, which I touched upon when I submitted my documents. This witness was in the Reichsleitung of the party and he was the deputy for documents. He dealt with statistical material and he had to do summarize work there. The question which he treats in his affidavit he is well inform upon. Regarding the fact that only 600,000 people had been picked up, in his affidavit he shows, that the number of the political leaders in reality was at least one and one half million. He emphasizes in this connection that this figure is set very conservatively and that he had taken into consideration that one person might have had more than one office.
Affidavit No. 25 is a Commission Report No. 1, page 3602. It deals with the significance of the organization book, whose terminology seems to be a pillar of our proceedings here. He says that he had talked this mat over with the expert author of the book, that is the witness Lehnert, and that he stated that the book was not accurately producing actual facts but that these were to be developed along these lines in the future.
Then Affidavit No. 26 given by Foertsch. He is the former Gau Ortsgruppenleiter of Munich, Upper Bavaria. He, too, says that the book was a pure the oretical work.
Affidavit No. 27 is the second affidavit by the same Hederich just mentioned from the Reichslietung, and the significance of the organization's book is described in detail on the basis of the personal knowledge of its origin.
16 Aug A LJG 21-1 Meehan leader, Adam Foertsch mentioned, wherein he defines his attitude to the question, "What is the Corps of Political Loaders?" His statements tend to demonstrate the difference between the Dienststellung and the Dienstrank. He says only a fraction of those people had an office in the party and were considered to be political leaders. In the Gau mentioned, Munich and upper Bavaria, 20% of the people who held party offices were political leaders, the balance of the 80% never were political leaders, therefore, you cannot give this legal consideration and a reduction in the number must be arrived at. Then he points out the granting of the title, "Political Leaders" and that the giving of the offices were carried out by various agencies. that the Reich speaker and the Gau speaker did not have any political rank or obligation. Schaller, who was a district leader at Cologne. He deals with the so-called family card index, which was in Cologne and states that because of the conditions regarding the taxes, most of the card filing system was destroyed. He said that a lot of these cards never had been filled out. political opinion. He states that the positions under the Kreis Leadership could not give any such opinions. been submitted by the prosecution, Document D-728. At that time I disputed the authenticity of the Document and various witnesses testified on behalf of the Document. Here, we have an affidavit deposed by a man who was the adjutant to the Gauleiter and for years worked with him. He says, according to his personal knowledge, that judging by the nature of these letters, they could not come from the source they are attributed to and he says the same thing.
16 Aug A LJG 21-2 Meehan
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I am very anxious that the prosecution's case should rest on documents which are unchallenged as far as it is humanly possible. Therefore, rather than to have any dispute on the Document, the Prosecution will not rely on that document which is dealt with here.
DR. SERVATIUS Mr. President, if I understand correctly, this Document D-728 by Sprenger is being withdrawn. Is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I will skip Affidavit 33, which deals with the Springer document. was in charge of one of the high party courts and he describes the rank. He states that party judges were not political leaders, but rather in 33 and 34 in the organization book, a change was made, according to which change they come closer to the party.
Mr. President, may I refer once more to the Document, which has been withdrawn, D-728. May the excerpt recorded from that document be stricken from the record?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I make no objections, Mr. Lord. when I withdrew the document, I withdrew it entirely from the record. Certainly.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I shall turn to the various departments (Fachaemter) which are departmental offices.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now, I shall turn to the affidavit dealing with the various departments, the export offices in the staff and the various groups in the political leadership offices. In the staff of the functionaries for the various groups of offices, there were the regular political leadership office, the party administration office and then finally the professional and specialists offices. The specialists offices were annexed and in a disciplinary fashion were subordinate to the functionaries, but they received their instructions directly from the Reichs 16 Aug A LJG 21-3 Meehan leiters.
I shall begin with Affidavit 35 deposed by Schoen. He deals with the training material and the schools and also with the severing of connections with the church and in this connection, he says that this is prohibited. He says further that he never in any way or in any connection participated in any crimes against humanity. He testifies as to the activities connected with his office.
Then Affidavit 36 is deposed by Dr. Schulz of the Gau propaganda office in lower Silesia. In part he states and testifies as to the kind of information that was given out and how in the beginning of the war everything happened very rapidly and surprisingly. He further talks about the setting up of the DAF and his propaganda activities. He also states that only 4% of the people in office were salaried employees and 96% of then were honorary officials, also that 70% belonged to the Christian denomination. tion. the finance administration branch. He confirms the exclusive activities of finance and administrative matters and how they were kept away from all political tasks. The group of experts may be looked at in the way that they are the party liaison men. Then he explains the various expert counsellers and finally the office of welfare and public care, dealing with the Women's league (Frauenschaft) and Students League, which belong in this group. They are indepedent organizations, which have no connection to the functionary and officers and staff. They were the local leaders in the Gau and in the Kreis in their various capacities. Here before the commission, there were two female witnesses from the Frauenschaft, Westemacher and Paul and from the Dozenten Bund, Dr. Grudober appeared before the commission.
Service (Muetterdienst). It says that she had no connection with the Gauleiter or one of his collaborators and she describes her responsibilities to her superiors.
As affidavit No. 39, a female physician testifying, Hildegard Brauns. She describes the activity of the Frauenschaft, Kreisleiterin and the Wiesemuenden and the way of the consultations, the way that they were carried out but on the consultations which did not deal with purely feminine matters, had to leave the room and they were never called in for political work. Reichleiters and educators and teachers, I cannot submit an affidavit as yet. For technical reasons it was impossible for me to do so.
For officials, I have the affidavit No. 40, deposed by Dr. Schenk, who also confirmed that when it came to conferences of the functionaries with their staff officers, these groups did not participate and he said that since 1943 the office for officials was cut off for their work was considered insignificant and unimportant. by Schoeneberger from Cologne, who describes his activity and mentions his sphere. He says that he was only called in so far as factual and expert opinion of a technical nature was required. statements along the same lines as the witness, before many Diensts, and said that our work had to be done without may and along secondary lines.
Then the Office of Public Health follows. Here affidavit 43 applies, which was deposed by Dr. Alfred Sassa, head of a district public office. He says that the local leaders of the National Socialist physicians is legal -at the same time with the leaders of these officers for public health. He describes the fact that as far as expert work was concerned, he was called for consulting purposes; that as far as the conferences of the inner circle was concerned, the physicians however were not admitted, so that they were not informed along political lines.
Then the legal offices follow, deposed under affidavit 44, Dr. Steinhauser from Augsburg. He deals with the lawyers' work and tasks and he says that the legal offices who were annexed to the staff had no political significance since already in 1942 they were dissolved as being non-essential to the war effort. trade, economic consultants and delegates or recial politics. In this connection, I should like to submit affidavit 45, deposed by a man of the DAF, whose name is Haller. He describes in detail just what the DAF men had do, what the position was and emphasizes exclusively social work was the only activity which was carried on in his sphere. witness at my disposal.
Then follows the affidavit No. 46, deposed by the former Reich Minister for Nutrition and Agriculture, Darre. He deals extensively with the development of the Reich Food Administration and clarifies in so far as how a Bauenfuehrer can be active in the party or how he can belong to the Reich Food Administration and shows that the Reich Food Administration was very very much independent of the party and was an independent unit which, up until 1942, could have and did have much independence of the party -- up until 1942. In detail, he expresses his views on various questions, such as towards the church and by the Bauernschaften.
Then I shall turn to the Office for Communal Politics. I have two affidavits; one deposed by Dr. Plank, dealing with Nurnberg. He says that the party concerned itself with the human leadership, whereas legal and administrative questions -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius: I don't know whether Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was going to refer us to those passages in Goering's evidence this evening; maybe he was. Perhaps we better break off now because we may not be able to finish the whole of this affidavit summary. Were you, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I was going to inform your Lordship of the fact that we hadn't been able to find any passages in the examination of the defendant Goering.