power, you have made statements yesterday referring to cases of Frank and Frick. Cannot that statement be extended in fact to all loading officials, explained by an increased power given to Himmler and the SS and his police?
Q You mean to say you did not quite hear?
Q In other words, interference into spheres of influence. Now, you have talked about Bormann and you have talked about Gauleiters. Yesterday you talked about Himmler and you dealt with the police and the SS with reference to the cases Frick and Frank and I am now asking you whether this increasin power on Himmler's part and on the part of the SS, if that did not affect the other spheres of influence just as much?
I am now coming back to Schacht. We have talked about the offers to resign and we now come to the actual dismissal. Were ministers who were to be released usually given a letter of dismissal by Hitler? Hitler? dismissal is concerned, was considerable attention paid by you to the wording or rather by Hitler. alterations or improvements personally.
DR. DIX: The two letters of resignation, Mr. President, which decree Schacht's dismissal from his job as President of the Reichsbank and Minister without Portfolio are included in my document book as evidence and I do not propose to put them to the witness. There are only two sentences I propose to quote. BY DR. DIX:
it says:
"Your name particularly will always be connected with the first period of national rearmament." that sentence. He thought there was a limitation of the praise he was getting. What is your view, you who was the originator of that letter? it was generally an expression of thanks was being made to Schacht and this additional sentence is due to a personal alteration by the Fuehrer as far as I can recollect because that was not my cup of tea to make such a subtle difference here. incidentally is not signed by Hitler but is signed by you by order of the Fuehrer:
"The Fuehrer, with regard to your general attitude in this present fateful struggle of the German people has decided to temprarily relieve you of your position as minister."
In other words, Schacht's feelings regarding his personal safety could not have been exactly pleasant when he saw that sentence. May I ask you, therefore, whether this letter was drafted by Hitler and was Schacht's anxiety unjustified? partly known to me. All I know is that a letter from Schacht to Reichsmarshal G oering was the cause of the Fuehrer's dismissing Schacht from his position. The reasons were communicated to me by the Fuehrer. He was very violent and at that session and his general attitude was such that he wanted even more severe expressions to be used but I put it in the way in which you find it in this letter as I thought that was fairly tolerable. Fuehrer did not tell me about, of course. But to begin with he had certainly ordered me to use the word "Temporarily."
in detail regarding the gradual development of the years 1933 until the autocracy of Hitler's had been achieved. The answers which you have given to my colleagues yesterday have in the main dealt with my questions and I don't want to repeat them, but two questions I would like to use to clarify the position. The law giving powers, which was issued in '33, which is the law which deprived the Reichstag of its powers instituted a dictatorship. On that law I am asking you: Did this law give the powers to Hitler or the Reich Cabinet or the Government. to the Reich Government, and the Reich Government in turn used this power to alter the Constitution, both expressedly as well as silently, by creating the Law of Habit which -
Q Yes, thank you very much. You said that yesterday. Thank you very much, witness; we don't want to go into that again. Yesterday you pointed out in parenthesis that this Reich Government didn't necessarily consist of National Socialist only, but that its majority belonged to other parties. You only mentioned the German National Party, led by Hugenberg, Dr. Mueller and Dortmund, and you mentioned the Stahlhelm (steel helmet), the head of which was Seldte, but you had forgotten--and that is why I am asking you--to quote the Central Party. Is it true that von Papen came from the Central Party?
A Yes, of course, that applies, naturally, but I don't know whether von Papen was a member of the Central Party or not. of the State. I am going to give it a different name, but let's not discuss it. All I want you to tell me is whether during that gradual development to complete dictatorship there were actual laws; what they were, and what their significance was.
Don't you consider the law after Hindenburg's death, which was altering the status of the Reich President as the position of the Chancellor, and had the consequence that the bearer of that position was also the supreme military leader-don't you consider that law as a further milestone in that gradual development? development, particularly because it happened after the decree through the Reich Government, referring to a plebiscite which produced the result of nearly one hundred per cent and had been confirmed.
Q And further laws did not appear in connection with the development?
A No, I don't recollect any.
Q Neither can I. And the other question is whether you can call the Law of Habit of the state and whether you can--that is a question I don't want to raise with you at the moment. I think we are of different opinion in that connection.
DR. DIX: Your Lordship, I have now finished my questions to the witness Lammers on behalf of my client, but my colleague Kubuschok is away on duty. I don't think the aeroplane took off yesterday; so I don't think he has been able to get back. He has asked me to ask questions on behalf of von Papen, and I was going to ask the Tribunal whether I could put them--there's really only one short question--and whether I ought to ask it now or whether I should wait until Papen's defense comes up in its proper time.
THE PRESIDENT: No, new, because this witness will not be called again except for some very exceptional reason.
DR. DIX: No, I didn't mean that. I meant, did you want me to ask the question later today, when the turn of Papen comes in the proper sequence of defendants?
THE PRESIDENT: You may go on now. I think you better ask it now. BY DR. DIX:
Q Please will you remember the Roehm Putsch, the Ruhr revolt. Papen's experiences during that revolt will be discussed later. But do you remember that von Papen, who was Vice Chancellor at the time, on the 3rd of June, 1934, demanded to be dismissed by Hitler and received the dismissal?
A Yes, but I can't tell you for certain whether the date was right, but it happened right about that time. days afterwards, between the 7th and the 10th of July, you by order of Hitler went to see von Papen and asked him whether he was prepared to accept the position of an ambassador to the Vatican? the Fuehrer I was to tell him that he had to expect to be used further, and that in that connection an employment as ambassador to the Holy See was thought of.
But, whether I had had orders to tell him immediately that such an offer was being made, that I cannot recollect now.
Q Can you remember what Papen replied as to what his views were?
AAt that time he wasn't very much inclined to accept such a position.
Q Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Dr. Servatius, for Defendant Sauckel and the organization of the political leader of staff. BY DR. SERVATIUS: Plenipotentiary for Labor. What were the reasons that Sauckel was chosen for that position? be handled by the Minister of Labor with the necessary care, and that this task would, therefore, have to be transferred to a particularly energetic person. emphasis? found.
Q Particularly with reference to foreign laborers? country we had exhausted all possibilities. in the occupied territories and tell them that they should support Sauckel's task in detail?
A That happened very much later. To begin with, the employment of the general plenipotentiary for employment of labor took place and that was announced. It was announced to all authorities and departments concerned. I don't think any particular request was added to that by me. But, at the beginning of 1944, a conference took place at the Fuehrer's office dealing with the program of labor employment for the year of 1944. At the end of that conference, during which Sauckel had been given such figures, I had the task to write to all departments concerned and tell them that they should support Sauckel's task, the task he had just been given; that they should support it with all the strength at their disposal.
Q You are talking about a meeting at the beginning of January, 1944.
An extensive record about that is available which you have prepared. According to this record, Sauckel has said during that meeting that he would find it difficult to fulfil the demands or probably wouldn't be able to fulfil them at all. That's with reference to foreign workers. What was the reason he stated for that? executive powers necessary for the carrying out of that task were lacking in the various sectors. He said that if he were to fulfil his task, then he would most of all not be depending on an executive party abroad as, for instance, was the case in connection with France; but that there would have to be a German executive power which would support his actions.
Q Didn't he talk about the fact that the fulfilment of the demand was impossible because of partisans and bandits?
A He pointed out these difficulties repeatedly. He referred to partisans and bandits and it was, of course, regarded as a matter of course, that any recruitment for labor could be carried out by him in such territories where partisan battles were still going on. executive powers in that connection?
A Yes, that's correct. resistance movements? he would have a free hand and be free to work. to me how that is to be understood. Here is says:
"The Reich leader of the SS explained that the executive forces at his disposal all were extremely small, but that he would try to increase them extensively so as to ascertain success for Sauckel's actions."
How is that to be understood?
were active, and Sauckel thought that without a cleaning up of these territories he wouldn't be able to become active. Himmler, who was present, agreed that he would do his best, but he had certain objections, whether the existing police battalions or other police forces would be at his disposal for the purpose. of the authorities and the security in the territories, but that this is not a transfer of the powers to the SS? The German executive body which was demanded by Sauckel meant in every case that the executive authority which was in position already should be used, as in France, for instance, where there were field commanders who had to look after that, and in Russia it had to be looked after by the police battalions who had to take care of Partisans.
Q Now, I have a question as to the political leadership staff. A document has been presented here whichhas been submitted with a number, D-728. It bears the signature of Gauleiter Sprenger. It hasn't a date on it, but it appears that it came out in the spring or the beginning of 1945. In this letter there is mention of a new Reich Health Law, and it is supposed to contain instructions regarding pneumonia victims and people suffering from heart diseases, who are supposed to be removed. It says that this law is to be kept a secret, and on the strength of that law these families would no longer be allowed to remain amongst the public and were not allowed to produce any heirs. Did you know anything about that law?
A I don't understand the words. Did you say insane or what? suffering from heart diseases.
Q Ought it to have been known to you? Interior. Health matters were dealt with by him. It never reached me, though.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions. BY DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for Defendant Seyss-Inquart): published -- on the 13th of March, 1938, which has the heading, "Law for the Reunion of Austria with the German Reich." Seyss-Inquart and his Government were surprised by this law, and I am now asking you whether you know anything detailed regarding the problem how it was possible on the 13th of March, 1938, that this law could appear. radio listener, through the radio. And since I assumed that I might be needed I went to Vienna and at that point the law had already been completed. It had been signed and it had been published. I did not participate in the drafting, but the Minister of the Interior and Secretary of State, Stuckhardt, very probably drafted that law. I myself did not in any way cooperate in its creation. I didn't even know the action as such was to take place. was produced so suddenly, so horridly?
Q Thank you. At the same time Dr. Seyss-Inquart was promoted SS Obergruppenfuehrer, not as the Prosecution has stated, SS General, and apart from that the Fuehrer promised him that within one year he would be made a member of the Reich Government. It is a fact that in 1939 he actually became Minister without Portfolio. Did Seyss-Inquart in his capacity as an SS Obergruppenfuehrer and as Minister without Portfolio carry out any functions of any kind?
AAs far as I know, Seyss-Inquart didn't become Obergruppenfuehrer but Gruppenfuehrer. That was an honorary rank which was given him. He had no powers to issue orders and he never served in the SS, as far as I know. He merely wore the uniform, and later on he was promoted Obergruppenfuehrer. In other words, this was entirely a question of uniform; it was an honorary rank.
Q Thank you. One year later Seyss-Inquart was appointed Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands and in the Law Gazette for the Netherlands this Appointment was published together with a Reich Law Gazette.
Do you know whether apart from those published decrees from Hitler which made him Reich Town Governor when he wasn't given a task within the framework of the four-year plan? Netherlands Seyss-Inquart suffered under the same limitations which I described yesterday in connection with Frank and Rosenberg. In other words, there was a certain limitaton that said that the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan could exercise his powers which he had everywhere else, that is to say, his position was limited from the wording.
Q What was the position of the German Police in the Netherlands? Was the German Police under the direct orders of the Defendant Seyss-Inquart or was it under the Reich Leader SS Himmler? yesterday for the Government General. The higher SS and Police leader was at the disposal of the Reich Commissioner but his actual functions came from Himmler.
Q Thank you. Do you, Witness, recollect that you at the beginning of 1944 told the Defendant, who was then Reich Commissioner for the Netherlands, of an order from the Fuehrer ordering him to supply from the Netherlands 250,000 workers? And can you remember that Seyss-Inquart refused? being asked questions in connection with Sauckel. It is a circular letter which asked everybody to support Sauckel's actions and individual departments were given demands regarding the figures of the workers they were to supply. Whether that was 250,000 workers, in connection with Seyss-Inquart's case, that I cannot remember; I don't know. But I do know that Seyss-Inquart expressed himself against the raising of that figure of 250,000 and had considerable qualms. He asked me to take that to the Fuehrer.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for General Staff and OKW): Armed Forces? Was there any military pressure employed in that connection?
A I myself didn't participate immediately in the seizure of power. I can't tell you, therefore, with absolute certainty. At any rate, nothing is known to me that the Reichswehr -- the Armed Forces -- at that time had any influence upon the seizure of power. I assume that if it had been the case one would have heard about it. Chancellor took place, which was unified in Hitler's person. Could military leaders have refused to swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler? Would this be a constitutional crime? the constitution and this made the Fuehrer the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and any possibility to resist -- that would have been impossible; it would have been a revolt; it would have been mutiny. the starting of an aggressive war? exericse any influence upon his political decisions. Did you know of any statement made by Hitler by which he deprived Generals of the right to participate in political judgments? and individual Generals. He has praised them from the military point of view. As far as politics were concerned, he was always of the opinion that they knew nothing about politics and that one should keep them away from a position where political matters had to be decided.
Q It is also known that Hitler wouldn't suffer anybody to contradict him. Wasn't the deeper reason for Blomberg's dismissal and the dismissal of Fritsch and Beck the fact that they repeatedly contradicted him?
A. Well, I did assume that the personal differences did have their effect of causing the dismissal of Schacht, Blomberg, Von Neurath and Fritsch. But I have never been present at such conferences and I cannot make any statements but I do think that they often contradicted the Fuehrer.
Q. Did Hitler have distrust for the Generals, particularly those of the Army?
A. You cannot answer that in general. The Fuehrer had a certain amount of distrust for most people. He only told them what actually applied to them. If you call that distrust, so far as all the generals were concerned, nobody was told any more than he had to hear.
Q. Amongst the circle of persons who had Hitler's unrestrained confidence, was there a military leader among them?
A. I do not belive so. I don't know of one.
Q. I have now got one last question. What was the reason that the bulk of the occupied territories were under Reich commissions and only a few under military leaders?
A. As a rule it was the Fuehrer's wish that occupied territories be administered by political leaders. He considered generals unsuited for that particular job because he considered that they had no political instinct.
Q. Wasn't it, even before 1944, wasn't it the plan that the military administration in Belgium was to have a civilian commissioner?
A. That had been proposed at length but before it was put into action the Fuehrer did not desire to make it so since he had always been told that in the case of Belgium there were military administrators and if civilian administration began it might become occupied territory again.
DR. LATERNSER: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do the Prosecution wish to cross examine? BY MAJOR ELWYN JONES:
Q. Witness, there is one matter upon which I want to ask you, as to the power of Reichministers under the Constitution of Nazi Germany. It appears, from your testimony, that there were men with very little authority or jurisdiction or power of command of any kind.
That they were made of straw. Is that so?
A. Well, no authority . . .
Q. But, they were of an extremely limited character. ThatIs what you are saying to the Tribunal, isn't it?
A. Generally speaking, they were administrative chiefs. They were not political ministers who, in large scale political matters, took an active part.
Q. Less authority than the authorities of Germany had under the previous Constitution?
A ..That no doubt was the case. Under the previous Constitution there was an election amongst the Ministers, and they had the power of voting out any members of the Cabinet which they didn't like.
Q. I am not going to put to you some observations which you yourself made in 1938 about the powers of administration under the Fuehrer's State. I am referring to document 3863-PS.
"Out of this total basic concentration of power of authority in the person of the Fuehrer, however, no excessively strong and unnecessary centralization of administration in the hadn of the Fuehrer results in the governmental administration. In my general elaborations on the basic concept of the Fuehrer state I have already pointed out that the subordinate leader's (Unterfuehrer) authority, directed downward, forbids interference with every individual order he may issue. This principle is manipulated by the Fuehrer in his government leadership in such a manner that for example the position of the Reich ministers is actually much more independent today than formerly, even though today the Reich ministers are subordinated to the Fuehrer's unlimited power of command in their entire official sphere, even in every individual measure and decision in the most trivial matters. Willingness to bear responsibility, ability to make decisions, aggressive energy, and real authority -- these are the qualities which the Fuehrer demands primarily of his subordinate leaders. Therefore he allows them the greatest freedom in the execution of their affairs and in the manner in which they fulfill their tasks.
Nothing is more foreign to him than narrow or fault-finding criticism." from the picture you are painting for the Tribunal, is it not?
A. In my opinion, there isn't the least contradiction. All I am saying here is that every Minister did not have unlimited power in large scale political matters, but that he, as supreme commander in his own sphere, had complete authority, and that the Fuehrer wasn't going to be small-minded about such authority. That was right. Here in this document we are concerned with second rate matters.
Q. You say your picture, of course, is a picture of one man decisions of intensive power. Is that the picture you are trying to present to the Tribunal?
A. Yes. The Ministers, who as supreme commanders, supreme leaders in their own sphere, had power in these matters unless he was restricted. He had no more power than any other Ministers, because his power was only concentrated in small matters.
Q. In the case of the Defendant Funk, for instance. You way he was a Minister of small authority?
A. Regarding the big political decisions he had no authority.
Q. But decisions -- but as to important economic questions like the amount of wealth he was going to take from the occupied territories, the Fuehrer's decisions were based upon recommendations of Ministers like Funk, weren't they?
A. Not that I know of. The policy on occupied territories was handled by the Eastern Ministers and Reich Ministers.
Q. But as to decisions on economic matters concerning the occupied territories, as to recommendations of occupational costs, and as to the extent of black market operations, men like Funk were indispensable and were asked to give their recommendations, did they not?
A. He cooperated, yes, but he did not work with the Reich commission in occupied territories.
Q. All these ministers were indispensable to the running of the Nazi State, were they not?
A. Yes, of course, they were necessary for their cooperation. This does not mean that Funk had authority.
Q. Do you, so far as you are concerned, recall whether Funk was directly subordinate to the Fuehrer or not. Do you remember that?
A. Well, Funk was under the Fuehrer, working as a Minister.
Q And he was advising the Fuehrer himself, was he not? tant decisions to communicate to the Fuehrer and advise the Fuehrer upon, did he not?
A I don't know to what extent the Fuehrer sent for him and I was not present during any conference regarding armament and rearmament.
Q I shall ask one further question regarding ministerial matters. Ministers without portfolio did continue to receive communications as to the Reich cabinet, did they not?
Q The Defendant Frank, for instance, was a minister without portfolio? without portfolio? tained a ministerial office to deal with incoming matters of the Reich Cabinet?
A Who are you talking about, Frank? him. did it not?
A The Reich Cabinet only existed for the written procedure of its laws. Or, of course, written administrative matters. communications as to the legislative tasks and performances of the Reich Cabinet. Even though they were not available for conferences or meetings?
MAJOR ELWYN JONES: I think it's time to break off.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1400 hours.)
BY MR. ELWYN JONES:
Q Witness, I want to ask you some questions about the Defendant Frank. Frank is a friend of yours, is he not?
A Nothing is coming through. Will you please repeat the question?
Q The defendant Frank is a friend of yours, is he not?
A Frank? document which was submitted just a little while ago this morning, and which I have just now been able to finish reading. I would like to say just two sentences in connection with that document. doubt they will draw your attention to the matter in due course.
Will you now deal with the question that I put to you on the Defendant Frank? You say he is not a friend of yours? of the other people in the Reich Government. jurists? National socialist? in fact, since the year 1920 , and I served other governments before joining the National Socialist Party. Naturally, in my capacity or in my position in the National Socialist State, I made every effort to represent National Socialist idea.
A pr 9-A-RT-13-2 who opposed the arbituary use of power by the police.
A He did that in some of his speeches. These speeches were disaproved by the Fuehrer.
Q He was a man who believed in fair trials, was he?
A What kind of proceedings are you referring to?
A He was always for the right; but I did not quite understand what you were saying. I did not quite got it. If you mean fair, yes. SS? That is your evidence, is it? that respect in speeches too. territory of which he was Governor General? Is that so?
A I am sorry, but I can't follow this; there is so much static that I can only gather half of what you are saying; the other half escapes me completely.
Q Well, we will try again. Did you ever hear of the AB Action, for which Frank was responsible in the Government General?
A That is an action which was totally unknown to me. About a week ago a gentleman mentioned this term to me, that Frank was accused of this AB action, However, I don't know what this AB action is. his territory, were you not?
Q Are you saying that Frank never informed you about the AB action?
A Yes, I don't know what the AB action is.
Q I will remind you. It was an action which resulted in the slaughter of the flower of the Polish race, of the Polish intelligentsia. USSr-223, and which is Frank's diary, you will see the history of this action and perhaps you will then remember something of the circumstances of it.
AAt which page is that, please?
Q On page 8 of the annex to that text. You will see on that page that the action started on the 16th of May with a conference at which Frank, the Govenor General, Secretary of State Buehler, SS Brigadier Streckenbach, and a Colonel Mueller were present. You will see there that Frank decreed, with immediate effect, that the task of carrying out an extraordinary pacification program be given to the Chief of the Security Police, to commence immediately. The more important details of the action were then discussed, and Brigadier Streclenbach was formally given the necessary authority by the Govenor General. The Governor General then ordered a detailed report to be made on the 30th of May.
ference on the 30th of May, where you, and, what is more important, this Tribunal, may be able to judge what kind of jurisprudence Nazi jurists believed in. police conference on the 30th of May, where Frank and Krueger and others were present.
A. I was never present at these conferences.
Q. I want you to see how far removed Frank, the apostle of decency in administration, was from the true Frank that was Governor General of Poland. You will see there that Frank states: "If I had not the old Nazi guard of fighters of the Police and SS, with whom could we then carry out this policy?" describe how, now that the German aggressions in the West were in full swing, it was possible for Frank to go through with this action against the Polish intelligentsia.
A. If the Governor General contradicts what I gathered from his phblic speeches and what I gathered contrary to that, I cannot utter a view, because I do not know what he waid. It may be that many of his speeches are in contradiction to speeches which he gave at other times. I was just concerned in testifying to those speeches which the Fuehrer disapproved of, which he objected to, and which had as a consequence that he was prohibited from speaking. I was concerned with those speeches. If the Governor General made other speeches and made notes in his diary, I cannot tell you about that, and especially at this moment.
Q. Let us be quite clear. Do you know that the regime of Frank in the Government General was a murderous one?
A. I never had may knowledge of anything like that.
Q. Did you receive any reports from him, or from some other source, of misgovernment in the Government General?
A. As far as misgovernment in the Governor-Generalship is concerned, yes, there were complaints on the part of Frank, and by other parties against Frank.
Q. Did you have knowledge of the utter ruthlessness of Frank's methods in the Government General?
A. I only understood half of your question, I am sorry.
Q. You were receiving reports from Frank as to what he was doing in the Government General, were you not?
A. Yes. Reports came in repeatedly, which I hurriedly passed on to the Fuehrer; I just passed them. In most cases they went to Bormann or the adjutant office of the Fuehrer. These were reports -
Q. Just a moment. If you deal with the questions I put to you, we shall get on much faster, you know. Just answer the questions I put, briefly. I am going to put to you one message which Frank's diary indicated that you received.
At page 41 of the English text of Frank's diary there is this entry for the 5th of August:
"The Governor General sends the following teletype to Reich Minister Dr. Lammers:
"The City of Warsaw is, for the most part, in flames. The burning down of houses is the surest way of getting the insurgents out of their holes. After this insurrection and its crushing, Warsaw will rightfully suffer or be subjected to its deserved fate of being completely annihiliated."
Do you recollect receiving that teletype?
A. To my knowledge this report did come in, and it was given over to the Fuehrer immediately. However, I personally was not concerned with the action; that was a military measure and in the normal course of events the military reports came to the Fuehrer directly. In all probability I passed this teletype message on not only to the Fuehrer, but to the Chief of the OKW.
Q. I am not concerned with the action which you took in these circumstances; I am concerned with your knowledge, because you have denied to this Tribunal, time and time again, that you ever know anything of these abominations that were going on under the Nazi regime. So just deal with the question of your knowledge at the moment.