AAbout two thirds of the deliveries of foodstuffs from the eastern territories was for the armed forces immediately.
The remaining third was shipped to Germany, and we always considered it an equivalent for the nutrition of the foreign workers, whose number was mounting continuously.
DR. THOMA:Thank you. I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Do any of the Defendants Counsel wish to ask any questions?
DR. SEIDL:Dr. Seidl, Counsel for Dr. Frank.
BY DR. SEIDL:
QWitness, you were also state secretary in the Reich ministry for nutrition and agriculture, is that correct?
AYes.
QIs it correct that the chief of the main department for nutrition and agriculture in the General Government was frequently in Berlin in order to discuss there the quotas, in order to achieve a measure which would be supported by the population?
AAs much as I remember, during the negotiations which took place with the General Government he variously expressed that opinion.
QAccording to your own observations, what was the nutritional situa tion of the population of the General Government?
AAccording to my own observations and the reports which I received, the rations which had been established were lower than in the Reich, but black market and the open market produced equivalent -
QIs it correct that efforts were made to increase agricultural pro duction by the General Government?
AConsiderable efforts were made, and one can safely say that the entire economy, as much as it was not used for armament, was working for nutrition.
Besides, fertilizer was shipped from the Reich; also agricultural machinery,
QWhat part did delivery from occupied countries have in the entire requirement of foodstuffs for Germany?
AAccording to the calculations which were made by our ministry, the part of the deliveries from occupied territories in the total food requirement of Germany in 1942 and 1943 amounted to about 15 percent; during the other years around 10 percent.
Q Now one last question: The Soviet Prosecution has submitted a document -- USSR 170.
It deals with a meeting with the chiefs of the German offices in occupied territories on 6/8/42, under the chairmanship of the Reichmarshal. I present to you this document (document is handed to witness) and want you to tell me whether the description given in that document characterizes the relation between Germany and the occupied territories correctly. You were present at that meeting, were you not?
AThe document represents the minutes of the meeting, in which I took part. First I have to say that the document -- that is to say, the minutes -- contains the speech of the Reichmarshal, and the actual relations are not correctly described between Germany and the occupied territories. The demands which Goering made in this meeting were so high that they could not be taken seriously. In the department of nutrition it was clear to us that by force we could not achieve anything in the long run. The extra demands which Goering had made in that meeting were never fulfilled. I also believe that Goering himself did not believe that these quotas could be filled. As much as I know, these extra demands to France by Goering were never submitted; Belgium, in spite of a prohibition, received foodstuffs; so did Czechoslovakia.
On the day before that meeting there had been a conference by the gauleiters, and as much as I remember they were all under the impression of the increasing difficulties for the population in the west. The western gauleiters were of the opinion that German nutrition would become insufficient, but that a large part of the occupied territories were still having some surplus, that is to say, that the ministry of nutrition did not demand enough from the occupied territories. These demands were seized upon by Goering, and according to his temperament that led to the strong exaggerations contained in this document of the minutes.
DR. SEIDL:I have no more questions.
DR. SERVATIUS:Dr. Servatius, Counsel for the Defendant Sauckel.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
QWitness, what was the condition of nutrition of foreign workers in Germany?
AAll groups of foreign workers, with the exception of the eastern workers, received the same rations as the German population.
QAnd what about the eastern workers?
AThe eastern workers received, in certain areas, lower; in certain others, higher rations. As much as I remember about bread and potatoes -
QWas it so that the state of health of the workers was endangered?
AThat question cannot be answered definitely. It must be considered in connection with the kind of work that these people were doing. Normally these rations were sufficient.
QDid Sauckel intervene for better nutrition of these workers
AAs much as I know, Sauckel has spoken several times to my minister concerning better supply of food, and minister Backe always answered with the demand that he should not bring any more workers to Germany. Backe has repeatedly suggested to reduce the number of workers and to supply them better with food.
DR. SERVATIUS:I have no more questions.
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Steinbauer, for the defendant Seyss-
Inquart. BY DR. STEINBAUER:
QWitness, in your capacity as State Secretary for Agriculture didn't you come to Holland also at the end of 1944 or the beginning of 1945?
AYes. At that time I was in the Netherlands.
QWas it not so, that there, on that occasion, the armed forces and the police had serious complaints about Dutch agriculture, especially about the responsible officials in Holland?
AI cannot remember a conversation of that kind.
QDo you know that the defendant Seyss-Inquart intervened for the reduction of food from Holland to Germany?
AYes, also in that meeting, which this document describes.
QAnd that especially in spite of complaints, he left the Dutch officials in the Nutrition Department?
AYes, that is the case.
DR. STEINBAUER:That is all.
DR. FLAECHSNER:Flaechsner for the defendant Speer. May I put several questions to the witness. BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
QWitness, could you give me information about the following questions? The workers, the inmates of concentration camps, working in the armament industry, did they get the same rations and additional rations for heavy work, such as the heavy workers?
ADuring the time, the period when he was concerned with these questions, all inmates, that is, also concentration camp inmates, got the same rations if they were working; therefore, they should have received the same rations.
QThe defendant Speer, or the ministry under his direction, were they competent for the establishment of rations in these industries, provided that the industries were supposed to acquire the rations?
A No, the ministry was not competent. As far as supply was concerned, the nutrition officers were competent.
As far as distribution was concerned, the people in charge of the camps or in charge of the industries.
QAnd one further question. What measures had Speer taken in order to prevent a general catastrophe, a nutritional catastrophe, which would also have affected the foreign workers in Germany. Can you tell me something about that?
ABeginning with December 1944, Speer put the tasks of armament behind the problem of nutrition -- very definitely so, with the thought of transferring that problem to a new power, power of occupation. Speer saw to it that seed for the spring could be brought with his means of transportation. Speer strongly intervened for the reconstruction of the food industry which had been damaged by air attack, and first of all, during that last phase, Speer, together with others, prevented the non-sensical destruction of food industries against directives received by Hitler. The latter, he did without concern of consequences to his person.
DR. FLAECHSNER:Thank you.
DR. LATERNSER:Dr. Laternser, counsel for the General Staff and the OKW. BY DR. LATERNSER:
QWitness, did you participate in the world war?
AYes.
QIn what position?
AAs commander of a battalion.
QDuring the Western Campaign, did you receive any dubious order, I mean to say orders which were in violation of international law?
ANo, I have not received any such orders.
Q Could you determine or have you determined that by higher military officials, looting was tolerated?
ANo. On the contrary, in the case of looting, strong measures were taken.
QLater, you were in the East also, but as I have heard, not as a soldier.
Could you observe there, things concerning operations?
AYes.
QWhat was the treatment of the local population there by German soldiers?
AIn general, I can say that especially in the Ukraine, the treatment of the civilian population in the operational area was better; one took more consideration of the necessities than in the part under civilian administration.
QAnd what do you think is the reason for that difference?
AThe reason may be another attitude, a different attitude of the soldier, who was free of political tendencies and also that, of course, they wanted to have peace and quiet behind their back.
DR. LATERNSER:Thank you, I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Will the Prosecution want to cross examine?
MR. DODD:I can be through in two minutes, if your Honor please.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. DODD:
QWere you a member of the Nazi Party?
AYes.
QYes?
AYes.
QWhen did you join?
A 1925.
Q 1925?
AYes.
QYou were also a member of the SA?
AYes.
QWhat rank did you hold in the SA?
AFinally I became Gruppenfuehrer of the SA.
Q Previously, you were an SA Sturmfuehrer, weren't you?
AIn 1930, yes.
QWhen did you become an SS Gruppenfuehrer?
AIn October 1944.
MR. DODD:That is all, I have no other questions.
THE PRESIDENT:Have you any questions to ask in re-examination?
DR. THOMA:No.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, that concludes your case in behalf of the defendant Rosenberg, does it not?
DR. THOMA:Mr. President, I would like to state that the document R-091, which General Rudenke referred to before, that I have not submitted that as an exhibit. General Rudenke has referred to R-091. I have not submitted it, I do not submit it, and I want to withdraw it. Secondly, Mr. President, may I say that a number of affidavits still have not come, which have been approved, but which have not been received yet from abroad,
THE PRESIDENT:You can mention them later, of course.
DR. THOMA:Thirdly, I should like to put the request that my document book No. 1, so it may not be accepted in evidence, should be left in the same-that I should consider it for the purpose of argument as probative -- such as, I was informed by the decision of the 18th of March 1946, that is to say, not in evidence, not as a matter of proof, but just as argument. I assume that that had been approved previously and that only and that it is only rejected.
G ENERAL RAGINSKY: I should like to give a short explanation. The document under Exhibit R-19, which represents a letter which Riecke addressed to Rosenberg, dated 13 March 1945, was submitted by the defense counsel, Dr. Thoma, and you can find it in the second book of documents on page 42.
It was translated into all four languages and is in possession of all the prosecutors and the Tribunal, in its decision, accepted this document from the defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT:G eneral Raginsky, the position is this, that a document doesn't go into evidence unless it is offered in evidence. Dr. Thoma has not offered this document in evidence and I understand that the Soviet prosecution has not offered it in evidence. If you want to offer it in evidence and the document is an authentic document, which I suppose it is, you can offer it in evidence.
GENERAL RAGINSKY:Yes. We didn't offer it as evidence, only because of the fact that it is already contained in the book of documents; therefore, we didn't have the necessity to present it.
THE PRESIDENT:You see, documents don't go into evidence unless they are offered in evidence. The fact that they are in the books, doesn't mean that they are in evidence; therefore, if you want to offer it in evidence, you must do so.
G ENERAL RAGINSKY:Yes, Mr. President, we are going to offer it in evidence now.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well; you will give it a USSR number.
GENERAL RAGINSKY:Yes, we are going to give it a USSR exhibit number. and will offer it in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
G ENERAL RAGINSKY:Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT:Now, we will proceed to deal with the supplementary applications.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: If your Lordship pleases, the first application is that of Dr. Seidl's with regard to two witnesses; first of all witness Hilger, who was previously granted as a witness for the defendant von Ribben trop but withdrawn by counsel on the 2nd of April.
I believe that the witness is in the United States and that there is a report that he is too ill to travel.
But apart from that, my Lord, the purpose of the witness is to give evidence as to discussions and treaty negotiations which took place in the Krem lin at Moscow before the German-Soviet agreement of the 23rd of August, 1939, and the allegation states the conclusion of the alleged secret agreement dealt with in the affidavit of the witness Gauss.
My Lord, the other application is for a witness von Weizacker, who is going to deal with the same point.
The Prosecution, of course, loyally accepts the decision of the Tribunal on the admissibility of the Gauss affidavit but I respectfully submit that that does not affect this point.
What is desired is to call witnesses as to the course of the negotiations before these treaties, before an agreement was arrived at in respect to these treaties and that is a point which we have had several times and, of course, while all circumstances have a slight difference, the Tribunal have, as far as I know, ruled universally up to now that they will not go into antecedent negotiations which have resulted in agreements.
There is also the position that, of course, Dr. Seidl has put in the Gauss affidavit and he has had his opportunity to examine the defendant von Ribbentrop and the Prosecution respectfully submit that to call two secondary witnesses, without any disrespect to their position in the German Foreign Office, they are witnesses of a secondary importance compared with the defendant von Ribbentrop, to discuss these negotiations seems to the Prosecution to be going into irrelevant matter and entirely unnecessary for the purposes of this case.
I confess I do not myself appreciate any special relevance that these witnesses could have to the case of Hess but I do not put it so strongly on that ground.
I put it on the ground which I have just outlined to the Tribunal.
With regard to the third application of Dr. Seidl, I am not quite sure whether he means that he wants the Prosecution to provide him with an original or certified copy of the secret agreement or whether he desires to tender a copy himself.
But with regard to that again the Prosecution take the line that that point which after all is only one tiny corner of one aspect of the case, is sufficiently covered by the evidence which has already been brought out before the Tribunal from the affidavit of Ambassador Gauss and the evidence of the defendant Ribbentrop.
That is the position of the Prosecution with regard to that.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, Dr. Seidl?
DR.SEIDL (Counsel for defendants Hess and Frank): Mr. President, the affidavit of the Ambassador Dr. Gauss which had already been accepted by the Tribunal is in evidence under Number H016, gives part of the negotiations.
Ambassador Dr. Gauss was not present at the negotiations which took place before the pact was made. I have therefore made the motion to call Legation Secretary Hilger as a witness after he had already been approved as a witness for the defendant von Ribbentrop. I have, furthermore, requested that the Tribunal should get the text of that secret additional agreement. I have to admit, however, that this request has no longer the importance which it had at the time when it was made. In the meantime we received a copy of that secret agreement.
Furthermore, I have a copy of the additional secret agreement concerning the German-Soviet border pact and furthermore, I have an affidavit by Ambassador Dr. Gauss of the first of April of this year from which the identification with the text which had been drafted on the 23rd of August and the 28th of September, 1939.
THE PRESIDENT:Sir David, have you any objection to that document being produced for the consideration of the Tribunal?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:Not at all, my Lord, As I say, the Tribunal has considered our objection on relevance and we have lost on it and therefore it is not really open to me to argue any question of the relevance of the document in view of the decision of the Tribunal.
The only point that I make is that Dr. Seidl produces an alleged copy of the treaty, supported by an affidavit of Ambassador Gauss then it immensely strengthens my argument, I submit, against him being allowed to call the witnesses.
COLONEL POKROV KSY:The Soviet Prosecution on the question which is now being discussed by the Tribunal today has submitted a document to the General Secretariate of the International Tribunal. If this document is already in your possession then I need not talk about our position here. But, if you find it necessary I am going to speak about it here. We are against it because of the statements---
THE PRESIDENT:Are you presenting an argument or a document of some sort?
COLONEL POKROVSKY:No, I am not going to argue about it and return to this question if you have this document.
THE PRESIDENT:You misunderstood me. You mentioned a document which you answere was in the possession of the Tribunal. I am not aware that we have got any document from the Soviet Prosecution. It may be that it has been received and if so we will consider it, of course.
What I wanted to know is whether it was an argument or an original document of some sort.
COLONEL POKROVSKY:The question here is regarding the official answer of the Soviet Prosecution on the question as to whether we consider it necessary to consider the request of Dr. Seidl regarding a group of questions connected with the German-Soviet Pact of 1939.
THE PRESIDENT:We will consider the document.
COLONEL POKROVSKY:You think it would be possible to be content with just the document which is in your possession now?
THE PRESIDENT:Well, certainly, unless you wish to say anything. We will consider the document.
COLONEL POKROVSKY:There is going to be no further information regarding it.
Our position has been in detail stated in this document and if you have this document before you now I have nothing more to say regarding it.
DR. SEIDL:Mr. President, on the 13th of April I had made a written motion to be permitted to submit an annex as Exhibit Hess 17.
I have submitted this document in six copies with the request to have them translated.
They are the following documents:
first, a German-Soviet non-agression pact of 23 August, 1939, which was submitted under G.B. 145 by the Prosecution; second, the supplementary protocol of the same date; third, the German-Soviet friendship and border pact of 28 August, 1939; fourth, the secret supple mentary protocol of the same date, which belongs to it, and fifth, the second affidavit which I have mentioned before by Ambassador Dr. Gauss.
Furthermore, on the 15 of April I made the motion to call the witness Dr. Gauss here before this Court -- he is in Nurnberg -- if the Tribunal does not consider the affidavit sufficient.
I ask the Tribunal to make its decision about these motions.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will consider the matter.
Now, with reference to von Neurath.
SIR DAVIDMAXWELL-FYFFE: My Lord, this an application for a witness Dieckhoff, in regard to whom interrogatories have already been granted. As I understand, the reason is that witness Tirpke has been found to have retired from the German Foreign Office some eighteen months earlier than was thought. Baron von Ludinghausen has suggested that, to balance the calling of Dieckhoff as a witness, he will give up the calling of the witness Zimmermann and have an affidavit of interrogatory instead. My Lord, that seems to the Prosecution a very reasonable suggestion and we have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT:You mean, no objection to Dieckhoff as a witness and Zimmerman for an affidavit or interrogatories?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE:Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE:My Lord, that is all with regard to the defendant von Neurath.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE:Then, with regard to the defendant Schacht, it is only the petition of the witness Hilser, and the Prosecution does not really mind whether Dr. Dix calls him or puts in an affidavit. I think that it is only a question of whether the witness will be available to come here from Hamburg and, if he is available, we have no objection to him being called as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE:Then My Lord, next one on the list is an application on behalf of the defendant Sauckel, with-drawel of interrogatories for Mende granted on the 23rd of March as the prospective witness is not located and interrogatories for Marenbach in place of Mende, who can give the same testimony. Dr. Servatius believes that Marenbach is located at the Garmisch internment camp. The Prosecution have no objection to that.
My Lord, I think there was a formal one from Dr. Thoma with regard to the use of the sworn statement by Professor Denker, but there is no objection to that.
THE PRESIDENT:We have already allowed that.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE:You have already allowed that, this is only the formal application.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, very well, Then we will consider those matters. There are a number of documents, the production of which the Defendant Sauckel's counsel is applying.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:It has been suggested to us that counsel for the Defendant Sauckel and counsel of the Prosecution could help us over that matter.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE:My Lord, my friend, Mr. Roberts, has been dealing with Dr. Servatius upon this point; so, perhaps he could help the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, will it take a long time for that or not?
MR. ROBERTS:My Lord, I do not think so. The Tribunal, I understand-
COLONEL POKROWSKI:I should like to tell the Tribunal that the Soviet Prosecution did not receive any documents regarding which the British Prosecutor just spoke and we ask not to discuss these documents until the moment when we shall have the opportunity to see them.
THE PRESIDENT:I understand that that these documents have not been translated yet. The question really is the preliminary one of which documents should be translated, and we were only going through the documents in order to see which documents were sufficiently relevant to be translated; so that it would not be-
COLONEL POKROWSKI:Very well.
MR. ROBERTS:My Lord, the Tribunal, I understand, has made a preliminary order of just striking out the documents which Dr. Servatius and I agreed should not be presented. My Lord, that leaves a very large number of documents, of which I think the Tribunal has a list. My Lord, the first sixty-eight documents, or rather from documents 6 to 68, are regulations dealing with the conditions of the employment of labor in Germany. My Lord, I have seen Dr. Servatius' proposed document book and he has marked certain passages which he would desire to read and which would have to be translated, My Lord, and that does cut down the bulk of the documents very considerably.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, of course, we have not read all these documents yet and as they are not translated, can you indicate to us whether you have any objection to them being translated?
MR. ROBERTS:My Lord, I do not think I could object to those first documents from 6 to 68. The passages marked are being translated because from their description they appear to be relevant.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, 6 to 68.
MR. ROBERTS:Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT:You mean the passages which are actually marked?
MR. ROBERTS:Yes, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT:Then will you go on?
MR. ROBERTS:Yes, My Lord.
THEPRESIDENT: 69 to 79 he has already struck out.
MR. ROBERTS:Yes, My Lord. My Lord, 80 and 81 I object to. They are documents making allegations of the breach of the Hague Regulations by the Soviet nation. My Lord, I submit that that is not relevant.
THE PRESIDENT:The allegations of illegal acts by the Soviet Government with reference to individuals?
MR. ROBERTS:Yes, My Lord. My Lord, I submit that that could not be relevant at all.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, and 82 and 89 you do not object to these?
MR. ROBERTS:My Lord, I do not object to those, the passages as marked.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
MR. ROBERTS:Dr. Servatius promised, as far as he could, to cut down the passages which were going to be marked.
My Lord, 90 and 91 I object to. Dr. Servatius wants to put in under the description of documents a large number of affidavits, the number of which I think is not yet ascertained, affidavits by various persons as to the conditions of labor and the conditions under which foreign workers were employed. My Lord, the defendant Sauckel has been allowed a certain number of witnesses and also affidavits or interrogatories from other people.
My Lord, I submit that this application under 90 and 91, two files of affidavits, is not really an application for documents at all, and it should be disallowed.
My Lord, No 92 -
THE PRESIDENT:No.92 he has struck out
MR.ROBERTS: 92 has been struck out.
My Lord, No. 93 is, in fact, a book, which was referred to be the French Prosecutor, and , therefor, of course, Dr. Servatius would be entitled to refer to it in his case.
THE PRESIDENT:Are the passages marked in that or not?
MR. ROBERTS:Well, he has not marked any as yet. There are some pictures My Lord, of -
THE PRESIDENT:He only wants the pictures?
MR. ROBERTS:I think so, My Lord, Showing the cherubic happiness of the foreign workers in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
MR. ROBERTS:My Lord, 94 is an affidavit of Sauckel's son. It is only required, I understand, if one of three other witnesses, who have been allowed, are not available. My Lord, it is to deal with the allegation that Sauckel ordered the evacuation of Buchenwald and, My Lord, I cannot object to this very short affidavit if Dr. Servatius cannot produce one of the three witnesses who have been allowed to him.
My Lord, 95 are Sauckel's speeches, and Dr. Servatius again has promised to cut down the passages which he has marked. It is difficult to object to that in view of the allegation of conspiracy.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
MR. ROBERTS:My Lord, 95 and 97 are books, in which there are very short extracts, which have been m arked, and, again, as it deals with a relevant period of the alleged conspiracy, Mr Lord, I do not see how I can object to that.
THE PRESIDENT:In the same category, yes. Does that meet with your views Dr. Servatius?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, principally, I have negotiated with the Prosecutor and this is the result:
Only to a few documents I would like to say something; that is documents 80 and 81. One is the photostat of the deportation order of the City of Hoelz; the other one an affidavit concerning forced labor in Saaz. I need the first document in order to prove that the convention of the Hague was obsolete; that is to say, that before the armistice, already during the fighting, the population of the Eastern German territories was sent to Russia for forced labor; and I have supplemented the motion because I thought it was too meager for proof to find out from the mayors of cities in East Prussia that the larger part of the population has been deported for work for forced labor. I believe that, in order to proce that the Convention of the Hague in the East was considered non-existent, is of great importance for the defense of my client.