him very well, although he could give information about other things, I have called him particularly to prove that Schirach, as Gauleiter in Vienna followed an entirely different policy than his predecessor, the former Gauleiter Buerckel; that contrary to Buerckel, he tried to establish a correct relationship to the Catholic Church and that in particular, in this sense, he also instructed his collaborators and subordinates successfully. I say successfully because these efforts by the defendant von Schirach to pacify the relationship to the Catholic Church has repeatedly been acknowledged by the Church as well as by the Catholic population of Vienna. Schirach had nothing to do with the deportation of Jews from Vienna; that this thing about the Jews was
THE PRESIDENT: Do not numbers one and two, Wieshofer and Hoepken, really deal substantially with the same subject? Wouldn't it be sufficient if one were called as a witness and if the other one gave evidence by interrogatory?
DR. SAUTER: I do not believe quite so, Mr. President, because the witness Hoepken, who is listed under number two, and who from 1938 was already a collaborator of the defendant von Schirach, especially with regard to the Reich Youth Leadership, and this witness could give information especially about the activity of the defendant von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader and in particular about his efforts to get in contact with the youth of other nations, that is for instance England and France, to come to an understanding and to friendship. witnesses and with regard to the list which the defendant von Schirach displays in naming witnesses, one should acknowledge that both witnesses, one and two, not by way of choice, but both of them should be granted. The addresses of both witnesses have been submitted to the Tribunal. They are in a camp and I believe, gentlemen, that in order to get a picture of everything, of the entire facts, it is necessary to call both.
THE PRESIDENT: I still do not follow what the essential difference is between the two.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have just pointed out that the witness Hoepken, number two, had a leading position in the Reich Youth Leadership also and that therefore the witness Hoepken, number two, would be in a position to give information officially about the activity of the defendant von Schirach as Reich Youth Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: But Dr. Sauter, you stated that Wieshofer, number one, was adjutant to Schirach in his capacity as Reich Leader of Education of Youth so that he was in just as close contact with the defendant on the question of the education of youth as Hoepken.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, but Hoepken, in his main function, was concerned with education of youth, while the activity of the defendant Wieshofer was limited mainly to the job of adjutant of the defendant von Schirach and mainly in his capacity as Gauleiter in Vienna. That is the main difference. Vienna, those are mainly the witness Wieshofer and in a minor way also Hoepken. But I need Hoepken, Mr. President, as I said for the clarification of the activity of Schirach in the Reich Youth Leadership.
Mr. President, may I also point out for the defendant von Schirach, everything depends on this and from the point of view of the Court it should really not make much difference, and whichis so important to Schirach, whether one witness would be called or two. witnesses in the hope that then I would get approval for two. If now, in the name of the defendant von Schirach, I am only asking for two witnesses right from the outset, I would not think it very just if you would grant only one of these two.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider what you have said.
DR. SAUTER: Furthermore, in the third place, I have the witness Hartmann-Lauterbacher. I have asked to call him and if I understood correctly, the Prosecutionagrees. Therefore, I can be very brief.
Leadership, is expected especially to supply information about the fact that the defendant von Schirach has in no way prepared the youth psychologically or pedagogically for an aggressive war. And furthermore, that the statement by the Russian Prosecution, which was made in one of the sessions during February -- I believe on the 9th of February, 1946 -- the allegations which were taken from a Polish report, were definitely false, that is, the Hitler Youth had used spies and agents in Poland, instructed them, trained them as parachutists and such, that all that is false and the witness Lauterbacher will prove that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, Sir David said he would not object to numbe three being called as a witness but what he did object to was six and seven, whom you are also asking for as oral witnesses, because he said they repeated what Lauterbacher said -- number six and seven, that is Schmidt and Schluender.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, sir. Mr. President, here there is also a difficulty. There are the difficulties which I pointed out before. of February, 1946, which was a report by the Polish Government, it cannot be seen during what time these things concerning the agents and spies of the Hitler Youth happened or should have happened. be alleged that it happened during another time, perhaps during the time when this witness was in the army. That is the reason why, in the interest of the complete clarification of these conditions, I have asked also to call the witness number six, that is to say the witness Schmidt, here before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you say that, does it not appear that with reference to Schluender, his collaboration with the defendant extended from 1933 to 1945 and therefore if he were called or were to give an affidavit or an interrogatory, and Lauterbacher, who extends from 1933 to 1940, you would cover the whole period and you could exclude Schmidt.
DR. SAUTER: If I understand you correctly, Mr. President, you are referring to an interrogatory in the case of Lauterbacher.
THE PRESIDENT: No, Lauterbacher, Sir David was prepared to have called a a witness.
DR. SAUTER: Lauterbacher as a witness and Schmidt an interrogatory?
THE PRESIDENT: That Schmidt and Schluender were cumulative. You said they did not relate to the same period, as I understood you, and that might raise a difficulty. So I pointed out to you that number seven relates to the whole period, that is to say from 1933, beyond the period dealt with by Lauterbacher, and goes to 1945 and therefore, if he were called, that would cover the whole period and if you called Lauterbacher and Schluender and left out Schmidt -
DR. SAUTER: So that from Schmidt I would get an interrogatory? Yes, I would agree to that.
THE PRESIDENT: And the statements which you make with reference to Schmidt and to Schluender are practically identical.
DR. SAUTER: Yes, only they refer to different times as each of the two was in the army. If one of them comes he cannot say anything about the time during which he served in the army, for instance, he cannot give any information as to whether during his time in the army agents would have been used.
THE PRESIDENT: But you have stated that there were collaborators with the defendant from 1938 to 1945 in the one case and from 1933 to 1945 in the other case, and therefore if that is correct they can't have been in the Army, they can't have taken an active part in the army.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I should be quite prepared to agree to the suggestion that your Lordship put forward; that would then cover the whole period. If both Lauterbacher and Schluender were called it would dispense with the necessity for Schmidt.
DR. SAUTER: May I also point out that in the case of Schluender, who has been arrested a few weeks ago, that I need Schluender in any case because he was a specialist with the Reich youth leadership for physical training, and therefore I expect especially through Dr. Schluender to prove that the education of the youth, such as defendant von Schirach was in charge of, was definitely nothing extraordinary nor militaristic. The defendant von Schirach, during the entire trial so far, has always -
THE PRESIDENT: I think, really, there is a substantial agreement between you and Sir David that one and three certainly should be called and that seven might be called, but I don't know whether Sir David agrees whether an affidavit or interrogatories might be given by six.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no objection to that, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: That is substantially what you want, Doctor?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; let us go on then.
DR. SAUTER: Yes. Then under number four I have mentioned an affidavit by a witness Maria Hoepken. Concerning this affidavit which is already in my possession, I will submit this to the Tribunal and to the prosecution at the same time when I submit my book of documents. from two witnesses: number nine, Dr. Klingspor, and number ten, Dr. Rosen, and here the same thing applies,--the Tribunal and the prosecution will receive these affidavits together with my document book. this witness is here in Nurnberg, agree to having him called as a witness, therefore I believe that I do not have to make any detailed statements con cerning this witness.
Gauobmann Schneeberger from Vienna, will mainly inform us about the relations, the attitude, of the defendant concerning the question of foreign workers during the time of his activity as gauleiter in Vienna. And number thirteen, Field Marshal von Blomberg, shall inform us about the attitude of the defendant von Schirach to the question of the pre-military education of the youth, to the question of physican training, and the question of patriotic education of youth by the defendant von Schirach. The prosecution agrees that these witnesses should be questioned by way of interrogatories, which I have also suggested myself. client and myself, that is number 11, the application to examine a French woman by the name of Ida Vasseau. From this witness, Ida Vasseau, we have heard of her in court for the first time when the Soviet prosecution submitted a report from a commission about the atrocities of the Fascist-German invaders in the area of Lemberg; Document USSR No. 6. Ida Vasseau, who was active in a children's home in Nurnberg, had reported that the Hitler yough had committed particularly atrocities in Nurnberg. It was alleged that from the ghetto small children had been sold; however, it was not told by whom and to whom these children were allegedly sold; and particularly, it is supposed to have been the Hitler Youth who used these small children as targets. particular atrocity, and I can tell you that of the entire prosecution, the presentations of the prosecution during the last three months, nothing has depressed the defendant Schirach more than this assertion. The defendant Schirach has always, also in his interrogation, has had the opinion and views that so far as the education and training of the German Youth are concerned, which was under his guidance, he will take full responsibility; and that he is also prepared here, as defendant, to explain to the Tribunal which were the principles which guided him, which aim he had, and which were the measures of success which he had.
He has never--
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Sauter, you are only applying for witnesses, aren't you now? You see, you agree in your application to an affidavit -
DR. SAUTER: I did not understand, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What I was pointing out to you was that this is only an application with reference to witnesses, and in your application you say that however, in consideration of the far distance of thewitness from Nurnberg, I agree at first that an affidavit should be drawn up.
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That an affidavit should be drawn up; so you are in agreement and I don't understand why we should be troubled with further application.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, to my application I have added something. I have written that a personal appearance of this witness before the Tribunal would be essential so that she could be questioned, because this information is important in order to judge the Hitler Youth as a whole.
THE PRESIDENT: You have reserved that right after the application having been sworn. Well, you can prepare the affidavit and ten send it out to the witness and then you can see whether you want the witness for cross examination, and Sir David agrees to that course.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, for my client only one thing was important. that among eight million members just one such atrocious case of cruelty happened, and about such thirds he has never heard anything in his position, and I agree that an affidavit could be used; but only for this case I would like to reserve the calling of witness eventually if that affidavit should not be sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: That deals with the witnesses, and we'd better adjourn.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours).
Military Tribunal in the matter of: The
SIR DAVID MAXWELL*FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, with regard to the documents for which Dr. Sauter asked, the Prosecution take the usual line that there is no general objection to extracts being used, but at this stage they reserve their right to challenge admissibility of the extracts on the grounds of relevance.
They will have to look particularly closely at No. 9, the book entitled "Look, the Heart of Europe", and the commentary on it by the late Lloyd George but they can see that these are particularly matters which can be more conveniently dealt with when they have seen the document book and the extracts are before them.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Schirach): Mr. President, I can state my position regarding the documents very briefly. In the main, it is a question of books, addresses, and essays, by the defendant von Schirach. I have these literary works in my possession and I shall submit them to the Prosecution along with my document book. In the document book I shall then outline the individual extracts from these books. I shall submit them to the Prosecution and to the Tribunal so that both of them can refer to the individual excerpts.
DR. SEIDL: (Counsel for the defendant Hess): Mr. President, My Lord Justices, on the 20th of February I made an application for additional material for the defendant Hess. I would be obliged to the Tribunal if the Tribunal would inform me whether it would like to hear the argument in regard to this application now or later, since I do not yet know whether the Court has a translation of my application in its hands.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not seen the application yet, so I thin you had better postpone making the argument until the Tribunal has seen the application
DR. SEIDL: Very well, Mr. President.
DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the defendant Sauckel): For the defendant Sauckel I have suggested a number of witnesses and in my preliminary remarks to the list I have divided them into various groups. that smaller relationships must be clarified in this case. The Prosecution, in its case against Sauckel, limited itself to general considerations that would inculpate him, and it also did not work out in detail the complicated matters of SS camps and matters that were carried out in the scope of the Arbeitseinsatz and so on.
Sauckel's entire activity has not been clarified, or has been clarified but slightly. I am consequently obliged to present his work staff, his collaborators, and dossiers of their activity. It looks at first as if my list of witnesses were cumulative, but more previse examination of it shows that they represent different fields. Some of them were experts in the East; some, experts in the West or in theSouth. Then, there is the creation of the Arbeitseinsatz and the care and housing in the places of work that were occupied by the various groups. Another group is the recruiting of the worker in foreign countries, on which also witnesses must be heard. seinsatz. The question of the conspiracy is of secondary importance. I believe I can rely in large measure on what is presented by the other defense counsel in their various cases.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: May it please the Tribunal, the prosecution has endeavored to follow Dr. Servatius in considering the suggested witnesses under various heads.
The defendant's counsel wishes to call this witness on the question of agreements between him and Laval. The prosecution submit that that cannot affect the position over, certainly, occupied France, and they suggest that this witness is really irrelevant to the main charges which have been made against this defendant. They are, however, willing--my French colleagues will, if Dr. Servatius desires it, let him know the effect of an interrogation of Ambassador Abetz with regard to this subject, I don't want to comment on it at the moment, because it is obviously a matter which Dr. Servatius should consider before any comment is made in Court. However, if he will allow me to say so, I think it would be useful if he considered that point before any decision was come to.
Then, the next group are the witnesses 2 to 8. They all come from the Reich Ministry of Labor, and they are called to speak generally as to the defendant's attitude, the limitations on him as regards recruiting, and his personal dealings with offenders. The prosecution suggest that it will be reasonable for Dr. Servatius to select the two best out of the eight for oral testimony, and two more to give affidavits. dant Sauckel's staff, who are sought to be called to give evidence as to his efforts for good conditions. Again, the prosecution suggest a selection, and put forward one witness and one affidavit. that the DAF, the Deutsche Arbeiter Front, looked after the welfare of foreign workers by agreement with the late Dr. Ley. The prosecution submit that that witness would be cumulative, and object to him, as that subject is already covered. with the relations and liaison between the defendant Sauckel and the DAF. These are substantially still on the same point, and the prosecution suggest that one witness and one affidavit out of that group would be sufficient.
the question of wages, and also of the transmission of money to their homes, by foreign workers. The prosecution suggest that that is the sort of material which might conveniently be dealt with by an affidavit or an interrogatory, according to Dr. Servatius' wishes. workers at Gustloff. That subject has been thoroughly covered: in general by previous witnesses, and the prosecution suggest that this particular witness is cumulative. deals with the division of authority between Sauckel and Ley, and that Sauckel had nothing to do with labor from concentration camps. Again, the prosecution suggest that an affidavit would show how far the witness Seldte is speaking merely of routine matters, such as orders and the like, and how far he is dealing with individual or personal matters. If he does in fact deal with individual and personal matters and interviews, then I suggest that Dr. Servatius could resume application on that point. Agriculture, is sought in order to speak as to the defendant's efforts to get higher food rations for foreign workers, especially in eastern areas. The prosecution suggest that this witness also is cumulative, and they will indicate a number of other witnesses and documents which deal with this point. of war were exchanged against voluntary workers. The prosecution object on the ground of irrelevance.
As to number 25, there is no objection to Dr. Lammers, who is being called by, I think, every defendant, or practically every defendant. tive position and apparatus of Sauckel, which has already been treated by witnesses at considerable length, and the prosecution object to this as cumulative.
Number 27, Governor Fischer, Chief of Labor in the Government General, is called to say that Sauckel had made dealings with the SS in regard to resettlement.
Again, if he is speaking as to rules and orders that were laid down, we suggest an affidavit.
As I understand it, the next witness, Dr. Wilhelm Jaeger, is asked for for cross examination on his affidavit. That is United States Document 202, and the references in the transcript are 1322 to 1327 and 3057. No request was made at the time, and I leave it to Dr. Servatius to explain his position before dealing with this point.
The next two, Dr. Voss and Dr. Scharman, deal with the public health aspect of foreign workers. They deal with different districts. The prosecution submit that that question could be dealt with by one affidavit. that Dr. Servatius wants one of the three to dispute certain evidence given by M. Dubost on the 28th of January that the defendant authorized the evacuation of Buchenwald. I have looked at pages 3466 to 3492 of the transcript, but I cannot find the evidence which Dr. Servatius has in mind, and perhaps he would be good enough to indicate it to the Tribunal. dant, as Gauleiter, had nothing to do with concentration camps, we make no objection. duced before the Tribunal was incorrect in one respect, we suggest that that be allowed. defendant's charitable disposition irrespective of the Party, the prosecution suggest that that is irrelevant to the issues before the Tribunal. nesses without asking the Tribunal to take a glance at the documents, because the two are interrelated.
There is an application for 97 sets of documents and in general they set out what we should call in England "allthe relevant statutory rules and orders," that is, the subsidiary legislation made with regard to the activities of this Defendant.
And frankly, I must own to the Tribunal that I have not had the opportunity of reading the original orders. I have only read the summary which Dr. Servatius has been good enough to provide in his application. But quite clearly, these documents cover again in the greatest detail the various problems with which the respective sets of witnesses to be called, deal, and in the submission of the Prosecution, they provide a good reason and a fair ground for some considerable limitation of the oral witnesses. take considerable objection, and I might just state two or three of these.
No. 45 deals with the Reich law for sanitary meat inspection, and if the Tribunal will turn over, after No. 49, -- they will see a note -Document 45 is presented to prove especially that the German civilian population also received meat graded as inferior, which therefore could not be considered inedible meat. If one has not the compariosn of the caloric and other properties of the meat, it is going to be extremely difficult to get any value from the evidence, if one is going into that. It is terribly and unreasonably detailed for the inquiries before the Tribunal.
And if the Tribunal would then turn to 80 and 81, Dr. Servatius wishes to prove certain Soviet orders, and apparently for the purpose of showing that the Soviet methods of mobilization were contrary to the Hague convention and are therefore evidence that the Hague Convention had become obsolete. I submit that the two small examples of the evidence indicate that there would have to be extensive examination of the facts surrounding them and could not be the basis of a sound argument that a convention had been abrogated. It is possible that in rare cases international agreements may be abrogated by conquest -- not impossible -- although it is a very rare thing to happen. But evidence of that kind would in my respectful submission not be the basis of such an argument.
Then Nos. 90 and 91, which are files of affidavits. There again it is very difficult, without serious and prolonged consideration of the circumstances under which that affidavit was made, to assess the values of bundles of affidavits of that kind.
No. 92 is a film of foreign workers, and I would suggest that it would be treasonable if the representatives of the Prosecution were shown that film first, before it is shown in Court. I think that was the course that was taken with regard to the concentration camp film. Because, of course, without going into argument at the moment, the question of propaganda is a serious one which the Prosecution are bound to consider. I have expressly refrained from further comment, but I think the Tribunal will see the point that is in my mind, and -- I hope -- consider that it is reasonable that we should see the film before we are asked to comment on it further. they will have to be considered in detail when we see the text, and the Prosecution would have to reserve their rights as to objection. But I make the general point --and I hope the Tribunal will think that is is a fair point, -- and I hope Dr. Servatius will not think that I am decrying his work, I am only emphasizing the industry and care he has shown in doing it -- that with this immense body of careful documentation the witnesses in this case will take careful pruning. And that, as I have said, indicates our general view.
(Dr. Servatius came to the lectern).
THE. PRESIDENT: Before you deal with what Sir David said, Dr. Servatius, I ought to say for the information of other Defendant's Counsel and for other persons concerned, that the Tribunal proposed to adjourn today at 4 o'clock instead of 5 o'clock.
And, Sir David, I wanted to ask you: Throughout the discussion I think you referred to affidavits. Did you mean to particularize an affidavit as opposed to an interrogatory?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, My Lord. I did not. I am sorry. I really haven't made that distinction. It is written evidence that I wish to refer to, either by affidavit or interrogatory, whichever Dr. Servatius wishes to have.
THE PRESIDENT: And one ether question: In view of what you have said about the documents, wouldn't it be good thing for the Prosecution to have a little more time to consider the documents?
And then perhaps they could give more help as to their view about the documents.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That would be so, My Lord, but Your Lordship willappreciate that wehave had a considerable pressure in the lastfew weeks and it is impossible to cover them all, but we should be glad of a little time to go into the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps you could see Dr. Servatius about them after the adjournment some time.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And in the curse of a day or two, let us know.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, we could do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Servatius, will you deal with the witnesses, then?
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Number One, Ambassador Abetz. I name this witness for a subjective understanding of Sauckel regarding the reliability Arbeitseinsatz from the point of view of international law. One could assume, if no contradiction is made by the governments of various countries, that he was permissible. I am, however, agreeable if the witness Stothfang is admitted who was deputy of Sauckel and repeatedly had negotiations with Laval. If he is admitted, I would renounce the witness, Abetz. I would forego Witness Number One if I am permitted Witness Number Nine.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. That is Two to Eight.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witnesses on the staff. I have great difficulty in foregoing any witness. The practical execution of the orders that were given must be emphasized plasticly through a witness. The Tribunal cannot read through this enormous number of laws except with great difficulty, and it is easier to hear witnesses on the basic problem than to listen to the reading of the laws. The witness Timm is a most important witness. He led the so-called Europa-Amt and had charge of the division of the various labor forces.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, Dr. Servatius. First of all, you will, no doubt, be calling the defendant Sauckel himself?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, I shall call him toward the conclusion.
THE PRESIDENT: These witnesses will be corroborating his evidence about his administration. Under those circumstances, would not two of them, as Sir David suggested, out of eight and two more affidavits be sufficient?
DR. SERVATIUS: The witness Beisiegel will be on the subject of legislation, but the other witnesses are necessary because they can testify regarding the use of labor in the East except one. This witness must, consequently, be able to say what the practical usages were. The laws are simply dead things if we do not know how they were applied. The witness Letsch can testify regarding the East. The witness Hildebrandt is for the West and can testify how in France gradually the relationship developed.
The witness Dr. Geissler is of vast importance because he was in charge of inspections. The great question is, if these workers were employed in Germany, how did Sauckel concern himself that his regulations were actually put into practice. There were a whole series of inspections. Number Seven was the leader of the inspections and was introduced into the government by Sauckel. I do not believe that we can do without him.
THE PRESIDENT: Why are not Number Three and Number Eight cumulative?
DR. SERVATIUS: I named Number Eight because the question of wages seemed particularly emphasized. So far the Prosecution has not become specific in individual points. I can conduct my case on specific points only if I lay most emphasis on the question of wages. It is only Witness Number Eight who can testify to this question. Witness Number Three can make general statements regarding the general regulations and specifically that Sauckel made efforts to improve conditions and to the very conclusion, through laws, improved these conditions continually. These facts are clear from the regulations on which witness Number Three will testify.
Witness Number Nine, Dr. Stothfang, was Sauckel's plenipotentiary, a personal expert of Sauckel, and was in many negotiations, particularly in France. Therefore, I have named him as a substitute for Number One, and then because of the limitations of the so-called Weisungsrecht, Sauckel's right to employ workers, it was to be seen at the very beginning of Sauckel's activity that no one who carried out any of Sauckel's orders could tolerate such behavior. Witness Stothfang is to testify on thatsubject.
THE PRESIDENT: Why are Nine and Ten cumulative?
DR. SERVATIUS: I will forego Number Ten. I might say something in a slightly different field.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Number Eleven was the press expert. If I must forego any witness, I would forego him most willingly. He knows exactly what the conditions were, wrote the book "Europe works in Germany" and can state that these pictures were not posed but were ordinary unposed photographs, which is important for a complete understanding of the book.
The Arbeitsfront was in charge of all the foreign workers, just as it was in charge of German workers. That situation persisted, and the witness can testify as to the individual carrying out of various orders, the conditions of the camps, the clothing and the housing, everything that was done.
Witness Number Thirteen would be the most important in this particular, but he has not been found. Therefore, I lay particular value on Witness Number Fourteen, who was his collaborator. were in the camps. Arbeitsfront. The practical work done by the Arbeitsfront is to be testified to by the other witnesses.
The situation is this: Dr. Ley, who is no longer represented here as a defendant -- the whole field of work of Ley is now incorporated into Sauckel's field, and he is now being additionally accused of things of which Ley is guilty unless this question is clarified.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the difference between Fifteen and Sixteen?
DR. SERVATIUS: Fifteen is a mistake. It is identical -- a mistake on the part of the stenographer. Fifteen is identical with Witness Twelve. in charge of the organization of the Arbeitsfront.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean Fifteen comes out, does he?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, Fifteen comes out.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Seventeen,Dr. Hupfauer, knows how the laws originated in a general way, and knows of Sauckel's tendencies.
THE PRESIDENT: Why is not he cumulative of Number Fourteen, whom you desire instead of Thirteen? Both of them are relative against the charge of inhumanity, and Dr. Hupfauer is perfectly general.
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Fourteen will treat of the practical side, and the Witness Seventeen will treat of the laws, the legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: There is nothing about that -- Yes, there is,
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Eighteen was in charge of the practical execution on the Arbeitsfront. One must keep these various fields separate. Sauckel had a small office. It was transplanted to the Work Ministry. He made the regulations with the aim of steady improvement, and the other side, of course, is the practical execution that took place through the Arbeitsfront, or the recruiting in foreign countries.
