Lammers, Hans Heinrich (27.5.1879-4.1.1962) [SS-Obergruppenführer (hon.)] – WWI veteran; NSDAP: 1010355; SS: 118404; State Secretary in the Reich Chancellery 1933; State Secretary and Reich Chancellery chief (Staatssekretär und Chef der Reichkanzlei) 1934-1937; Minister without portfolio and Reich Chancellery chief (Reichminister ohne Portfeuille und Chef der Reichkanzlei) 1937-1945; member of the Reich Cabinet 1937-1945; member and executive secretary of the Reich Secret Cabinet Council (Geschaeftsfuehrendes Mitglied des Geheimen Kabinettsrates); counsellor for Reich Defense (Ministerrat für die Reichverteidigung) 30 Nov 1939-1945; executive member of the Ministerial Council for the Defense of the Reich (Geschaeftsfuehrendes Mitglied des Ministerrats fuer die Reichsverteidigung); member of the Academy for German Law (Mitglied der Akademie für Deutsches Recht); leader of the German Association of Administrative Academicians (Führer des Reichverbandes Deutscher Verwaltungs-Akademien) {captured by American troops May 1945 (NYT 12 May 1945:4:6); indicted by an American military tribunal in the "Ministries Case" on charges of having facilitated or participated in expropriations and the deportation of Jews from Nazi-occupied countries to the death camps 17 Feb 1947 (NYT 18 Feb 1947:16:3) or 3 Nov 1947 (NYT 3 Nov 1947:17:5); to get a separate trial (NYT 3 Mar 1947:5:7); arraignment 20 Dec 1947 (NYT 21 Dec 1947:12:7); put on trial 6 Jan 1948 (NYT 7 Jan 1948:10:5; NYT 13 Jan 1948:9:1; NYT 7 Feb 1948:4:5; NYT 5 Jun 1948:4:7; NYT 8 Jun 1948:16:1; NYT 9 Jun 1948:11:1; NYT 15 Jun 1948:20:2; NYT 3 Jul 1948:2:8; NYT 10 Nov 1948:9:1; NYT 20 Nov 1948:5:3; NYT 10 Apr 1949:13:1; NYT 11 Apr 1949:11:4); convicted of the murder and ill-treatment of captured allied flyers, of atrocities and offenses committed against civilian populations, of plunder and spoliation, of criminal participation in the slave labor program 12 Apr 1949 (NYT 12 Apr 1949:1:1; NYT 13 Apr 1949:17:3; NYT 14 Apr 1949:8:1; LT 12 Apr 1949:4d; LT 13 Apr 1949:3c; LT 14 Apr 1949:3d); sentenced to 20 years in prison (NYT 15 Apr 1949:8:3; LT 16 Apr 1949:4c); reduced 1951 by US High Commissioner for Germany John J. McCloy, on recommendation of the Clemency Board to 10 years; released 15 Dec 1951 (NYT 16 Dec 1951:12:2; LT 17 Dec 1951:5f; SS: Roll of Infamy p. 106), or 16 Dec 1951 (Who's Who 183-4), 1952 or 16 Dec 1954 (Encyclopedia of the Third Reich pps. 523-4); died at Duesseldorf 4 Jan 1962 (ABR-SS; Snyder Ency 204; Who's Who 183-4; Holo Ency 849, 1794; Encyclopedia of the Third Reich pps. 523-4; SS: Roll of Infamy p. 106; Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals vol. XII p. 16; Dienstaltersliste der Schutzstaffel der NSDAP [9 Nov 1944]).}
Extracts From the Testimony of Defendant Lammers, in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10. Vol. 13: United States of America v. Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al. (Case 11: 'Ministries Case'). District of Columbia: GPO, 1952. pp. 414-430.
Dr. Seidl (counsel for defendant Lammers): On 20 January 1942 a conference took place with Heydrich at Berlin-Wannsee. The alleged minutes of this conference were submitted by the prosecution in book 76. It is in the same document I mentioned just now, that is, Document NG-2586-G, Prosecution Exhibit 1452. [Reproduced above in this section.] Were these records submitted to you? Did you read them or hear of them in any other way?
Defendant Lammers: These weren't records. They're just one-sided minutes, compiled in the RSHA. If, which I doubt, these minutes were really sent out to everybody who attended the meeting, which included my Ministerial Councillor Kritzinger, I must still deny that they were ever submitted to me or that I ever read them. These minutes are something I would have remembered. I don't think that they ever reached the Reich Chancellery and I have quite a number of reasons for supposing that. On the other hand, it is not impossible that Kritzinger reported to me about this conference, but that was a very brief report and did not in any way indicate that the extermination of Jews might be intended. That is something I would undoubtedly remember. Nor do I think that when Kritzinger reported to me he knew about these minutes or had seen these minutes at all; otherwise he would have reported to me in more detail, emphasizing certain factors. I am sure that he was invited to the conference and attended it without my knowledge, without getting instructions from me, which I could not give him, and I am convinced that he did not make any statements on my behalf at the meeting.
Q. But didn't you consider the matter to be so important that you asked to report to the Fuehrer on this matter?
A. At the beginning of 1942 I asked the Fuehrer for an opportunity to report on the matter, and this was granted. I wanted to find out what this final solution [Endloesung] was all about and whether it was true that he had given corresponding orders, and what their contents were. However, the Fuehrer refused to discuss these matters with me. He only said that he had given Himmler the order for the final solution, namely, for the evacuation of the Jews from Germany. He also said that Himmler was responsible to him alone, and that he would inform me if my participation should turn out to be necessary.
Q. After this report, that is, this first report to the Fuehrer, what instruction did you give to your assistants in the Reich Chancellery?
A. Immediately after this report, I ordered my officials to refrain from making any comments on this matter if it should ever crop up anywhere in the Reich Chancellery. The reason I gave was that, for my part, I must refuse to comment on it in any way until after I had had an opportunity to report in detail to the Fuehrer. In particular I also ordered that if invitations should be received to any conferences by any of my officials, he was to attend only in the capacity of a listening post, without making any statements.
Q. Witness, on 6 March 1942, a meeting took place in the RSHA, concerning the Final Solution of the Jewish Question. Ministerial Councillor Boley attended on behalf of the Reich Chancellery. He has already appeared as a witness before this Tribunal. [Reproduced in part above in this section.] The file note concerning this meeting is in book 76, on page 195 of the English, 236 of the German. This file note is again in a part of Document NG-2586, Prosecution Exhibit 1544. [Dr. Gottfried Boley, a Ministerial Councillor in the Reich Chancellery, 1941-1945, was a defense witness. His testimony is recorded in the official mimeographed transcript, 18 February 1948 and 22-23 July 1948, 26 July 1948; pages 2094-2123, 13388-13424, 13533-13569, and 13711-13771.] Did Boley report to you about this meeting and if so, what did he say?
A. I did not know in advance that this meeting was imminent; I was not in Berlin; Boley reported to me about it. However, he did not report verbally but just sent me a very brief note concerning his attendance at the meeting, sending it through Ministerial Director Kritzinger. All I was able to see from this note at that time was that the meeting had taken place and that the outcome had been negative--I think, in fact, that that very word was used--but that on the other hand I was expected make some comment.
Q. Witness, weren't you alarmed by the file note of Boley, and what action did you take?
A. Certainly, the mere fact that a meeting took place at all, of whose details I had no knowledge, was enough, in connection with Boley's file note and probably also with a file note of Kritzinger, to do that. I reported to the Fuehrer, and some weeks later I was able to see him. I wanted to have a detailed discussion and get to know the Fuehrer's views because, otherwise, I could not possibly give any comments or state my own position. Once again the Fuehrer would not discuss the matter with me and cut short what had been intended to be a lengthy report with words to the effect that during the war he did not wish to hear any more reports in Jewish matters. He had more important things to do now, and other people should have more important things to do. Finally he said, pretty clearly, that he wished that an end might be put to all these Jewish affairs, once and for all. He added that after the war he would make a final decision as to where the Jews were to go. I remember he said that then there would be enough room in the East or in other places where the Jews could be taken. That was my report to the Fuehrer.
Q. What did you do after the second report to the Fuehrer?
A. The Fuehrer decision I just mentioned put to me quite a perfectly plain end to the treatment of the question of the final solution for the duration of the war. I immediately sent out information to this effect to Goering, to the Minister of the Interior, to the RSHA; I know that I also informed Schlegelberger and Stuckart; and probably also a number of other agencies who had approached me during that time on this matter and whom I could only put off again and by saying that I would report to the Fuehrer.
Q. How did you interpret Hitler's remark that after the end of the war he would decide where the Jews were to go?
A. I thought it was a reference to the various projects concerning the setting up of a separate territory for the Jews, a sort of autonomous Jewish state, or reservation, or whatever you want to call it. There was a lot of talk about such projects at the time. I had heard about them, without having myself gone into the question in any detail.
Q. After your report to the Fuehrer, and after his decision did you issue any instructions to your associates in the Reich Chancellery?
A. Yes. I informed the more important ones of the Fuehrer's decisions and these gentlemen interpreted it as being a definite victory over the RSHA. Then I ordered that, first of all, any possible requests from the RSHA for statements of our position were to remain unanswered, since this had now become superfluous, after the Fuehrer had decided and the decision had been passed on to the RSHA. Quite generally at that time I forbade any statement of position at all and again ordered that if anybody attended any meetings, he was to consider himself only as a listening post and that on such occasions he was to refer in the first place to the Fuehrer decision and otherwise was to listen without saying anything.
Q. But did the RSHA not urge you to state your position?
A. For a definite reason I remember perfectly that some weeks after the meeting of 6 March 1942 we got a reminder from the RSHA. I remember that, because this reminder was put in a somewhat unfriendly form. It was reproachful. All other departments had answered but I had not. In addition it was signed by a little official, which was an act of discourtesy to me. So I ordered that one of my associates, I forget who, should answer on his own initiative, saying that I refused to state my position.
Q. And what was the reason he gave for that?
A. I have forgotten the exact reason, but I am sure one was given, and it will have been dependent on whether I already had the Fuehrer's decision at the time or whether I had not yet received it. In the former case, presumably the reason would have been that I refused because I had to report to the Fuehrer; but if the letter reached me after I had received the Fuehrer's decision, then I am sure the reason given will have been the Fuehrer's decision itself or, at any rate, reference will have been made to it.
Q. Was there any further correspondence at this stage of affairs?
A. I can remember that I did correspond with State Secretary Schlegelberger [Franz Schlegelberger, Acting Reich Minister of Justice from January 1941 to August 1942, was a defendant in the Justice Case.] in the Ministry of Justice, and State Secretary Stuckart in the Ministry of
Interior; but that must have been prior to the last-mentioned report to the Fuehrer and prior to the stop which I imposed.
Q. We will come to the details when we come to the document. Now, did you learn that in spite of this stop order by the Fuehrer, the evacuation of Jews continued?
A. Yes. As time went on, I heard rumors to that effect. I 1 not make any observations of my own on the subject. Especially, however, I heard that the RSHA, in spite of the Fuehrer decision was continuing to work on evacuation.
Q. And what did you do?
A. When I heard that, which must have been about the summer of 1942, I again approached Himmler and asked him why, in view of the Fuehrer decision, anything was still being done. Himmler was very hesitant and very evasive and said that he alone was responsible for evacuations. However, it was not only a matter of evacuation. There was no consultation required on that subject. He was now concerned with the persons of mixed descent and it had to be considered whether they should be included in the evacuation and put on the same footing as the Jews; and, further, there was also the question whether one should not also include the so-called privileged Jews, that is, those living in a so-called mixed marriage, with an Aryan partner, and here it must be examined whether a facilitated divorce should not be introduced, or even a compulsory divorce. I told Himmler that I must still obtain a Fuehrer decision because I had understood the Fuehrer's decision to mean a stop put on the entire question of the final solution, including persons of mixed descent and privileged Jews, for the duration of the war.
Q. Did you again report to the Fuehrer, as you said you would? That would have been a third report to the Fuehrer. What came of it?
A. In the summer or fall of 1942 I again reported to the Fuehrer and I referred to the conferences taking place and the rumors about evacuation. The Fuehrer said, "I stick to my decision; but I have no objections about conferences or consultations on the subject. Let them consult," and he added, "For the duration of the war I do not want any more reports on the subject. Himmler is responsible to me and you need not bother about these matters."
Q. In individual cases did you not receive complaints because of the evacuation, and also because of killings, and what did you do about them?
A. I would like to differentiate here between evacuation and killing. I knew nothing of killings at the time. On the other hand, from a number of complaints concerning evacuations, I saw that these evacuations were actually still going on. When I referred Himmler to the Fuehrer's stop decision, he again referred, without going into any details, to the fact that he had the Fuehrer's orders which he had to fulfill, and then said something to me to the effect: "Keep out of it. It is none of your affair. I alone am responsible to the Fuehrer in the matter." Thus, when in 1943 I realized from incoming complaints that evacuation was still going on, I always sent the individual complaints to Himmler. In most cases I got a decision from him which met me halfway, where the people for whom I was interceding were exempted from evacuation.
Q. Can you remember any such individual cases?
A. You will understand that I remember only very few of all these cases I handled, namely, those where I knew the people concerned. As for the many who were unknown to me, of course I do not remember the names; but, to give an example, Himmler was approached with reference to two former Ministers of Justice, Schiffer and Joel, [Dr. Curt Walter Joel, Reich Minister of Justice from October 1931 to May 1932. Not to be confused with Guenther Joel who was a defendant in the Justice case, Volume III, this series.] who were both full Jews. He agreed to exempt them from evacuation. Joel was married to an Aryan and was allowed to remain at home. Schiffer, I believe, had to clear out of his apartment but found accommodation in another building in Berlin. As far as I know, he was not evacuated. Mr. Kritzinger handled these matters, under me. He had an interest in these two men, under whom he had once worked, in the Ministry of Justice. I remember another case, namely, that of the former Cabinet Minister of Lippe, Freiherr von Eppstein, in whom I also took an interest. I remember a certain Lower Court judge, Sachs, in Silesia and another man in Munich, where I successfully put a stop to these evacuations. Finally, I must quote the mother-in-law of Dr. Killy, who worked in the Reich Chancellery. She was Jewish. When Mr. Killy approached me, because she had been told she would be evacuated, I approached Himmler and in this case, too, he complied with my wishes.
Q. Witness, I must return to the killings of Jews. You stated that you had no knowledge of that. But I must nevertheless ask you, didn't you at least hear rumors of such killings of Jews, and what did you undertake on hearing them?
A. Only in the year 1943 did such rumors come to my knowledge and this happened through private conversations and through a few anonymous and pseudonymous letters. But for me these rumors remained rumors. I looked into them. However, I never succeeded in ascertaining anything positive regarding the truth of such alleged facts. People bringing me such rumors never wished to stand their ground and withdrew when I tried to pin them down to their statements. It always turned out that they would name their informants or did not wish to and that they themselves were not eyewitnesses. I myself always had the impression that such rumors rested solely on the listening to foreign radios which was strictly forbidden and punishable and in the last analysis no one wished to confess this activity. So far as I looked into letters that were actually signed, I found out that these pseudonymous letters, and so far as I wished to pin any individual down to an actual deposition of facts, that never came about because the persons did not wish to stick to their stories and could produce no actual recounting of facts, and were themselves not eye witnesses.
Q. Aside from these more or less private investigations, didn't you take any official step or consider such a step necessary?
A. Yes. I turned both to Himmler and to the Fuehrer. These rumors first induced me to make representations to Himmler and he denied vehemently and indignantly that such killings were taking place. He referred to the Fuehrer order to evacuate the Jews. He said that of course cases of deaths occurred during the transportation of old and sick people because of air attacks and so forth, and moreover the Jews were employed in special camps in the East in war essential labor. He pulled from his desk a thick photograph album and showed me the tailor shops, shoe repair shops, saddler shops, and so forth, in these photographs representing this work. Then he said to me, "Name to me the people who bring forth such rumors." That I could not do because I had no positive proof and because I did not wish to name those who had told me something because they could not bear that responsibility. I told him rather that I considered myself under obligation to report these matters to the Fuehrer and to this Himmler replied, "Do what you have to. I can't prevent you. But I advise you not to do it because I alone am responsible to the Fuehrer for this evacuation which was ordered."
Q. Did this statement of Himmler's reassure you?
A. No. I did apply for permission to report to the Fuehrer, as I had told Himmler I would, and after many weeks it was granted. The Fuehrer gave me much the same answer as Himmler had given me, and added that he didn't want this matter dealt with during the war. He would later decide where the Jews were to be sent. I had the impression that Himmler had been to the Fuehrer in the meantime and had probably told him that I was going to report to him on these rumors. On this occasion the Fuehrer also demanded that I bring forth positive proof for alleged killings of Jews and that I should name those purveying the rumors. First of all, I couldn't do this, and second I didn't want to name people who could not and did not wish to stick to their stories.
Q. In what then did the problem of the final solution consist so far as you understood that term at that time and, I emphasize, your understanding of the term at that time?
A. The solution was to lie in the evacuation of full-blooded Jews. and secondly, a regulation of some sort concerning the privileged Jews and the half-Jews.
Q. Witness, on the basis of the minutes of the three meetings of 20 January 1942, 6 March 1942, and 27 October 1942 [Reference is made to records of the Wannsee Conference of 1/20/1942, Document NG-2586-G, Prosecution Exhibit 1452 the conference of representatives of various agencies on 6 March 1942, Document NG-2586-H, Prosecution Exhibit 1453, and Document NG-2586. Prosecution Exhibit 1544; and the conference of 27 October 1942, Document NG-2586, Prosecution Exhibit 1544. These documents are reproduced in part earlier in this section.] put in by the prosecution, are you still of the opinion that no program for exterminating the Jews was ever set up and that, secondly, with regard to including half-Jews and privileged Jews in the evacuation or other measures, no program was set up?
A. Yes. I am of that opinion. At least this program never came to my attention. The program cannot have been set up.
Dr. Kempner: Dr. Lammers, you are one of the few surviving statesmen of the Third Reich who knew the Fuehrer and his work very well; is that correct?
Defendant Lammers: Very well is saying too much. I had a certain amount of insight into his work and way of life.
Q. Thank you. You are not, I am sure, one of those people who now, after the defeat, deny the Fuehrer and shift the blame for Germany's catastrophe to him alone. Is that correct?
A. The Fuehrer actually, of course, was the most guilty person in this catastrophe because he inspired everything, and he by his actions brought about the catastrophe. As for shifting blame to him I can't do that. I am convinced that actually he wanted the welfare of Germany. Whether his means were always the right ones is something different.
Q. Thank you. Dr. Lammers, later I am going to ask you the following question: Do you still maintain that you did not know, during the time you were in office, that thousands of Jews were killed in the East? If you do not maintain this stand now at this moment, then I have no further questions, but I just wanted to ask you once again at the beginning.
A. Yes, I must maintain this statement within the framework of my former testimony.
Q....Did it not impress you at that time when Hitler at the famous conference of 16 July 1941 about the future of Russia talked quite openly in your presence about shootings in these territories? Book 37, page 19, Exhibit 527. [Document L-221, reproduced in section VI H (USSR), Volume XII, this series.] Did it impress you that the Fuehrer talked about shootings quite simply like that?
A. I don't know if I heard that. As far as I remember it was Keitel who said that and the way it is in wartime, "Well" he said, "whoever doesn't toe the line will be shot."
Q. Wasn't that rather violent?
A. Well, the Fuehrer sometimes did use rather violent expressions, but they weren't meant the way they were said and I never put them down that way. Only Mr. Bormann in his file notes always selected this type of word which could also be interpreted in another way too.
Q. But the people were shot though.
A. Well, I don't know who was shot in Russia. People are being shot all the time in wartime; things go on all the time.
Q. Quite right. Dr. Lammers, I come to my eleventh question. How often were you in Hitler's presence and in the presence of Rosenberg when he made such remarks about the Jews, as "The Jews are the misfortune of the world. They must be wiped off the face of the earth," or similar?
A. I don't remember that in my presence such questions were discussed by Rosenberg. We usually discussed administrative questions.
Q. Thank you. Don't you know that the Nazi regime wanted to destroy Christianity no less than Jewry?
A. Not on the same scale. The separation of church and state was certainly one of the aims of the Fuehrer and of other people, but extermination of Christianity was something propagated only by the extreme radicals.
Q. Thank you. Were you present when Hitler in the spring of 1941 repeatedly made the following remarks in the presence of Alfred Rosenberg and others about the Catholic Church, such as "antiquity is better than modern times because they didn't know Christianity and syphilis." Were you present when he said that?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Were you present when in 1940 to 1941, or in the course of 1941, he said during lunch that, "the Catholic Church is a disgraceful institution. I am in favor of each Catholic district electing its own pope." Didn't you hear that?
A. I did not hear that remark. On the contrary I repeatedly heard Fuehrer remarks in which he referred to the organization of the Catholic Church as being of a model character and I frequently discussed this question with him.
Q. Very well. Question 15. Dr. Lammers, were you present when Hitler during lunch at headquarters once said that one should not say too publicly what he thought about the Catholic Church but that after the end of the war he would destroy it?
A. I can't remember such a crass remark. I only know that repeatedly he said that after the end of the war he would tackle the Church question.
Q. Were you present when on 20 July 1941 Hitler at the famous conference--that is, the Russian conference -- made fun of Mr. von Papen's suggestion that Christianity in Russia must be restored?
A. You speak of a conference on 20 July 1941. Did I understand you correctly?
Q. Yes, 20 July 1941.
A. You don't mean the one on 16 July 1941, by any chance?
Q. I beg your pardon, Dr. Lammers, a conference on 16 July 1941, and I have Mr. Rosenberg's notes on it dated 20 July 1941.
A. I can't remember the name of Papen even having been mentioned. Of course, the Fuehrer often talked about him as a typical exponent of catholicism, that is, of political catholicism.
Q. Mr. Rosenberg made some handwritten notes on the subject, but you don't remember it? Very well. Isn't it a fact, Dr. Lammers, that your agency, in the winter of 1941-1942, received copies of the Einsatzgruppen reports containing information about the ruthless killing of thousands of Poles, Russians, and Jews by the Einsatzgruppen?
A. I didn't get any Einsatzgruppen reports. I didn't even hear the name Einsatzgruppen until later.
Q. Very well. Do you remember whether your agency got these reports?
A. I don't know anything on the subject, and my inquiries on the subject have been fruitless.
Q. Do you remember that your State Secretary, Kritzinger, talked to you about these killings in the East and that he was very deeply impressed by them?
A. No. He only told me about certain evacuations which made a great impression on him.
Q. Very well. As you said you knew that Gauleiter Koch, whose appointment decree was signed by you, murdered people in the Ukraine? Did you think that Jews were exempted from these killings?
A. I had reports of murders supposed to be committed by Koch only in the form of allegations and no facts were proved to me. I only know of this one report mentioned here that in an area which he wanted to use for hunting, according to reports received murder was supposed to have occurred. He denied it and maintained that this territory had been cleared of partisans, moreover, heavily armed partisans, and that that is where these deaths occurred. The case was never entirely cleared up. As for the killing of Jews by Koch. I don't know anything on the subject.
Q. The information you got was signed by Mr. Alfred Rosenberg. He said hundreds of people had been shot down in Zuman and the surrounding territory; that, of course, the Ukrainians don't believe the reasons given for the shootings; and that the whole country maintains that all these people were just shot down without being tried because resettlement was assuming too large proportions and there was too little time for it. Your Honors, may I offer this report, Document 032-PS, for identification, as Prosecution Exhibit 3901.
Judge Powers, Presiding: So marked for identification.
Dr. Kempner: I have no further question about it. Now, I come to question 20. From your testimony, I gather that you considered it necessary for the Reich to obtain foreign labor in connection with the war, is that correct?
Defendant Lammers: Yes.
Q. You knew that foreign labor was brought from France, the Netherlands, Serbia, and other states to Germany, is that correct?
A. Yes, by way of recruitment.
Q. There were masses of workers, weren't there in fact, I believe millions toward the end?
A. I think at the end we were employing something like five million foreigners.
Q. Did you ever protest to Hitler against this?
A. Labor allocation was not my sphere. All I did was to bring certain reports to the Fuehrer's attention.
Q. Now, as you said, Jews were evacuated to the East as workers. Why did you protest in the case of Jews being sent to the East for work when you never protested in case of Dutchmen, Serbs, and all the others?
A. Because the evacuation from Germany, naturally, drew a lot of attention. It was politically far more significant. It came much more to my notice through the reports than was the case when people were brought here from abroad. Moreover, in the case of foreigners, these were recruits, whereas in the case of Jews, it was a matter of forced deportation. That is why in these latter cases which were brought to my attention more frequently. I thought I ought to take more energetic action in as far as I could.
Q. Dr. Lammers, you know that the recruiting of Frenchmen and Serbs, and Dutchmen, wasn't as voluntary as all that, was it?
A. Well, in some cases there was legal labor conscription, for instance in France, and I think it was introduced into other countries too.
Q. Very well.
A. But that was legal.
Q. Tell me, is it correct to say that the National Socialist regime was in the first line against foreign Jews, then against German Jews, and then half-Jews, and then quarter-Jews -- who still had. a certain value -- is that correct in this sequence?
A. Well, I heard of people who stood up for this sequence, but I can't say more than that. It was certainly not set up officially.
Q. So the quarter-Jews were better off than the half-Jews, and half-Jews were better off than full-Jews?
A. Yes, certainly. It was even laid down in the Nuernberg Laws.
Q. Very well. In 1942 Schlegelberger and Stuckart suggested the sterilization of half-Jews. Did you consider this to be in the nature of better treatment than the war work done by full-Jews in the East?
A. I was always against sterilization; both in the case of evacuation and in the case of sterilization of half-Jews I was against it. Nor did the latter ever come off. However, relatively in these two matters I told the people who discussed the problem that I thought sterilization the lesser evil all the more since I heard of cases where such suggestions had even come from half-Jewish circles who believed that by this means they might avoid the threat of possible evacuation by having themselves sterilized. In principle, however, I objected to both, and in fact neither the evacuation of half-Jews nor sterilization of half-Jews ever took place.
Q. Tell me, Dr. Lammers, some of these half-Jews who voluntarily offered themselves for sterilization through their attorneys, didn't they, through their attorneys, inform your agency that they would rather be sterilized than killed in the East?
A. No. I didn't get such information. I didn't know anything about killings.
Q. Very well.
A. Anyway, these were only individual cases.
Q. I see. Did Hitler, let's say, in 1941, give you any information about his view that no Jews would be left in Germany after the war?
A. I can't remember that for certain but I heard, and I suppose he occasionally said that in conversation, that really all Jews would have to get out of Germany. That was discussed, as was the founding of a Jewish state or reservation somewhere or other.
Dr. Kempner: I am now going to offer for identification Document NG-1123, a letter of Dr. Lammers to Bormann of April 1941 [June 1941], as Prosecution Exhibit 3902. [Reproduced in part earlier in this section.] Lammers informs Bormann that the reason why the Fuehrer rejected certain legislation was that he was of the opinion that after the war there would be no Jews left in Germany anyhow. I have no further question on that.
Judge Powers, Presiding: It will be so marked for identification. Have you got copies of it?
Dr. Kempner: Yes, this is the only copy which seems to be here, but I will have copies after the recess. And may I give my one copy to Dr. Seidl?
I come to question number 27, and this is--As a Reich cabinet member and former State Secretary, I would like you to tell me why, in some cases, state secretaries' conferences which were called together during the war, was the importance of the question the necessity of coordinating a matter?
A. Since the Reich cabinet no longer met and because the Fuehrer as you might say had forbidden meetings of Ministers, the only means of contact between the Ministries concerning current business was occasional state secretaries' meetings. These developed in the last months of the war so that they were taking place almost every day because otherwise there would have been no contact at all, and then they were forbidden, too, by the Fuehrer through Bormann. He had me told that these state secretaries' conferences must no longer take place.
Q. When was that, approximately?
A. January 1945 or February 1945.
Q. Very well. Were minutes taken of such conferences which were then sent on to other officials or to the Ministries?
A. I don't know for certain. Usually I only received brief verbal reports about things that my State Secretary thought he must tell me about.
Q. Very well. Concerning Document NG-2586-G, Prosecution Exhibit 1452, [Reproduced in part in section IX B 1.] the minutes of the famous Wannsee conference, the state secretaries' conference on 20 January 1942, do you know that about 100 copies of these minutes were distributed and that the Foreign Office, down to the rank of legation counsellor, had copies in their files?
A. I don't know to what extent minutes were distributed. I myself never received them.
Q. Very well. Do you know that even members of German missions abroad knew about the horrifying results of this conference?
A. No, I don't.
Q. How many letters did you receive from Catholic or Protestant churchmen saying that the killing of the Jews in the East was not in the German national interest?
A. I can't remember having received such letters.
Q. Don't you remember that the Bishop of Wuerttemberg, Dr. Wurm, repeatedly wrote you such letters that it was a scandal for Germany and that all one was doing was to put grist into the mill of war agitator Roosevelt if it didn't stop?
A. I know that I got letters from Wurm which I deliberately did not pass on in order to save him from criminal proceedings before the People's Court which the Ministry of Justice were already preparing. As for the actual detailed contents of his complaints, I can only comment on those if you submit them to me.
Q. If you had passed on his letters of July 1943 and November 1943 might not you perhaps have achieved a change in the policy of murder or not?
A. I am not aware of the fact that I was able to tell that such a policy of murder existed from the letters.
Q. Very well. Do you remember in how many individual cases you received letters from private persons to the effect that Jews were killed in the East?
A. I received complaints of the kind and I investigated them as far as I could. But persons who gave me such information were never able to stand up for their facts. They were never eye witnesses. They could never give any eye witness. And in the last instance the information was always based on listening to foreign broadcasts which, of course, they did not want to admit because of course that was punishable.
Q...I now come to my last questions. What steps did you take when, in February 1944, Gauleiter Frauenfeld sent you a memorandum about the administration in the occupied eastern territories explaining among other things, and this was in February 1944, that the use of brutal and terroristic measures was very detrimental to German prestige.
A. I don't know this memorandum, nor can I remember the man Frauenfeld himself. I believe he was an Austrian, wasn't he?
A. If such a memorandum was received no doubt I would have submitted it to the Fuehrer. I am sure I must have done that. If you have it, please show me.
Q. It must have told you that people were being killed, didn't it?
A. I don't know unless you show it to me.
Q. You don't remember?
A. No, I can't remember the actual case, especially not that it indicated the killing of Jews.
Q. Do you remember talk of killing in general and brutal methods?
A. No, even though no names are mentioned.
Q. Do you remember that on 25 February 1943 Hitler stated publicly that the war would result in the extermination of the Jews [Ausrottung des Judentums] of Europe?
A. The word extermination is one the Fuehrer used a lot in various speeches. The question is how he meant it.
Q. Very well. You said on direct examination that you were not exactly a philo-Semite. Did you share the views of Hitler, Goebbels, and Streicher that the German life and death struggle into which Germany had been forced by the plutocratic Bolshevik powers was led by world Jewry or don't you go as far as this in your own views?
A. This question is one with which I dealt frequently in my reading at the time, but I was never able to come to any final conclusion. I do, however, realize that the Jews bear considerable part of the guilt in all the wars of the world.
Q. And the world Jews also forced this last war on the Third Reich, is that what you think?
A. Well, I wouldn't maintain that.
Q. If that was not your view, why did you, in the Prague Periodical for Justice, Administration and Economy, yourself write that in the life and death struggle against the plutocratic Bolshevik power standing under the domination of world Jewry this or that happened? You yourself wrote it. I would like to show it to you--that the life and death struggle was being carried on against Germany under the leadership of world Jewry.
Dr. Kempner: May I offer Document NG-1633 as Prosecution Exhibit 3905 for identification, an article by Dr. Lammers in "The Prague Archives of Law, Administration, and Economics" of March 1944. On page 108 of the original appears Mr. Lammers' statement that this war is led against Germany by the forces of world Jewry. [This article was entitled "Meaning and Success (Sinn und Bewaehrung) of the Constitutional Form of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia." The pertinent sentences referred to here are the following:"Thus, only a few months after the establishment of the Protectorate, the mighty European struggle of destiny began. On this hinged the free existence of all continental European People, in short, the entire European civilization. The first product of a constructive and organic structure on the European continent had hardly begun when it already faced its most severe and most decisive test. In the life and death struggle against the plutocratic Bolshevik powers led by world Jewry. this test has lasted almost 5 years."
Judge Powers, Presiding: The document that you have described will be marked for identification as Exhibit 3905.
Dr. Kempner: Do you remember, Dr. Lammers, that Hitler, in your presence, stated before the war in 1939 if international financial Jewry, in and outside Europe, succeeded in plunging the peoples of the world once again into a world war, then the result will be the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe. Did he ever say anything like that in your presence?
Defendant Lammers: I have now subsequently found out that what you are quoting was once said in a Reichstag speech. That is correct.
Q. Did you happen to be there?
A. Probably I was but it didn't stick in my mind.
Q. Then I ask you, were you sitting next to Hitler when he said that, and do you recognize your picture next to Hitler? I am going to show now a picture of Mr. Hitler and Mr. Lammers in the Voelkischer Beobachter.
A. Yes. I was normally always present at Reichstag meetings.
Q. Is that your picture, Dr. Lammers?
A. Yes. That is me.
Q. And do you find the defendants Schwerin von Krosigk, Woermann, and Koerner in the vicinity? Do you recognize them too?
A. Well, of course, I only sat next to the Fuehrer and the Fuehrer's adjutants because I had to take notes. Then I see Mr. Hess, Mr. Ribbentrop, Mr. Frick on the Ministers' bench. Then there is someone I can't recognize; then Funk and Schacht.
Q. Do you see Schwerin von Krosigk right over on the left hand side and Mr. Koerner on the right?
A. Yes, I see Krosigk on the left.
Q. And Koerner on the right? And Mr. Woermann?
A. No, I don't find Mr. Koerner. I don't find him.
Q. All right. Leave Mr. Koerner. And I come to my final question.
A. I can't find Mr. Koerner.
Q. Very well.
Dr. Kempner: We offer Document 2360-PS, extracts from a speech of Mr. Hitler about the elimination of Jewry, taken together with the picture of defendant Lammers and other defendants from the Voelkischer Beobachter, Berlin edition of 31 January 1939, as Prosecution Exhibit 3906, [Reproduced above in this section.] for identification.
Judge Powers, Presiding: It will be so marked for purposes of identification.
Dr. Kempner: Now I come to my last question, Dr. Lammers. Now that we have gone through some details in the murder plans in the East; now that certain names have been brought to your attention: Bishop Wurm; Seidenglanz; Hitler's own words; and your own article about world Jewry which was leading the war against Germany; and now that I have tried to refresh your memory, do you now remember that you knew about the killings prior to 1945? Is it beginning to dawn on you now?
Defendant Lammers: I can only stick to what I said. I did not know of any mass killings and, of the cases I heard about, the reports were allegations, rumors, and probably like the ones under the pseudonym Seidenglanz. The fact that individual cases occurred here and there, the shooting of Jews in wartime in some towns or other, that I read something about that and heard something about that, that is very easily possible. I wouldn't say no or deny it.
Q. And you mean to say that what the Fuehrer said, the plan and all this, that you didn't take this seriously either? That it was just an ignominious character making stupid remarks?
A. I did not interpret that to be the mass extermination of Jews.
Dr. Kempner: Very well. The prosecution has no further questions.