M. DUBOST: I showed it to you this morning, Mr. President, when I submitted it. It is rather a large document, if you will remember, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. We would like to see it.
DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Sauckel): I should like briefly to rectify an error now, before it is carried any further.
The French Prosecutor mentioned that certain people were put at the disposal of the Arbeitsdienst. I should like to point out that Arbeitsdienst is not to be confused with the Arbeitseinsatz. The Arbeitseinsatz was ultimately directed by Sauckel, whereas the Arbeitsdienst had nothing whatsoever to do with Sauckel. I should like to ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of that distinction.
THE PRESIDENT: On account of a technical incident, the Tribunal will adjourn.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The attorney for Sauckel, I think, was addressing the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: I had pointed out the difference between the Arbeitsdienst and the Arbeitseinsatz. The French prosecuting attorney apparently confused the Arbeitsdienst with the Arbeitseinsatz, for he said that the Arbeitsdienst was connected with Sauckel. That is not so. The Arbeitsdienst was an organization for premilitary training which existed before the war and in which young people had to render labor service. These young people were to some extent used for military purposes. The Arbeitseinsatz was concerned solely with the recruiting of labor to be used in factories or other places of work. It follows, therefore, that Sauckel cannot be associated with the accusations that were made in this connection. That is what I wanted to say.
M. DUBOST: The two German words were translated in an identical manner in French. A verification having been made, the remarks of the defense are correct and Sauckel is not involved, but only the Army.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.