SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And in the course 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?
DR. SERVATIUS: Witness Number 1, Ambassador Abetz. I name this witness to show Sauckel’s subjective conception of the admissibility of the Arbeitseinsatz from the point of view of international law. On the basis of the treaties, and in the absence of any protest from the governments of other countries—notably France—he was entitled to assume that it was legitimate. I am, however, willing to admit the witness Stothfang, who as Sauckel’s deputy repeatedly negotiated with Laval. If he is admitted, I would renounce the witness Abetz. In other words, I am to forego witness Number 1 if I am permitted witness Number 9.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see. What about witnesses 2 to 8?
DR. SERVATIUS: Witnesses from Sauckel’s staff. It is difficult to dispense with any witness; and one witness is absolutely necessary for the graphic illustration of the way in which orders were carried out in practice. The Tribunal would find it very difficult to read through this enormous number of laws, and it is easier to hear witnesses on the essential points than to undertake the amount of reading involved. The witness Timm is the most important, as for all practical purposes he was in charge of the so-called Europa Amt which was responsible for the actual distribution of the 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 should like to call him last, for he is a defendant and his statements are less valuable than that of a witness.
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?